PDA

View Full Version : 2.66 Quad vs 2.93 Quad Buyer's Guide (Includes Octos)




tome viewer
Apr 25, 2009, 11:08 AM
2.66 Quad Core vs 2.93 Quad Core

Bragging rights only, does not show “real world” performance difference (Courtesy OWC):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/one.jpg

CINEBENCH
14251
15800
10.86941267279489%

GEEKBENCH
9390
10236
9.00958466453674%


Real World Single Thread Difference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/ps.jpg

3x2GB Sticks – Total Ram 6GB
28.78
27.28
5.211952744961779%

4x2GB Sticks – Total Ram 8GB
28.82
27.66
4.02498265093685%



Real World Multi Thread Difference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/ae.jpg

3x2GB Sticks – Total Ram 6GB
177
165
6.779661016949152%

4x2GB Sticks – Total Ram 8GB
177
163
7.909604519774012%



Recent BareFeats Benchmarks:

GRAPH LEGEND
m2.9 4c = 4-core 2009 Mac Pro 2.93GHz with 12G of RAM and Radeon HD 4870
m2.7 4c = 4-core 2009 Mac Pro 2.66GHz with 6G of RAM and Geforce 120 GT

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/im09_ae.gif

7.344632768361582%

This percentage gain is misleading because if the 2.66 were equally equiped with 12GB Ram the percentage gain of the 2.93 over the 2.66 would now only be 6.395348837209303% in this multi threaded test.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/im09_ps.gif

0% Difference

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/im09_itu.gif

0% Difference



Our Testing:

In real world use it is impossible to detect a performance difference between the 2.66 and 2.93. And I need to emphasize the word “impossible”. Five of us used both configurations for an hour each and not a single one of us could tell the difference. Your money is better spent elsewhere. What can you buy with the extra $500? Three 1TB WD Blacks (you can use the stock 640GB Blue for TM) plus add 6GB Ram and have $75 in extra change. $500 off a ACD. A SSD for $300-360 and the 4870 upgrade with it. Once we jumped on a 2.66 with SSD we could feel a dramatic performance difference. The difference is very significant and not minor like the processors. In regard to the VelociRaptor's I would stay away from them for the same insignificant speed bump difference as the processors. Here is a quote from a Raptor user:

“Not a quantum leap over a 32M cache 7200k

Pros: The fastest consumer desktop SATA hard drive money can buy. I was expecting a bit more speed, however, all in all this is a pretty good drive. Runs very cool, cooler than my 750GB caviar black I use now as a storage drive since I got the raptor. I also think its pretty quiet for the most part as I cannot hear it over my case fans, which are of medium loudness.

Cons: To me 230$ is a bit hard to swallow for the incremental performance over a fast, modern 7200K 32M drive. I gave this 4 starts simply because of its price/performance. Here are some quick results using HD Tune 2.55 vs. my WD 750GB WD7501AALS caviar black.

Average Transfer rate:
VelociRaptor - 101.4 MB/s
750GB Caviar Black - 90.5 MB/s

Burst Rate:
VelociRaptor - 182.2 MB/s
750GB Caviar Black - 143.1 MB/s

Access Time:
VelociRaptor - 7.0ms
750GB Caviar Black - 11.1ms

Modern 32MB cached 7200k drives like a WD Caviar Black series are not too far behind the velociraptor in benchmarked speed and you will be hard pressed to notice a real world difference.

Other Thoughts: Price is kinda steep for marginal speed increase over a 32MB cached caviar black. Makes you want to think about shelling out some more $$ and just take the SSD plunge. A newer SSD like the new OCZ Vertex or even Intel's SSDs wipe the floor with a conventional HD like a VelociRaptor. In my humble opinion, unless you have money to burn and don't want to get an SSD, pass on a velociraptor and get a large capacity 32MB cached Caviar Black as you will notice zero real world performance difference, save a lot of money and have much greater capacity. Again the VelociRaptor is a great fast SATA drive, but after my experience, when the rubber meets the road, this drive is not at all worth the price premium over a fast 7200k drive. If extreme storage speed is what your after, especially a drive that will serve as a boot drive or gaming drive, nothing short of a new high performance SSD will satisfy you. “

Note: To make matters worse, the 750GB Black that he used in his test is the worst performer of the blacks. The 500GB and 640GB are faster, and the 1TB the fastest. In other words, the VelociRaptor is even less appealing when pitted against one of the "better" WD Blacks.

Remember all of this is just our opinion and we would love to hear feedback from other users.

:)



chelsel
Apr 25, 2009, 12:20 PM
The digilloyd test is not CPU constrained, it is constrained by the performance of the disk as explained here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-Benchmarks.html

You can't compare CPU performance using a test designed to compare disk performance...

jon9091
Apr 25, 2009, 02:05 PM
Why do the After Effects Render Tests show negative percentage results? Is finishing the test faster supposed to be a bad thing in their eyes? Same with the After Effects CS4 benchmarks from Barefeets...they give that a negative percentage result and yet the 2.93 QC finished 13 seconds faster.

best,
Jon

Tesselator
Apr 25, 2009, 08:12 PM
Almost all the information including even the name of the thread is very confusing. Nothing is easily discernible or straight forward. You get an A for effort and an F- for presentation. :)

zer0tails
Apr 25, 2009, 08:42 PM
i like the color coding. A for that :D

VirtualRain
Apr 25, 2009, 09:08 PM
Bragging rights only, does not show “real world” performance difference (Courtesy OWC):

CINEBENCH
14251
15800
10.86941267279489%

GEEKBENCH
9390
10236
9.00958466453674%



LOL... this first test proves that a 10% clock increase provides approximately a 10% increase in benchmark scores... you can call that bragging rights, proof that the benchmarks work, or whatever you want... but it is an increase in performance directly proportional to the increase in clocks! :rolleyes:

VirtualRain
Apr 25, 2009, 09:11 PM
In real world use it is impossible to detect a performance difference between the 2.66 and 2.93. And I need to emphasize the word “impossible”. Five of us used both configurations for an hour each and not a single one of us could tell the difference. Your money is better spent elsewhere.

If you ran a 10 minute encoding job, you wouldn't notice the 1 minute difference? :rolleyes:

If you stripped out every advancement that only provided a 10% performance advantage over the years, where would you be? You can argue that it's not good value, but that's highly dependent on your workload and your budget.

tome viewer
Apr 26, 2009, 12:38 AM
If you ran a 10 minute encoding job, you wouldn't notice the 1 minute difference? :rolleyes:

No, more like 5%-7%. Something you cannot really "feel". The reason I say the first benchmarks are not real world is because they are misleading. The actual difference is not 10% but more like 5% in real world use. And in terms of "feeling" this actual 5% difference it is even worse because you can't tell (like you can with some other upgrades).

SnowLeopard2008
Apr 26, 2009, 12:55 AM
To summarize this thread is a few sentences, the difference is only felt if you are doing scientific research/calculations, simulations, or hard core CPU intensive tasks. For the average Pro user, higher clock speed makes a bigger difference. But for the ultimate Pro user, the number of cores makes a bigger difference.

tome viewer
Apr 26, 2009, 01:02 AM
Here is a link to another test by MacWorld:

http://www.macworld.com/article/139919/2009/04/cto_macpro.html

It is not a fair test because the 2.93 Quad is using the faster 1TB WD Black hard drive as opposed to the slower 640GB WD Blue in the 2.66. The 2.93 is also outfitted with the ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics card as opposed to the much slower Nvidia GeForce GT 120 graphics card.

eXan
Apr 26, 2009, 01:15 AM
The Mac Pro CPU "upgrades" have always been worthless. Nothing new here.

nanofrog
Apr 26, 2009, 01:30 AM
To summarize this thread is a few sentences, the difference is only felt if you are doing scientific research/calculations, simulations, or hard core CPU intensive tasks. For the average Pro user, higher clock speed makes a bigger difference. But for the ultimate Pro user, the number of cores makes a bigger difference.
Solving bottlenecks such as HDD throughput can make a significant difference. Both real world, and "felt" by the user. :D

For the increase in cost for faster processors, it may be possible to implement a decent RAID setup. YMMV, depending on usage of course. :p

tome viewer
Apr 26, 2009, 02:29 AM
This is getting funny so I'll summarize the whole thing...

Cinebench and Geekbench say the 2.93 Quad is roughly 10% faster than the 2.66 Quad. Is this true? Yes. But what is the real world difference when using applications? 5%-7% Will I be able to notice this 5%-7% difference? I couldn't. What do you suggest I spend the $500 on instead? 3x 1TB WD Blacks + 6GB Ram, or $500 off a ACD, or SSD + 4870, etc. These are things you will really notice. What about a VelociRaptor? I wouldn't.

superscientific
Apr 26, 2009, 02:39 AM
This is the reason I went with the 2.66 as well. I just couldn't justify the upgrade to the 2.93. I also got more ram and storage.

VirtualRain
Apr 26, 2009, 03:18 AM
This is getting funny so I'll summarize the whole thing...

Cinebench and Geekbench say the 2.93 Quad is roughly 10% faster than the 2.66 Quad. Is this true? Yes. But what is the real world difference when using applications? 5%-7% Will I be able to notice this 5%-7% difference? I couldn't. What do you suggest I spend the $500 on instead? 3x 1TB WD Blacks + 6GB Ram, or $500 off a ACD, or SSD + 4870, etc. These are things you will really notice. What about a VelociRaptor? I wouldn't.

EDIT: Upon some reflection, I retract these remarks. Everyone will and does place different value on this kind of thing... it was worth the $500 for me, but not for you. Fair enough.

davewolfs
Apr 26, 2009, 03:30 AM
I've run the digglloyd test in around 18 seconds on my machine.

Here are my Cinebench scores.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
MHz : 3800
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 6.0.6001

Graphics Card : GeForce GTX 275/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 5352 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 21949 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 4.02

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6800 CB-GFX


****************************************************

Tesselator
Apr 26, 2009, 08:04 AM
How can you have 8 CPUs and only a 4X speed-up? (rhetorical) Those cores must REALLY SUCK nuggets.

Solving bottlenecks such as HDD throughput can make a significant difference. Both real world, and "felt" by the user. :D

For the increase in cost for faster processors, it may be possible to implement a decent RAID setup. YMMV, depending on usage of course. :p


A+ for most accurate statement of the entire thread! ;)


.

Mac Husky
Apr 26, 2009, 01:09 PM
* 2.66 quad plus 20% more cash = 2.93 quad = kind of some more speed, you may not notice
* 2.66 quad plus 14% more cash = 2.66 quad / Intel X25-M 80GB SSD = quite a lot of additional fun every day

Agree?!

nanofrog
Apr 26, 2009, 01:13 PM
A+ for most accurate statement of the entire thread! ;)
HDD performance is the single biggest problem for me, as the software I use is disk intensive. Graphics are nice, and CPU clocks are important as well, but if I can't get the data fed to the processor, it's speed doesn't make that much of a difference. ;)

chelsel
Apr 26, 2009, 01:20 PM
How much of a premium, if any, will someone pay for a 2.93 vs a 2.66 in two years? On eBay, Given two equal systems, save for processor speed... I think most people will choose the 2.93 over the 2.66...

something to consider when unloading the machine in the future.

VirtualRain
Apr 26, 2009, 02:26 PM
* 2.66 quad plus 20% more cash = 2.93 quad = kind of some more speed, you may not notice
* 2.66 quad plus 14% more cash = 2.66 quad / Intel X25-M 80GB SSD = quite a lot of additional fun every day

Agree?!

* 2.66 quad plus 50% more cash = 2.93 quad / dual X25-M in RAID 0 = Priceless! :p :D

VirtualRain
Apr 26, 2009, 02:31 PM
HDD performance is the single biggest problem for me, as the software I use is disk intensive. Graphics are nice, and CPU clocks are important as well, but if I can't get the data fed to the processor, it's speed doesn't make that much of a difference. ;)

Yes, I agree, one should always budget a portion of their computer spend on trying to optimize storage... great system performance is about balance.

I think we all agree that this is sound investment strategy when it comes to PC's.

Luba
Apr 26, 2009, 06:00 PM
So if I buy a 2.93 Quad it comes with the better HD either WD Black (32MB cache) 640 or 1TB versus a WD Blue with 16MB cache in the 2.66 Quad?

Here is a link to another test by MacWorld:

http://www.macworld.com/article/139919/2009/04/cto_macpro.html

It is not a fair test because the 2.93 Quad is using the faster 1TB WD Black hard drive as opposed to the slower 640GB WD Blue in the 2.66. The 2.93 is also outfitted with the ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics card as opposed to the much slower Nvidia GeForce GT 120 graphics card.

Mac Husky
Apr 27, 2009, 12:38 AM
* 2.66 quad plus 50% more cash = 2.93 quad / dual X25-M in RAID 0 = Priceless! :p :D
How did I know YOU would add this option :D
The better one is always the good one´s enemy...
So if I buy a 2.93 Quad it comes with the better HD either WD Black (32MB cache) 640 or 1TB versus a WD Blue with 16MB cache in the 2.66 Quad?
I don´t think so, but one with a 2.66 quad could tell us, please?! A Caviar Green system disk would be a no go for me.
So: who went for a 2.66 quad and can tell us, what disk has been in there?! But as I know: apple changes, also.

VirtualRain
Apr 27, 2009, 01:26 AM
So if I buy a 2.93 Quad it comes with the better HD either WD Black (32MB cache) 640 or 1TB versus a WD Blue with 16MB cache in the 2.66 Quad?

I believe if you opt for the 1TB HD (regardless of CPU choice) you will get a WD Black. If you opt for the standard 640GB disk, you may get either a WD Blue or Black (it's a lottery). Last I checked, WD does not make a 1TB Blue drive which is why the 1TB optional upgrade is a safe bet.

How did I know YOU would add this option :D
The better one is always the good one´s enemy...


:p

tome viewer
Apr 27, 2009, 04:27 AM
EDIT: Upon some reflection, I retract these remarks. Everyone will and does place different value on this kind of thing... it was worth the $500 for me, but not for you. Fair enough. Sure, no problem. If you can afford it, have at it. But for someone on a budget it's simply wiser to spend their money elsewhere. (Just not on a MacMini versus a MacPro which was such a funny argument I didn't even want to respond to that.)

tome viewer
Apr 27, 2009, 04:41 AM
So if I buy a 2.93 Quad it comes with the better HD either WD Black (32MB cache) 640 or 1TB versus a WD Blue with 16MB cache in the 2.66 Quad? Like VR said, the 640GB in either machine will most likely get you a WD Blue, a CTO with 1TB will always get you a Black, but do NOT go through Apple for this. A two year old can change the drives and your MP comes with everything you need.

Go here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001C271MA

It is currently $102.59 with free shipping. They also pack their drives very well unlike NewEgg.

Mac Husky
Apr 27, 2009, 06:01 AM
Like VR said, the 640GB in either machine will most likely get you a WD Blue, (...)
VR did not say "most likely" at all. He said "may" - what is kind of a difference.
And as Apple´s surcharge for a 1TB disk is nearly the same as you pay for the 1TB Black alone elsewhere: get it with the 640GB disk ;)
If it turns out to be a Green: get a Black for system disk (or SSD) and use the Green for backups.

VirtualRain
Apr 27, 2009, 11:54 AM
Sure, no problem. If you can afford it, have at it. But for someone on a budget it's simply wiser to spend their money elsewhere. (Just not on a MacMini versus a MacPro which was such a funny argument I didn't even want to respond to that.)

Which is why I retracted it. ;) (although a MacMini is plenty machine for some users and buying a pro would be a waste just like buying a more expensive Mac Pro is a waste for some).

Anyway, I've been a staunch advocate for buying a quad over an octo core unless your workload really justifies it. I see your position is really no different: buy the 2.66GHz cpu unless your workload (and wallet) can really justify it. :)

At any rate, I don't think you got much credit for compiling the test results... great collection!

tome viewer
Apr 27, 2009, 01:52 PM
VR did not say "most likely" at all. He said "may" - what is kind of a difference.
And as Apple´s surcharge for a 1TB disk is nearly the same as you pay for the 1TB Black alone elsewhere: get it with the 640GB disk ;)
If it turns out to be a Green: get a Black for system disk (or SSD) and use the Green for backups.

Hey, you're pretty smart for catching that. LOL I was the one trying to say “will” without drawing attention to it. So let's just say it like it is then... Although Apple is known for changing their drives midway, your MP at this point in time will come with a WD 640 Blue in either the 2.66 or 2.93 config. I have never seen anyone receive anything other than the 640 Blue. I would still, however, get your drive from the link I gave you, seeing that if you allow Apple to ship the base drive you essentially now get the 640 for free ($2.59). It is a very reliable drive for TM. And obviously, if you want more than one do not allow Apple to charge you $300 for the additional drives...

tome viewer
Apr 27, 2009, 08:35 PM
2.66 Quad vs 2.26 Octo

Someone asked me how the 2.66 Quad compares to the 2.26 Octo. I figure I'll post my reply here. It's pretty much what you would expect, the Octo beats the Quad in multithreaded tasks, but not by much. And the 2.66 Quad smokes the 2.26 Octo at everything else. I have put some scores from Macworld below. Please note that the 2.66 Quad only has 3GB Ram versus the 6GB in the 2.26 Octo. Thus if equally equipped, the 2.66 would actually post better scores than it already has.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/one-1.jpg


2009 2.26 Octo vs 2008 2.8 Octo

It also seems there is a lot of misinformation in regard to last years 2.8 Octo and the new 2.26 Octo. I have noticed a lot of statements from one particular individual that are similar to this, "A Mac Pro 2.8 beats the pants off of a 2.26 Octad from 2009 (obviously!) and is lots cheeper too."

The truth of the matter is that what he is typically telling others is false. The Macworld scores below speak for themselves:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/two.jpg



Just in case I get another F- for presentation (because of an inability to understand and interpret data without a conclusion - lol) I better give my summery...

Unless you specifically need performance for multithreaded apps I feel the 2.66 Quad is the better buy over the 2.26 Octo.

And in regard to the 2.66 Quad versus the 2.93 Quad, the difference in horses is so insignificant your money is better spent else where. I would only get the 2.93 Quad if I were the type who needed the bragging rights or the latest and greatest. Other than that, you're pretty much throwing away your money on next to nothing. The improved CPU architecture, memory bandwidth and reduced latency, is what gives you the significant speed bump, not the choice to shell out more money for the 2.93.

twoodcc
Apr 27, 2009, 08:56 PM
so based on the above scores, the new mac pros are worth it

DeepCobalt
Apr 27, 2009, 10:11 PM
That's why I think the real sleeper of the Mac Pro crop is the octad 2.66. It really gives the most bang for the buck--basically beating the Harpertown 3.2 (or matching it), but pre-SL. It is over $1K cheaper than the 2.93, but only 9% less in clock speed.

RebootD
Apr 27, 2009, 11:41 PM
I ended up with the Quad 2.66 and used the money I didn't spend on the CPU upgrade on 2X 1TB WD Black drives, 8GB of ram, 1TB External drive to mirror my striped RAID and had enough left to buy a Whopper. :D

I agree with a lot of the posters on here though that the best money is either:

1. Pro user with mostly single threaded (CS4 etc) Quad 2.66
2. Video editing pro's / research OCTO 2.66. (I wish I could have afforded you)

To me the worst deal is the OCTO 2.26 because if you run any single threaded apps you are 4-8% slower than the -$1k cheaper Quad.

Mac Husky
Apr 28, 2009, 01:02 AM
Hey, you're pretty smart for catching that. LOL I was the one trying to say “will” without drawing attention to it. So let's just say it like it is then... Although Apple is known for changing their drives midway, your MP at this point in time will come with a WD 640 Blue in either the 2.66 or 2.93 config. I have never seen anyone receive anything other than the 640 Blue. I would still, however, get your drive from the link I gave you, seeing that if you allow Apple to ship the base drive you essentially now get the 640 for free ($2.59). It is a very reliable drive for TM. And obviously, if you want more than one do not allow Apple to charge you $300 for the additional drives...
Thanks for your reply. 100% agreement as far as I am concerned.
If I should get a Green with the Mac Pro, it will switch from system to a TM disk.
Or I could put it into my coming Synology NAS.
Going for Black ones and a SSD for the Mac Pro at short term.

tome viewer
Apr 28, 2009, 08:31 AM
Final Suggestions:

As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.

Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.

What about the 2.26 Octo? Look at the scores and you will see the 2.26 Octo is a very poor all around performer next to the 2.66 Quad. So slow, in fact, the machine will feel outdated if not exclusively in multi thread. Make sure, then, that you really need the multi thread performance and you are willing to pay the price. Simply, you would only consider the 2.26 Octo if you could not afford the 2.66 Octo, because in everything else it'll feel outdated and you'll most likely wind up frustrated.

Okay, so if the 2.26 Octo is a very specific needs purchase, and the 2.66 Quad is a pretty remarkable buy, won't the 2.93 Quad be the middle ground, a happy medium between the two? No. It is cut and dry, you either want the 2.66 Quad or 2.66 Octo. There is no medium, because the 2.93 does not warrant the price, Quad or Octo. Get yourself a new Ikea desk and chair if you want to "feel" a difference.

What about the 2.8 Octo everyone is recommending? Honest to God, that is the worst buy of the bunch. The 2.26 Octo already feels outdated next to the 2.66 Quad, which makes the 2.8 Octo even worse. Look at the scores here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/three.jpg

So if you are even considering the 2.8 Octo, get the 2.66 Quad. The 2.66 Quad is an all around better performer, and where the 2.8 Octo is better, it is marginal. Remember, the 2.26 Octo already feels slow next to the 2.66 Quad, so the 2.8 Octo will feel like molasses, seeing that it is even slower than the 2.26 in single threaded apps, and only marginally faster than the 2.66 Quad in a very few multi threaded applications.

The bottom line is the 2.66 Octo or Quad are the best buys - period - no exceptions - unless you like throwing away money or your ego needs the boost. Contemplating the 2.93 on either end is a waste of money. The 2.26 Octo requires a very specific application and usage to be justified, and the 2.8 Octo is not even worth looking at seeing that the 2.66 Quad takes it at almost everything, and keeps pace with it even in multi thread.

chelsel
Apr 28, 2009, 09:21 AM
Trust me, if you're running Eclipse on OS X, you need every ounce of computing power possible... in this case the quad 2.93 is worth every cent :D

VirtualRain
Apr 28, 2009, 11:45 AM
As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.


Can you use regular size text like the rest of us?! :confused:

Also, you should stop making blanket generalizations. What's good value in your mind is not ideal for everyone. Believe it or not, there are people that place different value on things than you! Just because you can't "feel it" doesn't mean others cannot benefit from it.

As I've said before, there are people who's workload doesn't need more than a Mac Mini... so buying any kind of Mac Pro is a waste. Similarly there are those who would find a Quad sufficient and others who could benefit from an Octo core. And of those who are ideally suited for a quad, some may find value in a high clock speed while others might not. Choice is good. Your posts would be more valueable if you were in tune with the needs of your audience and not just pushing your own values on everyone in 18pt text.

tome viewer
Apr 28, 2009, 12:35 PM
Can you use regular size text like the rest of us?! :confused:

Also, you should stop making blanket generalizations. What's good value in your mind is not ideal for everyone. Believe it or not, there are people that place different value on things than you! Just because you can't "feel it" doesn't mean others cannot benefit from it.

As I've said before, there are people who's workload doesn't need more than a Mac Mini... so buying any kind of Mac Pro is a waste. Similarly there are those who would find a Quad sufficient and others who could benefit from an Octo core. And of those who are ideally suited for a quad, some may find value in a high clock speed while others might not. Choice is good. Your posts would be more valueable if you were in tune with the needs of your audience and not just pushing your own values on everyone in 18pt text.

I see, you are taking it personal all over again, which explains your constant insulting reactions, which you seem to withdraw when you feel it makes you look bad. Buddy, this is merely a voice of reason based on benchmarks. Unlike the voice of your ego which keeps insisting the 2.93 is the only way, and tries to rub it in everyone's face. You have even done this in this thread. Many are professionals here, and they work for a living. They are realistic and practical, not out to make themselves feel better than others by the power of their computer, nor spend all of their days posting on a forum to appear as a Mac god or guru to themselves and others. Don't worry I will be out of here soon, you will have your territory back. I only wanted to post some information for the professionals who need to make a quick decision. The reason for the larger font is so those who do want the information can find it quickly. No other reason. And BTW, I was asked to post this, you just have no idea by whom.

DeepCobalt
Apr 28, 2009, 01:05 PM
Final Suggestions:

As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.

Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.

What about the 2.26 Octo? Look at the scores and you will see the 2.26 Octo is a very poor all around performer next to the 2.66 Quad. So slow, in fact, the machine will feel outdated if not exclusively in multi thread. Make sure, then, that you really need the multi thread performance and you are willing to pay the price. Simply, you would only consider the 2.26 Octo if you could not afford the 2.66 Octo, because in everything else it'll feel outdated and you'll most likely wind up frustrated.

Okay, so if the 2.26 Octo is a very specific needs purchase, and the 2.66 Quad is a pretty remarkable buy, won't the 2.93 Quad be the middle ground, a happy medium between the two? No. It is cut and dry, you either want the 2.66 Quad or 2.66 Octo. There is no medium, because the 2.93 does not warrant the price, Quad or Octo. Get yourself a new Ikea desk and chair if you want to "feel" a difference.

What about the 2.8 Octo everyone is recommending? Honest to God, that is the worst buy of the bunch. The 2.26 Octo already feels outdated next to the 2.66 Quad, which makes the 2.8 Octo even worse. Look at the scores here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Snap-on/macpro/three.jpg

So if you are even considering the 2.8 Octo, get the 2.66 Quad. The 2.66 Quad is an all around better performer, and where the 2.8 Octo is better, it is marginal. Remember, the 2.26 Octo already feels slow next to the 2.66 Quad, so the 2.8 Octo will feel like molasses, seeing that it is even slower than the 2.26 in single threaded apps, and only marginally faster than the 2.66 Quad in a very few multi threaded applications.

The bottom line is the 2.66 Octo or Quad are the best buys - period - no exceptions - unless you like throwing away money or your ego needs the boost. Contemplating the 2.93 on either end is a waste of money. The 2.26 Octo requires a very specific application and usage to be justified, and the 2.8 Octo is not even worth looking at seeing that the 2.66 Quad takes it at almost everything, and keeps pace with it even in multi thread.


I agree 100%. Too bad this has come out so late in the process...

tome viewer
Apr 28, 2009, 01:16 PM
I agree 100%. Too bad this has come out so late in the process... I know what you mean, I wish I did it sooner when I was asked (weeks ago). I hope it helps someone, though...

VirtualRain
Apr 28, 2009, 01:36 PM
I see, you are taking it personal all over again, which explains your constant insulting reactions, which you seem to withdraw when you feel it makes you look bad. Buddy, this is merely a voice of reason based on benchmarks. Unlike the voice of your ego which keeps insisting the 2.93 is the only way, and tries to rub it in everyone's face. You have even done this in this thread. Many are professionals here, and they work for a living. They are realistic and practical, not out to make themselves feel better than others by the power of their computer, nor spend all of their days posting on a forum to appear as a Mac god or guru to themselves and others. Don't worry I will be out of here soon, you will have your territory back. I only wanted to post some information for the professionals who need to make a quick decision. The reason for the larger font is so those who do want the information can find it quickly. No other reason. And BTW, I was asked to post this, you just have no idea by whom.


I'm not taking it personally. I simply don't agree with some of what you are saying (and how you are saying it). Healthy debate is good in my opinion. I appologize if you feel I'm attacking you personally... that's not what I'm trying to do.

I do strongly encourage people to look at the quad (particularly the 2.93GHz quad) before jumping for an Octo machine unless their workload can really justify it. I think this is wise for the same reason you are trying to point out that people should carefully consider the 2.66 before spending more.

As with any purchase, there are diminishing returns. The Mac Pro line is no different. The best bang for the buck might be the 2.66 GHz Quad, but not everyone here is seeking the best bang for the buck. Some are seeking the top single-threaded performance (cost no object) while others are seeking the top multi-threaded performance (cost no object). To make a statement that these machines are a waste really just proves you don't understand the full extent of the audience in these forums.

tome viewer
Apr 28, 2009, 01:46 PM
I'm not taking it personally. I simply don't agree with some of what you are saying (and how you are saying it). Healthy debate is good in my opinion. I appologize if you feel I'm attacking you personally... that's not what I'm trying to do.

I do strongly encourage people to look at the quad (particularly the 2.93GHz quad) before jumping for an Octo machine unless their workload can really justify it. I think this is wise for the same reason you are trying to point out that people should carefully consider the 2.66 before spending more.

As with any purchase, there are diminishing returns. The Mac Pro line is no different. The best bang for the buck might be the 2.66 GHz Quad, but not everyone here is seeking the best bang for the buck. Some are seeking the top single-threaded performance (cost no object) while others are seeking the top multi-threaded performance (cost no object). To make a statement that these machines are a waste really just proves you don't understand the full extent of the audience in these forums.

That's hilarious. You are very good at trying to appear humble and calm aren't you? LOL I sure wish I kept your reply where you said I should get a mac mini if that's how I feel about the 2.93. Boy, you certainly were personally insulted by this thread even though I don't know you. It must be speaking to you. Ever heard the saying, what you are speaks so loud I can't hear a word you're saying? Hmmm, I think that's applicable. :D

eXan
Apr 28, 2009, 03:15 PM
That's hilarious. You are very good at trying to appear humble and calm aren't you? LOL I sure wish I kept your reply where you said I should get a mac mini if that's how I feel about the 2.93. Boy, you certainly were personally insulted by this thread even though I don't know you. It must be speaking to you. Ever heard the saying, what you are speaks so loud I can't hear a word you're saying? Hmmm, I think that's applicable. :D

Stop this bull s h i t. If anyone's personally insulted in this thread its you :rolleyes:

The guy makes perfect sense in what he says.

tome viewer
Apr 28, 2009, 03:29 PM
Stop this bull s h i t. If anyone's personally insulted in this thread its you :rolleyes:

The guy makes perfect sense in what he says. WOW! You guys are really nuts. LOL

iMacmatician
Apr 28, 2009, 04:22 PM
10.86941267279489% etc. etc.What's up with the 16 digit percentages? 13-14 of them are pretty much useless.

I wonder what the prices of the dual 2.8 GHz Harpertown are now.

stonyc
Apr 28, 2009, 04:27 PM
If you guys don't like the conclusions he draws, just ignore them and draw your own. He is entitled to his opinions, just as you are to yours.

Regardless, I appreciate the benchmarks. It's going to help me make my decision later... whether or not the OP thinks it's a waste or not, that'll be up to me and my money to ultimately decide. :)

IrishBritish
Apr 28, 2009, 04:32 PM
Great info, I'm glad i went with the 2.66ghz and upped my ram to 6gb and upped my hd to 1tb and also upped to ATI radeon 4870.
Can't wait till it gets here:D

jnc
Apr 28, 2009, 04:59 PM
Right then. I've started to hear the same things again and again... (namely "don't get the 2.93"!) and I'm convinced.

2.66 it is, Octo though as I want more than 8GB (which I can easily afford if I don't go for 2.93.... the more I think about it, the more silly I realise it'd be to drop that much money on such a small real world gains over the 2.66)

Probably won't be moving until Snow Leopard has proved itself (I'm interested in seeing how CS4 runs under SL as I'm on CS3), but here's the dream config:

Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n

£4153 :)

nanofrog
Apr 28, 2009, 05:16 PM
Right then. I've started to hear the same things again and again... (namely "don't get the 2.93"!) and I'm convinced.

2.66 it is, Octo though as I want more than 8GB (which I can easily afford if I don't go for 2.93.... the more I think about it, the more silly I realise it'd be to drop that much money on such a small real world gains over the 2.66)

Probably won't be moving until Snow Leopard has proved itself (I'm interested in seeing how CS4 runs under SL as I'm on CS3), but here's the dream config:

Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n

£4153 :)
You can always work on HDD throughput with some sort of RAID implementation at a later time. It would give more of an overall performance boost than the higher clocked processors anyway, unless your applications are CPU dependent only.

Must_feed_the_CPU's. :D :p

jnc
Apr 28, 2009, 05:37 PM
You can always work on HDD throughput with some sort of RAID implementation at a later time. It would give more of an overall performance boost than the higher clocked processors anyway, unless your applications are CPU dependent only.

Must_feed_the_CPU's. :D :p

I'm not too clued up on RAID yet, but maybe you can help. I remember not being to impressed with the access speed of the MacBook Pro 7200 drive. SSD on the Air impressed me when it came to startup and the like. `i briefly owned a Mac Pro last year, and I'm sure the desktop components are different as I don't recall any complaints, but nevertheless... SSD intrigues me.

Edit: Just noticed the price of the Mac Pro's RAID card - yikes - and that's before drives, how would RAID compare to, say, purchasing an SSD boot drive? With the stock HD as a secondary?

Thanks for any help you can give!

nanofrog
Apr 28, 2009, 05:56 PM
I'm not too clued up on RAID yet, but maybe you can help. I remember not being to impressed with the access speed of the MacBook Pro 7200 drive. SSD on the Air impressed me when it came to startup and the like.

Might it be a consideration to buy two 640GB internals rather than a sole 1TB to set RAID up, in addition to an SSD for boot? Is that possible/sensible?
It's quite possible. :)

You'd see even better performance by getting additional drives into the stripe (RAID 0), and place everything on it. OS, apps, and data. That's the up side. ;)

The down side is that the failure rate of a single drive is multiplied by the number of drives in the stripe. So a 4 drive stripe is 4x more likely to fail in the same period of time. If this happens, ALL DATA IS LOST. Replace the drive(s), and restore the data from backups. So backup is absolutely essential, not an option.

If you choose this route, be sure you can spare the time necessary to rebuild the array manually, and re-perform any work that was lost, as there's always the possibility the backup is older than what you lost, even if it's only a couple of files. Those files may or may not be important, and if so, can potentially cost you hours or more of time to re-do the work. Bad for meeting deadlines if you're generating an income from it, or need to get assignments in to professors on time.

If you need redundancy, you'd want to look at other array types. OS X is capable of 0/1/01/10. Of these, 01 and 10 offer redundancy, but 10 is the better of the two. Check out Wiki's RAID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID) page, and follow the links for more information. Then there's hardware solutions, which can offer other arrays, such as 5/6/50/60.

Keep in mind, even if the array offers redundancy, you still need a backup solution regardless, not just with a stripe. Data can be lost, and I've seen it happen with different array types. I've done it intentionally in fact, as I test an array before trusting data to it (drives and controller behavior, power outage,...).

jnc
Apr 28, 2009, 06:25 PM
It's quite possible. :)

You'd see even better performance by getting additional drives into the stripe (RAID 0), and place everything on it. OS, apps, and data. That's the up side. ;)

The down side is that the failure rate of a single drive is multiplied by the number of drives in the stripe. So a 4 drive stripe is 4x more likely to fail in the same period of time. If this happens, ALL DATA IS LOST. Replace the drive(s), and restore the data from backups. So backup is absolutely essential, not an option.


Thanks. I was reading up on RAID and noticing that bit put me off a bit! Not only would i need the setup (hardware+drives), I'd essentially need a clone of it should things go bad. So even in a setup where I had, say, just 2 x 640 drives plus a 128 or 256 SSD, I'd need 1.5TB of additional storage for all of it to be backed up, eek... knowing me it'd turn into a mess.

What I'm thinking instead is perhaps a 256 SSD boot, backing up internally onto the stock 640 HD, all of which being backed up externally via Time Capsule or other method. If I can do such a thing. Should work out a lot less, after dropping £4000 on the Mac itself I want to be a bit less frugal beyond that... :D

nanofrog
Apr 28, 2009, 08:13 PM
Thanks. I was reading up on RAID and noticing that bit put me off a bit! Not only would i need the setup (hardware+drives), I'd essentially need a clone of it should things go bad. So even in a setup where I had, say, just 2 x 640 drives plus a 128 or 256 SSD, I'd need 1.5TB of additional storage for all of it to be backed up, eek... knowing me it'd turn into a mess.

What I'm thinking instead is perhaps a 256 SSD boot, backing up internally onto the stock 640 HD, all of which being backed up externally via Time Capsule or other method. If I can do such a thing. Should work out a lot less, after dropping £4000 on the Mac itself I want to be a bit less frugal beyond that... :D
I'm not quite understanding the reasoning behind a second backup. Are you still thinking of using a stripe? Or just doubling up backups on the SSD? :confused:

jnc
Apr 28, 2009, 08:21 PM
After reading this thread again...

* 2.66 quad plus 20% more cash = 2.93 quad = kind of some more speed, you may not notice
* 2.66 quad plus 14% more cash = 2.66 quad / Intel X25-M 80GB SSD = quite a lot of additional fun every day

Agree?!

I'm going to save myself a chunk of change further still by going Quad 2.66, not Octo :eek: With stock GPU, even.... for now. CTO Ram though, AppleCare'd plus no pointless 1GB sticks laying around then :D

I'm a light gamer, and an Adobe CS3 user... doesn't seem like I'd TRULY appreciate anything faster. Another way of saying I'd be paying too much before I'd notice any difference. :p

Hopefully Snow Leopard makes the machine perform even better. then I've still got room for an SSD boot and more recent GPU.

Plus now, I get to put a payment down on a car too :D


I'm not quite understanding the reasoning behind a second backup. Are you still thinking of using a stripe? Or just doubling up backups on the SSD? :confused:

Just figured I'd back it all up for added security, y'know - good to have a portable, external instance of all your data in a "my Mac Pro just spontaneously combusted" or "my house is on fire" scenario. ;)

And here we have it:

£2,232.99 (formerly £4153!! nearly half the price of originally intended specs!)
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (3x2GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n

Future upgrades:
Snow Leopard
CS4/5
SSD boot drive
Replacing Dell 2709 and Cintiq 12WX with Cintiq 21UX + HDTV.

:apple:

Tesselator
Apr 28, 2009, 09:58 PM
Final Suggestions:

As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.

Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.

Yeah, well I don't agree that the 2.93 "will struggle the same" but I guess it's pretty close. Anyway, yes it's clocks than pertain to "pep" and cores are throughput.

So like if you were editing 1 billion polygon 3D CAD objects the 2.93 would be the peppiest! At that point you could probably feel the difference between the 2.66 and the 2.93 quads.

Now if you were rendering those same objects over video at 1080p then that's the throughput or "bandwidth" where cores matter. The 2.93 quad let's say takes 3 minutes per frame then the 2.66 octad will take 1.8 minutes and the 2.93 octad will take 1.5 minutes.

If you're paycheck is determined even partially by these times then the 2.93 octad makes sense. If your paycheck is determined by the speed and/or number of those CAD objects you can produce then the 2.93 quad does indeed make sense. There really is an actual difference. It's just that you're not going to feel it if your system is improperly tuned (slow RAM, HDDs, etc.) or if you're not pushing the system to those levels - like you mostly work on CAD objects of 50K polys or less, etc.

Flash SWT
Apr 29, 2009, 12:12 AM
This is the thread that has my wife yelling at me to quit reading any more. I pulled the trigger on a 2.26 Octo last night, really wanted the 2.66 Octo but that $1,288 will go a long way toward stuff we need done at the house.

The developer of the main photo application I use says the Octo "should absolutely smoke the 4-core system for loading images. It will be slower in single threaded operations like [examples] since the clock rate is slower than the 4-core system."

So I'm torn, keep the 2.26 or cancel and get a Quad. Parts of my main application will benefit from 8 cores and parts would benefit from a higher clock rate. (Damn it, I've become one of those people I hate, talking about canceling something I've already ordered.)

Mac Husky
Apr 29, 2009, 01:49 AM
Damn it, I've become one of those people I hate, (...)
An experience more of us are going to have sometimes in life ;)

Gonk42
Apr 29, 2009, 02:49 AM
All the bench mark comparisons I've seen on octos and quads (eg barefeats)
still seem to be based on running a single application (albeit a multi-threaded
one).

What I want to do is run multiple applications. For this purspose, provided
I'm careful about say using different drives to avoid bottlenecks I think
the octo should be pretty close to twice the speed of a same clocked
quad. Of course, given the pricing it is probably almost as cheap to
buy two quads instead!

It would be interesting to see a comparison between quad and octo
running a batch job of say 8 or even 16 programs at once.

(What I do is run multiple instances of a program, each on a different set of data. The last big run I did on a two core Linux machine took two weeks!)

Sadly, I'm a student so arguments about time is money don't apply in the same way - letting the family starve whilst I buy a 2.93 octo is not really an option:)

tome viewer
Apr 29, 2009, 11:08 AM
Your posts would be more valueable if you were in tune with the needs of your audience and not just pushing your own values on everyone in 18pt text.

To make a statement that these machines are a waste really just proves you don't understand the full extent of the audience in these forums.

So like if you were editing 1 billion polygon 3D CAD objects the 2.93 would be the peppiest! At that point you could probably feel the difference between the 2.66 and the 2.93 quads.

Now if you were rendering those same objects over video at 1080p then that's the throughput or "bandwidth" where cores matter. The 2.93 quad let's say takes 3 minutes per frame then the 2.66 octad will take 1.8 minutes and the 2.93 octad will take 1.5 minutes.

If you're paycheck is determined even partially by these times then the 2.93 octad makes sense. If your paycheck is determined by the speed and/or number of those CAD objects you can produce then the 2.93 quad does indeed make sense. There really is an actual difference. It's just that you're not going to feel it if your system is improperly tuned (slow RAM, HDDs, etc.) or if you're not pushing the system to those levels - like you mostly work on CAD objects of 50K polys or less, etc.


So on a job that takes 30 seconds to complete you will shave off 1.5 seconds by going with the 2.93 at a premium of $500 plus tax. I could see how this would be worth it in some rare cases where every second is worth another $100 to you. But for how many is this true? I would say less than 0.01% of us here.

I am merely trying to share information with the average person in the hope that it might help them make a wise decision. Especially people that could use the money for other things, like family, etc. Their priorities are elsewhere, and rightly so. Our economy dictates that people should be prudent and not spend frivolously. I feel this is the majority. And yet, having lurked here for awhile, who are the ones giving advice to these professionals? Looking at the information they discuss, it appears to be topics much like a tweaking site for Windows. Where they are trying to squeeze the very last GHz out of their boxes. They get off on tweaking their systems, and brag and boast about how much faster their systems are after the tweak. Are these the professionals that you are speaking of? The one's that make $100 per second for each second that they shave off of their time? That mentality is typical of gamers. Running cross fired 4070's, SSD's in a RAID setup, etc. They say they are not all about performance, and cite one or two examples where they have recommended the MacMini instead. But those who take their advice would probably make better use of the MP than they would. Seeing that they are ultimately the individuals who are using their purchases for work and school. It is a means to an end for them, not an end in itself, as it is for the gamer or tweaker.

Ultimately the tweaker is giving the advice and the professional is listening. And if you ever point out that the one who tweaks his machine doesn't know what he's talking about, that he is wrong to tell others the 2.8 will thoroughly smoke the 2.26, or that the 2.93 he owns is a waste of money, watch out. They will now cite one or two examples where these machines are worth every penny. Why? Because they are pissed off that their machines are made to look like something disgusting. And yet the argument they are using to increase the value of their machines back to the profound, godly status that it deserves, does not apply to them. Every second saved is not worth $100 to them as a professional, but only to them as a gamer or tweaker, and because they are one, they would pay anything for it.

Now I am being told that I do not understand the “audience” here, that the audience is really made up of professionals who would pay any premium for the fastest machine possible. I thought that was the gamer, not the majority?

Honestly, I am tired of this. This will be my last post.

JediMac
Apr 29, 2009, 05:18 PM
I hope not, because you changed my mind.

jnc
Apr 29, 2009, 09:30 PM
Well, thanks, it was helpful to me. I about halved my CTO price when I considered the testimony here.

AppleWorking
Apr 30, 2009, 11:21 AM
yeah, poor guy. lots of useful insight. like watching myth busters unfold. i had my popcorn out. i think they gave him the good ol "we're professionals" line to justify purchasing the high end models after they felt dumb for wasting money. should have just said we're gamers, so we do pay more for the little we get. i think his advice is good for the gamer and pro too, gives us more money to play with. more money = more fun

Tesselator
Apr 30, 2009, 03:06 PM
I am merely trying to share information with the average person in the hope that it might help them make a wise decision.

What??? Someone actually reads threads here other than their own? Hmm, you wouldn't know it by looking at the thread titles and seeing the same questions posted over and over and over and... :D

EDIT:
BTW, imho, spending prudently would automatically disqualify ALL of the 2009 Mac Pro models! ALL OF THEM! They're all WAY overpriced for an almost unperceivable speed bump over the 2008 or even the 2006 models. In one of your blind comparisons I bet that the user also would NOT be able to tell if they were using a 2006 machine vs. a 2009 machine given similar clock rates.

EDIT: EDIT:
Also I think the "audience" here is not "really made up of professionals who would pay any premium for the fastest machine possible" I think they are mostly Apple fanatics that will pay a premium for whatever Apple tells them is "good" for what they do. Most of them anyway. You can tell the ones who actually think for themselves as they ask questions instead of announcing their newest purchase. ;)


.

AppleWorking
Apr 30, 2009, 03:20 PM
What??? Someone actually reads threads here other than their own? Hmm, you wouldn't know it by looking at the thread titles and seeing the same questions posted over and over and over and... :D Yeah, and with your crummy advice over and over and over... :D

Tesselator
Apr 30, 2009, 03:24 PM
Crummy??? What, I should add more eggs?

:D

Flash SWT
May 1, 2009, 12:21 AM
BTW, imho, spending prudently would automatically disqualify ALL of the 2009 Mac Pro models! ALL OF THEM! They're all WAY overpriced for an almost unperceivable speed bump over the 2008 or even the 2006 models. In one of your blind comparisons I bet that the user also would NOT be able to tell if they were using a 2006 machine vs. a 2009 machine given similar clock rates.

Then again, how many folks buying the 2009 Mac Pros are like me? I bought mine to replace a Windows XP machine, running an AMD Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6 GHz) that I built off Newegg a little over 7 years ago. I'm not new to Macs, been using them since collage and at work, but I've keep this old PC going as an email/web/gaming machine for years because there was no real reason to upgrade.

I'm finally tired of dealing with a custom built rig and Windows day-to-day (plus it is starting to feel slow with newer things like HD video online). I reached the point that my free time is worth more than the money I'd save building a box myself. I could obviously get a similarly powered machine for much cheaper by building a Hackintosh, but I'd rather spend the time with my family or fixing up the house. (Damn mom would be proud of how mature I sound.)

I can see that for someone who already has a Mac Pro, upgrading to the 2009 model might not make much financial sense. But for many of us who don't already have a Mac Pro, buying "old" or "outdated" tech doesn't make very much sense either.

Just throwing a different viewpoint out there! ;)

Oh! Just got my shipment notification while in the middle of typing this! :D

Neliskens
May 4, 2009, 04:05 AM
Forgive me if this is a dumb questions, but isn't it in the future not an option to (with all this fuss about the limitation of the 4 memory slots of the 2.66 Quad), just get bigger memory cards (say 4 GB ones) and install 4 of these to get more then the 8 GB limit now?

Coyote2006
May 4, 2009, 04:34 AM
I got my 2.66 quad/4870 one week ago and I can say that it's so extremely fast that a 2.93 upgrade is not worth spending another $600.

Neliskens
May 4, 2009, 05:28 AM
What I am missing in this thread is discussions with types of workflow. Will the quad be more suited for gamers or video editers etc. I am a video editer and work on Final Cut Studio 2.

My workflow is mostly this:
I edit a project in FCP 6 and run it through compressor, while compressor is running I make the DVD-menu in DVD Studio Pro and make the DVD-cover in Photoshop.

What about this workflow, will I benefit from a 8-core but with a slower 2.26GHz?

Mac Husky
May 4, 2009, 10:02 AM
Forgive me if this is a dumb questions, but isn't it in the future not an option to (with all this fuss about the limitation of the 4 memory slots of the 2.66 Quad), just get bigger memory cards (say 4 GB ones) and install 4 of these to get more then the 8 GB limit now?
Good morning ;)

Neliskens
May 5, 2009, 04:54 AM
haha told you it probably is a stupid question, but I guess the obvious answer is yes. What about the other question about the workflow and which version to buy. Any thoughts on that?

Mac Husky
May 5, 2009, 05:14 AM
haha told you it probably is a stupid question, but I guess the obvious answer is yes.
The answer is YES - as it has been posted a hundred times during the last weeks ;)
And of course not only for the future. If you have the money, you may get the 4GB sticks right now.

Look here (http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Benchmarks/NehalemTests.html) and here (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory).
What about the other question about the workflow and which version to buy. Any thoughts on that?
I would say, that this has been discussed as much (or even more) than the 4GB RAM stick :D
You will find a lot of threads in this forum and a lot of critical benchmarks discussions elsewhere, too.
You don´t even have to use the search funtion. Just scroll down the threads a little bit.

It is not exactly your workflow, you will find, but a lot of comparable applications discussed.

Have a deeper look in here (http://macperformanceguide.com/).
Especially this (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem.html).

Tesselator
May 5, 2009, 05:26 AM
Then again, how many folks buying the 2009 Mac Pros are like me? I bought mine to replace a Windows XP machine...

Just throwing a different viewpoint out there! ;)

Oh! Just got my shipment notification while in the middle of typing this! :D

Yeah, conversation is all guud! :) The POV I was interjecting to use the familiar car metaphor yet again, is:

You can buy a 2009 Porsche with mag rims and pay $1.5 million or you can buy an otherwise identical (new, but last years model) 2008 Porsche with aluminum rims and pay only $1 million dollars.

To me the 2009 is just not worth the extra money whether I currently own the 2006 model or not. YMMV - tho I don't see how it could. ;)

Neliskens
May 5, 2009, 05:56 AM
Thanks a lot Mac Husky for that! I've been searching on a lot of forums for that information and read this whole thread two times all ready.

I am still in the learning phase with this computer technology stuff and I don't want to make a mistake now, so I am a bit paranoid :)

But I appreciate your answer buddy!

Mac Husky
May 5, 2009, 06:25 AM
But I appreciate your answer buddy!
Some more links, if you´d like: klick (http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html), klick (http://www.macworld.com/article/139919/2009/04/cto_macpro.html), klick (http://barefeats.com/nehal08.html), klick (http://barefeats.com/nehal04.html).

Posting of one who bought the 2.26 octo: klick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7501917&postcount=44) ;)

Living in the USA this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617791-REG/Apple_MB451LL_A_Customized_Mac_Pro_Desktop.html) may be the best deal :D

Neliskens
May 5, 2009, 07:05 AM
Mac Husky, you are my favorite person of the day (don't tell my girlfriend though :)

Did you make your decision yet? Did you end up with the 2.66 Quad you described?

Mac Husky
May 5, 2009, 08:30 AM
Did you make your decision yet? Did you end up with the 2.66 Quad you described?
I will go for the 2.66 quad. Going to order it in May or June. Still thinking about the disk question (RAID0 or not) and/or a SSD or two of them, that will probably bring me more speed benefit for my apps for less money than a higher clocked quad or an 8 core Mac Pro in my financial bounds.

Living in the USA I might have switched to the older 3.2 Octo concerning the presented B&H price :rolleyes:

The 2.66 quad seems to be the perfect Mac Pro for me so far, as I am going with Nikon Capture NX2 and Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Edition most of the time. All the office stuff is trivial and the few times I will use Final Cut Express later on does not convince me to go for the 8 core (2.26). Of course the 2.66 octo may be a nice one, but I don´t want to spend that much money (+ 85%) into a Mac Pro getting allmost no benefit for my daily apps so far.

Still thinking about the disk question (RAID0 or not) and/or a SSD or two of them, that will probably bring me more speed benefit for my apps for less money than a higher clocked quad or an 8 core Mac Pro in my financial bounds. Spending the quad 6 or 8 GB of RAM for the first months. If necessary, I can buy 4GB sticks later on. But I will see, if I have to. Right now I don´t think so.

scouser75
Aug 30, 2009, 07:27 AM
What I am missing in this thread is discussions with types of workflow. Will the quad be more suited for gamers or video editers etc. I am a video editer and work on Final Cut Studio 2.

My workflow is mostly this:
I edit a project in FCP 6 and run it through compressor, while compressor is running I make the DVD-menu in DVD Studio Pro and make the DVD-cover in Photoshop.

What about this workflow, will I benefit from a 8-core but with a slower 2.26GHz?

Hey Guys, I think this thread is worth bumping up again due to

a) The above dudes question not yet being answered - and I too am in the same boat as him :)

b) The release of Snow Leopard brings with it a new hope for the Octo 2.26 machine :)

c) The release of Final Cut Studio 3

So, in light of the above, do we now reckon that the Octo 2.26 machine will be the better option for video editors using the usual FCP 7, DSP and Motion?

Before I dive in I just want to make sure I make the right decision :)

VirtualRain
Aug 30, 2009, 06:55 PM
The latest thinking on this topic is here (among other places)... http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=771019