Is a used 2006 Mac Pro better than a used 2008?

[Chris7]

(Edit: I posted a followup question -- #33)

Considering buying a used Mac Pro.

I'm wondering if there is any reason to buy a 2008 2.8 GHz 4-core vs. a 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core.

From what I can tell, the performance (speed) is nearly identical (except for faster RAM on the 2008 model). Is this correct?

Are the 2006 and 2007 4-core models both two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5100 series processors?

What kind of maintenance or other problems should I expect? Would I be in better shape in this regard with the 2008 model? I would expect to have the computer no more than 3 years.

This would be my first Mac Pro, so any advice is appreciated.

(As a side question, when was the first 8-core Mac Pro introduced? I thought it was 2007, but the mac archives has it in the same link as the August 2006 Mac Pro http://support.apple.com/specs/#desktopcomputers)

[bearcatrp]

1. Not much of a speed difference but some.
2. The 2.8 is a bit faster due to faster FSB and ram.
3. 2006 uses 5100 series (woodcrest), 2007 uses 5300 (clovertown).
4. About the same maintenance but the 2008 runs cooler.
I have a 2006 and a 2008. Both are fine machines. The 2008 uses a smaller chip size so runs cooler. Cost would be your deciding factor. The 2006 quad can be upgraded to 8 cores later, which I have done.

[grue]

Get the 2008. Apple screwed over the 2006 and 2007 models with the EFI32 firmware, and there's no official support for any video cards that don't suck.

[bozz2006]

what bearcat said. it should come down to price. Because of what grue said, if the prices are pretty close, I'd go with the 2008. and, for what it's worth, i have a 2006 mac pro. Nothing wrong with it, i love it actually. But, faster RAM, faster FSB, and more support for vid cards make the 2008 a more attractive choice if it isn't much more expensive.

[gugucom]

(As a side question, when was the first 8-core Mac Pro introduced? I thought it was 2007, but the mac archives has it in the same link as the August 2006 Mac Pro http://support.apple.com/specs/#desktopcomputers)

The first octo was introduced in April 2007. It was a BTO option added to the 2006 models. Technically it was the addition of the quad core 5365 Clovertown to the two dual core Woodcrest (5130 and 5150) CPU specs. Everything else stayed the same. That is why officially there never was a 2007 model and you find the Cloverdale octo in the 2006 specs. http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30

[nanofrog]

Get the 2008. Apple screwed over the 2006 and 2007 models with the EFI32 firmware, and there's no official support for any video cards that don't suck.
Really good point, and would be more of an issue over time IMO. :eek: ;)

Chris7 the '08's can be had at good prices, but patience would be needed, as well as the ability to leap at a moments notice (ready cash flow). ;) :D

[bozz2006]

yeah, they're pretty scarce right now.

[hehejames]

Considering buying a used Mac Pro.

I'm wondering if there is any reason to buy a 2008 2.8 GHz 4-core vs. a 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core.

I'm considering buying a used BMW.
Would there be a reason to buy a 2008 750 or a 2006 745?

What do you think the answer is? Buy the 2008 750 or the new 2009 750 which recently got refreshed. ;)

[fun173]

hope this helps :)

[gugucom]

I'm wondering if there is any reason to buy a 2008 2.8 GHz 4-core vs. a 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core.

I think you will find there is no official 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core (X5160). That ought to be a thing that people have retrofitted.

[nanofrog]

hope this helps :)
:eek: Geekbench? Eww.... ;) :p

[OZMP]

EFI1.0 VS EFI2.0 Buy the 2008!

[gugucom]

EFI32 vs EFI64 is serious for grafics. It sucks big time that Apple havn't had the decency to update that firmware.

[nanofrog]

It sucks big time that Apple havn't had the decency to update that firmware.
Any difference in the flash chip between the '06's and the '08's?

I've not had the ability to get into both to compare, and wondering if it's a capacity issue.

[fun173]

:eek: Geekbench? Eww.... ;) :p

u meant " Macktracker? Yaa :D "

[gugucom]

Any difference in the flash chip between the '06's and the '08's?

I've not had the ability to get into both to compare, and wondering if it's a capacity issue.

Thats an idea!

[nanofrog]

u meant " Macktracker? Yaa :D "
I was looking at the part that said "Primate Labs" = Geekbench. ;) :D

gugucom, do you have both to take a look and verify?
I'll search the P/N's if you don't want to. :)

[fun173]

I was looking at the part that said "Primate Labs" = Geekbench. ;) :D

gugucom, do you have both to take a look and verify?
I'll search the P/N's if you don't want to. :)

ik lol

[Dr.Pants]

Mactracker is good at finding out the various specification for Apple models - if they used a comparison other then Geekbench, it would do fine.

[nanofrog]

Mactracker is good at finding out the various specification for Apple models - if they used a comparison other then Geekbench, it would do fine.
Bit of a side note, does it give P/N's for peripheral devices such as audio chipsets, NIC chipsets, and the like (logic board components)?

[gugucom]

gugucom, do you have both to take a look and verify?
I'll search the P/N's if you don't want to. :)

@ nanofrog: no, I only have a MacPro1,1. I guess that would be easy for an AASP because they get to see stripped logic boards more often.

On a second thought I would find it strange if the main firmware memory on the then new Mac Pro range was designed with such a bottle neck. I mean the EEPROMs they use on logic boards are much bigger than the stuff they do for graphics cards.

Do you know where the EEPROM is located?

[nanofrog]

@ nanofrog: no, I only have a MacPro1,1. I guess that would be easy for an AASP because they get to see stripped logic boards more often.
Definitely. :)

I thought you might have access to multiple models. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to any. :eek: :D

I had an '08 briefly, but sent it back due to my needs. RAID in particular, as I run way too many drives for the MP's internals, and external enclosures ate the "bargain" the '08's were, and then some. :rolleyes:

On a second thought I would find it strange if the main firmware memory on the then new Mac Pro range was designed with such a bottle neck. I mean the EEPROMs they use on logic boards are much bigger than the stuff they do for graphics cards.
32 bit code is more compact, and they may not have considered going to 64 bit at the time the board was developed. As it's a contract, it may not have been possible to make a shift in mid manufacture either, without loosing on costs (unused EEPROMs for the 32bit code, + cost of larger capacity parts for 64bit + cost of mid production change by Intel).
Do you know where the EEPROM is located?
Unfortunately, No. :(

I'd have to hunt for it, and assume it would mean "some disassembly required". ;) :p

[Dr.Pants]

Bit of a side note, does it give P/N's for peripheral devices such as audio chipsets, NIC chipsets, and the like (logic board components)?

No :( I kinda wish it did, now that you mention it; would really like to know if it was Intel or Realtek NIC inside my G5 :p

[Tesselator]

:eek: Geekbench? Eww.... ;) :p

u meant " Macktracker? Yaa :D "

Yeah, MacTracker is a little different in that it takes all 1000 scores or however many there are, and averages them all together - and for each model. So it's MUCH more useful than GeekBench alone and almost useful. ;)



I think you will find there is no official 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core (X5160). That ought to be a thing that people have retrofitted.

No, that's incorrect. Apple released the 3.0 Quad in Q3 2006. Some 6 or 8 months after they released the other three Intel models.

[nanofrog]

Yeah, MacTracker is a little different in that it takes all 1000 scores or however many there are, and averages them all together - and for each model. So it's MUCH more useful than GeekBench alone and almost useful. ;)
I wasn't aware of that.

A few crazy people with RAID, and lots of memory (resemble anyone? :eek: ;)), could skew the results enough to frustrate some if their base models don't make the average. :p

Or does it sort those scores out as outliers, and dis-include them in the results?

[Tesselator]

I wasn't aware of that.

A few crazy people with RAID, and lots of memory (resemble anyone? :eek: ;)), could skew the results enough to frustrate some if their base models don't make the average. :p

Or does it sort those scores out as outliers, and dis-include them in the results?


Yes, very true. I believe they sort by MB revision number (1,1 - 1,2 - etc.) and core speed (2.66, 2.0, 2.8 etc.) only - for the averages. I don't think they consider number of cores or processor number (X5150, X5355, etc.) so we could definitely screw them up if there are enough of us. :D Also to consider is that every environment is different. I guess lots of people (most people) just ran GeekBench during whatever else they were doing. GeekBench is so poorly written that this can either make the score very much higher, lower, or have no impact. :p But I guess if enough people submit it'll kinda smooth the curves some. :)

[nanofrog]

Yes, very true. I believe they sort by MB revision number (1,1 - 1,2 - etc.) and core speed (2.66, 2.0, 2.8 etc.) only - for the averages. I don't think they consider number of cores or processor number (X5150, X5355, etc.) so we could definitely screw them up if there are enough of us. :D Also to consider is that every environment is different. I guess lots of people (most people) just ran GeekBench during whatever else they were doing. GeekBench is so poorly written that this can either make the score very much higher, lower, or have no impact. :p But I guess if enough people submit it'll kinda smooth the curves some. :)
On the windows side, the user has the ability to "select" systems in which to compare with a few. Some with better (more accurate) results than others, provided the user selection is to similar systems, and enough results available (list of systems in online results). There's still bound to be variances in exact system makeup though, and lend some degree of error. Just hopefully, small enough to have adequate relevancy to the system owner. ;)

I'm not aware of much in the way of benchies with macs though. I've not noticed much at any rate. :confused:

[Tesselator]

I'm not aware of much in the way of benchies with macs though. I've not noticed much at any rate. :confused:

Yeah! That really crunched my nuggets! WTH? All the OS X developers are busy making iPhone synchronizers, Weather gadgets, and desk-top clocks or something?!?! :mad: The 1st thing I usually do with a new system is bench it out completely so I know what software is good and which is poorly written - performance-wise at least. But all the mac benchies are written so poorly we end up testing the guys coding skillz much more than the hardware. Sucks! Sucks I tells ya! :)

[cube]

There's a couple of PCIe 2.0 slots in the 2008. The 2009 sucks because there are only 3 slots, of which 2 are just x4, even if all are 2.0

[nanofrog]

There's a couple of PCIe 2.0 slots in the 2008. The 2009 sucks because there are only 3 slots, of which 2 are just x4, even if all are 2.0
Yup. :) And they actually can allow the user to configure the slots, but haven't done that since the '06 & '07 models. :rolleyes: That's one of the advantages of EFI. :eek: :mad: If they aren't even going to make use of it, what's the point, other than a proprietary lock?

If it were still possible, user's could adjust the other 3 into x8 (or other configs to suit their needs). Handy for hardware RAID controllers, or HBA's, such as Fibre Channel cards. They happen to be highly useful for not only servers, but high end workstations as well. Some operations are more than just CPU or memory bound, or even only require a single system. Apple seems to have forgotten this, or just doesn't care anymore. :(

[cube]

If it were still possible, user's could adjust the other 3 into x8 (or other configs to suit their needs). Handy for hardware RAID controllers, or HBA's, such as Fibre Channel cards. They happen to be highly useful for not only servers, but high end workstations as well. Some operations are more than just CPU or memory bound, or even only require a single system. Apple seems to have forgotten this, or just doesn't care anymore. :(

With the trend towards PCIe SSDs, several big slots will be needed by a lot of people. Even with SATA 6 Gbps, the old disk attachment sucks, when there are already x8 PCIe SSDs that do over 500 MB/s. (There are also more expensive ones at 1GB/s).

[nanofrog]

With the trend towards PCIe SSDs, several big slots will be needed by a lot of people. Even with SATA 6 Gbps, the old disk attachment sucks, when there are already x8 PCIe SSDs that do over 500 MB/s. (There are also more expensive ones at 1GB/s).
I know. :D I'd love to get my hands on an IO Drive Duo, but I've not yet seen the MSRP, and would likely have a cow when I do. :eek: On the bright side, the cow could help reduce the grocery bill for awhile. ;) Porterhouse and Ribeye...Mmmm. :D :p

RAID and FC gives you the potential for MASSIVE amounts of storage, and at high speeds. SSD offers blazing throughputs, especially random access, but rather limited capacity. Always a balance, and it depends on specific needs. At any rate, the ability to run more than x4 lane devices isn't just a luxury for all users, and yet they market the MP as a workstation. It could even be considered by some as a small server, but the slot issues kills that usage IMO. One RAID card in an x16 slot (other x16 stuck with graphics duty), and a couple of speed hindered units in the x4's. Yeah, that's gonna work out well... :p

[Chris7]

Many thanks, bearcatrp, grue, bozz2006, gugucom, nanofrog, OZMP, and Tesselator.:D

Get the 2008. Apple screwed over the 2006 and 2007 models with the EFI32 firmware, and there's no official support for any video cards that don't suck.

...But, faster RAM, faster FSB, and more support for vid cards make the 2008 a more attractive choice if it isn't much more expensive.

EFI32 vs EFI64 is serious for graphics. It sucks big time that Apple haven't had the decency to update that firmware.

Could you please say more about this? I will be using the computer primarily for video work. This would be my first real graphics machine, and I not know much about graphics cards. Actually, I’m not experienced with working hands on with the innards of computers in general, though I am interested. I don’t need THE fastest graphics card, but will be of course be using Photoshop and also Motion with HD footage. I was thinking of something is the same general league as the $350 ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB now shipping with the current Mac Pro's, though 25% slower would be fine. Any details would be extremely helpful.

EFI1.0 VS EFI2.0 Buy the 2008!

Not familiar what this is. Could you say more?


Besides limitations to the graphics card, are there any other major problems with the 2006 (other than slightly slower front side bus and RAM).

Thanks for your time,
Chris

[OZMP]

Many thanks, bearcatrp, grue, bozz2006, gugucom, nanofrog, OZMP, and Tesselator.:D







Could you please say more about this? I will be using the computer primarily for video work. This would be my first real graphics machine, and I not know much about graphics cards. Actually, I’m not experienced with working hands on with the innards of computers in general, though I am interested. I don’t need THE fastest graphics card, but will be of course be using Photoshop and also Motion with HD footage. I was thinking of something is the same general league as the $350 ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB now shipping with the current Mac Pro's, though 25% slower would be fine. Any details would be extremely helpful.



Not familiar what this is. Could you say more?


Besides limitations to the graphics card, are there any other major problems with the 2006 (other than slightly slower front side bus and RAM).

Thanks for your time,
Chris


Well I am no guru, but it is an older tech, so you are even further behind.
It stops you booting true 64bit leopard.
the 2008 also has 2 16x slots where the 2006 has one, so it means the 2008 can run two screens at max speed, and if they both have 4870's i would understand it that with OpenCL in Snow Leopard, this would improve the performance of the machine.

If i wans't on a traineewage, I would probably be upgrading to a 2008 model :) I am stuck with my machine until end of next year, so it is going to get a 4870 at some point and more ram in the hope that with SL it will be faster, but if you are buying now, IMO, it would be stupid to buy the "transition" Mac Pro.

2008= faster FSB, faster ram, two /a second 16x PCIe slot, and 64bit EFI
2006= slower FSB, slower ram, one 16x PCIe slot, 32bit EFI

[bozz2006]

There are not really any serious problems with the 2006 model. EFI is the interface between the operating system and the firmware of your machine. It's the way they communicate with each other, similar to BIOS in a Windows machine. The 2006 mac pro uses 32 bit EFI, which is kind of old right now. Mac Pros have been steadily moving toward full 64 bit, which basically gives the entire system a whole lot more "breathing room". The 32 bit EFI is kind of... cramped. Now, basically all of the video cards released for the mac pro require 64 bit EFI (called EFI 2.0). So, this limits your choices. HOWEVER! The Radeon 4870 miraculously works in the 2006 mac pro. The guys at ATI wrote both 32 bit and 64 bit firmware version into the card. This is AWESOME.

For your purposes, you're going to want a good graphics card. The 4870 definitely fits the bill. So, still, if you can get a 2006 mac pro for a good price, do it.

[bozz2006]

How does it stop you from booting true 64 bit Leopard? I don't get what you mean by that.

[nanofrog]

How does it stop you from booting true 64 bit Leopard? I don't get what you mean by that.
Neither do I. :confused:

[OZMP]

this makes me think it

[bearcatrp]

I have leopard running on my 2006 mac pro right now so don't understand why it won't boot 64 bit leopard. :confused:

[bozz2006]

running a 64 bit kernel requires every single extension of the system to be 64-bit. Because of this, Leopard is only capable of running a 32 bit kernel which also means that every single Mac running Leopard also runs a 32 bit kernel. The final release of Snow Leopard will be the first version of OSX running a 64 bit kernel, enabling 64 bit Apple machines to run the 64 bit kernel. And, even if your machine can't run the new 64 bit kernel, that doesn't mean you can't run 64 bit applications. In fact, you can do that now! So, while the old mac pro won't run the 64 bit kernel, that doesn't actually mean a whole lot. It does not mean that you can't boot into "true" 64 bit Leopard. Leopard is 64 bit, even though nobody is booting it on a 64 bit kernel. Apple has made many many workarounds to run 64 bit apps on the 32 bit kernel and they will continue to do so. Speaking practically, your (and my) 2006 mac pro will be looooooong dead before software catches up and you'd be able to notice any difference in running 64 bit apps on a 32 bit kernel vs. 64 bit apps on a 64 bit kernel.... I think. lol. lots of question marks.

For more information on the subject, you can read this article (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/28/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bit_to_the_kernel.html)

[wpc33]

Thanks for answering the question I was about to ask, with such sensible detail, bozz!
My fear of a 32-bit MP lasted but a minute.

[bearcatrp]

Thanks for the article Bozz. Very informative.

[Chris7]

EFI is the interface between the operating system and the firmware of your machine... HOWEVER! The Radeon 4870 miraculously works in the 2006 mac pro. The guys at ATI wrote both 32 bit and 64 bit firmware version into the card. This is AWESOME.

For your purposes, you're going to want a good graphics card. The 4870 definitely fits the bill. So, still, if you can get a 2006 mac pro for a good price, do it.
Thanks for the detailed info.