PMG5 purchasing advice
Hi guys, I was hoping that I might ask you for a bit of advice...
...I need a new PMG5, and my preferred dealer still has limited stocks of some of the Rev. B machines.
The following machines are available:
Dual 1.8GHz, Rev. B, 5200, £1,149
Dual 2.0GHz, Rev. C, 9600, £1,349
Dual 2.3GHz, Rev. C, 9600, £1,699
Dual 2.5GHz, Rev. B, 9600 XT(?), £1,799
Dual 2.7GHz, Rev. C, 9650, £1,999
Now, my inital reaction was that the Dual 2.5 appears to be a lot more computer for only £100 more than the Dual 2.3, and the Dual 2.0 doesn't really warrant the £200 difference over the Dual 1.8. I think I've pretty much ruled out the Dual 2.7 machine, as it's way too expensive.
I've read a couple of reviews of the new DTK, and it seems that it is capable of running rings around the Dual 2.7 machine, so I'm a little reluctant to cough up for the Dual 2.3 machine when I know that it can be outperformed by a £600 PC. Likewise the fully featured motherboard doesn't bother me because it now looks as though PCI-X is dead in the water (thanks to PCIe).
What do you guys think?
Are there any important considerations that you think I may have overlooked?
...I need a new PMG5, and my preferred dealer still has limited stocks of some of the Rev. B machines.
The following machines are available:
Dual 1.8GHz, Rev. B, 5200, £1,149
Dual 2.0GHz, Rev. C, 9600, £1,349
Dual 2.3GHz, Rev. C, 9600, £1,699
Dual 2.5GHz, Rev. B, 9600 XT(?), £1,799
Dual 2.7GHz, Rev. C, 9650, £1,999
Now, my inital reaction was that the Dual 2.5 appears to be a lot more computer for only £100 more than the Dual 2.3, and the Dual 2.0 doesn't really warrant the £200 difference over the Dual 1.8. I think I've pretty much ruled out the Dual 2.7 machine, as it's way too expensive.
I've read a couple of reviews of the new DTK, and it seems that it is capable of running rings around the Dual 2.7 machine, so I'm a little reluctant to cough up for the Dual 2.3 machine when I know that it can be outperformed by a £600 PC. Likewise the fully featured motherboard doesn't bother me because it now looks as though PCI-X is dead in the water (thanks to PCIe).
What do you guys think?
Are there any important considerations that you think I may have overlooked?
Comments
I think the dual 2.0 is a better deal over the 1.8 because it's rev C, better graphics, and dual layer 16X DVD. Does it have a bigger HD?
I think the 2.3 is a better deal over the 2.5 for the same reasons. As well, do you really want to take on liquid cooling for a .2 performance increase?
Originally posted by the cool gut
I'm going through the same dilemma.
I think the dual 2.0 is a better deal over the 1.8 because it's rev C, better graphics, and dual layer 16X DVD. Does it have a bigger HD?
I think the 2.3 is a better deal over the 2.5 for the same reasons. As well, do you really want to take on liquid cooling for a .2 performance increase?
Yes, the graphics cards are an important consideration, and they are probably the only part of the specs that would sway me.
Late Rev. B G5s (which I suspect the machines in question are) shipped with a 16X capable drive. The size of the hard disks has never really bothered me because I've never come close to filling up 80GB, never mind a 160 or 250GB!
I think I've decided on a dual 1.8GHz just to see me through until the Intel based Macs ship.