The best dual GIG Mac is the dual 1.25 GHz Mac that ships in October.

But it costs a premium 1.53 times the price of a similarly configured dual 867. The dual 867 is the best dual for the money if you don't care about the SuperDrive or the 64MB Radeon 9000. Otherwise, the dual 1 GIG is the better dual for the money. Let me put it this way:

So the dual 1250 is "ONLY" 153% more money than a SIMILARLY configured dual 867

You "ONLY" have to pay $550 more for a 15% increase in processor speed plus a 25% increase in the bus speed and a 33% larger hard drive (80) OR another $600 for an additional 25% increase in processor speed. That's a total of 144% faster processing power. BUT you are also getting the 100% larger 2 MB L3 cache plus the 25% faster FSB and a 100% larger hard drive (120) for that extra $1150.

So all parts being similar and/or equal across the various new duals, I'd say if you can afford the money and the interminable WAIT, the dual 1.25 is the best way to go.

But it does matter if you care about the Superdrive which is ±$200 in the above price numbers.

As you can see Apple has priced this line without any premium price for MAXIMUM POWER. I haven't seen anyone else anywhere provide this cost/value analysis.

Any questions and/or objections to my opinion besides the fact that we have to wait for October to experience the MAX?

<strong>The best dual GIG Mac is the dual 1.25 GHz Mac that ships in October.

But it costs a premium 1.53 times the price of a similarly configured dual 867.

Let me put it this way:

You "ONLY" have to pay $550 more for a 15% increase in processor speed plus a 25% increase in the bus speed and a 33% larger hard drive (80) OR another $600 for an additional 25% increase in processor speed. That's a total of 144% faster processing power. BUT you are also getting the 100% larger 2 MB L3 cache plus the 25% faster FSB and a 100% larger hard drive (120) for that extra $1150.

So all parts being similar and/or equal across the various new duals, I'd say if you can afford the money and the interminable WAIT, the dual 1.25 is the best way to go.

As you can see Apple has priced this line without any premium price for MAXIMUM POWER. I haven't seen anyone else anywhere provide this cost/value analysis.

Any questions and/or objections to my opinion besides the fact that we have to wait for October to experience the MAX?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Only that it's hard to make out what you're really saying.

Let me try:

The 867 ($1699) tricked out like the 1.0 is $2049.

Cost difference is $450, or a 21% premium. In return, you get 18% more mHz, 25% faster bus, and 50% faster RAM (DDR-effective). However, the actual price gap is $800 (stock to stock).

The 1.0 ($2499), tricked out like the 1.25, is $2799. Cost difference is $500, or an 18% premium. For your $500, you get 25% more mHz and 100% more L3 cache. However, the actual price gap is $800 (stock to stock).

The 867, tricked out like the 1.25, is $2299. Cost difference is $1000, or a 43% premium. The premium buys 44% more mHz, 25% faster bus, 50% faster RAM, and 100% more L3 cache. However, the actual price gap is $1600 (stock to stock).

interstingly, the premiums in each of the first two cases is 18% of the higher-end price.

Obviously, the big reward for trading up to the 2x1.0 is the faster bus (and the effect that has on RAM speed); just as obviously, L3 cache is the payoff for going w/ the 1.25s. How big a payoff that is remains to be seen. Hell, there've been NO quantitative reports so far that reflect the new mobo changes, so at this point we have precious little information for evaluating these things.

I think it IS safe to say, though, that the 1.0s buys you all the good new stuff, just not as much as you'd get w/ the 1.25s; so I'd say that unless "peak performance at any price" is your cry, the extra $800 for the 2x1.0 is certainly money well-spent.

Obviously, the big reward for trading up to the 2x1.0 is the faster bus (and the effect that has on RAM speed); just as obviously, L3 cache is the payoff for going w/ the 1.25s. How big a payoff that is remains to be seen. Hell, there've been NO quantitative reports so far that reflect the new mobo changes, so at this point we have precious little information for evaluating these things.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bare Feats ran a comparison of the old and new dual gig machines and found no discernable improvement. (I imagine it will probably depend on the work you do if you will see even a minor performance improvement.

I see the Bare Feats "comparisons" as inconclusive and incomplete. They only measure certain types of apps and overlook memory intensive apps like video editing etc.

You have to be crazy to buy the old dual Gig when the new one has that dual 5.25" set of internal bays, the additional two more IDE buses (a Mac First), room for a total of 6 internal hard drives (2 more above the dual drive bays), the best cooling system in Mac history and analog audio i/o.

Don't be a fool and pass up the new dual gig or my choice of the dual 1.25 GHz MDD.

## Comments

1,054member450member169member1,133member95member1,027memberBut it costs a premium 1.53 times the price of a similarly configured dual 867. The dual 867 is the best dual for the money if you don't care about the SuperDrive or the 64MB Radeon 9000. Otherwise, the dual 1 GIG is the better dual for the money. Let me put it this way:

dual 867 60/512/133/1MB L3 cache (w/SuperDrive/Radeon 9000/512MB RAM upgrades) $2150/$1950 w/o SuperDrive

dual 1000 (+15% processor speed) 80/512/167/1MB L3 cache $2700/$2500 w/o SuperDrive

dual 1250 (+25% processor speed) 120/512/167/2MB L3 cache $3300/$3100 w/o SuperDrive

So the dual 1250 is "ONLY" 153% more money than a SIMILARLY configured dual 867

You "ONLY" have to pay $550 more for a 15% increase in processor speed plus a 25% increase in the bus speed and a 33% larger hard drive (80) OR another $600 for an additional 25% increase in processor speed. That's a total of 144% faster processing power. BUT you are also getting the 100% larger 2 MB L3 cache plus the 25% faster FSB and a 100% larger hard drive (120) for that extra $1150.

So all parts being similar and/or equal across the various new duals, I'd say if you can afford the money and the interminable WAIT, the dual 1.25 is the best way to go.

But it does matter if you care about the Superdrive which is ±$200 in the above price numbers.

As you can see Apple has priced this line without any premium price for MAXIMUM POWER. I haven't seen anyone else anywhere provide this cost/value analysis.

Any questions and/or objections to my opinion besides the fact that we have to wait for October to experience the MAX?

[ 08-24-2002: Message edited by: Multimedia ]</p>

1,107memberAlso the cache is 1MB vs 2MB, thus 100% bigger, or 200% of the original, not 200% bigger, coz then it would be 3MB.

G-News

169memberSorrry , you lost me .

Which ones the best then.?

1,027member345member<strong>The best dual GIG Mac is the dual 1.25 GHz Mac that ships in October.

But it costs a premium 1.53 times the price of a similarly configured dual 867.

Let me put it this way:

You "ONLY" have to pay $550 more for a 15% increase in processor speed plus a 25% increase in the bus speed and a 33% larger hard drive (80) OR another $600 for an additional 25% increase in processor speed. That's a total of 144% faster processing power. BUT you are also getting the 100% larger 2 MB L3 cache plus the 25% faster FSB and a 100% larger hard drive (120) for that extra $1150.

So all parts being similar and/or equal across the various new duals, I'd say if you can afford the money and the interminable WAIT, the dual 1.25 is the best way to go.

As you can see Apple has priced this line without any premium price for MAXIMUM POWER. I haven't seen anyone else anywhere provide this cost/value analysis.

Any questions and/or objections to my opinion besides the fact that we have to wait for October to experience the MAX?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Only that it's hard to make out what you're really saying.

Let me try:

The 867 ($1699) tricked out like the 1.0 is $2049.

Cost difference is $450, or a 21% premium. In return, you get 18% more mHz, 25% faster bus, and 50% faster RAM (DDR-effective). However, the actual price gap is $800 (stock to stock).

The 1.0 ($2499), tricked out like the 1.25, is $2799. Cost difference is $500, or an 18% premium. For your $500, you get 25% more mHz and 100% more L3 cache. However, the actual price gap is $800 (stock to stock).

The 867, tricked out like the 1.25, is $2299. Cost difference is $1000, or a 43% premium. The premium buys 44% more mHz, 25% faster bus, 50% faster RAM, and 100% more L3 cache. However, the actual price gap is $1600 (stock to stock).

interstingly, the premiums in each of the first two cases is 18% of the higher-end price.

Obviously, the big reward for trading up to the 2x1.0 is the faster bus (and the effect that has on RAM speed); just as obviously, L3 cache is the payoff for going w/ the 1.25s. How big a payoff that is remains to be seen. Hell, there've been NO quantitative reports so far that reflect the new mobo changes, so at this point we have precious little information for evaluating these things.

I think it IS safe to say, though, that the 1.0s buys you all the good new stuff, just not as much as you'd get w/ the 1.25s; so I'd say that unless "peak performance at any price" is your cry, the extra $800 for the 2x1.0 is certainly money well-spent.

[ 08-24-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</p>

1,224member<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=4140912135"; target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=4140912135</a>;

665member<strong>

Obviously, the big reward for trading up to the 2x1.0 is the faster bus (and the effect that has on RAM speed); just as obviously, L3 cache is the payoff for going w/ the 1.25s. How big a payoff that is remains to be seen. Hell, there've been NO quantitative reports so far that reflect the new mobo changes, so at this point we have precious little information for evaluating these things.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bare Feats ran a comparison of the old and new dual gig machines and found no discernable improvement. (I imagine it will probably depend on the work you do if you will see even a minor performance improvement.

1,027memberYou have to be crazy to buy the old dual Gig when the new one has that dual 5.25" set of internal bays, the additional two more IDE buses (a Mac First), room for a total of 6 internal hard drives (2 more above the dual drive bays), the best cooling system in Mac history and analog audio i/o.

Don't be a fool and pass up the new dual gig or my choice of the dual 1.25 GHz MDD.