View Full Version : Mac Pro 2.8Ghz. Vs. 3.0Ghz.

03-19-2008, 10:24 AM
Has anyone done any comparisons between the 2.8GHz. and the 3.0GHz
models relative to Photoshop CS3. I was leaning towards the 3.0GHz., but
the just recent AMUG review cites the 2.8GHz. as the model to get, stating
that 3.0GHz. model only gives a 7% increase in performance for a 28%
increase in cost. The review is not specific to Photoshop, so what would be the advantage, if any, to choosing the 3.0GHz model for Photoshop CS3. I will be
adding 8 Gigs of ram in addition to 2 1T. Seagate Barracudas 7200.11 drives
to start with.


03-21-2008, 08:34 AM

I see that no one has taken a shot at your question. I don't have a Mac Pro and they are expensive. You are going to put a lot of pricey extras into your Mac Pro and I think over the long run you will be kicking yourself for not going to 3.0GHz.

I went thru the same agonizing 4 years ago with my G5. Over the course of a few days, I decided to go for the fastest one. Over these 4 years I've been very glad I did. Bare Feats has an article comparing the 2.8 with the 3.2 Harpertowns. You could interpolate:


03-21-2008, 11:59 AM
Hi Kaye,

After a lot of research, talking to Adobe and other Photoshop professionals,
and the AMUG review I decided to purchase the 2.8GHz. model. I did want
to get the 3.0GHz. model, but the general consensus was a negligible, if any, increase in performance, relative to Photoshop, for a 28% increase
in cost. Much wiser to invest in Ram and additional hard drives as I've done.

However, I do agree with your point of view, in terms of getting the most expensive machine. That's normally the way I operate, and I've never regretted my decisions in the past. I do think that the 2.8GHz. model will be
"stellar", regardless, even if the 3.0GHz. is a little faster. I was almost
tempted to wait another year for the Nehalem processors, but I'm running with an old G4 500 MHz, SCSI equipped, very dependable, but much to slow for CS3, and I've been putting off making the jump for too long.

Much thanks for your input. Next time I'll get to you sooner.