PDA

View Full Version : Xeon vs i7?




Macpropro80
Mar 8, 2009, 11:24 AM
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.



* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.





:apple:



Tallest Skil
Mar 8, 2009, 11:27 AM
Of COURSE gamers tell you that it is "better."

The 3500 series is just Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is genuinely far better than Core i7.

shawmanus
Mar 8, 2009, 11:27 AM
For gaming I7 is better bcos total cost of ownership is lower. 8 cores does not help gaming at all. Even 4 cores are debatable.

Actually gaming is only category where I7 does not beat core 2. That is bcos I7 has small L2 and large L3 while core 2 has large l2 cache.

shawmanus
Mar 8, 2009, 11:28 AM
Actually if you go to any hardware forum, most folks prefer DIY and also over clocking. They obviously will not like Mac.

Tallest Skil
Mar 8, 2009, 11:33 AM
Actually if you go to any hardware forum, most folks prefer DIY and also over clocking. They obviously will not like Mac.

Gainestown overclocks itself, though, so that's nice. :D

Macpropro80
Mar 8, 2009, 11:41 AM
Thanks, Gaming forums are not the best place to ask mac related anythings. My best defense against gamers hating mac is this simple question:

me: "so you say macs suck? Well how many cores does your PC have?"
Gamer: "(insert $250-400 processor)"
me: "well my mac has 8 cores running at 2.8ghz, so according to my math my mac is better then your pc"
Gamer: "macs suck how many games do you have, roflcopter!"
me: "every game you have, I have boot camp"
Gamer: "i have blue leds in my case"
me: "congratulations you obviously beat me do to the fact that it has a blue light!"
Gamer: "your a noob"
me: "and your a moron"

Tallest Skil
Mar 8, 2009, 11:45 AM
Gamer: "i have blue leds in my case"

No. No. I refuse to believe this. No one on this planet is this blasphemously stupid. A forest slime mold would have a better argument than this. Archaebacteria would have a better argument than this. Wherever you were, leave and never go back. You're better than that place by LEAGUES. I can't finish this tuna salad sandwich now; I'm too disgusted at the state of humanity.

me: "and your a moron"

You shouldn't have stooped to his level. You should have just thrown some benchmarks in his face, because that's all that gamers care about, anyway.

Macpropro80
Mar 8, 2009, 11:47 AM
No. No. I refuse to believe this. No one on this planet is this blasphemously stupid. A forest slime mold would have a better argument than this. Archaebacteria would have a better argument than this. Wherever you were, leave and never go back. You're better than that place by LEAGUES. I can't finish this tuna salad sandwich now; I'm too disgusted at the state of humanity.



You shouldn't have stooped to his level. You should have just thrown some benchmarks in his face, because that's all that gamers care about, anyway.

This is the kind of stupidity I deal with every day! There is a reason these people don't use macs.....

cfedu
Mar 8, 2009, 11:53 AM
If all that separates them is ECC, shouldn't i7 be faster because the ECC slows the computer down as it checks for errors.

Tallest Skil
Mar 8, 2009, 11:58 AM
If all that separates them is ECC, shouldn't i7 be faster because the ECC slows the computer down as it checks for errors.

This would only affect the 3500 series, but we don't know yet. We'll need to do tests.

Ploki
Mar 8, 2009, 12:16 PM
For gaming I7 is better bcos total cost of ownership is lower. 8 cores does not help gaming at all. Even 4 cores are debatable.

Actually gaming is only category where I7 does not beat core 2. That is bcos I7 has small L2 and large L3 while core 2 has large l2 cache.

i have one game for you. GTA IV.
takes advantage at least of 4 cores.

nanofrog
Mar 8, 2009, 12:40 PM
Gainestown overclocks itself, though, so that's nice. :D
Albiet mildly. ;)

But if you do it yourself, you can eek out quite a substantial difference. Take a ~$300 CPU and push it to 3.8-4.0 on air, 4.2 on water. Sticking with air, I've managed 3.9 without turning it into a hot plate and cooking the CPU. :p
If all that separates them is ECC, shouldn't i7 be faster because the ECC slows the computer down as it checks for errors.
ECC will slow it down slightly, typically ~4%. OC'ing ECC memory may be a little more tricky, as it wasn't designed for it. But it's by no means impossible. If attempted, get the lowest CL timings possible, as timings make a larger difference on overall performance with DDR3.

apolloa
Mar 8, 2009, 01:20 PM
Well the Xeon isn't made for gaming is it. the Core i7 will always be better for gaming, games are made to run on it and not the Xeon. The motherboard's and memory are better for games too. But try and render a HD video and the Xeon will pound the i7.
If games were made to run on all 8 cores in a dual Xeon CPU machine then obviously they would be better, but there not, that's why the i7 wins. Games are made to work on it.

m1stake
Mar 8, 2009, 02:21 PM
Thread filed under "Misinformation." :D

Eidorian
Mar 8, 2009, 02:24 PM
I've found that Core i7 is more beneficial in a multi-socket and multi-threaded environment. A fast Core 2 Duo is more than enough for high end gaming and it's more GPU bound.

robinp
Mar 8, 2009, 02:31 PM
Well the Xeon isn't made for gaming is it. the Core i7 will always be better for gaming, games are made to run on it and not the Xeon. The motherboard's and memory are better for games too. But try and render a HD video and the Xeon will pound the i7.
If games were made to run on all 8 cores in a dual Xeon CPU machine then obviously they would be better, but there not, that's why the i7 wins. Games are made to work on it.

dude, you are giving Intel too much credit. They are almost identical (especially i7 compared to the xeon 3500 series)

WonderSausage
Mar 8, 2009, 04:55 PM
They (Core i7 and Xeon) are absolutely identical except for the number of QPI links. Core i7 and Xeon X3500 have 1 link, Xeon X5500 has 2 links, forthcoming 4-way chips will have 4 links.

There is absolutely no performance difference between a Core i7 and Xeon X3500 (or a single X5500) at the same clock speed with the same memory speed, on any type of app, game or otherwise. They use the same core.

Likewise on a single-threaded app there is no difference between Core i7, Xeon X3500 and Xeon X5500. Once you get 2 or more threads on a dual X5500 the threads are allocated CPUA-CPUB-A-B... etc. so some differences would start to emerge.

justflie
Mar 8, 2009, 05:11 PM
I read someplace that Empire: Total War takes advantage of 4 cores. That's whY I'm excited for.

Abidubi
Mar 8, 2009, 05:30 PM
Thread filed under "Misinformation." :D

As it should be. Man, there is some weird thinking going on in here.

They (Core i7 and Xeon) are absolutely identical except for the number of QPI links. Core i7 and Xeon X3500 have 1 link, Xeon X5500 has 2 links, forthcoming 4-way chips will have 4 links.

There is absolutely no performance difference between a Core i7 and Xeon X3500 (or a single X5500) at the same clock speed with the same memory speed, on any type of app, game or otherwise. They use the same core.

Likewise on a single-threaded app there is no difference between Core i7, Xeon X3500 and Xeon X5500. Once you get 2 or more threads on a dual X5500 the threads are allocated CPUA-CPUB-A-B... etc. so some differences would start to emerge.

Thank you! Someone understands that changing the name of a chip does not make it perform differently.

The only difference between the i7 and 3500 is the ECC memory. The only difference between a single 3500 and a single 5500 is... well nothing at all. 2 5500s have 2 QPIs, but thats only so they can communicate with each other and makes absolutely nothing faster unless it needs to send information from 1 cpu to the other. If you take the second 5500 out, it will just be a 3500 with a severed QPI so same performance.

What I want to see is 2.26 octo vs 2.93 quad in single or few threaded apps. Thats the only interesting thing to me. For anything heavily multi-threaded, duh the octos are going to win, even a 2.26 vs a 2.93.

Hopefully, the only difference in the motherboards will be the number of sockets. In 2 years, you'll be able to upgrade both equally, with the exception of being limited to single processor if thats what you started with. But if 8 core single chips exist/work in the motherboard then... cool

Tesselator
Mar 8, 2009, 05:44 PM
Hmmm, I'm a bit confused by all this. I thought I understood that the i7 chips were not multi processor enabled. So they like the 3500 series, are limited to a single processor system. The 5500 series supports multiple multi-processor.

It that correct or am I hearing some people trying to lead me to believe that the i7 procs can operate in a dual MB. :confused:

WonderSausage
Mar 8, 2009, 05:50 PM
Hmmm, I'm a bit confused by all this. I thought I understood that the i7 chips were not multi processor enabled. So they like the 3500 series are limited to a single processor system. The 5500 series supports multiple multi-processor.

It that correct or am I hearing some people trying to lead me to believe that the i7 procs can operate in a dual MB. :confused:

That's what I was talking about with QPI. QuickPath Interconnect is similar to AMD's HyperTransport and is a method for CPUs to talk directly to each other without having to go through a central hub. Nehalem architecture requires 1 QPI connection for the I/O hub, and 1 QPI connection to talk to each other CPU in the system.

Core i7 or a Xeon X3500 has only one QPI link so they cannot support another CPU in the same system. That doesn't mean necessarily you can't put one of them in a single socket of a dual-socket board as long as the BIOS doesn't choke on it, but you couldn't put anything in the second socket. It remains to be seen if motherboard makers (or Apple) ship BIOSes that allow a Core i7/X3500 in one socket on a dual-socket board. There is nothing physical preventing it, merely possible anger from Intel.

You need a Xeon X5500 with its 2 QPI links to have dual processors. Later on there will be a 4-way setup using a Xeon 7000 series with 4 QPI links per chip.

kabelabs
Mar 8, 2009, 05:54 PM
Of COURSE gamers tell you that it is "better."

The 3500 series is just Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is genuinely far better than Core i7.

from your signature, it looks like you are geting the 3540. or are you getting the dual quad?

WonderSausage
Mar 8, 2009, 05:55 PM
The only difference between the i7 and 3500 is the ECC memory.

Wellllll..... the Intel Core i7 specification volume 2 contains ECC functions, and the Specification Update contains an erratum that ECC in early steppings is not able to properly calculate which DIMM had failed.

So there is very good evidence that ECC support is not a physical difference between chips but a marketing difference.

All of this adds up to the probable fact that all of the Nehalem chips include ECC support, but Intel is not letting ECC be enabled by BIOS when a Core i7 is detected vs. a Xeon. They're probably doing this through licensing restrictions to preserve feature differentiation between desktops and workstations.

Tallest Skil
Mar 8, 2009, 05:58 PM
from your signature, it looks like you are geting the 3540. or are you getting the dual quad?

Gainestown. 5500 series. Eight core 2.93.

Abidubi
Mar 8, 2009, 06:05 PM
All of this adds up to the probable fact that all of the Nehalem chips include ECC support, but Intel is not letting ECC be enabled by BIOS when a Core i7 is detected vs. a Xeon. They're probably doing this through licensing restrictions to preserve feature differentiation between desktops and workstations.

Wouldn't surprise me. Didn't intel just "unlock" the i7s to take the QPI from 4.something to 6.something GB/s? That would have been just a programing change somewhere, nothing to do with hardware.

And apple marketing the quad core with an 8GB limit... seems like BS to me.

kabelabs
Mar 8, 2009, 06:05 PM
Gainestown. 5500 series. Eight core 2.93.

cool, i had been wandering.

apolloa
Mar 8, 2009, 06:36 PM
dude, you are giving Intel too much credit. They are almost identical (especially i7 compared to the xeon 3500 series)

No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?

m1stake
Mar 8, 2009, 06:42 PM
No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?

They perform like the desktop parts. The 3500 series is extremely close to the i7 desktop line, but the 5500 series, the 3500 series, and the desktop i7s are all the same pieces before they're binned.

jjahshik32
Mar 8, 2009, 06:45 PM
cool, i had been wandering.

where have you wandering??

Tesselator
Mar 8, 2009, 06:45 PM
That's what I was talking about with QPI. QuickPath Interconnect is similar to AMD's HyperTransport and is a method for CPUs to talk directly to each other without having to go through a central hub. Nehalem architecture requires 1 QPI connection for the I/O hub, and 1 QPI connection to talk to each other CPU in the system.

Core i7 or a Xeon X3500 has only one QPI link so they cannot support another CPU in the same system. That doesn't mean necessarily you can't put one of them in a single socket of a dual-socket board as long as the BIOS doesn't choke on it, but you couldn't put anything in the second socket. It remains to be seen if motherboard makers (or Apple) ship BIOSes that allow a Core i7/X3500 in one socket on a dual-socket board. There is nothing physical preventing it, merely possible anger from Intel.

You need a Xeon X5500 with its 2 QPI links to have dual processors. Later on there will be a 4-way setup using a Xeon 7000 series with 4 QPI links per chip.

OK, thanks for the verification man! Appreciated!

m1stake
Mar 8, 2009, 06:46 PM
where have you wandering??

This board has tons of visitors who don't speak English as their first language. Give him a break.

kabelabs
Mar 8, 2009, 06:48 PM
where have you wandering??

mostly just around the house, but i did make a trip to the garage to find another keyboard.

sorry, being isolated out here in the mountains plays tricks on your grammar and spelling. i should go into town and visit people once in a while. it's funny, when you have no reason to spell or think, you tend not to, as it appears. :)

Tesselator
Mar 8, 2009, 06:51 PM
the 5500 series, the 3500 series, and the desktop i7s are all the same pieces before they're binned.

Can you elaborate? You mean they the same die, MC, and etc.?

Abidubi
Mar 8, 2009, 06:51 PM
No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?

Or maybe they were just doing more tests because... they are destined for servers. Or maybe they were having some trouble with the QPI between processors, which the i7 didn't have to deal with.

kabelabs
Mar 8, 2009, 06:51 PM
This board has tons of visitors who don't speak English as their first language. Give him a break.

i don't think anyone speaks english as their best language.

i didn't even think about it when i typed. pretty funny.

oh well, you know, some people have nothing better to do then look for errors then realize what the train of thought was at the time. Tallest got the question, and answered. :)
personally, after i saw it i thought it was pretty funny.


IMO, the i7 and the xeon are pretty much the same clock for clock, the only real differences being multiple processor support. with older chips, the difference was usually cache size and multiple processor support. with the cache not being a factor, it comes down to multiple cpu support. i believe when it comes to 2.93, it is 2.93 across the board with the new chips. one on one, i don't think either is superior, you pay more for more sockets.

WonderSausage
Mar 8, 2009, 06:59 PM
No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?

They're the same. The timing means nothing. That was not development time, that was time to meet die yield goals for consumer platforms, then for Intel to decide whether they needed to roll it out at all given their continuing sales lead over AMD and the poor economy. It was delayed a quarter already for non-engineering reasons.

Core i7, X3500 and X5500 are the same die, period. They're already fast enough, we don't have to fantasize about X5500s being 'special' in some undefined way.

That said, the difference between dual X5500s and dual X5400s will be larger than the difference between a single Core i7 and a single Core 2 Quad, because the dual X5500 configuration benefits from the new QPI architecture allowing the CPUs to talk directly to each other. Again that's nothing 'special' about the X5500s except the expected 2nd QPI link.

Eidorian
Mar 9, 2009, 12:58 AM
I read someplace that Empire: Total War takes advantage of 4 cores. That's whY I'm excited for.Somewhat strange news (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,678150/Empire-Total-War-uses-two-CPU-cores-at-most/Practice/) on that front.

TennisandMusic
Mar 9, 2009, 01:38 AM
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.



* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.





:apple:

So PC users are "suckers" and "lacking knowledge"? I think the definition of sucker is buying a 2500 dollar mac pro that costs about 1000 for the actual parts if you wanted to do the same thing on PC. Once the specs and prices came out for the new mac pros there was simply no WAY I could buy one. I simply could not bring myself to flush that much money just to have OSX. I can do my work just as well on Windows, and I have decided to build a PC. Building a Core i7 machine with TWELVE gigs of ddr3, a GeForce 2XX video card, and basically all around great parts is coming in around the 1300 dollar range. This machine will kill the SP Mac Pro once (easily) overclocked. It is also a fraction of the price.

Apple completely blew this round of hardware. The iMacs are STILL dual core. The Mac Pro's are GROSSLY overpriced. The OS is NOT that much better. I use both (macbook and desktop) and Vista 64 is a far snappier OS for me. It blazes in fact, and I am not sure where all the trash talk comes from. Granted I got in to Vista post SP1, but still...I've never had a single problem with it and it's running fantastic on older hardware. I can only imagine what my Core i7 box will be like. I do quite a bit of "high end" work (video editing, programming, music, etc) and Vista has been fantastic for such work. There is simply no need for OSX, unless you are locked in to specific Apple apps.

jgbr
Mar 9, 2009, 02:01 AM
I am fortunate to have an I7 Pc and a new mac pro coming with 8 Xeon "nehalem" cpus coming.

Remember its more to do with architecture jumps then actual speed.

Course the nehalem based new mac pro will outperform the older xeon due to changes in memory, but raw speed, well, lets see how many manage true multi core programming.

nanofrog
Mar 9, 2009, 02:17 AM
Apple completely blew this round of hardware. The iMacs are STILL dual core. The Mac Pro's are GROSSLY overpriced. The OS is NOT that much better. I use both (macbook and desktop) and Vista 64 is a far snappier OS for me. It blazes in fact, and I am not sure where all the trash talk comes from. Granted I got in to Vista post SP1, but still...I've never had a single problem with it and it's running fantastic on older hardware. I can only imagine what my Core i7 box will be like. I do quite a bit of "high end" work (video editing, programming, music, etc) and Vista has been fantastic for such work. There is simply no need for OSX, unless you are locked in to specific Apple apps.
The earliest release of Vista was lousy, but it's made a great stride since SP1. No doubt about it. And no, I don't think OS X is so wonderful, it puts everything else to shame. It's a decent OS, but if you consider what MS actually has to do to get it to work on so much different hardware, it's amazing it actually works. If the roles where reversed, OS X would have a hated reputation as well. At least a mountain of complaints. ;) :p

Given the cost for the machines, it's no wonder people are so upset. OS X might be a good OS, but isn't worth that much of a cost difference. ;)

apolloa
Mar 9, 2009, 05:15 AM
Right, as you all say you know better. I want explicit documented proof that the cores from the i7 and Nehalem 5500 are EXACTLY the same as your are stating they are. Your saying it, prove it. Bet you can't.

Tallest Skil
Mar 9, 2009, 05:18 AM
Right, as you all say you know better. I want explicit documented proof that the cores from the i7 and Nehalem 5500 are EXACTLY the same as your are stating they are. Your saying it, prove it. Bet you can't.

That's pathetic. He only needs to pull up a link to an Intel development release to get you to stop being childish.

From now on, let's all preempt that by not being childish.:D

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 06:16 AM
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.


* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.



:apple:

You only need a xeon if you doing very very CPU intensive tasks where multiple cores rock, so like video/music editing, hence why Mac Pros have them. They offer nothing for gaming. There also lies the issue with the entry Mac pro, it is just an i7 model that is way overpriced.

In relation to PC users being known as suckers or lacking knowledge, barking up the wrong tree here mate, you cannot make this statement when your asking about the difference between i7 and Xeon.

in relation to "** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue." If your a gamer....spot on. Sure you can bootcamp, but Apple GPUs suck top of the line 4870 is not exactly earth shattering.

Generally I find Mac users that lack IT knowledge, that is one big reason why they buy a Mac, cause it just works. And hence the high conversion rate.

If you want to get an idea of how much knowledge PC users have, jump into the forums of something like http://www.overclockers.com.au/ and you will soon realize that some of these guys really know their stuff, its because they build their own systems, they research everything, mac users just have no choice in the guts. Just read the forums here and you will see how many users are happy with the 9400 GPU.... its *****!

Someone also mentioned benchmarks in this thread. When it comes to PC users, generally 3dmark is all that matters. No PC user really gives a crap about CPU only benchmark or how office apps will run faster etc, they care about how many FPS they get on crysis. You could get the top of the range mac pro with the 4870 GPU and it will get creamed by a PC running a i7 system..... why you ask? Cause the PC will be Overclocked and will run 2x (or 3x) SLI or Xfire with 4870x2 or GTX285, it will truly humiliate a pro in terms of gaming.

Now if you going to do video editing / music editing the Xeon Mac pro will cream the gaming PC. You average user does not need a xeon, its a waste of money. Cores mean ***** in gaming, not until they write games that take advantage of more then 2 cores.

So to summarize, you could argue that a Xeon is a better CPU if you Need one! It comes at a cost, so if you get one and never do very intensive CPU tasks, you have thrown money away. For 90% of users i7 is a much better alternative, cost v processing power needs. Not a single mac that apple makes can beat a top of the range Gaming PC in games (that includes a $14 000 top of the line mac pro - infact this machine has lackluster gaming performance). You need to buy a $2500 mac pro to compete with a i7 PC, and then only on CPU tasks, the iMac range will get whipped by an i7, that is why PC users might be telling u that macs suck at gaming or suck..... cause $2500 is heaps to spend on a i7 with a crap GPU.

robinp
Mar 9, 2009, 06:24 AM
No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?

Sure they could have done it quicker, but it was a marketing decision... over supply of the old generation so why rush?! Oh and when they do release them they are somewhat overpriced thereby continuing to clear out the old generation.

Perhaps it's worth posing the question the other way. Why would intel bother to redesign a chips core which was specifically design for multi processing? Just why would they go to that effort? All the 5500 series is, is the 3500 series with an extra QPI. They might even be exactly the same, the 3500/i7 have one QPI disabled. That last bit is speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true (it probably depends on how much die space is taken up by the extra QPI)

Macpropro80
Mar 9, 2009, 06:35 AM
i
If you want to get an idea of how much knowledge PC users have, jump into the forums of something like http://www.overclockers.com.au/ and you will soon realize that some of these guys really know their stuff, its because they build their own systems, they research everything, mac users just have no choice in the guts.



Dude, I built my own pcs for years, Im a former gamer. I played in Cal. -i (Cyber-athlete amateur league invitational ) I researched my mac for months before I bought it, I understood that I was making a sacrifice regarding GPU power but I expected the high powered CPU to compensate for it. Also these guys usually don't research anything, trust me If you ask any of them about there computer on vent they will tell you they bought whatever was the latest and greatest for the money. Also I am yet to find an 8-core pc gamer.

ditzy
Mar 9, 2009, 06:46 AM
You only need a xeon if you doing very very CPU intensive tasks where multiple cores rock, so like video/music editing, hence why Mac Pros have them. They offer nothing for gaming. There also lies the issue with the entry Mac pro, it is just an i7 model that is way overpriced.

In relation to PC users being known as suckers or lacking knowledge, barking up the wrong tree here mate, you cannot make this statement when your asking about the difference between i7 and Xeon.

in relation to "** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue." If your a gamer....spot on. Sure you can bootcamp, but Apple GPUs suck top of the line 4870 is not exactly earth shattering.

Generally I find Mac users that lack IT knowledge, that is one big reason why they buy a Mac, cause it just works. And hence the high conversion rate.

If you want to get an idea of how much knowledge PC users have, jump into the forums of something like http://www.overclockers.com.au/ and you will soon realize that some of these guys really know their stuff, its because they build their own systems, they research everything, mac users just have no choice in the guts. Just read the forums here and you will see how many users are happy with the 9400 GPU.... its *****!

Someone also mentioned benchmarks in this thread. When it comes to PC users, generally 3dmark is all that matters. No PC user really gives a crap about CPU only benchmark or how office apps will run faster etc, they care about how many FPS they get on crysis. You could get the top of the range mac pro with the 4870 GPU and it will get creamed by a PC running a i7 system..... why you ask? Cause the PC will be Overclocked and will run 2x (or 3x) SLI or Xfire with 4870x2 or GTX285, it will truly humiliate a pro in terms of gaming.

Now if you going to do video editing / music editing the Xeon Mac pro will cream the gaming PC. You average user does not need a xeon, its a waste of money. Cores mean ***** in gaming, not until they write games that take advantage of more then 2 cores.

So to summarize, you could argue that a Xeon is a better CPU if you Need one! It comes at a cost, so if you get one and never do very intensive CPU tasks, you have thrown money away. For 90% of users i7 is a much better alternative, cost v processing power needs. Not a single mac that apple makes can beat a top of the range Gaming PC in games (that includes a $14 000 top of the line mac pro - infact this machine has lackluster gaming performance). You need to buy a $2500 mac pro to compete with a i7 PC, and then only on CPU tasks, the iMac range will get whipped by an i7, that is why PC users might be telling u that macs suck at gaming or suck..... cause $2500 is heaps to spend on a i7 with a crap GPU.

I think that you are confusing gamers with your average PC user, most of whom don't game.
While I do think that most gamers actually choose to use PC's I think the majority use PC's because that is what is used in their workplaces, and most if not everybody they know use PC's.
Also as for your argument that mac users are less IT literate than PC users, in general this is just not true. If anyone in my family has a problem with their PC I'm the one the ask to fix it.
Plus mac users are the ones to know enough about IT to know that there is another way.

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 06:48 AM
Remember its more to do with architecture jumps then actual speed.


I don't agree at all. I guess if you presented it in that way to every customer Apple would sell about 2 machines a year. :) I'm serious.

Think about it. Here's the sales line:

Buy the new Mac. It's the same speed and sometimes slower than last years model. It does however do that architecture jump thing and we put a new number on the chips.

You want one? It's only $1000 more than last years.

-(Y/N)->____

Macpropro80
Mar 9, 2009, 06:52 AM
I don't agree at all. I guess if you presented it in that way to every customer Apple would sell about 2 machines a year. :) I'm serious.

Think about it. Here's the sales line:

Buy the new Mac. It's the same speed and sometimes slower than last years model. It does however do that architecture jump thing and we put a new number on the chips.

You want one? It's only $1000 more than last years.

-(Y/N)->____

Y....


If i was rich (which im not)

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 07:14 AM
While I understand the general intention of you post I think it's wildly inaccurate.

I think that you are confusing gamers with your average PC user, most of whom don't game.

Almost all personal computer users game. Everyone, raise your hand if you haven't played any games at all on a personal computer in the last 12 months...

Waits...

See? No one! :D


While I do think that most gamers actually choose to use PC's I think the majority use PC's because that is what is used in their workplaces, and most if not everybody they know use PC's.

That makes very little sense. (Notice I didn't say no sense). I have been heavily involved in the game industry as a developer and it's about which platform can cull the largest percentage of developers. The gamers will always follow the games. If Mac suddenly became the most common target platform among developers then "all" the gammers would be spending their time and money on Mac. Every vendor knows this simple and accepted principal.


Also as for your argument that than PC users, in general this is just not true.

Actually it is true. But WinTel users are miserable because of it. Their OS is so complex and convoluted they have to learn volumes of useless information just to configure the dang thing. It's even a badge of respect and status to know more useless information than anyone else in the room. Mac users don't have to learn all that to use their systems and so the user types are allowed to diversify a little more. As a result mac users are less IT literate... thank gawd!

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 07:15 AM
Y....


If i was rich (which im not)

If... So that's a "no" then. :)

Ploki
Mar 9, 2009, 07:56 AM
but if you consider what MS actually has to do to get it to work on so much different hardware, it's amazing it actually works.

i just love this statement :D its so true. and kind of not true :D

brr. if i remember the times when i did a clean reinstall of a windows box. (95,98,xp)
graphics at 800x600 no sound and even keyboard was barely working he he.
so while it does work, it works just barely. :D i dont know how is it with vista
3 cheers for 3rd party driver manufacturers. :D

davewolfs
Mar 9, 2009, 08:19 AM
Aren't the new Nehalem based Xeon's virtually the same as the i7's? Aside from the CPU cache and use of ECC memory, how are these processors any different?

Tallest Skil
Mar 9, 2009, 08:21 AM
Aren't the new Nehalem based Xeon's virtually the same as the i7's? Aside from the CPU cache and use of ECC memory, how are these processors any different?

The 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is markedly different.

Outsider
Mar 9, 2009, 08:30 AM
I heard a nasty rumor that even the 5500 is essentially the same as the 3500 and i7. That the 3500 and i7 also have a second QPI bus but it is disabled (permanently, so no chance of re-enabling).

davewolfs
Mar 9, 2009, 09:05 AM
The 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is markedly different.

Aside from having the ability to work in tandem with another processor, what is markedly different between the two aside from the high price tag?

If you don't have an application that can't max out more then 4 CPU's I'd be hard pressed to believe that the 2.26 Octo is any faster then the 2.66 Quad.

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 09:13 AM
Dude, I built my own pcs for years, Im a former gamer. I played in Cal. -i (Cyber-athlete amateur league invitational ) I researched my mac for months before I bought it, I understood that I was making a sacrifice regarding GPU power but I expected the high powered CPU to compensate for it. Also these guys usually don't research anything, trust me If you ask any of them about there computer on vent they will tell you they bought whatever was the latest and greatest for the money. Also I am yet to find an 8-core pc gamer.

First of all there is no benefit in 8-core gaming (waste of money), 2 core is plenty. Being a gamer you should know that CPU cannot compensate for a weak GPU. To get a very good gaming machine you must eliminate bottlenecks. That being said, it all depends on what games you play. If you were playing counterstrike etc... big deal anything can run that.

I should probably take a step back and say that i am referring to running the newest releases at highest levels, that is why i refer to macs as lacking. If you play older less graphic intensive games, then a mac may be absolutely fine. My point is that no top range mac will ever beat a top range PC in gaming.

Just to fill you in, I have an imac 3.06 but I would never get rid of my gaming PC.

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 09:20 AM
I think that you are confusing gamers with your average PC user, most of whom don't game.
While I do think that most gamers actually choose to use PC's I think the majority use PC's because that is what is used in their workplaces, and most if not everybody they know use PC's.
Also as for your argument that mac users are less IT literate than PC users, in general this is just not true. If anyone in my family has a problem with their PC I'm the one the ask to fix it.
Plus mac users are the ones to know enough about IT to know that there is another way.

I agree with you, I do not think any of us have stats/evidence to show what an average user is. Given most users are PC users, yeah by default that would bring the average down.

I am confident that Mac users get more out of their systems then PC users. OS X just works better for peoples simple computer needs.

apolloa
Mar 9, 2009, 09:39 AM
That's pathetic. He only needs to pull up a link to an Intel development release to get you to stop being childish.

From now on, let's all preempt that by not being childish.:D


Well, WHY has no one posted a link yet then genius? And it's not being childish what so ever, if YOUR stating as FACT something, back it up, I don't see any proof from you on anything you say. And how old are you? 35? Worked in IT for 8 years? Long enough to know that Xeons have alway's had extra arcitechture on them for additional instructions and processing? Hmm, though not.
I want a document from Intels website detailing exactly how the 5500 is no different to the i7.

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:00 AM
I heard a nasty rumor that even the 5500 is essentially the same as the 3500 and i7. That the 3500 and i7 also have a second QPI bus but it is disabled (permanently, so no chance of re-enabling).

If they are that's a good thing! The technology screeeeems!

The only bummer is that anyone using the 3500 series in their designs or purchasing one is getting ripped off BIG TIME! As the >$2000 3500 series systems will have no computing advantages over the much more inexpensive Corei7 systems.

Outsider
Mar 9, 2009, 10:05 AM
If they are that's a good thing! The technology screeeeems!

The only bummer is that anyone using the 3500 series in their designs or purchasing one is getting ripped off BIG TIME! As the >$2000 3500 series systems will have no computing advantages over the much more inexpensive Corei7 systems.

Well that's true in a sense if you discount the memory support features. Even the prices between the 3500 and i7 are the same.

sneezymarble
Mar 9, 2009, 10:21 AM
Well, WHY has no one posted a link yet then genius? And it's not being childish what so ever, if YOUR stating as FACT something, back it up, I don't see any proof from you on anything you say. And how old are you? 35? Worked in IT for 8 years? Long enough to know that Xeons have alway's had extra arcitechture on them for additional instructions and processing? Hmm, though not.
I want a document from Intels website detailing exactly how the 5500 is no different to the i7.

Well, whatever fairy dust magic you think Xeons have over and above their desktop counterparts, the magic hasn't, at least in the case of C2D vs Xeons, proven to grant any performance advantage. I ran some encode, render, photoshop, and Geekbench benchmarks a while back on a single processor quad core Mac Pro 2.8GHz. My cheap little Q6600, when clocked at 2.8GHz, performed pretty much identically.

Outsider
Mar 9, 2009, 10:27 AM
It seems that the 5500 chipset (not Xeon X5500 series) is fairly expensive and it may be shared across the entire Mac pro line, leading to the cost increase of the low end Mac Pro. It seems as if the 5500 chipset can support the Xeon 3500 series provided you use only one processor.

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:36 AM
There are of course benefits to 8-core computing. Here's just one example:

Lightwave3D 8-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 52sec. per frame, Total = 14 hours.
Lightwave3D 2-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 270sec. per frame, Total = 3.125 Days (75 hours).

Photoshop 3 levels of Lens Blur per frame same 1000 frames:
8-Core 2.66 = 32sec. per frame, Total = 8.9 hours
2-Core 2.66 = 108sec. per frame, Total = 1.25 Days (30 hours)

Upsample, downsample and encode all three image sequences to 2 different video (codec) formats:
8-Core: 3.33 Hours Total
2-Core: 10.4 Hours Total

That's just one project and yes it was actually timed. I saved about 87 hours of computing time - my paid time! That's 3.6 days and at $500 a day I would have to say that's a pretty massive benefit!!! Especially considering that this advantage is realized every time I do a job. If I do 5 of those jobs a month my 8 core system is making me an extra $10,000 every month!

So, no one can say there's no benefit. Even some games now have multi-core support. Quake 4 for example!

Nik
Mar 9, 2009, 10:38 AM
Now, what was this nonsense about no benefit?

Excuse me, he ment for gaming purposes.

robinp
Mar 9, 2009, 10:40 AM
LOL!!!

Lightwave3D 8-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 52sec. per frame, Total = 14 hours.
Lightwave3D 2-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 270sec. per frame, Total = 3.125 Days (75 hours).

Photoshop 3 levels of Lens Blur per frame same 1000 frames:
8-Core 2.66 = 32sec. per frame, Total = 8.9 hours
2-Core 2.66 = 108sec. per frame, Total = 1.25 Days (30 hours)

Upsample, downsample and encode all three image sequences to 2 different video (codec) formats:
8-Core: 3.33 Hours Total
2-Core: 10.4 Hours Total

That's just one project and yes it was actually timed. I saved about 87 hours of computing time - my paid time! That's 3.6 days and at $500 a day I would have to say that's a pretty massive benefit!!! Especially considering that this advantage is realized every time I do a job. If I do 5 of those jobs a month my 8 core system is making me an extra $10,000 every month!

Now, what was this nonsense about no benefit?

I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you, but the person you were replying to was talking about games, not 3D content creation.... :confused:

edit - dude, you've just changed the quote to skip the bit about gaming... really rather uncool

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:41 AM
Well that's true in a sense if you discount the memory support features. Even the prices between the 3500 and i7 are the same.

What do you mean? What are the memory support features you're speaking of?

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:42 AM
I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you, but the person you were replying to was talking about games, not 3D content creation.... :confused:

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to clarify what 8-cores were good for and I happen to have those numbers in front of me, so... :)

EDIT: dude, you've just changed the text to add the bit about the changed quote... really rather uncool (LOL! :D)

robinp
Mar 9, 2009, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to clarify what 8-cores were good for and I happen to have those numbers in front of me, so... :)

your numbers are interesting, although you are largely preaching to the converted. I think everyone realises that for 3D rendering number of cores scales performance almost linearly (90-95%)

robinp
Mar 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to clarify what 8-cores were good for and I happen to have those numbers in front of me, so... :)

EDIT: dude, you've just changed the text to add the bit about the changed quote... really rather uncool (LOL! :D)

haha yes, and as you noticed I clearly put my changes after 'edit' rather than changing a quote..... :p

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
LOL!!!

Lightwave3D 8-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 52sec. per frame, Total = 14 hours.
Lightwave3D 2-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 270sec. per frame, Total = 3.125 Days (75 hours).

Photoshop 3 levels of Lens Blur per frame same 1000 frames:
8-Core 2.66 = 32sec. per frame, Total = 8.9 hours
2-Core 2.66 = 108sec. per frame, Total = 1.25 Days (30 hours)

Upsample, downsample and encode all three image sequences to 2 different video (codec) formats:
8-Core: 3.33 Hours Total
2-Core: 10.4 Hours Total

That's just one project and yes it was actually timed. I saved about 87 hours of computing time - my paid time! That's 3.6 days and at $500 a day I would have to say that's a pretty massive benefit!!! Especially considering that this advantage is realized every time I do a job. If I do 5 of those jobs a month my 8 core system is making me an extra $10,000 every month!

Now, what was this nonsense about no benefit?

Swing and a miss mate..... As others have pointed out, Feel free to show me the drastic FPS increase of a 8 core over a 2 core to justify the price ;)

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:48 AM
edit - dude, you've just changed the quote to skip the bit about gaming... really rather uncool

Better?

Outsider
Mar 9, 2009, 10:49 AM
What do you mean? What are the memory support features you're speaking of?

Well the 3500 supports ECC memory (important for some financial and scientific needs). And until we get confirmation from Intel, it's believed that the W3500 series is also not limited to the stock 4.8GBps QPI bus and instead takes advantage of the full 6.4.

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 10:49 AM
Swing and a miss mate..... As others have pointed out, Feel free to show me the drastic FPS increase of a 8 core over a 2 core to justify the price ;)

How can anyone justify any price difference when discussing $30 games? How about that the machine made me enough money to buy the mostest awesomest gaming box on the planet?? - every month!! No?

Well the 3500 supports ECC memory (important for some financial and scientific needs). And until we get confirmation from Intel, it's believed that the W3500 series is also not limited to the stock 4.8GBps QPI bus and instead takes advantage of the full 6.4.

Hmm, Kewl! Thanks for that. Let's wait and see then. Oughtta be interesting. :)

nanofrog
Mar 9, 2009, 10:51 AM
i just love this statement :D its so true. and kind of not true :D

brr. if i remember the times when i did a clean reinstall of a windows box. (95,98,xp)
graphics at 800x600 no sound and even keyboard was barely working he he.
so while it does work, it works just barely. :D i dont know how is it with vista
3 cheers for 3rd party driver manufacturers. :D
I've had plenty of difficulties of one sort or another in the past with windows. ;)

Vista started out badly, but since SP1, it's made a marked improvement. Even better than my experiences with XP.:eek:

And yes, 3rd party drivers are nice. Also quite necessary, as MS depends on them, probably as much, or even more than we do. :p
The 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is markedly different.
Yes, the W35xx is an i7 with ECC. Gainestown isn't as different as you might think. :eek: Take a W35xx and add a second QPI.

It's an architectural family, just some features are varied between parts. Classic systems engineering. ;)
I heard a nasty rumor that even the 5500 is essentially the same as the 3500 and i7. That the 3500 and i7 also have a second QPI bus but it is disabled (permanently, so no chance of re-enabling).
From a systems POV, Yes. :eek: :D
What do you mean? What are the memory support features you're speaking of?
ECC

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 11:00 AM
ECC

And, maybe a faster QPI bus?

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 11:03 AM
How can anyone justify any price difference when discussing $30 games? How about that the machine made me enough money to buy the mostest awesomest gaming box on the planet?? - every month!! No?
:)

You point is again?

My point was that for gaming purposes a 8 core is a waste, this is the point u had a go at me for. If you mostly game, get a 2 core

8 core is great for heavy grunt work, if you make money out of video/music get a 8 core.

You income is irrelevant, my MBA makes me heaps each month... who cares! ..... why would you want to buy the mostest awesomest gaming box on the planet when you have your almighty 8 core??? could it be that its lacking in gaming....????

nanofrog
Mar 9, 2009, 11:05 AM
And, maybe a faster QPI bus?
Depends on the specific parts in question.

If you compare Core i7's with the W35xx, clock per clock being equal, only ECC is added to the W35xx parts. But if you're comparing the bottom 2 Core i7's with the W3570, then Yes, the QPI speed is different. As well as an unlocked multiplier to make it easier to OC the sucker. :D :p

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 11:11 AM
You point is again?

My point was that for gaming purposes a 8 core is a waste, this is the point u had a go at me for. If you mostly game, get a 2 core

8 core is great for heavy grunt work, if you make money out of video/music get a 8 core.

You income is irrelevant, my MBA makes me heaps each month... who cares! ..... why would you want to buy the mostest awesomest gaming box on the planet when you have your almighty 8 core??? could it be that its lacking in gaming....????

Yeah, I think you'e basically right. But just to be clear I wasn't really having a go at you. I was while writing the 1st 1/2 of the message till I saw the word "game". I forgot to reshape the message till I was reminded again by someone - (after posting). :D I wanted to say that there is a huge difference between 8-care and 2 or 4 core systems as a blanket generality and was using your post as a jumping in point. As i read here in the past several days (since the new releases) I'm reading a lot of people who are missing this very accepted bit of fact. :)

Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out on it. Not intentional bro! :)



Depends on the specific parts in question.
...
...
As well as an unlocked multiplier to make it easier to OC the sucker. :D :p

Oh, Sweet!
Thanks!

MH01
Mar 9, 2009, 11:20 AM
Yeah, I think you'e basically right. But just to be clear I wasn't really having a go at you. I was while writing the 1st 1/2 of the message till I saw the word "game". I forgot to reshape the message till I was reminded again by someone - (after posting). :D I wanted to say that there is a huge difference between 8-care and 2 or 4 core systems as a blanket generality and was using your post as a jumping in point. As i read here in the past several days (since the new releases) I'm reading a lot of people who are missing this very accepted bit of fact. :)

Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out on it. Not intentional bro! :)

Thanks!

Hey No Probs :)

We agree on the same points.

nateDEEZY
Mar 9, 2009, 11:29 AM
They (Core i7 and Xeon) are absolutely identical except for the number of QPI links. Core i7 and Xeon X3500 have 1 link, Xeon X5500 has 2 links, forthcoming 4-way chips will have 4 links.

There is absolutely no performance difference between a Core i7 and Xeon X3500 (or a single X5500) at the same clock speed with the same memory speed, on any type of app, game or otherwise. They use the same core.

Likewise on a single-threaded app there is no difference between Core i7, Xeon X3500 and Xeon X5500. Once you get 2 or more threads on a dual X5500 the threads are allocated CPUA-CPUB-A-B... etc. so some differences would start to emerge.

QFT.
/Thread



And apple marketing the quad core with an 8GB limit... seems like BS to me.

It's not like they're "marketing" it, it just happens to be a rather underwhelming mobo. Apple dropped the ball on the single cpu Mac Pro.

sneezymarble
Mar 9, 2009, 12:26 PM
There are of course benefits to 8-core computing. Here's just one example:

Lightwave3D 8-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 52sec. per frame, Total = 14 hours.
Lightwave3D 2-core render 1024x720 at 1000 frames: 270sec. per frame, Total = 3.125 Days (75 hours).

Photoshop 3 levels of Lens Blur per frame same 1000 frames:
8-Core 2.66 = 32sec. per frame, Total = 8.9 hours
2-Core 2.66 = 108sec. per frame, Total = 1.25 Days (30 hours)

Upsample, downsample and encode all three image sequences to 2 different video (codec) formats:
8-Core: 3.33 Hours Total
2-Core: 10.4 Hours Total

That's just one project and yes it was actually timed. I saved about 87 hours of computing time - my paid time! That's 3.6 days and at $500 a day I would have to say that's a pretty massive benefit!!! Especially considering that this advantage is realized every time I do a job. If I do 5 of those jobs a month my 8 core system is making me an extra $10,000 every month!

So, no one can say there's no benefit. Even some games now have multi-core support. Quake 4 for example!

I hope nobody doubts that the number of cores improves performance in heavily multithreaded processes. However, what's at issue here is the belief that the Nehalem Xeon's are better performing chips than their desktop counterparts.

cmaier
Mar 9, 2009, 12:27 PM
Perhaps it's worth posing the question the other way. Why would intel bother to redesign a chips core which was specifically design for multi processing? Just why would they go to that effort? All the 5500 series is, is the 3500 series with an extra QPI. They might even be exactly the same, the 3500/i7 have one QPI disabled. That last bit is speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true (it probably depends on how much die space is taken up by the extra QPI)

I was one of the dudes at AMD that designed Opteron/Athlon 64. From the start, it was designed so as to permit multiple cores - the "core" as a separate unit from the "northbridge" (which provides the hypertransport links, equivalent to QPI). We then had different variations with multiple numbers of links, multiple cores, etc. In theory we could have just mucked about with the I/O's and northbridge and left the core the same.

When we taped out a new chip with more (or fewer) hypertransport links, we always changed the core, too. These changes were not typically major - we'd fix things like bad timing paths (to allow a better clock speed distribution), minor bug fixes, sometimes we'd tweak an architectural feature, or improve an electromigration or IR problem for improved reliability or speed.

So, almost certainly, something changed in the core. And, almost certainly, it is nothing too important in terms of performance. (One other thing - I'm pretty sure we never disabled links to sell higher end chips as lower end chips. The links do take up a fair amount of die space and complicate packaging.)

robinp
Mar 9, 2009, 12:41 PM
I was one of the dudes at AMD that designed Opteron/Athlon 64. From the start, it was designed so as to permit multiple cores - the "core" as a separate unit from the "northbridge" (which provides the hypertransport links, equivalent to QPI). We then had different variations with multiple numbers of links, multiple cores, etc. In theory we could have just mucked about with the I/O's and northbridge and left the core the same.

When we taped out a new chip with more (or fewer) hypertransport links, we always changed the core, too. These changes were not typically major - we'd fix things like bad timing paths (to allow a better clock speed distribution), minor bug fixes, sometimes we'd tweak an architectural feature, or improve an electromigration or IR problem for improved reliability or speed.

So, almost certainly, something changed in the core. And, almost certainly, it is nothing too important in terms of performance. (One other thing - I'm pretty sure we never disabled links to sell higher end chips as lower end chips. The links do take up a fair amount of die space and complicate packaging.)

Thank you for your very interesting reply. Really good to hear from someone who really knows their stuff.

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 01:09 PM
Yes, thank you cmaier!

How kewl is that?!?

cmaier
Mar 9, 2009, 01:16 PM
Working on that first Opteron was a lot of fun - making up x86-64 as we went along, thinking about power consumption for the first time, and grappling with physics we hadn't seen before.

Sadly, after 9+ years at AMD, I left and am now a lawyer. :-(

I just wish things hadn't gone so horribly wrong at AMD - we were way ahead of Intel for quite awhile, but squandered the whole thing.

Umbongo
Mar 9, 2009, 01:47 PM
QFT.
/Thread




It's not like they're "marketing" it, it just happens to be a rather underwhelming mobo. Apple dropped the ball on the single cpu Mac Pro.

They are marketing it as an 8GB limit. It should support the 4GB DIMMs that are available on the 8 core and it will likely support the upcomming 8GB DIMMs.

Macpropro80
Mar 9, 2009, 02:09 PM
First of all there is no benefit in 8-core gaming (waste of money), 2 core is plenty. Being a gamer you should know that CPU cannot compensate for a weak GPU. To get a very good gaming machine you must eliminate bottlenecks. That being said, it all depends on what games you play. If you were playing counterstrike etc... big deal anything can run that.

I should probably take a step back and say that i am referring to running the newest releases at highest levels, that is why i refer to macs as lacking. If you play older less graphic intensive games, then a mac may be absolutely fine. My point is that no top range mac will ever beat a top range PC in gaming.

Just to fill you in, I have an imac 3.06 but I would never get rid of my gaming PC.

My gaming pc is from the Pentium 4 (Pre HT) era, But its no longer for gaming, its now my Ubuntu box.

Macpropro80
Mar 9, 2009, 02:11 PM
Im Sorry I asked this question, This became a gamer vs mac user attack-fest. Plz close the thread!

davewolfs
Mar 9, 2009, 02:20 PM
Everyone here keeps saying that the 55xx series has a significant advantage over the i7 and 35xx series. Again, where is the proof in the pudding, as far as I can tell they are the same aside from one supporting multiple GPU's while the other cannot.

The extreme i7 also supports the high speed QPI which has been shown not to offer that much of an improvement, this all seems like snake oil to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

Tallest Skil
Mar 9, 2009, 02:22 PM
Im Sorry I asked this question, This became a gamer vs mac user attack-fest. Plz close the thread!

Did you think that it would be anything else? :D

Sorry to see that it did degenerate; there are non-gaming reasons to talk about Bloomfield, sure, but it is apparent that no one here touting its benefits gets them.

Ferrari904
Mar 9, 2009, 02:23 PM
I just ordered the new Mac Pro five minutes ago. I'm a gamer on the side and like to play games like Crysis, Far Cry 2, and FEAR 2. Though I think having a mac has more benefits then running a pimped out gaming computer. I like having my cake and eating too.:)

Tesselator
Mar 9, 2009, 03:12 PM
Working on that first Opteron was a lot of fun - making up x86-64 as we went along, thinking about power consumption for the first time, and grappling with physics we hadn't seen before.

Sadly, after 9+ years at AMD, I left and am now a lawyer. :-(

I just wish things hadn't gone so horribly wrong at AMD - we were way ahead of Intel for quite awhile, but squandered the whole thing.

You should write a few short stories around this topic. I know of others besides myself who just love to read 20 to 30 pages of tech history and the angst of dealing with monsters outside of our control.

Dave's "The Deathbed Vigil" stuff springs to mind as well as a few articles on something similar - to do with holographic memory development back in the 80's.

MH01
Mar 10, 2009, 11:31 AM
Im Sorry I asked this question, This became a gamer vs mac user attack-fest. Plz close the thread!

I would suggest that you do not start a thread in the future bashing PC users within a valid question. You even mentioned gamers.

* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.

Come on Fair go..... I use both so that got me biting.

I believe we had a valid discussion here. The Mac Pro using Xeons is a superior beast for intensive CPU grunt work, as long as that is what you want to use it for. The i7 is a better solution if you just want a stock standard desktop/gaming.

Tesselator's comparrison where really useful.

No on is attacking mac users here. We are all mac users.

sneezymarble
Mar 10, 2009, 12:05 PM
I would suggest that you do not start a thread in the future bashing PC users within a valid question. You even mentioned gamers.

* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.

Come on Fair go..... I use both so that got me biting.

I believe we had a valid discussion here. The Mac Pro using Xeons is a superior beast for intensive CPU grunt work, as long as that is what you want to use it for. The i7 is a better solution if you just want a stock standard desktop/gaming.

Tesselator's comparrison where really useful.

No on is attacking mac users here. We are all mac users.

I don't see why this has anything to do with Mac vs PC at all. Both sorts of systems can use virtually identical hardware. Sure, Apple released Nehalem Xeon systems before anyone else. But, it won't be long before you can buy a similar system from just about every system manufacturer. Even more, you'll soon be able to build a faster system yourself when DP motherboards get released and we can properly overclock the things. What's more, once we get some benchmarks from the people that bought quad core 2009 Mac Pros everyone will see that a similary configured i7 system performs the same. Why is that? Because the hardware is pretty much the same. The question is "Are Xeons better performing chips than their desktop counterparts at the same frequency?" The answer is simply 'NO'!

** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.

And that was perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read. If somebody said to you "Obama is the current President of the US" and then followed that statement by saying "Mac sucks!", does that mean it's untrue that Obama is the current President of the US?

Jouhne
Mar 10, 2009, 12:12 PM
The question is "Are Xeons better performing chips than their desktop counterparts at the same frequency?" The answer is simply 'NO'!

Go look the Floating point number for the Xeon 3520 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115896) vs a similar i7 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115710).
Not the same at all. So there is some change between the two.
Core i7 = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4
3500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
5500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5 (same as 3500)

Frozengeek
Mar 10, 2009, 12:24 PM
Go look the Floating point number for the Xeon 3520 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115896) vs a similar i7 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115710).
Not the same at all. So there is some change between the two.
Core i7 = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4
3500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
5500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5 (same as 3500)

Yeah, looks like the Xeon 3500 is eating i7 desktop chips for lunch. So much for the "they are the same chip repackaged" idea. Sounds like a 2.9gHz Quad core with a 4870 would be a sweet gaming rig.

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 12:37 PM
Go look the Floating point number for the Xeon 3520 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115896) vs a similar i7 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115710).
Not the same at all. So there is some change between the two.
Core i7 = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4
3500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
5500 Series = GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5 (same as 3500)
No information is available yet from Intel on the 5500/3500 parts.

The current Core i7 series is C0 stepping, and a D0 is due out soon as I understand it. If I had to guess, the Xeon parts are D0 already. But I would like to see the part information. Intel's processor finder page is quite handy. ;)

Eidorian
Mar 10, 2009, 12:59 PM
No information is available yet from Intel on the 5500/3500 parts.

The current Core i7 series is C0 stepping, and a D0 is due out soon as I understand it. If I had to guess, the Xeon parts are D0 already. But I would like to see the part information. Intel's processor finder page is quite handy. ;)Isn't D0 just a change on labelling on the processor?

sneezymarble
Mar 10, 2009, 01:02 PM
Not the same at all. So there is some change between the two.

Yeah, looks like the Xeon 3500 is eating i7 desktop chips for lunch. So much for the "they are the same chip repackaged" idea.

There's obviously something wrong with that Dell. Nice try, but you should really look a little harder next time. I promise, there's no magic dust in the Xeons. Give it a rest. :rolleyes:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/101885

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/105385

Jouhne
Mar 10, 2009, 01:13 PM
So the difference is between Mac OS 10.5.6 and Windows 7.

sneezymarble
Mar 10, 2009, 01:21 PM
So the difference is between Mac OS 10.5.6 and Windows 7.

Possibly. Or, something is going on in that Dell result that we don't know about like too many background operations. The take home point is that there is virtually no performance difference between Nehalem i7's and Nehalem Xeons. How that silly belief got spread, I have no idea. I'm glad we now have the benchmarks to start putting that myth to bed. Both chips are based on the same design. The primary difference being the Xeon's ability to be used in multi-chip configurations.

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 01:24 PM
Isn't D0 just a change on labelling on the processor?
Not necessarily.

Parts are refined as they continue to be manufactured, and as it's a new part, changes are more likely to occur. A change from a stepping of 4 to 5 is quite possible to make the parts more stable. It may also be a result of enabling the ECC function (again, stability).

Which BTW, some steppings have been noted in the past to be OC friendly for the otherwise same part.

Eidorian
Mar 10, 2009, 01:27 PM
Not necessarily.

Parts are refined as they continue to be manufactured, and as it's a new part, changes are more likely to occur. A change from a stepping of 4 to 5 is quite possible to make the parts more stable. It may also be a result of enabling the ECC function (again, stability).

Which BTW, some steppings have been noted in the past to be OC friendly for the otherwise same part.I know the small slight revisions and errata fixes that stepping normally incurs but I remember specific mention that D0 was limited to just some silly labeling on the processor itself they wanted to correct.

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 02:08 PM
I know the small slight revisions and errata fixes that stepping normally incurs but I remember specific mention that D0 was limited to just some silly labeling on the processor itself they wanted to correct.
I hadn't spent much time looking at the D0 parts. I already have a C0 part, and it's working fine. OC'd it to 3.93GHz, and it's stable. Temps hit 77C, so not too hot.

As for the Xeon 5500/3500 stepping differece between Core i7 parts, ECC support would by far make the most sense to me. ;)

sneezymarble
Mar 10, 2009, 02:56 PM
As for the Xeon 5500/3500 stepping differece between Core i7 parts, ECC support would by far make the most sense to me. ;)

That and the QPI thing.

Salavat23
Mar 10, 2009, 03:36 PM
There is a difference between the 3500s and the i7s. The i7s can handle faster RAM, up to 2133MHz DDR3.:D

Also, it should be noted that the 5500s are 80 watt TDP units. While the 3500s are 130 watt units.

gzfelix
Mar 10, 2009, 03:58 PM
The 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC turned on.

Gainestown is markedly different.

In reality, all Intel CPUs at the same level of technology, such as Penryn, Nehalem, come off the same production line. Bloomfield, Gainstown, and Beckton are pretty much the same. Intel intentionally disables some functions in low-end models. So it happened in the past that connecting two pins on the CPU actually made a UP CPU turn into a DP CPU.

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 04:08 PM
That and the QPI thing.
We were referring to the stepping differences only. ;) Core i7 uses a stepping of 4, and the Xeon parts are stepped at 5.
Also, it should be noted that the 5500s are 80 watt TDP units. While the 3500s are 130 watt units.
The E5520 (2.26GHz)l runs at 80W TDP, while the X5550 (2.66GHz) and X5570 (2.93GHz) run at 95W. The yet unseen W5580 (3.2GHz) runs at 130TDP. (The L55xx parts run at 60W TDP).

The W35xx parts all run at 130W TDP.

There's a convenient list here (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html) on Tom's.

sneezymarble
Mar 10, 2009, 04:39 PM
We were referring to the stepping differences only. ;)

:p

iMacmatician
Mar 10, 2009, 05:04 PM
Bloomfield, Gainstown, and Beckton are pretty much the same.Except that Bloomfield and Gainestown have 4 cores and Beckton has 8.

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 05:20 PM
Except that Bloomfield and Gainestown have 4 cores and Beckton has 8.
From a Systems POV, it is. ;) Just scale & ECC functions primarily. You can add TDP here and there as well. :p

eelmac
Mar 10, 2009, 06:38 PM
i dont think there is any major differences between the two, but if i remember correctly isnt the i7 for desktops and the Xeon for servers?

nanofrog
Mar 10, 2009, 10:16 PM
i dont think there is any major differences between the two, but if i remember correctly isnt the i7 for desktops and the Xeon for servers?
Very basic, but yes. ;)

Details have been covered in previous posts. :)

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 03:06 PM
Just for fun I thought it would be a good exercise to do a "real" comparison between a 2.66ghz Intel i7 rig and the Mac Pro 2.66ghz.

The reason being, it seems as though when quoting the cost of the Intel rig people intentionally quote what it would cost to build the machine with low end parts and no operating system.

The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.

While this might not matter to the gamer that rebuilds their gaming rig every 12 months it is a big deal to someone who will invest in a high end machine and keep it running for 3-5 years.

So, without further ado, here's a more "realistic" comparison between the Mac Pro and a gaming i7 setup if the gaming setup used similar quality components, priced from Newegg;

Intel i7 2.66ghz Nehalem $288
OCZ Gold 3GB DDR3 RAM $120
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo $300
1100 Watt 80+ Bronze PSU $200
Lian Li Aluminum Case $400
Slim Burner (combo drive) $50
Video Card $100
Aluminim Kb + mouse $50
Vista Premium 64 bit Ultim $180
640GB WD Black HD $80

So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.

It then comes down to whether the ability to run OSX is worth the price difference.

And yes, you can build a far lower end PC by shaving corners on things like the case, PSU, and pirating the OS, but don't fool yourself that it's the same caliber box at that point.

Frozengeek
Mar 11, 2009, 03:12 PM
Just for fun I thought it would be a good exercise to do a "real" comparison between a 2.66ghz Intel i7 rig and the Mac Pro 2.66ghz.

The reason being, it seems as though when quoting the cost of the Intel rig people intentionally quote what it would cost to build the machine with low end parts and no operating system.

The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.

While this might not matter to the gamer that rebuilds their gaming rig every 12 months it is a big deal to someone who will invest in a high end machine and keep it running for 3-5 years.

So, without further ado, here's a more "realistic" comparison between the Mac Pro and a gaming i7 setup if the gaming setup used similar quality components, priced from Newegg;

Intel i7 2.66ghz Nehalem $288
OCZ Gold 3GB DDR3 RAM $120
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo $300
1100 Watt 80+ Bronze PSU $200
Lian Li Aluminum Case $400
Slim Burner (combo drive) $50
Video Card $100
Aluminim Kb + mouse $50
Vista Premium 64 bit Ultim $180
640GB WD Black HD $80

So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.

It then comes down to whether the ability to run OSX is worth the price difference.

And yes, you can build a far lower end PC by shaving corners on things like the case, PSU, and pirating the OS, but don't fool yourself that it's the same caliber box at that point.

Remember the labor to assemble the box, and the skill required to do so. These are value-added functions that have a dollar value attached. And you'll never get the build quality that Apple's Mac Pros have.

Then run them side by side for 5 years and see which one still works. There is a reason why Apple leads the industry in customer satisfaction.

gzfelix
Mar 11, 2009, 03:15 PM
Just for fun I thought it would be a good exercise to do a "real" comparison between a 2.66ghz Intel i7 rig and the Mac Pro 2.66ghz.

The reason being, it seems as though when quoting the cost of the Intel rig people intentionally quote what it would cost to build the machine with low end parts and no operating system.

The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.

While this might not matter to the gamer that rebuilds their gaming rig every 12 months it is a big deal to someone who will invest in a high end machine and keep it running for 3-5 years.

So, without further ado, here's a more "realistic" comparison between the Mac Pro and a gaming i7 setup if the gaming setup used similar quality components, priced from Newegg;

Intel i7 2.66ghz Nehalem $288
OCZ Gold 3GB DDR3 RAM $120
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo $300
1100 Watt 80+ Bronze PSU $200
Lian Li Aluminum Case $400
Slim Burner (combo drive) $50
Video Card $100
Aluminim Kb + mouse $50
Vista Premium 64 bit Ultim $180
640GB WD Black HD $80

So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.

It then comes down to whether the ability to run OSX is worth the price difference.

And yes, you can build a far lower end PC by shaving corners on things like the case, PSU, and pirating the OS, but don't fool yourself that it's the same caliber box at that point.

Plus firewire controller, wifi, bluetooth, and a sound card that supports TOSLINK input.

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 03:18 PM
Plus firewire controller, wifi, bluetooth, and a sound card that supports TOSLINK input.

The Asus mobo should have onboard support for toslink optical and it has onboard sound.

Probably no wi-fi or bluetooth though, so you could add $100 for that.

sneezymarble
Mar 11, 2009, 04:21 PM
The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.

Yes it should for the person that's trying to get identical or better PERFORMANCE! I'm seriously about to claw my eyes out that people cannot understand this. When a lot of people build hacks (myself included) they're not interested in using the same parts at all. What they're interested in is getting the same or better performance for less money. So, they buy cheaper CPUs, spend $100 on cooling, and OC the things. The fact that they aren't using a Xeon CPU or even a CPU that's natively clocked the same is completely irrelevant to their purposes. They simply want to encode as fast or faster for less money. Or, render a bunch of photoshop effects faster for less money. Or whatever.

When I built my quad core hack the quad core Mac Pro with less RAM, less HD space, weaker video card, less ports, and lower performance in every application cost at least twice as much. Did I cheat by OCing my system? Maybe. But guess what? I don't care! It's been running perfectly stable. And by the way, the cost of my system included the retail costs of two OSs; Vista Ultimate and OSX, and it was still less than half the cost of a lesser spec'd Mac Pro. I don't doubt that for some people the case, warranty, and avoidance of "hacking" make an authentic Mac Pro worth the extra cost. They're fine machines. But for other people the savings of building their own system is significant and the performance gained at less cost is even more significant.

So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.

Even granting the system you put together above, with very little OCing, that thing would blow the quad Mac Pro out of the water. So, for ~$1800 you're not just getting identical performance, you're getting much better performance.

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 04:31 PM
Yes it should for the person that's trying to get identical or better PERFORMANCE! I'm seriously about to claw my eyes out that people cannot understand this. When a lot of people build hacks (myself included) they're not interested in using the same parts at all. What they're interested in is getting the same or better performance for less money. So, they buy cheaper CPUs, spend $100 on cooling, and OC the things. The fact that they aren't using a Xeon CPU or even a CPU that's natively clocked the same is completely irrelevant to their purposes. They simply want to encode as fast or faster for less money. Or, render a bunch of photoshop effects faster for less money. Or whatever.

When I built my quad core hack the quad core Mac Pro with less RAM, less HD space, weaker video card, less ports, and lower performance in every application cost at least twice as much. Did I cheat by OCing my system? Maybe. But guess what? I don't care! It's been running perfectly stable. And by the way, the cost of my system included the retail costs of two OSs; Vista Ultimate and OSX, and it was still less than half the cost of a lesser spec'd Mac Pro. I don't doubt that for some people the case, warranty, and avoidance of "hacking" make an authentic Mac Pro worth the extra cost. They're fine machines. But for other people the savings of building their own system is significant and the performance gained at less cost is even more significant.

I have been building and overclocking systems for 12 years. I'm very well aware of what it means to "chase performance" at all costs.

However, many of us eventually wind up in a place where this is not the #1 priority. We want good performance AND we want top notch fit and finish AND we want stability more than anything.

I've been at LAN parties watching peoples "rock solid" overclocked rigs BSOD/crash/lockup/etc.

I've also had to tear down, tweak and rebuild overclocked rigs because everything seemed to be stable until after a week or so when it was determined that system instability was causing problems like registry corruption.

The Mac Pro is no different than any other high end workstation. It is designed to operate quietly and reliably for 5 yrs. I've had lots of home build rigs and ALL of them have needed parts replaced in less time than that due to capacitors going out on motherboards, RAM going bad, etc.

This can happen on workstation class PCs but it's far less common. I have multiple workstation class computers at my wife's office and never have a lick of trouble out of any of them. Could I have built the same PC for hundreds less? Yes I could, but then I'd be dealing with all of the headaches.

Something that guys like yourself don't understand that makes some of us laugh is that some people just want a stable, reliable workstation that's built like a brick **** house and won't give them any trouble.

And they want to boot camp to play Crysis every once in a while.

I've been contemplating making the switch to a Mac for over a year now due to high dissatisfaction levels with Vista. Every time a PC fanboy gets wind of it they want to get into one of these debates, never understanding that I'm a working professional that simply wants a rock solid platform to work on that I can also use for occasional other uses such as running a Windows game.

Frozengeek
Mar 11, 2009, 05:22 PM
Something that guys like yourself don't understand that makes some of us laugh is that some people just want a stable, reliable workstation that's built like a brick **** house and won't give them any trouble.


I've built more than my share of hot-rodded rigs, overclocked to the max, and bragged about my benchmarks. In the real world, however, I actually need to do work. For hobbyists, hacking together a machine for bragging rights on speed versus cost is fun; and they get to pound their chests.

Apple doesn't give a crap about that market segment. It's so small that it makes no business sense.

Like you said, there is great value in having a stable, reliable, decent-performing rig. That's where the rubber meets the road for most of the computer-consuming public.

sneezymarble
Mar 11, 2009, 10:01 PM
Something that guys like yourself don't understand that makes some of us laugh is that some people just want a stable, reliable workstation that's built like a brick **** house and won't give them any trouble.

And something that guys like yourself don't understand is that some people can make those sorts of systems themselves. I've not had a single issue with any of my Hacks. Hell, I haven't even touched my wife's since I built it over a year ago. It just...works. I'm still using the A64 system I built at the end of 2003 and I haven't changed a single part inside the thing. I've never had to sacrifice stability for performance. Not once.

Look, there are perfectly good reasons to get a Mac. You even listed them. Not everyone wants to put in whatever time is necessary to build their own machine. To service it. Some people don't want the risk. Some people like a certain look; an aesthetic. All that costs money. But, at the end of the day, when we're each working on Photoshop projects or Final Cut renders, the fact remains that a person with a well built system is getting the job done just as fast or faster than the guy with the authentic system. And, he did it for less money.

Let me repeat. I'm not at all suggesting Macs are crappy. They're not. They're good looking and great performing machines. I love the OS. But for a capable subset of consumers, building can get them the same stability and better performance for hundreds and, in some cases, thousands less than the manufacturers.

Like you said, there is great value in having a stable, reliable, decent-performing rig. That's where the rubber meets the road for most of the computer-consuming public.

I don't doubt this for a second. My point is simply that there are people that get stable, reliable, and decent-performing rigs for less than the manufacturers by doing it themselves. It's not for everyone. This isn't controversial.

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 10:06 PM
And something that guys like yourself don't understand is that some people can make those sorts of systems themselves. I've not had a single issue with any of my Hacks. Hell, I haven't even touched my wife's since I built it over a year ago. It just...works. I'm still using the A64 system I built at the end of 2003 and I haven't changed a single part inside the thing. I've never had to sacrifice stability for performance. Not once.

Look, there are perfectly good reasons to get a Mac. You even listed them. Not everyone wants to put in whatever time is necessary to build their own machine. To service it. Some people don't want the risk. Some people like a certain look; an aesthetic. All that costs money. But, at the end of the day, when we're each working on Photoshop projects or Final Cut renders, the fact remains that a person with a well built system is getting the job done just as fast or faster than the guy with the authentic system. And, he did it for less money.

Let me repeat. I'm not at all suggesting Macs are crappy. They're not. They're good looking and great performing machines. I love the OS. But for a capable subset of consumers, building can get them the same stability and better performance for hundreds and, in some cases, thousands less than the manufacturers.

Thousands is a serious stretch.

Also as someone has previously pointed out, they've yet to see the benchmarks from a real OS X application in which a Hack beat a Mac Pro.

If you want to build it cheaper, then do it, but you're wasting your time trying to convince everyone here what a genius you are. Many of us could build our own if we wanted to. Easily too.

You can also probably build a much higher performance car for less $$ than what a new one costs by getting all of the parts 2nd hand, from scrap yards, etc.

Doesn't mean I'm going to be convinced that its a superior ride.

sneezymarble
Mar 11, 2009, 10:27 PM
Also as someone has previously pointed out, they've yet to see the benchmarks from a real OS X application in which a Hack beat a Mac Pro.


What are you considering a "real" OSX application? Not that it matters. In systems with the same number of cores using the same chipsets, you'll get the same performance. I hope that's not surprising. Of course, the difference between the Hack and the Mac Pro, is that in the same scenarios, the Hack can easily be OC'd and thus, is able to perform better. Just have somebody with an i7 Hack run Cinebench. At the same clocks, their system will get the same performance a 2009 quad Mac gets. At higher clocks, it'll get better performance. No surprise. And unsurprisingly, this will be shown to hold just as strongly for octo-Hacks once we get DP motherboards.

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 10:33 PM
You know what, you "win". We all bow down to you, as you are obviously far smarter than anyone stupid enough to spend money on a "real" Mac.

Wouldn't it be even better if everyone just ripped off OS X and ran it on their own hardware, putting Apple out of business?

Awesome man.

sneezymarble
Mar 11, 2009, 10:39 PM
You know what, you "win". We all bow down to you, as you are obviously far smarter than anyone stupid enough to spend money on a "real" Mac.

Wouldn't it be even better if everyone just ripped off OS X and ran it on their own hardware, putting Apple out of business?

Awesome man.

Oh please. You came here making the claim that Hack users shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they're getting the same caliber box. I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money. Furthermore, in no way does that imply that people that buy real Macs are stupid.

jmpage2
Mar 11, 2009, 10:57 PM
Oh please. You came here making the claim that Hack users shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they're getting the same caliber box. I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money. Furthermore, in no way does that imply that people that buy real Macs are stupid.

You aren't getting the same box. Again, you were the one who made the point that the person going for all out speed is going to pick cheaper components, etc, but "wins" somehow because their machine benches well, regardless if it uses workstation class components, etc.

Bravo. Guess what. Some of us have longer histories than you of home building rigs and don't care that you saved some money on your hack. Some of us are very good at building rigs but want something that runs quiet, uses top notch components and is backed by the manufacturer. Not to mention that in some cases it literally isn't worth our time, money wise, to build a hackentosh.

It's like someone in the Subaru WRX forums going on and on about how their Subie smokes Audis and BMWs at 1/2 the cost and never understanding that the guy buying the Audi or BMW could give a crap if the WRX is .5 seconds quicker going 0-60.

sneezymarble
Mar 12, 2009, 07:39 AM
You aren't getting the same box. Again, you were the one who made the point that the person going for all out speed is going to pick cheaper components, etc, but "wins" somehow because their machine benches well, regardless if it uses workstation class components, etc.

Bravo. Guess what. Some of us have longer histories than you of home building rigs and don't care that you saved some money on your hack. Some of us are very good at building rigs but want something that runs quiet, uses top notch components and is backed by the manufacturer. Not to mention that in some cases it literally isn't worth our time, money wise, to build a hackentosh.

It's like someone in the Subaru WRX forums going on and on about how their Subie smokes Audis and BMWs at 1/2 the cost and never understanding that the guy buying the Audi or BMW could give a crap if the WRX is .5 seconds quicker going 0-60.

Of course they're not getting the same box. And yes, they do win because they paid significantly less and are getting a significantly faster machine. But guess what, the person that buys the authentic Mac also wins. Can you guess why? Come on. It's not tought...they win because they get what they want. Do you see it now? It's about getting what you want. And that's why the Hack person gets, I'll say it again, "the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for." And just for clarity, since you seem to be confused about what the referent of the expression 'box' is as I used it; it points to the entirety of the machine and not just the literal case.

If you don't want a manufacturers warranty, or a nice Apple labeled case, but do want the same sort of performance and don't want to pay as much, then you're winning when you get that. And, as it turns out you just simply can get better performance that way. No surprise. No "gotcha". If you do want warranty support, Apple labels, legitimate OSX support, and good performance then you win when you get that. See.

But that still doesn't change the fact that when you put the two systems under a cardboard box and have a Photoshop render test or an encode test or whatever and then have some idiot point to the one that did the job faster, he's going to point to the Hack.

nateDEEZY
Mar 12, 2009, 08:40 AM
It's like someone in the Subaru WRX forums going on and on about how their Subie smokes Audis and BMWs at 1/2 the cost and never understanding that the guy buying the Audi or BMW could give a crap if the WRX is .5 seconds quicker going 0-60.

I'm sure most of us do understand why, we've seen the megaphone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Bpy4EvivI) commercial.

Speaking in regards to your anlogy, he knows why, he just thinks they're foolish for spending all that money on a car that they'll never drive up to it's potential.

Apple is missing a mid-size desktop, most people who buy Mac Pro's hardly even utilize it's true computing power and it ends up being just plain overkill.

I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money. Furthermore, in no way does that imply that people that buy real Macs are stupid.

Cosigned.

sneezymarble
Mar 12, 2009, 09:18 AM
Speaking in regards to your anlogy, he knows why, he just thinks they're foolish for spending all that money on a car that they'll never drive up to it's potential.

It's not even that. If somebody spends $100,000 on some beautiful sports car that's their business. The fact that they were willing to spend that is at least some evidence of their wanting that car; and the fact that they have that car is evidence of them getting what they want. I generally don't think it's stupid when people get what they want.

But here's what would be stupid. One day the guy with the fancy car is speeding about. He pulls up to a stop light right next to an ugly looking car. The ugly looking car cost significantly less. The guy in the ugly car challenges him to a race. The ugly car wins by a large margin. The guy with the fancy car says "Well, he really didn't win because his car was ugly." Do you think that matters to the ugly car guy? Do you think that even matters at all with respect to the issue at hand; namely, which one got from point A to point B first? No! If ugly car guy's goal was to have the same car as fancy car guy then he failed. But that wasn't his goal. His goal was to have a car that performs better than fancy car guy's car. In that respect he did not fail.

Or, suppose they race and tie. Fancy car guy says "Well, I actually won because I have fancy car." Ugly car guy says "I don't want a fancy car. I just want to get around as fast as you do for less money." If that's his goal, ugly car guy did not fail in that case either. But, if fancy car guys goal is to have (1) the fanciest car and (2) the fastest car, then he fails; because he doesn't have the fastest car. He just has a type of car as fast as another type of car. But if his goal is to have a fast and fancy looking car, then he does not fail. And if performance was about how fancy your car, or whatever, looked then fancy guy would always win. But, performance isn't about that at all.

Frozengeek
Mar 12, 2009, 09:22 AM
Oh please. You came here making the claim that Hack users shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they're getting the same caliber box. I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money.

If I put a v12 in big go cart with some nice Dunlop tires and a milk crate for a seat, I've got every bit the same amount of horsepower, and far more acceleration (less mass/hp ratio) than a Jaguar. Do I have the same caliber car for less money? I suppose if I don't mind the fact that my butt hurts and it's an eyesore, sure I guess I do. If I want a stereo, leather seats, or to take a date to the movies in it, maybe not; it's relegated to the test track.

Building a hackintosh is fun, challenging, and, like any intellectual venture, like chasing a high. It only lasts for a while, and once you're done you either have to mod it again or race around the internet bragging because the reality is that you're stuck with an often unsightly, unsupported, cheap imitation...that goes really fast. One could make the same argument that Psystar is an awesome deal but you'll notice that Apple isn't losing much market share to them. Why hack a tosh when you can buy an "Openstar" for hundreds cheaper?

For me, I like Apple engineering, and I can wait another 4 seconds for my Handbrake encode. I respect the Hackintosh community for what they've accomplished but come on, while we all want to build a Hackintosh, who really wants to own one?

sneezymarble
Mar 12, 2009, 09:33 AM
It only lasts for a while, and once you're done you either have to mod it again or race around the internet bragging because the reality is that you're stuck with an often unsightly, unsupported, cheap imitation...that goes really fast.

Why does it only last "a while?" I don't understand this. Since I installed OSX on this machine I've not had to fiddle with it at all. It's been going just as long as some guys quad core Mac Pro bought around the same time (1.5 years ago). I've been happily Photoshopping, Final Cutting, Artraging, Zbrushing, and Lightwaving without any headache. Everything's stable.

Why hack a tosh when you can buy an "Openstar" for hundreds cheaper?

Maybe Psytar's systems are a good choice for some people. I don't know what everyone wants. I do know that you can still build a perfectly fine system cheaper than what Psystar sells them for. Home built systems aren't some assault on Apple. Home built systems are cheaper than any manufacturer system. And if you're comfortable building and supporting them and are capable of building systems just as reliable, and you want to do it, then you'll end up with a system that performs just as well or better for less.

For me, I like Apple engineering, and I can wait another 4 seconds for my Handbrake encode. I respect the Hackintosh community for what they've accomplished but come on, while we all want to build a Hackintosh, who really wants to own one?

There you go. If you like Apple engineering, want the warranty and support and are happy with the performance being offered, then it's a good idea for you to buy Apple products. But that still doesn't change the fact that people are out there doing real work with their Hack systems and they're doing it reliably at less cost and faster.

jmpage2
Mar 12, 2009, 10:03 AM
Apple is missing a mid-size desktop, most people who buy Mac Pro's hardly even utilize it's true computing power and it ends up being just plain overkill.
Cosigned.

On this, we are 100% in agreement. Apple has managed to get themselves into a tight spot though.

The profit margins on a consumer level i7 based desktop system will almost certainly not be as good as they are on either the Pro or the iMac.

So, if Apple introduces a $1500 tower with upgradeable components then they run the risk of losing lots of Mac Pro sales.

Abidubi
Mar 12, 2009, 10:11 AM
So, if Apple introduces a $1500 tower with upgradeable components then they run the risk of losing lots of Mac Pro sales.

Unless they limit it to 8GB of RAM, 1 processor (of however many cores), less PCI slots, less HD slots, no optical audio etc.

I think they are going to start that trend, as step 1 and 2 already exist. They just forgot to carry the 1 when they chose the price :rolleyes:

I'd love a single proc MP the same way it is now, just with 2 double wide PCI slots + 1 regular, 2 HD (ok, I acutally plan to use all 4), only 1 FW port, no optical audio, maybe support 16GB of ram (but at a high price for 4GB), and for a lower price. Gives me the ability to upgrade HDs, optical drive, graphics cards, PCI cards for extra ports or whatever, even upgrade the processor so long it's compatible with the mobo. All that for $1999 would be an excellent consumer desktop, with apple's style and build quality + OSX. Considering the quad procs cost $500 less than octo, it wouldn't make them loose much profit. Competitive with the iMac, but no screen, lots more space taken up, similar high-end price...

jmpage2
Mar 12, 2009, 10:29 AM
Unless they limit it to 8GB of RAM, 1 processor (of however many cores), less PCI slots, less HD slots, no optical audio etc.

I think they are going to start that trend, as step 1 and 2 already exist. They just forgot to carry the 1 when they chose the price :rolleyes:

I'd love a single proc MP the same way it is now, just with 2 double wide PCI slots + 1 regular, 2 HD (ok, I acutally plan to use all 4), only 1 FW port, no optical audio, maybe support 16GB of ram (but at a high price for 4GB), and for a lower price. Gives me the ability to upgrade HDs, optical drive, graphics cards, PCI cards for extra ports or whatever, even upgrade the processor so long it's compatible with the mobo. All that for $1999 would be an excellent consumer desktop, with apple's style and build quality + OSX. Considering the quad procs cost $500 less than octo, it wouldn't make them loose much profit. Competitive with the iMac, but no screen, lots more space taken up, similar high-end price...

It would be great if they would release such a machine, but it's probably more likely we'd see a price cut on the Mac Pro than that they spend the money designing a lower grade tower machine.

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 10:30 AM
On this, we are 100% in agreement. Apple has managed to get themselves into a tight spot though.

The profit margins on a consumer level i7 based desktop system will almost certainly not be as good as they are on either the Pro or the iMac.

So, if Apple introduces a $1500 tower with upgradeable components then they run the risk of losing lots of Mac Pro sales.
Perhaps this was the logic Apple used for the Quad and Octo split of the MP line? :eek: ;)

Both a Hack and genuine MP have their merits. Everyone's priorities may not be the same, and they choose accordingly. Rather simple. I went with the DIY route, as I'm comfortable with doing so, and was able to place the savings into other components that I have to add-on anyway. :)

nateDEEZY
Mar 12, 2009, 10:56 AM
On this, we are 100% in agreement. Apple has managed to get themselves into a tight spot though.

The profit margins on a consumer level i7 based desktop system will almost certainly not be as good as they are on either the Pro or the iMac.

So, if Apple introduces a $1500 tower with upgradeable components then they run the risk of losing lots of Mac Pro sales.

There are a lot of consumers who can't justify the purchase of iMac's and Mac Pro's which is why Apple's Notebook was/seeing the most growth. If they offered a mid-range desktop priced around iMac's and had the possibility of upgrading the CPU, GPU, HD and Optical Drives, I think they would gain more desktop market shares. They would lose some Mac Pro sales, but they would also gain new customers.


Building a hackintosh is fun, challenging, and, like any intellectual venture, like chasing a high. It only lasts for a while, and once you're done you either have to mod it again or race around the internet bragging because the reality is that you're stuck with an often unsightly, unsupported, cheap imitation...that goes really fast. One could make the same argument that Psystar is an awesome deal but you'll notice that Apple isn't losing much market share to them. Why hack a tosh when you can buy an "Openstar" for hundreds cheaper?

For me, I like Apple engineering, and I can wait another 4 seconds for my Handbrake encode. I respect the Hackintosh community for what they've accomplished but come on, while we all want to build a Hackintosh, who really wants to own one?

People who build hackintosh's like Apple Software. The components I used in my build cost substantially less than a Mac Pro, but I wouldn't consider it cheap hardware. Average consumers won't migrate to a relatively unknown manufacture.

I would agree most home built rig's are pretty ugly. I'll pass on the cathode lights, led fans, and clear cases with shiney blue lights which is why I use the Antec P180 (rev. b) case :) the P180 is sexier than you :cool:

Umbongo
Mar 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
Perhaps this was the logic Apple used for the Quad and Octo split of the MP line? :eek: ;)

I think it just made sense to offer quad core solutions and then not use $1000 Xeons for them.

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 11:29 AM
There are a lot of consumers who can't justify the purchase of iMac's and Mac Pro's which is why Apple's Notebook was/seeing the most growth. If they offered a mid-range desktop priced around iMac's and had the possibility of upgrading the CPU, GPU, HD and Optical Drives, I think they would gain more desktop market shares. They would lose some Mac Pro sales, but they would also gain new customers.
It would likely cut too deeply into the iMac sales, which is why it hasn't happened. :(

People who build hackintosh's like Apple Software. The components I used in my build cost substantially less than a Mac Pro, but I wouldn't consider it cheap hardware. Average consumers won't migrate to a relatively unknown manufacture.
Generally speaking, those that DIY want specific components, and usually from a particular manufacturer as well. I tend to pour over various specs before buying, as to at least attempt to avoid as many issues as possible. Particularly with cables and dimensions. Sucks if the PSU won't fit the case or you're missing a needed cable. :p

So it certainly seems reasonable that quite a few DIY'ers go for top notch components. :D
I would agree most home built rig's are pretty ugly. I'll pass on the cathode lights, led fans, and clear cases with shiney blue lights which is why I use the Antec P180 (rev. b) case :) the P180 is sexier than you :cool:
Not always. ;)

I stuffed my gear into a full tower Lian Li PC-V2010 (silver). Looks quite decent, and has plenty of room. :) I'm also not a big fan of LED's, clear side panels, and loads of plastic everywhere. ;)

Frozengeek
Mar 12, 2009, 11:32 AM
the P180 is sexier than you :cool:

Yeah, well that's not saying much. :confused:

nateDEEZY
Mar 12, 2009, 11:37 AM
Generally speaking, those that DIY want specific components, and usually from a particular manufacturer as well. I tend to pour over various specs before buying, as to at least attempt to avoid as many issues as possible. Particularly with cables and dimensions. Sucks if the PSU won't fit the case or you're missing a needed cable. :p

So it certainly seems reasonable that quite a few DIY'ers go for top notch components. :D


This ^


Not always.

I stuffed my gear into a full tower Lian Li PC-V2010 (silver). Looks quite decent, and has plenty of room. :) I'm also not a big fan of LED's, clear side panels, and loads of plastic everywhere. ;)

That's one of the few cases I like other than the Antec P1XX series :p The thing that drew me torwards the Antec Performance series it the Dual-Chamber Design and the sound deadning/anti-vibration measures taken into the case.

Quite jealous of that case though :p

Frozengeek
Mar 12, 2009, 11:42 AM
It would likely cut too deeply into the iMac sales, which is why it hasn't happened. :(

I agree, but I think it's more than that. Apple engineers (thanks to SJ) are minimalist designers. The iMac is an all-in-one, the mini is simple and small, the iPhone has one button on the front, etc. The Mac Pro is a nice tower, but the fact that it's a tower, separate from the monitor, has probably got to irk a lot of the Apple design purists. I don't think they want to put a tower, even if it's more profitable at the same price/performace, head to head with an iMac simply for aesthetic reasons.

Plus, you don't necessarily make more money by offering a zillion different models (case in point: Dell). The support, marketing, etc. can be a nightmare, aside from the fact that you'll use up existing manufacturing capacity to make a machine that may not even be in large demand. Compare how many people are hankering for tower computers in Apple's demo compared to those that are satisfied with a fast iMac that doesn't take up much desk space. And desktop machines in the whole industry are contributing to less and less of total hardware market share; I think Apple desktops made up less than 30% of their sales in the most recent quarter. I bet Mac Pros were less than 4 or 5%, easily.

As much as we all love computers, talking about computers, fixing computers, hacking computers, Apple is in the business of making money and they are better at it than anyone in the business.

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 11:43 AM
That's one of the few cases I like other than the Antec P1XX series :p The thing that drew me torwards the Antec Performance series it the Dual-Chamber Design and the sound deadning/anti-vibration measures taken into the case.

Quite jealous of that case though :p
It is a dual chamber design. :)

Upper section contains the board and 5.25" bays, while the lower houses the PSU (dual if you want), and 3.5" bays. Nice cross flow for cooling.

As for the sound absorption material, I really don't see a need for it. :eek: The system I put together isn't loud, and perhaps arguably, might help keep temps slightly lower. ;)

The case fans are quiet, and the Noctua cooler I used isn't loud either. It only hits 20dBA at full RPM. Of course, I chose that cooler based on noise as well as it's cooling capacity. ;) :p

nateDEEZY
Mar 12, 2009, 12:01 PM
Lol nice, mine is always at 20dBA =/ The antec tri-cool fans suck :( at their lowest settings they're 20dBA. I haven't upgraded/removed the case fans yet, but I've been eyeballing a few on newegg.. So hoping it makes it a bit more quiet.

My water cooling system is currently too good for my relatively cheap CPU/MOBO combo :eek" but it's my hope that I eventually upgrade it. It has served me good for nearly a solid year!

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 12:25 PM
Lol nice, mine is always at 20dBA =/ The antec tri-cool fans suck :( at their lowest settings they're 20dBA. I haven't upgraded/removed the case fans yet, but I've been eyeballing a few on newegg.. So hoping it makes it a bit more quiet.

My water cooling system is currently too good for my relatively cheap CPU/MOBO combo :eek" but it's my hope that I eventually upgrade it. It has served me good for nearly a solid year!
20dBA isn't bad for 120mm fans, but quieter do exist. ;) Mine hovers about the same I think. I haven't the equipment ATM to test it myself. Never quite got around to building a sound chamber...:p

I tend to avoid water cooling, as I like the simplicity of air, and particularly, not having to worry about electricity + water. ;) :D Mineral Oil immersion is just too messy, and the "fish tank" look is too ugly for me. :p

m1stake
Mar 12, 2009, 12:32 PM
I'll never leave you, my dear, dear, air cooling.

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 12:41 PM
I'll never leave you, my dear, dear, air cooling.
LMAO! Exactly. :D

Now if chips ran cool enough for natural convection, we could toss the fans. Unfortunately, I don't see this ever resurfacing. :(

m1stake
Mar 12, 2009, 12:54 PM
LMAO! Exactly. :D

Now if chips ran cool enough for natural convection, we could toss the fans. Unfortunately, I don't see this ever resurfacing. :(

Even if it did, I really like the low temperatures. I'm looking for a strange combination of performance, longevity, and price, and keeping cool running components allow me to spend a little more on each computer because I know I can rely on them for a longer time.

Even without the risk of zapping everything because a radiator decided to retire, water cooling is just too impractical and expensive. I'm perfectly happy to not touch the thing for months once it's stable. Watching for algae (LOL, this is not something I should have to consider with regard to a computer), replacing the coolant once a year, etc, doesn't sound fun.

Then there's always the crappy liquid kits that make me cringe when people buy them. D:

nanofrog
Mar 12, 2009, 01:08 PM
Even if it did, I really like the low temperatures. I'm looking for a strange combination of performance, longevity, and price, and keeping cool running components allow me to spend a little more on each computer because I know I can rely on them for a longer time.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't think it a "strange combination" at all. ;) I seem to have the same goal. :p

Even without the risk of zapping everything because a radiator decided to retire, water cooling is just too impractical and expensive. I'm perfectly happy to not touch the thing for months once it's stable. Watching for algae (LOL, this is not something I should have to consider with regard to a computer), replacing the coolant once a year, etc, doesn't sound fun.

Then there's always the crappy liquid kits that make me cringe when people buy them. D:
Meh... Fans do require cleaning though. :D :p

But the lower risk, complexity, and as you mention cost, water isn't worth it. ;) At least a little ethylene glycol can eliminate the algae issue though. ;) It happens to improve cooling too, but at the unfortunate cost of it's affinity for the metals used to make the coolers, and even the case if it leaks. :eek:

It just isn't worth the hassles IMO, so I prefer to loose a little clock speed and stick with air. :D

nateDEEZY
Mar 12, 2009, 01:22 PM
Pre-test your system, Pre-soak your o-rings, don't buy crappy coolant and porous tubing, don't go cheap on a pump and your water cooling system should last you years. :p If people in the automotive industry were this paranoid about water cooling, we'd still be driving air cooled vw's. The most I have to worry about is the pump dying on me and even then there are redundancies to prevent the chips from over heating.

Evaporation and algae should not be an issue, if it is an issue you're doing it wrong. :)

adamkun
Mar 14, 2009, 12:04 AM
Wouldn't it be even better if everyone just ripped off OS X and ran it on their own hardware, putting Apple out of business?

Awesome man.

This is already a reality

Check out the following piece of hardware available for PC Based motherboards looking for running multiplatform software Natively
http://www.efi-x.com

At the end of the day the biggest difference between Mac and PC Is the operating GUI
i7 or eight core platforms are the same for all intense purpopses there is Absolutely no software available built for more than 2-4 core processors at this point in time.

Mac Users - congratulations you have a piece of Hardware that is exceptionally designed althought you've had to pay for the privelege or taken a small mortgage you house to get one.

Pc Users - don't worry i7 is already available for newer x58 MB's the next level will be server boards running dual socket 1366 processors shortly as displayed at the CeBIT show and then potentially you can play with 16 cores...?? (at the end of the day you simply have the ability to upgrade at a more competitive price point)


For hardware manufacturers it's becoming a never ending contest with continuously moving goal posts @ six month intervals between Mac + PC. In reality there are no winners just reasons to upgrade and pay more money for the B side of what you already have? Seriously if OSX was really Gods choice of OS then why invent Boot Camp - that being said it's a damn attractive OS and doesn't crash at the drop of a hat. With Mac moving to intel based processors the difference between the two is diminshing daily with the same Chips, Graphic Cards and other hardware being utilized by both~!

PC users, running one of these Efi-x bpu's and you have the same option as a Mac in reverse = PC to OSX or Linux natively (it's the opposite of OSX to Boot Camp for Mac Users)

Before people start claiming this piece of hardware is a hack, take a step back and look - its a real physical component. How do i know - actually have all of the following at home, the fact is that motherboards coming out shortly will be able to run both BIOS and UEFI platforms on the same MB is an upcoming reality - MSI as an example Folks. . .

Apple Imac 2.0g 2gb ram OSX 10.5
PC Q6600 core, 4gb ram, 4.5TB
EFI-X BPU (@$200 best money ever spent)

The way this is topic seems to be going back and forth is getting a bit long in the tooth - hardware comparisons are like talking about the Sony walkman or 8 track in its heyday while everyone else is watching Blueray or DVD time marches on as we spend it arguing. lets use both OS and move on to something more exciting~? It's ultimately as frustrating as buying the first memory stick from Sony then finding it didn't fit any other device that you had duh..

Extremists = Make the change and buy either unit - for a Mac POV(bootcamp) or PC POV (use efix) become enlighted and enjoy the features of both at the same time :cool:

your choice of hardware is up to you, but in the long run it will be more or less the same won't it??

Wotan31
Mar 14, 2009, 02:22 PM
If all that separates them is ECC, shouldn't i7 be faster because the ECC slows the computer down as it checks for errors.
Please do tell - how exactly does ECC "slow the computer down" as it "checks for errors"? lol.

ECC has no impact whatsoever on performance. None. Zero. It's an extra bit on the memory bus that's read by the chipset.

Registered memory has a slight performance hit. It has nothing to do with ECC. Registered memory will have the same throughput as non-registered memory, but it will have just a tiny bit higher latency.

That tiny difference in latency can barely be identified in synthetic benchmarks. Not you or anyone else on this planet will be able to detect the difference when running your application / game / whatever it is you use your computer for.

jmpage2
Mar 15, 2009, 11:13 PM
This is already a reality

Check out the following piece of hardware available for PC Based motherboards looking for running multiplatform software Natively
http://www.efi-x.com

At the end of the day the biggest difference between Mac and PC Is the operating GUI
i7 or eight core platforms are the same for all intense purpopses there is Absolutely no software available built for more than 2-4 core processors at this point in time.

Mac Users - congratulations you have a piece of Hardware that is exceptionally designed althought you've had to pay for the privelege or taken a small mortgage you house to get one.

Pc Users - don't worry i7 is already available for newer x58 MB's the next level will be server boards running dual socket 1366 processors shortly as displayed at the CeBIT show and then potentially you can play with 16 cores...?? (at the end of the day you simply have the ability to upgrade at a more competitive price point)


For hardware manufacturers it's becoming a never ending contest with continuously moving goal posts @ six month intervals between Mac + PC. In reality there are no winners just reasons to upgrade and pay more money for the B side of what you already have? Seriously if OSX was really Gods choice of OS then why invent Boot Camp - that being said it's a damn attractive OS and doesn't crash at the drop of a hat. With Mac moving to intel based processors the difference between the two is diminshing daily with the same Chips, Graphic Cards and other hardware being utilized by both~!

PC users, running one of these Efi-x bpu's and you have the same option as a Mac in reverse = PC to OSX or Linux natively (it's the opposite of OSX to Boot Camp for Mac Users)

Before people start claiming this piece of hardware is a hack, take a step back and look - its a real physical component. How do i know - actually have all of the following at home, the fact is that motherboards coming out shortly will be able to run both BIOS and UEFI platforms on the same MB is an upcoming reality - MSI as an example Folks. . .

Apple Imac 2.0g 2gb ram OSX 10.5
PC Q6600 core, 4gb ram, 4.5TB
EFI-X BPU (@$200 best money ever spent)

The way this is topic seems to be going back and forth is getting a bit long in the tooth - hardware comparisons are like talking about the Sony walkman or 8 track in its heyday while everyone else is watching Blueray or DVD time marches on as we spend it arguing. lets use both OS and move on to something more exciting~? It's ultimately as frustrating as buying the first memory stick from Sony then finding it didn't fit any other device that you had duh..

Extremists = Make the change and buy either unit - for a Mac POV(bootcamp) or PC POV (use efix) become enlighted and enjoy the features of both at the same time :cool:

your choice of hardware is up to you, but in the long run it will be more or less the same won't it??

Not necessarily. All it takes is a new OS update, etc, and your Hack can't be upgraded, or a driver or EFI update renders things unworkable.

A hack is fine for someone who views building and running the machine as a hobby and is willing to put up with driver/software issues, etc, that might render the machine unusable for a while.

For anyone who counts on the PC for production or other work type activities it's totally foolish to save some coin and risk such things happening.

duck apple
Mar 16, 2009, 02:41 AM
Almost all personal computer users game. Everyone, raise your hand if you haven't played any games at all on a personal computer in the last 12 months...


One up!
I never played a PC game in my 25 years of computing life (my first Mac is Mac Mini 2007). I did played one or two Apple games on Apple II clone.

Tesselator
Mar 16, 2009, 02:44 AM
Wow! Just WOW!

Go download Quake Live. It's free. Then you'll have something to tell your grandchildren. :)

duck apple
Mar 16, 2009, 05:09 AM
Wow! Just WOW!

Go download Quake Live. It's free. Then you'll have something to tell your grandchildren. :)

But I have Nintendo consoles of generations to play with; the life is short.

Tesselator
Mar 16, 2009, 05:22 AM
But I have Nintendo consoles of generations to play with; the life is short.

Quake on a console?

That's like having freedom in jail!

nateDEEZY
Mar 16, 2009, 08:29 AM
Not necessarily. All it takes is a new OS update, etc, and your Hack can't be upgraded, or a driver or EFI update renders things unworkable.

A hack is fine for someone who views building and running the machine as a hobby and is willing to put up with driver/software issues, etc, that might render the machine unusable for a while.

For anyone who counts on the PC for production or other work type activities it's totally foolish to save some coin and risk such things happening.

Anyone who is serious about production, doesn't click update the second it pops up. For example, the IT department at the company I work for waits months before pushing an update through the rest of the company.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

nanofrog
Mar 16, 2009, 10:02 AM
Anyone who is serious about production, doesn't click update the second it pops up. For example, the IT department at the company I work for waits months before pushing an update through the rest of the company.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It can take that long to properly test it first. :D Before implementing it company wide, and causing all kinds of problems. ;) :p

awulf
Mar 17, 2009, 08:26 AM
I don't agree with the whole Mac Pro is a luxury car and the Hackintosh is made out of parts from the junk yard. There are decent minimalistic PC cases out there from Antec an Lian Li as posted earlier. You can get quality hardware components, the X58 chip set motherboards aren't exactly and bargain basement, neither is the i7.

Oh and check out i7 vs Mac Pros with CineBench 10: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7287121&postcount=257

What would be really good if a motherboard manufacturer would make like an OS X edition motherboard, where EFI is built in, with components that are known to work with OS X straight out of the box. Would be 100% legal too, because the Mac OS X wont be included and will just state its' Mac Compatible, like in the olden days with IBM Compatible.

jmpage2
Mar 17, 2009, 09:52 AM
I don't agree with the whole Mac Pro is a luxury car and the Hackintosh is made out of parts from the junk yard. There are decent minimalistic PC cases out there from Antec an Lian Li as posted earlier. You can get quality hardware components, the X58 chip set motherboards aren't exactly and bargain basement, neither is the i7.

Oh and check out i7 vs Mac Pros with CineBench 10: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7287121&postcount=257

What would be really good if a motherboard manufacturer would make like an OS X edition motherboard, where EFI is built in, with components that are known to work with OS X straight out of the box. Would be 100% legal too, because the Mac OS X wont be included and will just state its' Mac Compatible, like in the olden days with IBM Compatible.

If it were this easy in all likelihood someone would already offer it. In all likelihood Apple does have legal rights to the EFI that they develop or co-develop for use in the Pro and other companies can't legally offer it or a variant of it on their own mainboards.

adrianr
Mar 17, 2009, 10:14 AM
I don't agree with the whole Mac Pro is a luxury car and the Hackintosh is made out of parts from the junk yard. There are decent minimalistic PC cases out there from Antec an Lian Li as posted earlier. You can get quality hardware components, the X58 chip set motherboards aren't exactly and bargain basement, neither is the i7.

Oh and check out i7 vs Mac Pros with CineBench 10: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7287121&postcount=257

What would be really good if a motherboard manufacturer would make like an OS X edition motherboard, where EFI is built in, with components that are known to work with OS X straight out of the box. Would be 100% legal too, because the Mac OS X wont be included and will just state its' Mac Compatible, like in the olden days with IBM Compatible.

There are certainly some severe delusions of grandeur with regards to the hardware that goes into Mac computers. You hear these phrases like "server-grade" being thrown about as if they're supposed to improve the end user desktop experience. I only had to read the first 2 pages to get a good thoroughly misinformed giggle about Xeon cpu's and their 'superiority' :D

sneezymarble
Mar 17, 2009, 10:32 AM
There are certainly some severe delusions of grandeur with regards to the hardware that goes into Mac computers. You hear these phrases like "server-grade" being thrown about as if they're supposed to improve the end user desktop experience. I only had to read the first 2 pages to get a good thoroughly misinformed giggle about Xeon cpu's and their 'superiority' :D

There is certainly some misunderstanding about the benefit of server/workstation parts. Specifically with respect to raw performance. However, there are some genuine benefits to server parts. Error checking for one. Error checking is not that big a deal if you'r photoshoping or doing encodes or renders that don't take days. But if you're doing something like running scientific calculations that go on for days, or doing a really long render or something, you would be pretty pissed to find that your data or final render is corrupted or the process was halted altogether because of an uncorrected error at some point in the process.

So, yeah, maybe the actual performance that we see in benchmarks or a lot of commonly used applications don't show any obvious benefit of server grade components, however, there is a legitimate advantage, and I'd say for some workloads it's a critical advantage, of server grade components. I love my Hacks. I get great value out of them. They perform wonderfully and with what I use them for they perform just as well or better than similar manufactured workstations with server parts. But, I wouldn't hesitate an instant of going with server grade components if I needed the specific sort of reliability those parts offer. Now, whether I would go about building that sort of machine myself or just buying a ready made system is another issue.

nanofrog
Mar 17, 2009, 10:49 AM
I don't agree with the whole Mac Pro is a luxury car and the Hackintosh is made out of parts from the junk yard. There are decent minimalistic PC cases out there from Antec an Lian Li as posted earlier. You can get quality hardware components, the X58 chip set motherboards aren't exactly and bargain basement, neither is the i7.

Oh and check out i7 vs Mac Pros with CineBench 10: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7287121&postcount=257

What would be really good if a motherboard manufacturer would make like an OS X edition motherboard, where EFI is built in, with components that are known to work with OS X straight out of the box. Would be 100% legal too, because the Mac OS X wont be included and will just state its' Mac Compatible, like in the olden days with IBM Compatible.
I agree with the assessment that a Hackintosh can provide a lot of performance from the parts it's made, and can be quite stable. (Depending on the builder's skills). Appearance wise as well, depending on what case is used. Lian Li's aluminum cases would certainly look decent. :)

On the PC/Windows side, there's a utility called BurnIn (http://www.passmark.com/products/bit.htm) that can help immensely with this. ;) Perhaps such a utility exists for Mac, but I'd expect using the Windows version first, then hacking OS X would work.

The EFI issue is another story. Apple's implementation is proprietary, so any board maker that attempted to use it, would require Apple's permission. Otherwise, they'd be in for a legal suit, and would loose. Apple won't give it up, as they'd loose out on sales.

In general though, I'd like to see UEFI 2.1 replace BIOS. Now would be a good time. ;) :D (Hint, hint, board manufacturers...) :p

adrianr
Mar 17, 2009, 11:11 AM
There is certainly some misunderstanding about the benefit of server/workstation parts. Specifically with respect to raw performance. However, there are some genuine benefits to server parts. Error checking for one. Error checking is not that big a deal if you'r photoshoping or doing encodes or renders that don't take days. But if you're doing something like running scientific calculations that go on for days, or doing a really long render or something, you would be pretty pissed to find that your data or final render is corrupted or the process was halted altogether because of an uncorrected error at some point in the process.

So, yeah, maybe the actual performance that we see in benchmarks or a lot of commonly used applications don't show any obvious benefit of server grade components, however, there is a legitimate advantage, and I'd say for some workloads it's a critical advantage, of server grade components. I love my Hacks. I get great value out of them. They perform wonderfully and with what I use them for they perform just as well or better than similar manufactured workstations with server parts. But, I wouldn't hesitate an instant of going with server grade components if I needed the specific sort of reliability those parts offer. Now, whether I would go about building that sort of machine myself or just buying a ready made system is another issue.

Oh certainly advantages to Sever components i'm not disputing that, but generally they're limited to Server environments. And in more cases than not offer only disadvantages for Desktop users (Cost being the main one that springs to mind). As you say unless you're running week long renders or mass scientific calculations (Or want to justify an 09 Mac Pro :D) the integrity of desktop components will never be brought into question, and even then i'de be sceptical, especially if the system is not running overclocked. Moreover the quality of components is indisputable.. Anyone thinking they're getting products made from better materials or something is barking!

(We're just agreeing here anyway so i'l leave it at that :) Heh)

sneezymarble
Mar 17, 2009, 11:38 AM
Anyone thinking they're getting products made from better materials or something is barking!

Totally agree.

nanofrog
Mar 17, 2009, 11:42 AM
Moreover the quality of components is indisputable.. Anyone thinking they're getting products made from better materials or something is barking!
That statement's arguable. :eek: ;) :p

If a DIY build is made of the same parts grade, it's not unreasonable to expect the system to perform on par. Desktop parts vs. server would be another story. ;)

Basically, all vendors do, is make a DIY system, locate drivers, and test it. Once they get it working, they begin to manufacture it (reproduced in mass quantities). :eek: :p

Apple, BTW, doesn't make their own components either. No one really does anymore. Every thing's been outsourced. Even designs. :(

jmpage2
Mar 17, 2009, 12:49 PM
That statement's arguable. :eek: ;) :p

If a DIY build is made of the same parts grade, it's not unreasonable to expect the system to perform on par. Desktop parts vs. server would be another story. ;)

Basically, all vendors do, is make a DIY system, locate drivers, and test it. Once they get it working, they begin to manufacture it (reproduced in mass quantities). :eek: :p

Apple, BTW, doesn't make their own components either. No one really does anymore. Every thing's been outsourced. Even designs. :(

That's a gross mis-characterization of how companies like Apple, etc, do this. They might take some parts off the shelf, and for other parts, they will spec it out and get vendors to compete for a solution.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that they don't get an off the shelf motherboard, they have one specc'd out.

Likewise there's little chance that the chassis is off the shelf, in all likelihood they actually specified the design.

sneezymarble
Mar 17, 2009, 01:31 PM
That's a gross mis-characterization of how companies like Apple, etc, do this. They might take some parts off the shelf, and for other parts, they will spec it out and get vendors to compete for a solution.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that they don't get an off the shelf motherboard, they have one specc'd out.

Likewise there's little chance that the chassis is off the shelf, in all likelihood they actually specified the design.

I don't think there's any question that manufactures get things like motherboards spec'd to their needs. But all that usually means is getting it in a certain, sometimes proprietary, form factor with things laid out in a certain way. Generally, those motherboards are still using all the same chips that some other off the shelf board uses for things like networking, sound, graphics, and core-logic. And those are the elements that have to do with performance. The point being that the motherboards that come from companies like Apple, HP, Dell and whomever else use the same parts that just about every other motherboard uses.

jjahshik32
Mar 17, 2009, 01:42 PM
Of course the XEON is MUCH better.

It can do what the I7 can do and THEN SOME.

sneezymarble
Mar 17, 2009, 01:50 PM
Of course the XEON is MUCH better.

It can do what the I7 can do and THEN SOME.

I'm guessing the "THEN SOME" you're referring to is the 2xQPI versus 1xQPI and ECC.

nanofrog
Mar 17, 2009, 03:02 PM
That's a gross mis-characterization of how companies like Apple, etc, do this. They might take some parts off the shelf, and for other parts, they will spec it out and get vendors to compete for a solution.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that they don't get an off the shelf motherboard, they have one specc'd out.

Likewise there's little chance that the chassis is off the shelf, in all likelihood they actually specified the design.
I'm not saying that there may not be something custom about it. Custom specs are fairly common. It's one way one company/vendor can separate themselves from their competition. ;)

The case and logic board certainly are. But in terms of electronic components, the logic board, and graphics cards are basically the same functionality wise. What primarily differentiates them from their PC counterparts, is Apple's firmware (proprietary implementation of EFI 1.10). The HD 4870's are apparently nothing more than ATI's reference design with the firmware changed. A larger Flash chip may have been required, but wouldn't require a new PCB, and all other parts would remain identical. Now the fact it's been customized for Apple, makes it a separate P/N than the PC variants, and not open for resale to others (unless explicit permission is granted by Apple).

The logic board has a custom layout + daughter board, but was made by Intel, and uses many of the same parts used on the Intel branded units.

Keep in mind, I'm looking at this from a systems POV. You can take a single reverence design, change not one part, and create multiple board layouts to fit varying space restrictions. Change a part here or there for budget or a change in technical requirements (i.e. chipset for PCIe lane quantities, SATA ports, NIC ports,...), and there's all kinds of "custom design" possibilities. ;) :p
I don't think there's any question that manufactures get things like motherboards spec'd to their needs. But all that usually means is getting it in a certain, sometimes proprietary, form factor with things laid out in a certain way. Generally, those motherboards are still using all the same chips that some other off the shelf board uses for things like networking, sound, graphics, and core-logic. And those are the elements that have to do with performance. The point being that the motherboards that come from companies like Apple, HP, Dell and whomever else use the same parts that just about every other motherboard uses.
Exactly. :)

There's limits to the components available, and only so many combinations. That said, it can still make a noticeable difference in the end product, and a user/vendor chooses accordingly. ;)

Corocota
Feb 15, 2010, 03:53 PM
I know this might be a dumb question for all of you mac lovers, but I am still on the fence. Which is better for gaming then? mac or pc? I would like to go mac due to the level of customer satisfaction, but I am afraid that I wont be able to play games on it. People are talking about bootcamp, but I am worried that it will slow down the game. can anyone give a struggling decider some info that will help one decide? :confused:

HHarm
Feb 15, 2010, 04:23 PM
I know this might be a dumb question for all of you mac lovers, but I am still on the fence. Which is better for gaming then? mac or pc? I would like to go mac due to the level of customer satisfaction, but I am afraid that I wont be able to play games on it. People are talking about bootcamp, but I am worried that it will slow down the game. can anyone give a struggling decider some info that will help one decide? :confused:

Bootcamp doesn't slow down anything. It's just allows easy installation for Windows. You don't have to use it if you have separate HDs for OSX and Windows.

Simply put an Mac isn't a good gaming rig. There are very few Mac games and if you use Windows for PC games you'll have an overpriced PC with an underpowered graphics card.

That said a Mac Pro with HD4870 or GTX285 (and even the current iMacs) are perfectly good for PC gaming.

Salavat23
Feb 15, 2010, 05:20 PM
I know this might be a dumb question for all of you mac lovers, but I am still on the fence. Which is better for gaming then? mac or pc? I would like to go mac due to the level of customer satisfaction, but I am afraid that I wont be able to play games on it. People are talking about bootcamp, but I am worried that it will slow down the game. can anyone give a struggling decider some info that will help one decide? :confused:

If you want to play games, go with the PC. You will get a much better gaming experience for the dollar.

nanofrog
Feb 15, 2010, 09:19 PM
I know this might be a dumb question for all of you mac lovers, but I am still on the fence. Which is better for gaming then? mac or pc? I would like to go mac due to the level of customer satisfaction, but I am afraid that I wont be able to play games on it. People are talking about bootcamp, but I am worried that it will slow down the game. can anyone give a struggling decider some info that will help one decide? :confused:
If you don't need a MP for OS X software, then a PC would be a better value.

But if you're doing say video/graphics work for example, then you can stuff in a better graphics card (PC version), and dual boot into Windows for gaming (which at that point is cheaper than separate systems).

Pressure
Feb 16, 2010, 07:36 AM
Technically Gainestown has more bandwidth with one extra QuickPath interface compared to Core i7.

opeter
Feb 16, 2010, 08:17 AM
One of my friends told me, that the difference between the Xeon CPUs and the "normal" dekstop CPUs were always one thing: the Xeons supports multisocket motherboards, while the normal CPUs don't.

He said the last Intel CPUs, that could work in dual socket motherboards(when they were available from different manufacturers) were the Pentium III chips.

AMD had that with the Athlon MP (or something similar) and latter with the AMD Opterons.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter anything, since we have multicores now.

Do you remember the Mac clones? There were machines with motherboards that had 4 (!) PowerPC 150 MHz (or even faster) CPUs in them.

Transporteur
Feb 16, 2010, 11:12 AM
One of my friends told me, that the difference between the Xeon CPUs and the "normal" dekstop CPUs were always one thing: the Xeons supports multisocket motherboards, while the normal CPUs don't.


Not all XEON processors are multiprocessor units. x3xxx are single socket versions, whereas x5xxx and x7xx are dual, respectively quad socket processors.

And of course there are other differences, as mentioned in this thread, but the additional features of the XEON don't result in considerably more performance.
i7 and Nehalem are based on the same core architecture, so the almost equal performance does not surprise.

cutthroughthebs
Feb 18, 2010, 12:52 PM
So PC users are "suckers" and "lacking knowledge"? I think the definition of sucker is buying a 2500 dollar mac pro that costs about 1000 for the actual parts if you wanted to do the same thing on PC. Once the specs and prices came out for the new mac pros there was simply no WAY I could buy one. I simply could not bring myself to flush that much money just to have OSX. I can do my work just as well on Windows, and I have decided to build a PC. Building a Core i7 machine with TWELVE gigs of ddr3, a GeForce 2XX video card, and basically all around great parts is coming in around the 1300 dollar range. This machine will kill the SP Mac Pro once (easily) overclocked. It is also a fraction of the price.

Apple completely blew this round of hardware. The iMacs are STILL dual core. The Mac Pro's are GROSSLY overpriced. The OS is NOT that much better. I use both (macbook and desktop) and Vista 64 is a far snappier OS for me. It blazes in fact, and I am not sure where all the trash talk comes from. Granted I got in to Vista post SP1, but still...I've never had a single problem with it and it's running fantastic on older hardware. I can only imagine what my Core i7 box will be like. I do quite a bit of "high end" work (video editing, programming, music, etc) and Vista has been fantastic for such work. There is simply no need for OSX, unless you are locked in to specific Apple apps.

I can sell my Mac Pro after owning it for a year to someone and they will have a 2 year warranty on it... while your $1300 measily dollars depeciates to $300 if your lucky because like you said, you can build it cheaper! I'll sell mine for a slight depreciate and buy the new Mac Pro for a few hundred bucks extra and be current... oh yeah, and not have to deal with windows among other things. PCs are door stops after a year... A MP will hold it's value better because most people who buy and use macs aren't computergeeks... they are artist and musicians and creatives and windows blows for creative work because something always pops up and you have to deal with it...
Your statements are like saying to a BMW owner that they pay too much but they will hold their value better than your ford focus!

blacksheep23
Aug 24, 2010, 04:14 PM
I can sell my Mac Pro after owning it for a year to someone and they will have a 2 year warranty on it... while your $1300 measily dollars depeciates to $300 if your lucky because like you said, you can build it cheaper! I'll sell mine for a slight depreciate and buy the new Mac Pro for a few hundred bucks extra and be current... oh yeah, and not have to deal with windows among other things. PCs are door stops after a year... A MP will hold it's value better because most people who buy and use macs aren't computergeeks... they are artist and musicians and creatives and windows blows for creative work because something always pops up and you have to deal with it...
Your statements are like saying to a BMW owner that they pay too much but they will hold their value better than your ford focus!

Stop whining children, They are all made with the same crap now anyways. If you ask me they all need extra work done to improve them. The only company I've never had trouble with when it comes to electronics is my old G Shock watch..the thing has been running for about 10 years now (solar powered).

Truth is, for 90% of people the i7 would be much better..especially the new ones out like that amazing 980x. Xeon is optimized for working as a server and staying on constantly..as with the error correcting RAM among other things. i7 is actually better for most general multi-tasking and any kind of media (and games ofc). It is also a biiiit cheaper for the power you're getting. Here is a website that goes into some detail about it: http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-xeon-and-i7/

"Core i7 features a better virtualization and digital media experience, which supports photo creation and publishing, video encoding and more complex games."

And heres a site that shows benchmarks as well as power for the money:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

AMD is the best FOR THE MONEY..but shoot a monkey intel is so much faster!

btw, i7 and Xeon both overclock themselves in case it hasn't been mentioned.

Oh, and something you guys might find interesting: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Psystar-hackintosh-mac-osx-apple,8923.html

alphaod
Aug 24, 2010, 04:19 PM
Stop whining children, They are all made with the same crap now anyways. If you ask me they all need extra work done to improve them. The only company I've never had trouble with when it comes to electronics is my old G Shock watch..the thing has been running for about 10 years now (solar powered).

Truth is, for 90% of people the i7 would be much better..especially the new ones out like that amazing 980x. Xeon is optimized for working as a server and staying on constantly..as with the error correcting RAM among other things. i7 is actually better for most general multi-tasking and any kind of media (and games ofc). It is also a biiiit cheaper for the power you're getting. Here is a website that goes into some detail about it: http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-xeon-and-i7/

"Core i7 features a better virtualization and digital media experience, which supports photo creation and publishing, video encoding and more complex games."

And heres a site that shows benchmarks as well as power for the money:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

AMD is the best FOR THE MONEY..but shoot a monkey intel is so much faster!

btw, i7 and Xeon both overclock themselves in case it hasn't been mentioned.

Oh, and something you guys might find interesting: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Psystar-hackintosh-mac-osx-apple,8923.html

Thanks for updating us 6 months after the last post ;)

And the interesting article is about a now-defunct company.

blacksheep23
Aug 24, 2010, 04:36 PM
Thanks for updating us 6 months after the last post ;)

And the interesting article is about a now-defunct company.

OH YEAH NO PROBLEM!! seeing as how it still applies just as much, people question this same thing today as much as then..if not more.

And the point was to open people's eyes. I believe in knowing every aspect of things before arguing as to what is possible and impossible..better or worse. They started a ripple that caused many companies to do the same thing..just Google it and see what you find. I'm not attacking anybody, I just so happen to be the type of person that loves to build/tinker/customize, so this sort of thing appeals to me quite a bit. I hate pre-set anything..especially something as complex as a computer. I only trust quality of products that are built with more expensive labor (i.e. made in America).

cmaier
Aug 24, 2010, 04:59 PM
OH YEAH NO PROBLEM!! seeing as how it still applies just as much, people question this same thing today as much as then..if not more.

And the point was to open people's eyes. I believe in knowing every aspect of things before arguing as to what is possible and impossible..better or worse. They started a ripple that caused many companies to do the same thing..just Google it and see what you find. I'm not attacking anybody, I just so happen to be the type of person that loves to build/tinker/customize, so this sort of thing appeals to me quite a bit. I hate pre-set anything..especially something as complex as a computer. I only trust quality of products that are built with more expensive labor (i.e. made in America).

They neither started it, nor did they cause "many" companies to do the same thing.

blacksheep23
Aug 24, 2010, 07:35 PM
They neither started it, nor did they cause "many" companies to do the same thing.

Ok ok, They inspired people to follow in their footsteps. hows that. Oh, and I never said they started the idea.

Mackilroy
Aug 24, 2010, 08:26 PM
Ok ok, They inspired people to follow in their footsteps. hows that. Oh, and I never said they started the idea.
Not really, without the hackintosh community Psystar would never have existed. There are a number of sites who have inspired far more to build their own hacks than Psystar ever sold.

blacksheep23
Aug 24, 2010, 10:02 PM
Not really, without the hackintosh community Psystar would never have existed. There are a number of sites who have inspired far more to build their own hacks than Psystar ever sold.

oh mah gosh... I was just trying to make a quick mention, not start a new thread. I didn't say they started it, and I didn't say they inspired EVERYBODY. Now back to the CPUs already.

I like the idea of the new Intel Hexa cores; it makes me feel like I can do so much multi-tasking with ease..but is it not enough for the large price tag? I can thoroughly bog down any quad core after all. After Effects<3

cmaier
Aug 24, 2010, 10:23 PM
Ok ok, They inspired people to follow in their footsteps. hows that. Oh, and I never said they started the idea.

Yes you did. I quoted your exact post, in bold.

And, again, they didn't inspire anyone. They were very late to the party.

blacksheep23
Aug 25, 2010, 12:51 AM
Yes you did. I quoted your exact post, in bold.

And, again, they didn't inspire anyone. They were very late to the party.

I said they started a ripple! I didn't say they were the pioneers. And I know for a fact they inspired people even if they were a little late with "Hackintosh." As OS X grows in popularity, so does the Community of people who desire such an opportunity through any means..which is getting more creative every day. Their program wasn't exactly hacking, however. ..now can you correctly guess what I meant by "do the same thing"? I highly doubt it..moving on yet? maybe a thought or two on a CPU? Did you look at my other links? (my guess is NO)

butters1978
Aug 25, 2010, 12:00 PM
This is the kind of stupidity I deal with every day! There is a reason these people don't use macs.....

If you're such a genius, how come you don't know the difference between your and you're?

1zacster
Jun 11, 2011, 01:59 PM
Thanks, Gaming forums are not the best place to ask mac related anythings. My best defense against gamers hating mac is this simple question:

me: "so you say macs suck? Well how many cores does your PC have?"
Gamer: "(insert $250-400 processor)"
me: "well my mac has 8 cores running at 2.8ghz, so according to my math my mac is better then your pc"
Gamer: "macs suck how many games do you have, roflcopter!"
me: "every game you have, I have boot camp"
Gamer: "i have blue leds in my case"
me: "congratulations you obviously beat me do to the fact that it has a blue light!"
Gamer: "your a noob"
me: "and your a moron"

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong, Mac hardware is overpriced and offers little hardware customization and options, MacBook air 1100$ for a core 2 duo with 2gb ram and 80gb ssd and one USB port, very recently I saw a Sony i5 quad core with 4gb ram 800gb HDD cd drive amd 3 USB ports and on top of all that other ports like enthernet FireWire etc. For 1500$ so you compare those and google processing specs of the CPUs and tell me macs are better! And I fro got to mention the Sony computer was 3mm thicker so don't bring up thickness.

1zacster
Jun 11, 2011, 02:07 PM
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.



* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.
:apple:

Not all pc users are imbeciles as you make them out to be, I'm impartial on everything and normally follow the right way, the way that makes sense and that's why I like pc over Mac. I have many reason but will only list a few

MacBook air. A Sony computer with some long ass name
2gb RAM. 4GBram
80gbssd. 800gbhdd
1usb port. 3usb ports
Core 2 duo. Quad core i5

Also on top of that the Sony computer was 3mm thicker and has FireWire cd drive plus windows can run Mac natively and is 99%of the time cheaper PLUS offers open platform and cross platform compatibility and can run any program all you need is a simple 2 minute plugin download. Don't even think about brining up security, if you say Mac is more secure tell me hacking a single password for all macs in the world is secure whereas windows will possibly, very rarely let a virus in past a single layer of security but also allows secure root level modifications without viruses sneaking in.

PS feel free to ask me about my quad core i5 8th ddr3 RAM 1.5th HDD 2gb nvidia gpu card with a 24" LED HD 1080p monitor for 1000$(less than a MacBook air OR a MacBook pro)

hammten
Jun 11, 2011, 03:44 PM
^^^. Thanks for posting the same exact info twice in a row about the sony laptop. I admit that although it looks like a nice machine, it gets discredited by your last post, nobody really cares about your $1000 machine, well except for you :). We all love the back and forth nature of these forums, but a simple CPU difference discussion quickly turned into mac vs. Pc

couto27
Nov 5, 2011, 03:13 PM
hi, sorry to revive a old threat.

what you guys advice, recently i have a opportunity to get a mac pro ( early 2009) basic configuration for the same price of a mac mini server that i was about to buy to use with "normal" lion

i dont do audio or video edition

i always being fascinated by mac pro and i can't make a decision.
for the other side the small space occupied by mac mini is very good because i live in a flat.

sepcs:

mac pro intel xeon 3500 (bloomfield)
2,66 single quad core
3gb
nvidia gt120
640 hd

vs

mac mini intel core i7
2.0 quad core
2gb ram
intel hd 3000 grafics

thanks.

derbothaus
Nov 5, 2011, 03:40 PM
Since you are comparing processors that are generations different you should really start your own thread if you want more responses.
The Mac Pro is old but has areas of upgradability.
The Mac Mini is technically faster (barely) with CPU. The GPU may be a toss up with the new Intel Integrated as the GT120 is terrible and Intel is terrible.
I'd get the Pro as I could buy more memory and a nicer GPU when I feel like it.
What for form factor do you like? It's kind of a toss up.