Which Mac Pro?

amackamack
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I've been waiting since the end of 2005 to switch to a Mac, now the Mac Pro is out I'm ready to switch. Question is which one? I will be using for Adobe CS1 and Aperture (I'll initially be using the Windows version of CS1 in bootcamp until it goes UB next year then I'll crossgrade to CS3 for the Mac). Do I get the 2.66 with 1gb ram, which is at my price limit, or go for the 2ghz and get more ram? I'm thinking the 2.66 and add ram later but is this overkill for an illustrator? ( the iMac is probs powerful enough but I want a bigger screen) BTW I intend to include a 23" ACD with the purchase and as we have no Apple stores in Northern Ireland are there any other graphic designers/illustrators out there with some advice?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    playcracktheskyplaycrackthesky Posts: 121member
    I would go with the 2.66 and 1gb RAM. Like you said, you can allways add more RAM later, and you might not even need to, if its fast enough for you.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    benzenebenzene Posts: 338member
    Remember than you can easily upgrade the socketed processors later.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    amackamack Posts: 19member
    I have seen comparisons of the 2.66 and 3.0, but do you think there would be big performance difference between the 2.66 and the 2.0? I am assuming by having dual proc I should be able to move seamlessly betwwen P/shop,Illus,Indsesign and Aperture?
  • Reply 4 of 8
    bubezbubez Posts: 5member
    I'd buy the 2.66... if you take a look at intel site and examine the tech specs of the xeon woodcrest the 2.0 ghz model hasn' got enhanced speedstep... so I'd prefer the 2.66 or 3.0. Take a look here: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/specs.htm
  • Reply 5 of 8
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bubez


    I'd buy the 2.66... if you take a look at intel site and examine the tech specs of the xeon woodcrest the 2.0 ghz model hasn' got enhanced speedstep... so I'd prefer the 2.66 or 3.0. Take a look here: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/specs.htm



    ?



    anyway... imo, running any mac pro with less than 2GB (preferably 4GB) is only a waste of silicon and dollars...
  • Reply 6 of 8
    amackamack Posts: 19member
    Actually I've just found the answer I've been looking for Macworld have some tests comparing all three Macpros. The 2.66 looks perfect considerably quicker than the 2.0 and not too far behind the 3.0ghz. Thanks for the input folks. http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...ench/index.php
  • Reply 7 of 8
    bubezbubez Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tubgirl


    ?



    anyway... imo, running any mac pro with less than 2GB (preferably 4GB) is only a waste of silicon and dollars...



    Ok...you're right... but you could add more ram later, the cpu isn't a thing that you change whan you want... When I buy my mac pro (I think in september) I'll go for the 2.66 with at least 2 gb of ram, because you should use at least 4 slots to take advantage of the full capabilities of the mem bandwidth...
  • Reply 8 of 8
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amack


    Actually I've just found the answer I've been looking for Macworld have some tests comparing all three Macpros. The 2.66 looks perfect considerably quicker than the 2.0 and not too far behind the 3.0ghz. Thanks for the input folks. http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...ench/index.php



    Good review ? thanks for the link!
Sign In or Register to comment.