MacPro 2.66GHZ , Is this a good Computer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
A couple of things to add to this post, since I have been researching all night. This Mac Pro and my current MBP have the same amount of L2 cache which is 4MB

The Mac Pro has two processors with two cores each, which is why it is a quad core. So based off that alone it would be more powerful ( I'm assuming ) than my single processor dual core 2.2 GHZ inside of my MBP.

They both use the same ram speed, DDR2 667mhz. The advantage in the MAC PRO is that it can be upgraded to 32GBS and has 8 memory slots compared to the two slots on the MBP which can be upgraded to max 6gb ( according to many websites )


So In my opinion I believe the Mac Pro would be a better computer than my current one
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now onto this older 2006 Mac Pro compared to the 2009 Quad Core Imac

So while yes the $1400 + couple of hundred of dollars more that I would spend on this computer would cost me more than an Imac quad core refurbished,
I think the expendability of the Mac Pro would be worth it.

I can have 4 internal HDs in this 2006 Mac Pro, I also have 3 pci slots for any other future things I would like to add. The only advantage I can think of in an Imac quad core is that it has a faster cpu, graphics card, and ram but I am willing to lose that for all of the things the Mac Pro has that the Imac does not.


With a Mac Pro I can use firewire 400, 800 and install an Esata connection for very cheap, something that is not so easy on an Imac. I can install multiple hard drives as well. Also while I know the imac is faster I am currently working on a dual core 2.2 MBP and I know that the quad core xeon 2.66 would be faster than my current setup and that would be really good.

I will continue to update this thread
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
Now onto this older 2006 Mac Pro compared to the 2009 Quad Core Imac

So while yes the $1400 + couple of hundred of dollars more that I would spend on this computer would cost me more than an Imac quad core refurbished,
I think the expendability of the Mac Pro would be worth it.

Yes the Mac Pro is more expandable...but only if you take advantage of the expandability. Many people don't take advantage of this expandability.

I think that a refurbished iMac would be a better choice. More up to date hardware overall, better graphics hardware, and you get the built-in monitor. If you need extra hard drive space...you can upgrade the internal hard drive, or add an external USB or firewire drive.

If you could get the Mac Pro for significantly less than the iMac you're thinking of...maybe I would say get the Mac Pro. But at this point (for roughly the same money) I would prefer a 2010 computer over a 2006 computer.

HTH,

- Nick
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Yes the Mac Pro is more expandable...but only if you take advantage of the expandability. Many people don't take advantage of this expandability.

I think that a refurbished iMac would be a better choice. More up to date hardware overall, better graphics hardware, and you get the built-in monitor. If you need extra hard drive space...you can upgrade the internal hard drive, or add an external USB or firewire drive.

If you could get the Mac Pro for significantly less than the iMac you're thinking of...maybe I would say get the Mac Pro. But at this point (for roughly the same money) I would prefer a 2010 computer over a 2006 computer.

HTH,

- Nick


The Imac does not have eSata, is a mission to open up and upgrade, I hate the glossy screen, no pci slots, no way in the world to put more than two hds.


The Mac Pro while older can be upgraded to 32gbs of ram, you can run dual graphics cards, you have pci slots to install a wireless system, esata and one open for whatever. Also you can have 4 internal HDs in there. I already have an external monitor.


So yes the Imac has a faster cpu, but a quad core xeon at 2.66 or if I can find a 3.0 is comparable to a core duo I believe. Also having the expandability option is very important for me.


Decisions... Decisions
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
The Imac does not have eSata, is a mission to open up and upgrade, I hate the glossy screen, no pci slots, no way in the world to put more than two hds.

The Mac Pro while older can be upgraded to 32gbs of ram, you can run dual graphics cards, you have pci slots to install a wireless system, esata and one open for whatever. Also you can have 4 internal HDs in there. I already have an external monitor.

So yes the Imac has a faster cpu, but a quad core xeon at 2.66 or if I can find a 3.0 is comparable to a core duo I believe. Also having the expandability option is very important for me.

Decisions... Decisions

You mentioned a lot of positives for the Mac Pro & a lot of negatives for the iMac......just remember the Mac Pro has negatives as well, and the iMac has positives.

But it sounds like you have all the positives & negatives you need to make a decision...so purchase the Mac Pro already!:)

- Nick
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
Stick with the Mac Pro as the iMacs are glossy toys!

Download a little utility called Mactracker and check out the bench marks for the various models.

For instance to 2.66GHz Mac Pro 1.1 comes in with a performance score of 4833 and the iMac 2.8GHz reads 3791.
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Stick with the Mac Pro as the iMacs are glossy toys!

Download a little utility called Mactracker and check out the bench marks for the various models.

For instance to 2.66GHz Mac Pro 1.1 comes in with a performance score of 4833 and the iMac 2.8GHz reads 3791.

2ive9sp.png



This is incorrect regarding the Imac 2.8 as it's bench mark within the Geekbench is 8325 almost twice as much as the Mac Pro


Even then though the Mac Pro still has upgrading options that the Imac doesn't
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
Compare the iMac 2009 with the 2009 Mac Pro and see the result. oranges against oranges.

2.93GHz 2009 Mac Pro benchmarks at over 14,000 which kills the same vintage iMacs.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
And so it should as the owner is easily able to do so many upgrades, four hard drives, graphic cards, memory, superdrives, all of which are an extremely difficult tasks on an iMac. That is worth quite a bit IMHO.

Also it does appear the optical drives on the iMacs and laptops have a much higher failure rate due to the compactness of the units. Do a search through these forums.
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
And so it should as the owner is easily able to do so many upgrades, four hard drives, graphic cards, memory, superdrives, all of which are an extremely difficult tasks on an iMac. That is worth quite a bit IMHO.

Also it does appear the optical drives on the iMacs and laptops have a much higher failure rate due to the compactness of the units. Do a search through these forums.

Your post makes no sense. First my thread was regarding an older Mac Pro, MBP and then a current line of Imac.

You were wrong regarding the Imac specs and now you say well compare it to a 2009 Mac Pro? Well how about I just pay 15k and buy a fully loaded 12 core Mac Pro........

IF you pay attention to what I wrote and my price range then you would know that this was for any computer within the $1200-$1500 price range and if I had to save up money for another month or two if the newer Imac quad core be worth it.


We all know the Mac pro is the best computer, but you have to weigh your options on best/price and more importantly what you can afford. At the end of the day all I need is a faster computer then the one I have now

2.2GHZ MBP


peace
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
We all know the Mac pro is the best computer, but you have to weigh your options on best/price and more importantly what you can afford. At the end of the day all I need is a faster computer then the one I have now.

You're definitely correct that a Mac Pro is the best computer when it comes to raw power & expandability. I totally understand that your comparison in your initial post is between a 2006 Mac Pro & a 2009 quad-core iMac.

I think that "exceptions" to this rule (Mac Pro is the best)...starts happening when you start comparing a 4 year-old Mac Pro to a brand new iMac. Macintosh design/architecture has changed a bit in 4 years...and this could be where a 2009/2010 quad-core iMac has the edge over a 2006 Mac Pro.

I would certainly say that if you need & will use the expandability of a Mac Pro...then get the 2006 Mac Pro. Otherwise I would say get the 2009/2010 quad-core iMac. More modern architecture, an awesome display (yes I know you already mentioned you have a display, you could use your current display as a 2nd display for the iMac), built-in web camera, etc.

I think we have taken this discussion as far as we can...now it's time to put your "money where you mouth is", pull the trigger...and buy one of these computers!;)

Good luck deciding,

- Nick
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
You're definitely correct that a Mac Pro is the best computer when it comes to raw power & expandability. I totally understand that your comparison in your initial post is between a 2006 Mac Pro & a 2009 quad-core iMac.

I think that "exceptions" to this rule (Mac Pro is the best)...starts happening when you start comparing a 4 year-old Mac Pro to a brand new iMac. Macintosh design/architecture has changed a bit in 4 years...and this could be where a 2009/2010 quad-core iMac has the edge over a 2006 Mac Pro.

I would certainly say that if you need & will use the expandability of a Mac Pro...then get the 2006 Mac Pro. Otherwise I would say get the 2009/2010 quad-core iMac. More modern architecture, an awesome display (yes I know you already mentioned you have a display, you could use your current display as a 2nd display for the iMac), built-in web camera, etc.

I think we have taken this discussion as far as we can...now it's time to put your "money where you mouth is", pull the trigger...and buy one of these computers!;)

Good luck deciding,

- Nick


No, there's still more to talk about. While an Imac 2009-2010 version has a faster clock cpu there is no question at all that the Mac Pros use the BEST
cpus ( quality wise ) with their Xenon line. there is no doubt in my mind that an 2006 Mac Pro can last 10 years if not more without a hitch.


The Mac Pro can be expanded to 32 Gbs of ram, we all know that the bottle neck will be the cpu so lets just say 16gbs of ram safely with no problems. No matter what anyone says I simply hate the Imac screen for doing any kind of video/graphics work.

I seen one of my projects displayed through an Imac and I couldn't believe how it added false colors that are not there on my properly calibrated monitor......


Truth is I have no idea what I'm going to buy. If I had the money I would get a new MBP 17" , but since I don't I'm looking at a 2009-2010 imac or a 2006-2007 Mac Pro.


Imac is faster than the Mac Pro , but lacks the connections and so many different options I can do with a Mac Pro like having up to 8tb internally, blue ray drive, etc. All of this can be done with an Imac but it would all have to be external......

Decisions Decisions, hopefully I make one soon so I can be relaxed!
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
26
Points
48
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
No, there's still more to talk about. While an Imac 2009-2010 version has a faster clock cpu there is no question at all that the Mac Pros use the BEST
cpus ( quality wise ) with their Xenon line. there is no doubt in my mind that an 2006 Mac Pro can last 10 years if not more without a hitch.


The Mac Pro can be expanded to 32 Gbs of ram, we all know that the bottle neck will be the cpu so lets just say 16gbs of ram safely with no problems. No matter what anyone says I simply hate the Imac screen for doing any kind of video/graphics work.

I seen one of my projects displayed through an Imac and I couldn't believe how it added false colors that are not there on my properly calibrated monitor......


Truth is I have no idea what I'm going to buy. If I had the money I would get a new MBP 17" , but since I don't I'm looking at a 2009-2010 imac or a 2006-2007 Mac Pro.


Imac is faster than the Mac Pro , but lacks the connections and so many different options I can do with a Mac Pro like having up to 8tb internally, blue ray drive, etc. All of this can be done with an Imac but it would all have to be external......

Decisions Decisions, hopefully I make one soon so I can be relaxed!


It's "Xeon" FYI

And good luck on your decision.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
534
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad, 1GB RAM
You also have to remember that if you get the mac pro and eventually need more speed, you can always upgrade it to a octo core
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
You also have to remember that if you get the mac pro and eventually need more speed, you can always upgrade it to a octo core


Are you sure this can be done? If so can you please post some information where I can read about this.....

Thank you
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
534
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad, 1GB RAM
Are you sure this can be done? If so can you please post some information where I can read about this.....

Thank you

the origanal macpro (2006 model) was 2 dual core intel xeon woodcrest cpu's. They can be replaced with 2 quad core intel clovertown cpu's.

heres some more info

o0o.it :: Mac Pro Xeon Upgrade And Overclock Guide

Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

www.hardmac.com/articles/70/page1
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
534
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad, 1GB RAM
no, I am still very satisfied with the speed of mine. But I definitely will someday when it starts to age more
 
OP
T
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
no, I am still very satisfied with the speed of mine. But I definitely will someday when it starts to age more

Is your 2.66 Mac pro the 2006 version or the 2009 one? Also I'm really on the fence here on whether to purchase the

2006
2.66ghz Mac Pro = $ 1300

2009
2.8ghz i7 Imac = $1700-1800

2010
2.93ghz i7 Imac = $ 2200-2300



I know the latest Imac is the fastest , but it is also the most expensive. My current machine is a 2.2 ghz MBP which I use for HD editing and converting files and it's just taking too long. A 1080p 5 minute clip to export from FInal Cut Pro takes about 45-60 mins.

I would love to cut that down in half, this is ALL I CARE ABOUT.

So will the 2.66ghz quad core 2006 Model Mac Pro do this? If it does I will buy it, because my MBP just can't keep up anymore.


Or maybe I should just get the Imac i3 that sells for like $1200 as I know for a fact it would be faster than my MBP.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top