PDA

View Full Version : Mac Dual Core 2.0 or 2.3


tony
2005-11-17, 13:42
I am looking to upgrade my aging, but still hardworking G4 Dual 870. I am a designer and photographer working mainly with Photoshop, Freehand, Illustrator and Indesign for graphic work only, no multiedia. Could anyone tell me please if they think there is going to be a noticeable difference in speed between the dual core 2.0 and the 2.3 for these types of applications. I would upgrade the HD and video card in the 2.0 and would add 4gb ram to both.

Thanks for any advice, Tony

onlyafterdark
2005-11-17, 13:49
This (http://www.macworld.com/2005/11/reviews/powermacg5rev/index.php) will give you somewhat of an idea of the difference between the two.

I wouldnt think there would be a huge difference for what you are doing. Ill see if I can dig up some more benchmarks for you.

uypeterson
2005-11-18, 02:14
Tony, the 2.0 seems like the best buy. Even if you did process video, the 2.3 doesn't improve much over the 2.0. After reviewing the benchmark scores on the Macworld page, the extra $500 spent for the 2.3 buys a very small improvement in performance. Better off putting the money in the hard drive, video card and memory - things that will measurably improve performance and productivity. The best thing about the 2.0 -- the memory maxes out at 16GB just like the 2.3 and Quad.

If you know a local, state or federal goverment employee, consider asking that person to sponsor your purchase of the PowerMac from the Apple Store. You can only get the discount online or on the phone -- you can't get it in the store. The prices for the 2.0 / 2.3 / 2.5 are $1839, $2299, and $3035 respectively. Maybe the employee discount will sweeten any deal for a 2.0 or 2.3.

Brad
2005-11-18, 03:17
Here are a couple more ways to look at it:

single dual-core 2.0 GHz: baseline
single dual-core 2.3 GHz: 15% clock increase for 25% price increase (over baseline)
dual dual-core 2.5 GHz: 250% clock increase for 65% price increase (over baseline)

or...

single dual-core 2.0 GHz: $0.49 per 1 MHz
single dual-core 2.3 GHz: $0.54 per 1 MHz
dual dual-core 2.5 GHz: $0.33 per 1 MHz

Of course, there are many other factors that affect price and system performance besides the megahertz, but this gives you a very general idea of the price-to-performance ratios. Of the two single-processor machines, the 2.0 GHz looks to be a better deal based on CPU speed alone. When you consider the other factors, though, they're much closer.

I'd say just get what you can afford. :) If the 2.3 GHz one is within your means, go for it. Otherwise, don't feel bad at all about "settling" for the 2.0 GHz model.

uypeterson
2005-11-20, 23:27
single dual-core 2.0 GHz: baseline
single dual-core 2.3 GHz: 15% clock increase for 25% price increase (over baseline)
dual dual-core 2.5 GHz: 250% clock increase for 65% price increase (over baseline)

or...

single dual-core 2.0 GHz: $0.49 per 1 MHz
single dual-core 2.3 GHz: $0.54 per 1 MHz
dual dual-core 2.5 GHz: $0.33 per 1 MHz


Oooh -- I like the way you think ;) I was ready to "settle" for the 2.0, but when the Quad is put in a price-per-MHz comparison against the 2.0 and 2.3, stepping up to the Quad looks like it is worth the short-term hit to the bank account. Besides, resale value on the Quad will be fantastic.

tony
2005-11-22, 06:46
First I would like to thank everyone for their help. I think I may go for the 2.3 only because in the benchmark tests for photoshop CS2 tests, the 2.3 appears to be almost twice as fast as the 2.0. Am I reading this correctly?

Thanks

Tony

Brad
2005-11-22, 07:01
No, the 2.3 GHz chip won't double the performance of the 2.0 GHz chip. Where did you get that information?

tony
2005-11-23, 03:32
Hello Brad, yes it is my mistake. I was reading the benchmark for the photoshop test (2.0...1.04, 2.3....0.56) as percentages, not seconds, stupid mistake. In actual fact there is only 4 seconds different, not enough time even to make a cup of tea! I think then I might go for the 2.0 afterall. Thanks

Brad
2005-11-23, 03:37
Okay. :) I just wanted to make sure you were getting the right information there.

Be sure to drop by and tell us what you think of your new powerhouse when it arrives!

jade44v
2005-11-25, 12:30
I am looking to upgrade my aging, but still hardworking G4 Dual 870. I am a designer and photographer working mainly with Photoshop, Freehand, Illustrator and Indesign for graphic work only, no multiedia. Could anyone tell me please if they think there is going to be a noticeable difference in speed between the dual core 2.0 and the 2.3 for these types of applications. I would upgrade the HD and video card in the 2.0 and would add 4gb ram to both.

Thanks for any advice, Tony

I just brought home my new 2.0 dual-core. I absolutely love it. I've worked on Macs most of my computing life and I totally love it. At work I have a dual-processor, single-core 2.7 and my new one at home is just as fast.

tony
2005-11-29, 14:19
Thanks again everyone for your response. I have now ordered the DC 2.0, so I will let you know what I think when it arrives. I also ordered the 23" cinema screen, which I am not so sure about, as I've read some mixed reports on it. I can, however send it back for a full refund, after a couple of weeks, if I'm not satisfied. If it does show some colour problems I'll probably invest in a LaCie.

tony
2005-12-17, 08:13
First I would like to thank everyone who gave me advice.
Have now received my new G5 dual core 2.0. and 23" Apple display. So far I am very happy with both. Certainly much faster than my previous G4 dual processor. Very silent, some "static" like noise, that is most apparent within the first 5minutes of booting, that other users have mentioned, which sounds to me as though it comes from the hard disk (250mb). At the moment the screen is fantastic, no dead pixels, and non of the colour issues that I have read about. Tiger software seems to be trouble free, have had no problems linking to exterior devices such as scanner, printer, exterior hard drives. I am thinking of adding a second, fast interior hardrive, as a scratch disk for Photoshop, has anyone any suggestions on which make or model would be best for this? Also Adobe Creative Suite loaded without a hitch.

The only criticism I have is that when transferring data from my other computer was :- it didn't seem to do a very good job of transferring internet connect info or email account info, I had to redo these again, manually. Also it doesn't give you a choice of which applications/file you want to transfer, it just transfers the lot. Not good. So I re-installed Tiger (in case any damaged files were transferred), and re-installed the software and data I needed.
Apart form this, an excellent machine, and screen.
Regards to all and a very happy xmas, Tony