Just got my Mac Pro 6-Core but it's sluggish!

[LEOMODE]

In Bootcamp Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit mode,

I tried to do a lot of things at once to see if the multi-cores are really in effect (such as installing games, downloading stuff, installing more programs, and surfing the web, not using intensive apps such as Photoshop)

But it was so sluggish! Just like the MacBook Pro I have...

Well my questions are as below:

1. Would it be because I didn't upgrade my RAM yet? (I currently just got 3GB stock RAM), but isn't 3GB still enough compared to other consumer computers, plus I have the crazy CPU! I was going to get 8GB anyways so would it be more snappier?

2. Does Windows 7 fully utilize 6-Core? Thus Windows 7 will automatically divide running various of tasks into different cores to make them do the work?

I just expected so much paying for this great machine, but if the sluggishness is still the same as regular consumer MacBook Pro, then I don't know! (Because I was also planning to do things such as iMovie, iPhoto, VMWare, running Starcraft, watching Slingbox, and other stuff at the same time on Mac OSX)

[alust2013]

Yeah, your limitation there is definitely the 3GB RAM, especially in windows. The processor has all your multitasking covered from its point of view, but if you don't have enough memory, you start getting a lot of page outs and a large page file, which will slow any computer down.

[Hellhammer]

Hard drive is the bottleneck here. When you're installing stuff, especially if you're installing multiple apps at the same time, the hard drive just isn't fast enough. No CPU will help you with that. The RAM will also make a difference when multitasking. When the HD is being maxed out and you try to open a new app, it will feel sluggish.

Maybe you should try some real work and forget installing 28 apps at the same time.

[LEOMODE]

thanks guys! I'm getting my RAM tomorrow so hopefully I'll see some differences. Yeah I guess alust2013 is right because in my 15" MacBook Pro with 4GB RAM always chokes anyways :)

My CTO options were only 3.33 6-Core and ATI Radeon 5870.

I won't be buying SSD because it is a bit pricey, also I'll be buying it for my laptop anyways. (I thought that 7200rpm on regular desktop would be fine since it's 3gbps SATA2)

[LEOMODE]

Maybe you should try some real work and forget installing 28 apps at the same time.

I just got my computer! I need to install a lot of stuff to catch up :P

[Hellhammer]

I just got my computer! I need to install a lot of stuff to catch up :P

I understand. Just let it install the stuff and then give it a new try. HD won't be that big bottleneck when doing stuff but when installing and trying to multitask, it's not fast enough.

[LEOMODE]

I understand. Just let it install the stuff and then give it a new try. HD won't be that big bottleneck when doing stuff but when installing and trying to multitask, it's not fast enough.

I hope so too! :) But running game was phenomenal. I'm sure this will last at least 5 years for my duties :)

[peskaa]

Sounds like you bought a Hexacore without knowing what it actually means.

CPU speed, the number of cores etc. don't impact upon hard drive transfer speeds. You've stated that your "intensive test" was basically a bunch of installs, at the same time, whilst browsing the internet. All you're doing there is hammering the hard drive, not the CPUs, and the hard drive is a very limited component. Most drives will only get to about 70-80MB/sec, and doing multiple read/writes at the same time slows it down even further due to constant head seeking.

The fact that SATA II is 3GB/s means nothing. Only SSDs are saturating that with their newest models.

[spacepower7]

I wouldn't waste my money on a hex if I wasn't putting in a SSD.

How is a SSD pricey compared to a hex?
:confused:

[LEOMODE]

Sounds like you bought a Hexacore without knowing what it actually means.

CPU speed, the number of cores etc. don't impact upon hard drive transfer speeds. You've stated that your "intensive test" was basically a bunch of installs, at the same time, whilst browsing the internet. All you're doing there is hammering the hard drive, not the CPUs, and the hard drive is a very limited component. Most drives will only get to about 70-80MB/sec, and doing multiple read/writes at the same time slows it down even further due to constant head seeking.

The fact that SATA II is 3GB/s means nothing. Only SSDs are saturating that with their newest models.

right! got it thanks!, in my task manager, it currently shows that the installers are using 2.8GB out of my 3GB RAM too. so i thought it was purely RAM's fault ;)
also i know what i got for my money because i will be actually doing other stuff rather than just "installing programs", thanks though! ;)


I wouldn't waste my money on a hex if I wasn't putting in a SSD.

How is a SSD pricey compared to a hex?
:confused:

well to me, it seemed like SSD's price for the size is not really future-proof (as 512GB will be out in 3yrs for about the same price as 160GB now), but CPU will for at least 3yrs :)
but i will get SSD for my MBP and hopefully 512GB in the future for my MP ;)

[philipma1957]

hey 2 1tb caviar blacks in a software raid are pretty fast. use the third and fourth hdds slots to backup up the raid0 in the first 2 slots. my way of saying you can take your time on getting a ssd.

[reel2reel]

My Hex is the snappiest Mac I've ever used (and I've used quite a few) but I've got 24 GB RAM in it. Day to day, I use Final Cut Pro, Color, PhotoShop and Lightroom.

[LEOMODE]

hey 2 1tb caviar blacks in a software raid are pretty fast. use the third and fourth hdds slots to backup up the raid0 in the first 2 slots. my way of saying you can take your time on getting a ssd.

Thanks for your comment! I was thinking of RAID combo too ;)

Aside from that, Mac Pro is simply just stunning. It was my dream machine in the first place, and I'm just so happy that I have so much flexibility in terms of upgrading this beast in the future if I have to.

For the CPU monitor, I'm seeing 12 cores on both Windows 7 and Mac OSX running at almost 0% lol.

Can anyone tell me why 12 cores are showing instead of 6? (in my dual core MBP, it only showed as 2). Is this because of the hyperthreading turbo boost technology thingy on my 3.33ghz?

[Hellhammer]

For the CPU monitor, I'm seeing 12 cores on both Windows 7 and Mac OSX running at almost 0% lol.

Can anyone tell me why 12 cores are showing instead of 6? (in my dual core MBP, it only showed as 2). Is this because of the hyperthreading turbo boost technology thingy on my 3.33ghz?

That's because of Hyper-Threading. There are 6 physical cores and 6 "virtual" cores, giving the total of 12 threads that you see in Activity Monitor.

[RebootD]

hey 2 1tb caviar blacks in a software raid are pretty fast. use the third and fourth hdds slots to backup up the raid0 in the first 2 slots. my way of saying you can take your time on getting a ssd.

I kept my stock 640GB drive as my application/home and did the 2x 1TB Caviar Blacks in RAID0 and I love it. Eventually I'd like to get an SSD for my boot drive but I just don't want to spend the cash right now.

[nanofrog]

Thanks for your comment! I was thinking of RAID combo too ;)
If you go with RAID, especially a stripe set (RAID 0), make sure you've a sufficient backup system in place from day one. The reason is, problems can still occur, even with redundant levels of RAID, that you'll need a copy of the data for restoration if there's a significant problem (something that results in total data loss).

The reason RAID 0 is so dangerous, is that if any disk in the set goes, so does the data. There's no redundancy to keep it in tact, unlike say 1/10 (both also possible via Disk Utility; other levels can only be accomplished in a MP via a 3rd party RAID card that supports them, and they're not cheap by most people's definition).

[lbeck]

I wouldn't waste my money on a hex if I wasn't putting in a SSD.

How is a SSD pricey compared to a hex?
:confused:

I agree, the $300 I spent on a 120gb SSD is the best money I ever spent.

[dallas112678]

In Bootcamp Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit mode,

I tried to do a lot of things at once to see if the multi-cores are really in effect (such as installing games, downloading stuff, installing more programs, and surfing the web, not using intensive apps such as Photoshop)

But it was so sluggish! Just like the MacBook Pro I have...

Well my questions are as below:

1. Would it be because I didn't upgrade my RAM yet? (I currently just got 3GB stock RAM), but isn't 3GB still enough compared to other consumer computers, plus I have the crazy CPU! I was going to get 8GB anyways so would it be more snappier?

2. Does Windows 7 fully utilize 6-Core? Thus Windows 7 will automatically divide running various of tasks into different cores to make them do the work?

I just expected so much paying for this great machine, but if the sluggishness is still the same as regular consumer MacBook Pro, then I don't know! (Because I was also planning to do things such as iMovie, iPhoto, VMWare, running Starcraft, watching Slingbox, and other stuff at the same time on Mac OSX)

I'm sorry but you have to be a troll. You wan't to test the power but you don't try it on intensive apps like photoshop or games like starcraft? How exactly do you think a fast processor is going to affect your download speed? Installing programs is mainly hard drive. Internet is not a cpu intensive application so you aren't going to see any real differences between that and a MBP. I just find it strange you are basing everything on "tests" that have very little to do with the CPU and not actually testing the things that you actually bought it for (SC2, iMovie, photoshop...in other words, the programs that can actually take advantage of the CPU.) Who knows, maybe i'm wrong and you just don't know what pieces of computer hardware do what, and in that case why do you need a Mac Pro?

[JulianBoolean]

Hi LEOMODE,

I've got a six core too, have been doing some testing, lots of paid jobs, and might have some useful info about ram and whatnot. It's not clear if you are doing photoshop work, but If you are, I might be able to put the speed issue in proper context. Let me know, happy to help if I can. :)

-Julian

[LEOMODE]

I'm sorry but you have to be a troll. You wan't to test the power but you don't try it on intensive apps like photoshop or games like starcraft? How exactly do you think a fast processor is going to affect your download speed? Installing programs is mainly hard drive. Internet is not a cpu intensive application so you aren't going to see any real differences between that and a MBP. I just find it strange you are basing everything on "tests" that have very little to do with the CPU and not actually testing the things that you actually bought it for (SC2, iMovie, photoshop...in other words, the programs that can actually take advantage of the CPU.) Who knows, maybe i'm wrong and you just don't know what pieces of computer hardware do what, and in that case why do you need a Mac Pro?

You didn't read my comment in the middle of this post. I just got this MP yesterday

[LEOMODE]

Hi LEOMODE,

I've got a six core too, have been doing some testing, lots of paid jobs, and might have some useful info about ram and whatnot. It's not clear if you are doing photoshop work, but If you are, I might be able to put the speed issue in proper context. Let me know, happy to help if I can. :)

-Julian

Any tips will be useful! thanks! :)

[Fesan]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (iPhone; Opera Mini/5.0.019802/20.2497; U; en) Presto/2.5.25)

SSD is the big difference here (along with ram).

Well worth the investment. 120gb disc is not that expensive and in a mac pro you can easily set up your home folder to be on the old magnetic HD and only os/apps on the SSD.

Once you go SSD you'll never go back! When I got mine I clicked all my programs on the dock (ilife, PS, office ++) from left to right and they were all loaded by the time the last one was clicked, try that on the stock HD;-)

[peskaa]

right! got it thanks!, in my task manager, it currently shows that the installers are using 2.8GB out of my 3GB RAM too. so i thought it was purely RAM's fault ;)
also i know what i got for my money because i will be actually doing other stuff rather than just "installing programs", thanks though! ;)




well to me, it seemed like SSD's price for the size is not really future-proof (as 512GB will be out in 3yrs for about the same price as 160GB now), but CPU will for at least 3yrs :)
but i will get SSD for my MBP and hopefully 512GB in the future for my MP ;)

Glad you bought it for more than installing ;) My real point was simply that installs are never going to tax your system, just your poor slow mechanical HDD.

SSDs are still a new technology, and you're right, they are expensive - especially when up at 256GB and over. However, the best use for them at the moment is to buy a 128GB SSD for OS X and your applications, and then use mechanical HDDs for mass storage. I think buying one for your MP is a better buy than getting one for the MBP, simply because it will unlock far more performance.

Once SSDs head south in price you can then use that relatively small SSD for something else (scratch disk for Photoshop/Final Cut?) and get a bigger one for your main drive.

[LEOMODE]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (iPhone; Opera Mini/5.0.019802/20.2497; U; en) Presto/2.5.25)

SSD is the big difference here (along with ram).

Well worth the investment. 120gb disc is not that expensive and in a mac pro you can easily set up your home folder to be on the old magnetic HD and only os/apps on the SSD.

Once you go SSD you'll never go back! When I got mine I clicked all my programs on the dock (ilife, PS, office ++) from left to right and they were all loaded by the time the last one was clicked, try that on the stock HD;-)

I've had SSD before and it surely does the things you say ;) it is awesome indeed!



Glad you bought it for more than installing ;) My real point was simply that installs are never going to tax your system, just your poor slow mechanical HDD.

SSDs are still a new technology, and you're right, they are expensive - especially when up at 256GB and over. However, the best use for them at the moment is to buy a 128GB SSD for OS X and your applications, and then use mechanical HDDs for mass storage. I think buying one for your MP is a better buy than getting one for the MBP, simply because it will unlock far more performance.

Once SSDs head south in price you can then use that relatively small SSD for something else (scratch disk for Photoshop/Final Cut?) and get a bigger one for your main drive.


Your suggestion is also very appealing! I was actually waiting for Intel 320GB because currently for my MBP 320GB, my programs are usually 200GB excluding music and video... I just use a lot of programs I guess.. Because for professional music, video personnel, I guess the most capacity comes from mass storage of non-programs, but a casual like me I guess I just have a lot of programs :( But even so, getting Intel 160GB will be kind of awesome too (just for the bootup and programs)

I just gotta find a way to reduce my programs :rolleyes:

[Hellhammer]

I just gotta find a way to reduce my programs :rolleyes:

You can move infrequently used apps to the HD. Few months ago, my friend got 80GB Intel for his Mac Pro. He had over 100GB of apps so I just put the apps he uses everyday (like Creative Suite) to the SSD but the apps that he uses only sometimes (like Final Cut) to the HD to save space. I doubt you're using all those apps everyday, thus you can move some of them to the HD to save money

[LEOMODE]

This is the OP.

I've finally finished installing all the programs and tried to run the programs typically and guess what:

They run much much faster and the speed is phenomenal! I can say that it is not as fast as SSD on a MBP, but I would say it's as close as 80-90% of the SSD speed. Bootup time is faster, clicking the icon is about 1-2bounces, and all the other programs that I run open up and close very fast.

I know it's mainly because of the CPU, motherboard, graphic card, and 10GB RAM (upgraded) that are also the main factors in helping boosting up, but comparing with my MBP overall, it is much faster! not to mention the multi-tasking is just crazy. I used to run 4 spaces on MBP and sometimes choking, now I run 6 spaces and still smooth as a butter.

So here is my final configuration:

3.33ghz 6core
10GB 1333mhz RAM (4x4x2x2 all Samsung)
1TB 7200rpm HDD
ATI Radeon 5870 1GB VGA

For the cause of my post on the sluggishness, I would say that it was the RAM problem.
Because installing programs even now writing this with new 10GB, the program does not lag at all.
So people who is looking for Mac Pro for personal use, I would say that upgrading RAM is impeccable.
Because 3GB or even 6GB won't hold it in my opinion. I'll say at least 8GB.

I've never tried Quad core 2.8 or 3.2 but I would say if you upgrade your RAM to 8GB, other MP will be enough also!
(Most of my programs that I use do not use all cores yet, although I bought it for future-proof)

[philipma1957]

I have the quad2.8 it is very nice with 3 sticks of 4gb ram for a total of 12gb

[JulianBoolean]

OP -

Glad you saw the light. The 6 core is indeed smoking fast. Much of the speed issue is matter of perception based on the last computer you had.

To illustrate a longer term historical (speed) perspective, I can share some of my speed testing with you. I downloaded the actions to run Lloyd Chambers Photoshop Huge File test. I ran the test on my four 2006 MPs at work. The results were dramatic when compared to the current crop of apple offerings. A pimped out imac (16GB ram, 2x SSD Scratch & Apps) which, by the way, has the longest time recorded on LLoyd Chambers Site completes that test in 500 Seconds - 8 Minutes, 33 seconds. My 2006 MP running CS4, 12GB of Ram and a 2x Mechanical HD RAID 0 Scratch disk completes that test in 2,852 Seconds, or 47.5 Minutes! Two of the four MPs at work have slightly slower clock speeds, and only a 1x HD for scratch. Those two never even completed the test. The apple script that runs the test timed out!

Those of us who have been working with macs for very long time, or are upgrading less frequently, are witnessing dramatic generational advancements in speed. Those that are looking from a very short term perspective based on something they had six months ago, are sometimes not appreciative of those huge speed increases.

Btw... I charted out the test results, that compared a pimped out imac to my four aging 2006 MPs, took them into the front office, and the agency is purchasing 4 new MP retouching stations, ASAP, configured anyway I wish. :)

-Julian

[brentsg]

I would say that upgrading RAM is impeccable.
Because 3GB or even 6GB won't hold it in my opinion. I'll say at least 8GB.

6GB is more than enough for most people. I do a ton of multitasking and use virtual machines a lot, and I've never felt any negative impact from 6GB. I think it's the sweet spot unless you utilize programs which are known to benefit from gobs of RAM.

[scottsjack]

6GB is more than enough for most people. I do a ton of multitasking and use virtual machines a lot, and I've never felt any negative impact from 6GB. I think it's the sweet spot unless you utilize programs which are known to benefit from gobs of RAM.

Au contraire. I run Activity Monitor with the dock icon set to the RAM pie-chart on my 2010 3.2 quad with 12GB of OWC RAM. With Photoshop CS5 doing something serious and Aperture 3 open the green free memory slice of pie becomes a tiny Weight Watchers slice. If Eye-TV is also running it's pretty much gone. I'm debating buying one more 4GB stick.

[reel2reel]

Au contraire. I run Activity Monitor with the dock icon set to the RAM pie-chart on my 2010 3.2 quad with 12GB of OWC RAM. With Photoshop CS5 doing something serious and Aperture 3 open the green free memory slice of pie becomes a tiny Weight Watchers slice. If Eye-TV is also running it's pretty much gone. I'm debating buying one more 4GB stick.

I wouldn't go less than 12 for the Hex.

[hugodrax]

I never understood why someone would pay so much for a castrated mac pro with half the memory slots and once CPU unit and only 3gb of ram.

A iMac would be the better buy.

[Hellhammer]

I never understood why someone would pay so much for a castrated mac pro with half the memory slots and once CPU unit and only 3gb of ram.

A iMac would be the better buy.

iMac's upgradeability is a joke. You can upgrade RAM, that's it. With Mac Pro, you can upgrade pretty much everything. CPU(s), GPU(s), RAM, hard drives, SSDs, PCIe cards... The list is nearly endless. IMO that's the #1 why people choose Mac Pro over iMac. It's more "future-proof" because you're not stuck with the specs it originally came with.

Also, not everyone wants the glossy 27" display. I've seen a lot people paying the extra for Mac Pro because they can't stand the glossy display. For color accurate work, an antiglare monitor is almost a must.

On a side note, there is no 6-core available for iMac so people who need/want more than a quad core, their only option is Mac Pro.