Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
CPU or RAM
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bobtomay" data-source="post: 407357" data-attributes="member: 24160"><p>There certainly is basically no difference for the average computer user thats browsing the web, using Office, doing some e-mail or messaging and just listening to music. And this individual is wasting money buying a Mac Pro in the first place.</p><p></p><p>This is certainly "Not True" when it comes to encoding. That is if your time is worth anything or if you don't like sitting around waiting for something to finish. Speed is everything if you're doing a lot of encoding. The 2.66 is anywhere between about 18% and up to 40% faster than the 2.0, averaging about 30%.</p><p></p><p>The 2.66 can shave between 22-30 seconds off of a 90 second encode the 2.0 would take and several minutes off a 7GB video encode. <a href="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x28amp24&page=8" target="_blank">Here is only one test</a> showing the timed differences between multiple CPU's. The link starts on page 8 where the testing begins. There are others that can be found with a little search, all will show similar results.</p><p></p><p>edit: I will say again, "For audio/video editing and encoding, the processor is king".</p><p>edit: And the 2.66 will probably prolong the life expectancy of your system for at least a year beyond that of the 2.0. I would say this makes it well worth the $300 difference in price.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bobtomay, post: 407357, member: 24160"] There certainly is basically no difference for the average computer user thats browsing the web, using Office, doing some e-mail or messaging and just listening to music. And this individual is wasting money buying a Mac Pro in the first place. This is certainly "Not True" when it comes to encoding. That is if your time is worth anything or if you don't like sitting around waiting for something to finish. Speed is everything if you're doing a lot of encoding. The 2.66 is anywhere between about 18% and up to 40% faster than the 2.0, averaging about 30%. The 2.66 can shave between 22-30 seconds off of a 90 second encode the 2.0 would take and several minutes off a 7GB video encode. [URL="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x28amp24&page=8"]Here is only one test[/URL] showing the timed differences between multiple CPU's. The link starts on page 8 where the testing begins. There are others that can be found with a little search, all will show similar results. edit: I will say again, "For audio/video editing and encoding, the processor is king". edit: And the 2.66 will probably prolong the life expectancy of your system for at least a year beyond that of the 2.0. I would say this makes it well worth the $300 difference in price. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
CPU or RAM
Top