3 Ghz Mac Pro worth $800 more?

[CineAlta]

Hello, I would like to purchase a MacPro to use primarily for digital audio recording (with Logic), and secondarily for digital video editing (standard definition, not HD, with Final Cut Pro). I don't plan on doing extensive rendering. Can anyone kindly advise me whether the CPU speed increase from 2.66 to 3 GHz, is worth $800 more? Thank you for your kind advice.

p.s. I know many people have mentioned to wait for the octa-core Clovertown or other revisions, but I would like to start being productive as soon as possible. Thanks.

[Brad]

It's getting you a roughly 12% speed increase. Is 12% faster worth $800 to you? Only you can best judge the needs of your workflow.


PS. "Mac Pro" is two words.

[Dorian Gray]

Brad's afraid to say it, but the real answer is: of course not. ;) The 2.66 GHz version is the sweet point among the three configurations in terms of value for money.

[kall]

$800 is too steep, the increase isn't substantial enough.

[julesstoop]

You could also opt for the cheapest processor and ugrade in a year or so to a quad core CPU.
The first generation of those should be pin-compatible with the Woodcrests Apple uses now.

[Koodari]

It's getting you a roughly 12% speed increase. Is 12% faster worth $800 to you? Only you can best judge the needs of your workflow.The 12% increase is minuscule and you only get that much if the processor is the bottleneck. Personally I draw a line at around 30%: if the improvement is less, I don't do it because it's not really going to be noticeable.