Is the difference between a Mac Pro 2.26 and 2.93 really worth $2,600 ??

[Michael Totten]

Does anyone have real world experience comparing these two computers in a speed test? More specifically dealing with FCP / Red Alert /Color and R3D files.
What are the practical differences?

The $2,600 dollar difference seems like a lot ... and the difference in the processor speeds don't seem to match up somehow.

thanks: )
michael

 

[Patrick Scheller]

How much is the Mac at 2.26GHz limiting you in your daily work? Will ~25% more processing power save you time? If so then it is worth the money. If not then not :arf: Easy, no?

 

[JosephArthur]

I suppose it would but then its more of a cost thing your thinking of rather than availability. Will the older slower one not be available in the coming time?

Or heck, get the old one or keep your old one and get the RED Rocket. At least when you do decide to get your new machine. You can take the RED Rocket with you.

 

[Alexis Hanawalt]

This sums up the difference you're looking at pretty well. http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/

 

[Michael Totten]

How much is the Mac at 2.26GHz limiting you in your daily work? Will ~25% more processing power save you time? If so then it is worth the money. If not then not :arf: Easy, no?

I don't currently own either computer. I'm going to be buying in the next week.. and wanted some real world comparisons prior to the purchase hopefully that would assist me in making an informed decision.

 

[Michael Totten]

This sums up the difference you're looking at pretty well. http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/

thank you: )

 

[jimhare]

Michael, can only give you my personal experience. I have always opted for the slower machine since, as you say, the bump in speed does not match the price.

You can almost get a second machine for the upgrade cost, so that's what I would be aiming for. Get the slower one and then in a couple of months to build up new funds, maybe get a second machine. Then you would have one for transcoding/graphics/effects/output and another just for editing etc.

That's what I do anyway.

 

[James Press]

We've just done the numbers on our workflow, and by far the biggest bang for your buck is RedRocket. Hands down. We are getting RR before we even upgrade our early 2008 MacPro to a nahlem, let alone 2.26 to 2.93.

I know a very accomplished producer/director/editor and he runs RR on his 3+yr old quad core mac, and even that's fast enough...

 

[Michael Totten]

Michael, can only give you my personal experience. I have always opted for the slower machine since, as you say, the bump in speed does not match the price.

You can almost get a second machine for the upgrade cost, so that's what I would be aiming for. Get the slower one and then in a couple of months to build up new funds, maybe get a second machine. Then you would have one for transcoding/graphics/effects/output and another just for editing etc.

That's what I do anyway.

This is exactly what I thought.... getting two computers (or red rocket) instead of the top model. thanks for your input jimmhare

 

[Michael Totten]

We've just done the numbers on our workflow, and by far the biggest bang for your buck is RedRocket. Hands down. We are getting RR before we even upgrade our early 2008 MacPro to a nahlem, let alone 2.26 to 2.93.

I know a very accomplished producer/director/editor and he runs RR on his 3+yr old quad core mac, and even that's fast enough...

thanks for that bit of info James. I think I'll be getting the base model then (or two) plus the red rocket.

 

[ThomtheEditor]

we've always opted for the slightly slower machine; as it's been said that the numbers just don't add up. As long as the processor count is the same you'll be pulling close to the same numbers in multithreaded applications. We've found that for the extra money, you can add a couple of cinema displays, find a used kona3, bump up the ram and storage space, and turn it all into a standalone full service edit bay!