MacPro 08 vs New iMac Quad?

[umbilical]

hi, I have a macpro 08, 2x2.8GHz Quadcore, 2gb Ram

I never buy a imac beacuse I want a power machine... so I alwasy buy macpro but! now imac comes quad... nice monitor etc...

my question is if new imac is more power that my machine?
the new imac is more power even I buy more ram? 32gb? vs the 16gb of new imac?

thanks

[Badger^2]

what do you use your MP for?

facebook, twitter and email?

IMHO, a MP doesnt really start to work until its got at least 12 gigs of ram

[nanofrog]

With no idea of it's use, no one can really help.

[sidewinder]

IMHO, a MP doesnt really start to work until its got at least 12 gigs of ram

I guess I had better throw mine away then..... :rolleyes:

S-

[nanofrog]

I guess I had better throw mine away then..... :rolleyes:

S-
LMAO. :D

[Chupa Chupa]

The i7 iMacs haven't even shipped yet, so hard to tell how they are going to benchmark vs. the MPs. But if you are always looking for the fastest computer you are going to exhaust yourself. We are probably looking at a few seconds difference. Whether that is a lot of time depends on how much work you do on your Mac.

Aside from speed, most people buy MPs b/c they are more configurable and upgradable than iMacs. If you don't need that functionality, then sure, get yourselves some extra floor space by dumping your MP and getting an iMac. But keep in mind if you just want speed the '09 MPs will probably come sometime in Q1 '09 and blow the screen off the iMac.

[Jiten]

Your Mac will probably will still be faster and better then the iMac except the screen. But the good thing is, you can always purchase your own. Perhaps you should wait until Apple releases a new version of the 30 inch?

[dlewis23]

A new Core i7 iMac will yes be more powerful then your Mac Pro. In just raw processing power it will be decently faster. The Mac Pro can do a few things the iMac can't.

But I would stick some more ram in yours, 2GB is pretty low. I would put 4GB in it minimum, 6GB would probably be the sweet spot for most people.

[Transporteur]

A new Core i7 iMac will yes be more powerful then your Mac Pro. In just raw processing power it will be decently faster.

Never ever!
4 x 2,66GHz (even it it is a i7) vs. 8x2,8GHz.
Pretty obvious result from my point of view.

@ OP
What are you doing with your MacPro that does not require more than 2GB of RAM? You have a very powerful machine, don't slow it down with that little RAM.

[dlewis23]

Never ever!
4 x 2,66GHz (even it it is a i7) vs. 8x2,8GHz.
Pretty obvious result from my point of view.

@ OP
What are you doing with your MacPro that does not require more than 2GB of RAM? You have a very powerful machine, don't slow it down with that little RAM.

Sorry, I was thinking 2 x 2.8 Ghz dual core processors for 4 total cores. Just because he said quad core, it threw me off.

Even at 2x2.8 Ghz quad cores, Its not really much faster if this is any indication http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/03/mac-pro-benchmarks-early-2009/

A single quad core nehalem processor, wasn't much slower then 2x2.8 Ghz quad core processors.

Either way, he probably should add more ram.

[alphaod]

A new Core i7 iMac will yes be more powerful then your Mac Pro. In just raw processing power it will be decently faster. The Mac Pro can do a few things the iMac can't.

But I would stick some more ram in yours, 2GB is pretty low. I would put 4GB in it minimum, 6GB would probably be the sweet spot for most people.

The i7 iMac will only be comparable, not faster since the newer architecture does not really make up for the lack of clock speed, it is only 4 physical cores while the Mac Pro has 8 (8 logical cores is not better than 8 physical cores).

OP: You need more RAM than 2GB.

[maven8]

The i7 iMac will only be comparable, not faster since the newer architecture does not really make up for the lack of clock speed, it is only 4 physical cores while the Mac Pro has 8 (8 logical cores is not better than 8 physical cores).

OP: You need more RAM than 2GB.

I don't think we can generalize anything unless you know what software is going to be used. In applications that are single threaded, or use 2 or 4 cores maximum the imac could absolutely be faster, particularly in single threaded tasks where it can ratchet up the clock speed much higher then the older mac pro. On the other hand if you were to run aftereffects which would take advantage of all 8 cores, the mac pro would be significantly faster.

(the wildcard here is hyperthreading, still not as good as real physical cores, but seems to work pretty well in it's current incarnation)

[alphaod]

I don't think we can generalize anything unless you know what software is going to be used. In applications that are single threaded, or use 2 or 4 cores maximum the imac could absolutely be faster, particularly in single threaded tasks where it can ratchet up the clock speed much higher then the older mac pro. On the other hand if you were to run aftereffects which would take advantage of all 8 cores, the mac pro would be significantly faster.

(the wildcard here is hyperthreading, still not as good as real physical cores, but seems to work pretty well in it's current incarnation)

No we probably shouldn't make generalizations, but from tone of the question I made the assumption (the basis of my argument) that the OP wants to know if the new iMac is worth upgrading to and the OP is not looking to shave 3 seconds off the next encode. Even if the iMac is faster (if it is), it won't be worth the price of the machine to change up. With the current Mac Pro already owned, the more reasonable upgrade would be to increase the RAM to say 8GB which would dramatically increase any application. And this upgrade would be much cheaper.

[umbilical]

what do you use your MP for?

facebook, twitter and email?

IMHO, a MP doesnt really start to work until its got at least 12 gigs of ram

I use for web design photoshop, ilustrastror, code... print.... and now I start with after effects for video... but mainly for web design proposits...

I work with my mac pro for that, runs like a beast for web photoshop with 2gb... (I dont image how with 10gb or more wow)

but here close I have a imac (I dont remember 2.2ghz around...) with 4gb and runs ok etc... but I need more power!

so maybe the new imac quad now is for me... you know macpro is cool but imac is truely cool, 1 monitor 1 computer... 0 space... etc....

[umbilical]

With no idea of it's use, no one can really help.

I use for web design photoshop, ilustrastror, code... print.... and now I start with after effects for video... but mainly for web design proposits...

I work with my mac pro for that, runs like a beast for web photoshop with 2gb... (I dont image how with 10gb or more wow)

but here close I have a imac (I dont remember 2.2ghz around...) with 4gb and runs ok etc... but I need more power!

so maybe the new imac quad now is for me... you know macpro is cool but imac is truely cool, 1 monitor 1 computer... 0 space... etc....

[nanofrog]

I use for web design photoshop, ilustrastror, code... print.... and now I start with after effects for video... but mainly for web design proposits...

I work with my mac pro for that, runs like a beast for web photoshop with 2gb... (I dont image how with 10gb or more wow)

but here close I have a imac (I dont remember 2.2ghz around...) with 4gb and runs ok etc... but I need more power!

so maybe the new imac quad now is for me... you know macpro is cool but imac is truely cool, 1 monitor 1 computer... 0 space... etc....
The '08 is actually more than what you need, from the software listed. PS only uses 2 cores right now. If you deal with rendering, or will be, that machine will make a big difference to you.

Do you have an older iMac?
You're not making much sense here, as there's details missing. It might just need additional RAM (if possible, not knowing the model).

And if you do, why have 2 desktop systems, vs. MP for desktop, and a portable for location work, assuming you're making a living with the system/s? :confused:

BTW, yes the iMacs have a built-in screen, but there seems to be issues with color matching with glossy screens. If such a screen is going to be an issue for you, it's not the way to go IMO.

[Transporteur]

I use for web design photoshop, ilustrastror, code... print.... and now I start with after effects for video... but mainly for web design proposits...

I work with my mac pro for that, runs like a beast for web photoshop with 2gb... (I dont image how with 10gb or more wow)



You definitely need more RAM!
The only reason your iMac can compete with your MacPro is because it has 4GB.
Look at your activity monitor and compare Page ins and Page outs.

[peskaa]

I'm actually selling my 2008 Mac Pro in the Marketplace, as I'm ditching it for a maxed out 2.8Ghz Core i7 iMac 27". I use Photoshop and Aperture mainly, and my Mac Pro is just overkill.

The way I see it, the i7 at 2.8Ghz is faster at single-threaded applications (even without HyperThreading) as it is a newer architecture (ie: 2.8Ghz to 2.8Ghz, the i7 wins). When you look at multi-threading I'll be a bit worse off, but I don't use it right now, and a quad core should be plenty. I'm basically equating the iMac to the '09 Quad Core Mac Pro - which seemed to match the 2.8Ghz '08 quite well.

[glhiii]

I just upgraded my '08 MP to 14 gb RAM from 6. It is much more responsive -- and when I have 6 or 7 programs open seems to use most of the 14 gb. A MP with only 2 GB is only functioning at a small fraction of its potential, since it's spending a lot of time writing and reading its memory from disk. If you spend $250 for 8 gb RAM from OWC, you'll have a computer that I suspect is somewhat faster than the new 4-core iMacs.

[justit]

I just upgraded my '08 MP to 14 gb RAM from 6.....

Nice, you've got enough to start using ram disk also. My xbench was about 35% faster than an SSD. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=726879

But in the case if the new iMacs, you can finally install more memory which for me is kind of a tipping point.

[justit]

I'm actually selling my 2008 Mac Pro in the Marketplace, as I'm ditching it for a maxed out 2.8Ghz Core i7 iMac 27". I use Photoshop and Aperture mainly, and my Mac Pro is just overkill...


Isn't your Aperture disk intensive also? You'd want to have a RAID striped to get better performance from Aperture, not just CPU processing. With the Imac you're stuck with the disk apple gives you.

[peskaa]

Isn't your Aperture disk intensive also? You'd want to have a RAID striped to get better performance from Aperture, not just CPU processing. With the Imac you're stuck with the disk apple gives you.

Yes. I'll probably add an external RAID via FW800 if the internal disk proves too slow.

[Transporteur]

Yes. I'll probably add an external RAID via FW800 if the internal disk proves too slow.

Firewire has a maximum bandwidth of 100MB/s, which is about 80MB/s in a real environment.

Almost every harddisk you can buy today is faster, especially the ones with a high capacity (>= 1TB).

[peskaa]

Firewire has a maximum bandwidth of 100MB/s, which is about 80MB/s in a real environment.

Almost every harddisk you can buy today is faster, especially the ones with a high capacity (>= 1TB).

100MB/s is enough for Aperture. Considering my library is currently on a USB2 interface, 5,400rpm portable drive and works perfectly fine...

[TMRaven]

An i7 iMac won't even come close to the amount of performance a dual xeon processor mac pro spits out. Xeon processors are server grade chips and should be on par or higher than the performance of a Lynnfield 860.

What I don't get is why you're using only 2 gigs of ram for your mac pro. The xeons use triple channel memory bandwidth, so you'll get the most out of them with 3 parallel sticks of ram at the same speed! The least you could do for your mac pro is to go out and buy a triple channel set for around 200 usd.

If you're that interested in the monitor the iMac has, go out and buy one. It's an hp panel I believe so hp should sell something very similiar.

[justit]

If you're that interested in the monitor the iMac has, go out and buy one. It's an hp panel I believe so hp should sell something very similiar.

Apple is using an HP panel? :eek:

I hope you don't think it's this http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/display/display/1/storefronts/NT188AA%2523ABA;HHOJSID=FGz9K1YZ5Tp6JyTsQBC9whD3bGMbGrXnQntQQ9bv5KzSGkk7qJjl!-743783937

I can't find anyone other than apple that has a 27" backlit LCD that runs at 2560 by 1440 pixels natively. Gloss or no gloss, it's one of the best displays out there, hence all the renewed interest in the iMac 27".

[TMRaven]

LG panel my mistake.

[Transporteur]

What I don't get is why you're using only 2 gigs of ram for your mac pro. The xeons use triple channel memory bandwidth, so you'll get the most out of them with 3 parallel sticks of ram at the same speed! The least you could do for your mac pro is to go out and buy a triple channel set for around 200 usd.


Dual channel, not triple channel. RAM in the 08 MacPro in pairs of two, not three!


And just because LG or HP or whoever the manufacturer of the panel is, does not mean that they come up with a standalone display using that panel in the near future.

It took Samsung 3 years till they came up with a 30" screen, even if they were producing the panel for the 30" Apple screen which was released in 2004.

[Techhie]

An i7 iMac won't even come close to the amount of performance a dual xeon processor mac pro spits out. Xeon processors are server grade chips and should be on par or higher than the performance of a Lynnfield 860.

What I don't get is why you're using only 2 gigs of ram for your mac pro. The xeons use triple channel memory bandwidth, so you'll get the most out of them with 3 parallel sticks of ram at the same speed! The least you could do for your mac pro is to go out and buy a triple channel set for around 200 usd.


First of all, the only difference in recent Xeon chips is the ability to accept ECC RAM; the quad core MP actually has the socket to accept a Core i7 extreme. With its overhauled architecture, the Core i7 chip in the iMac could destroy an '08 Mac Pro in single threaded performance, and be comparable in multi-theraded applications because of hyperthreading.

About the RAM, it's already been said that the '08 MP uses a dual channel setup. Even if it did take triple channel, my Mac Pro (and it's benchmarks) show that running dual channel with 4 modules on even an '09 MP does not hinder performance even a negligible amount.

[TMRaven]

Yes, it appears I've been dwelling on the early '09 model mac pro-- the one with the X5570 chip, it seems like it's been out forever now.

Regardless if it's an '08 model mac pro or not, I think the possibility of spending 2000 usd on an iMac is a little absurd. The '08 line of mac pros are still powerful machines, and can very well last you another couple of years. The easiest thing you can do to upgrade your machine's power is to put another 2 gigs of ram in it.

LG makes the panel for the new iMacs, but is most likely a specialized panel they only sell to apple in agreement.

[umbilical]

I just upgraded my '08 MP to 14 gb RAM from 6. It is much more responsive -- and when I have 6 or 7 programs open seems to use most of the 14 gb. A MP with only 2 GB is only functioning at a small fraction of its potential, since it's spending a lot of time writing and reading its memory from disk. If you spend $250 for 8 gb RAM from OWC, you'll have a computer that I suspect is somewhat faster than the new 4-core iMacs.

thants sound nice! I keep my macpro

[Stevep67]

I do a lot Cinema 4D and Afert Effects, Final Cut work... Currently using G5 quad 2.5GHz (non Intel) with 5.5Mb RAM. It's getting clunky.

I'm concerned about the iMac 27" processor and especially the graphics card being able to handle 3D and video editing. On the fence between MP and iMac quad. All of this info is a lot to chew on. Price is a big factor. Loaded i7 iMac for $2,500 over MP for $3,400. It's a pretty big price difference.

Anyone else looking at an i7 iMac 27" for 3D/video?

[TMRaven]

I got my eyes set on the 27 inch iMac with 860. I'm only going to configure it with the stock 1 tb hd and 4 gigs of ram though, apple wants too much for those upgrades. I can just as easily upgrade ram for cheaper from newegg or something.

Also since the 860 accepts 1333 ram it would be nice to see if the new iMac can do so as well.