Boosting 2009 2.93 8-Core Mac Pro

[vogelhausdesign]

Hey everyone, been a while since I've posted. I am in need of some serious advice from Mac Pro users and professionals alike! I would like to gather information about boosting performance of my Mac Pro 2.93 Octo, I've scoured the net and found nothing much to go on. So I'll give you my specs, what I do with it, and what I'd like to get out of my machine. Thanks so much! PS. if it helps, I'm a graphic designer and 3D production artist, and I am willing to try anything to squeeze out as much power as I can!

HARDWARE:
//(early) 2009 Mac Pro 2.93 8-Core
-16GB Ram (2g x8)
-5.5TB HDD + 256gig FW 800 External
-ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 vram
-30" Apple Cinema Display HD
-OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.2

SOFTWARE
-Adobe CS4 Master Suite: Emphasis on After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator.
-Autodesk Sketch Book Pro 2
-Autodesk MUD 3D
-ZBrush 3 ( character modeling)
-Cinema 4D R11.5 ( Animation, High Res 3D Stills)
-Tech Tool 5.x (SL edition) eDrive support
-Call of Duty 4: Multiplayer

And finally, here is what I need advice/help with:
- Can the 2.93 Octo-Core be overclocked?

- Would I benefit from the nVidea Quadro FX 4800 for both 3D AND Gaming? Is there another card out there that can be flashed/purchased for mac, that I should consider?

-Would my workflow benefit from a RAID card, even though I use an external backup and use 7200rpm Drives with 32mb cache?

-Is there anything I'm completely unaware of that could boost my performance? such as software/hardware not mentioned, maintenance, upcoming product?

You guys are the best, with your help lets compile as much data as we can and when I try everything, I'll give you a video update to this post and we'll make a great thread and blog post about it.
:apple::apple::apple::apple:

[Dr.Pants]

- Can the 2.93 Octo-Core be overclocked?

Not AFAIK. EFI doesn't allow a user to modify its settings like a BIOS does in terms of voltage regulation, etc. There's software OCs about, but I thought they were for EFI32 machines in addition to the fact that they screwed up the system clock, and were much more trouble then they were worth.

- Would I benefit from the nVidea Quadro FX 4800 for both 3D AND Gaming? Is there another card out there that can be flashed/purchased for mac, that I should consider?

No. AFAIK, the 4800 is based off of the GTX260. Not to mention Quadro drivers work more towards an artifact-free environment then driving games.

I was under the impression an arsetonne of video cards were supported via the Netkas Injector, but I could be wrong. (Dunno much about the Netkas Injector, I was under the assumption it needed a helper card)

-Would my workflow benefit from a RAID card, even though I use an external backup and use 7200rpm Drives with 32mb cache?

-Is there anything I'm completely unaware of that could boost my performance? such as software/hardware not mentioned, maintenance, upcoming product?

You could use a SAS card and use some Seagate Cheetahs or Fujitsu-Siemens MBAs, but other then that.... NoScript for Firefox?:p

An advantage to a hardware RAID card (besides the fact that it could run RAID-5) would be its onboard cache, and some cards have a removable RAM DIMM to expand storage. 4GB cache in some cases. Large cache can solve part of RAID-5s write-hole issue.. but of course, that's if RAID-5 is right for you.

[vogelhausdesign]

^ good tips. I AM however doing motion graphics as well as gaming. So the Quadro FX4800 wouldn't be beneficial compared to some of the upcoming or mod cards? the price tag is pretty sizable, and i wouldnt need stereo imaging out of any card, however, the specs make me drool for just under $1700 wholesale. I am most interested to hear more about available GPU upgrades, overclocks, ect.. How is the GTX260 compared to the 4870HD?

I would LOVE more speed out of my drives, any suggestions on RAID card purchasing? also, I need stability and reliability too.. client documents will be stored on drives.

So thats a no on ZDnet's osx overclock for mac pro? I read old post of people able to reach almost 3.4ghz on a single pcu from 2.66

*Also forgot to mention i do have the option of booting windows, via parallels and or bootcamp.

[Techhie]

^ good tips. I AM however doing motion graphics as well as gaming. So the Quadro FX4800 wouldn't be beneficial compared to some of the upcoming or mod cards? I am most interested to hear more about available GPU upgrades, overclocks, ect..

So thats a no on ZDnet's osx overclock for mac pro? I read old post of people able to reach almost 3.4ghz on a single pcu from 2.66

*Also forgot to mention i do have the option of booting windows, via parallels and or bootcamp.

The performance of the Quadro FX4800 largely depends on the driver and the software utilizing it. The chip itself is based on the one in the GTX 285, but altered to allow for massive buffers and calculations because of professional graphic demands by Maya etc. In Mac OS X, the driver obviously was not designed for gaming performance, and would be a poor choice for anything other than a professional with a large budget. My question is, why do you not just use a cheaper Windows-based card, more games are available/perform better on Windows :p

[Badger^2]

http://silverado.cc/shop/home.php

[vogelhausdesign]

The performance of the Quadro FX4800 largely depends on the driver and the software utilizing it. The chip itself is based on the one in the GTX 285, but altered to allow for massive buffers and calculations because of professional graphic demands by Maya etc. In Mac OS X, the driver obviously was not designed for gaming performance, and would be a poor choice for anything other than a professional with a large budget. My question is, why do you not just use a cheaper Windows-based card, more games are available/perform better on Windows :p

I see, well I don't use Maya often. And I seldom use windows, unless a really really great game is available *maybe CoD4:MW2 comes along, I probably would never use windows over OS X.

Unless of course you're talking about flashing one for mac. But, how is the GTX 285? Is it build for mac? How does it compare to the HD 4870? because I'm really not all that impressed with my HD 4870. In fact, with snow leopard installed I saw a noticeable FPS reduction in gaming, and minor snags with 3D rendering.

@Badger^2, are you pointing to a RAID card? if so which one would best suit me for performance?

[gugucom]

It sounds like budget isn't much of an issue here. In that case I would go for more RAM either 8x 4 or 4x 8 + 4x 4 if you can afford it. You can use the biggest part of the RAM for a RAM drive. 48 GB should see you really flying, particularly when PS releases with 64-bit in summer.

You can also RAID several SSDs with a RAID card. I have done two in the optical bay with an Areca Arc-1210. No reason why you cannot fit 3 or 4. I used an Addonics 5,25" internal case there which fits four 2,5" drives. If you use three with your RAID card you can have one for Windows, either with a conventional 2,5" HDD or SSD which could use the second optical drive port.

Your HDD ports can be utilized to have mass data storage of up to 8 TB. Half of that could be backup. If you prefer external backup one of your four ARC ports can be used as eSATA and run your backups much faster than the FW.

In terms of graphics card I would wait for the next MP release in the first quarter 2010. They will likely bring something stronger like the 5870.

Read the thread below for some explanations how the speed up would work.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=820476&page=2

[VirtualRain]

The biggest improvement I've ever made to a system was adding a pair of SSD's.

There's a whole range of options and price points you can go for... if you want the balls-out solution, get an Areca ARC-1231 (http://www.areca.us/products/pcie341.htm) with 4+ Intel 160GB Gen2 SSD's in RAID0. Alternatively, just a pair of SSD's in software RAID0 will make you smile.

IMHO, the next (or perhaps the single) biggest productivity gain... is adding a second monitor. I know you already have a 30" ACD... why not add a second one? While you're at it, drop the Mac version of the GTX 285 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW387ZM/A) in there to drive them.

:D

[gugucom]

Areca ARC-1231 (http://www.areca.us/products/pcie341.htm) with 4+ Intel 160GB Gen2 SSD's in RAID0.

While you're at it, drop the Mac version of the GTX 285 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW387ZM/A) in there to drive them.

:D

I don't understand some of this advise. If you go with four SSDs you certainly do not need a capacity of 640 GB. It would be a waste of money to keep old projects and mass data on an SSD array. The Areca card also seems a bit overblown for what it is meant to do.

Re. the GTX 285 I seem to remember that the drivers for Pro apps are sloppy work and make it slower than the 4870.

[vogelhausdesign]

I don't understand some of this advise. If you go with four SSDs you certainly do not need a capacity of 640 GB. It would be a waste of money to keep old projects and mass data on an SSD array. The Areca card also seems a bit overblown for what it is meant to do.

Re. the GTX 285 I seem to remember that the drivers for Pro apps are sloppy work and make it slower than the 4870.

I agree entirely with what you're saying. Also, I would like to mention doing graphics and having a gigantic album collection makes it impossible to toss thousands at SSD's just for a little boost.

Anyone else want to refer back to the original post I made?

Thanks again guys

[TheStrudel]

Skip Nvidia cards for the foreseeable future. Stick with what you've got. If something better in terms of a GPU comes a long, we'll post on it to death in these forums.

Maximum OS/Apps storage would be a couple Intel SSDs striped together (If you're made of money, X-25Es are the fastest). Aside from that and the RAM previously mentioned, I would go for at least one more display.

You only really need a RAID card at this point unless you want to run a massive external RAID or run more complex RAID levels like 5 or 6. You haven't expressed a need for it, so I would just follow the advice you've already been given.

[nanofrog]

- Can the 2.93 Octo-Core be overclocked?
Not at this time, as there's no access to the firmware. A 3rd party utility might be a possibility in the future.

- Would I benefit from the nVidea Quadro FX 4800 for both 3D AND Gaming? Is there another card out there that can be flashed/purchased for mac, that I should consider?
To take advantage of the FX4800, you need the right software. Unfortunately, what I'm aware of, is for Windows. So I'd say skip it.

EVGA does make a Mac version of the GTX285, and currently is the fastest card you can get (that's EFI firmware out of the box). Injectors and flashing the ROM has been done on PC cards to save funds or give options that otherwise aren't available, if you want to consider that route.

-Would my workflow benefit from a RAID card, even though I use an external backup and use 7200rpm Drives with 32mb cache?
Yes, as the parallelism of drives can significantly improve throughputs. But you need to understand that this isn't the easiest or inexpensive thing to do.

You can try software based arrays (0/1/10 is possible via OS X). Cards offer additional levels, performance, and features (aimed at stability and ease of recovery). A proper card will contain an NVRAM solution for parity arrays (solves the write hole issue), and also helps with performance. The clue is to make sure it has it's own processor (such as an Intel IOP or PPC chip), and cache installed. Otherwise, it's using the system's CPU/s to do the work (it means there's no NVRAM solution at all, so parity based arrays are NOT advisable with these). Generally, such cards are inexensive, and refered to as Fake RAID controllers (system resources + drivers).

Assuming you go with a decent card, and you want to keep it internal, you'd need an adapter kit from MaxUpgrades ($165USD) that allows you to connect the HDD bays to a 3rd party card.

You'd need to think about the RAID levels, and decide what you're after in terms of balancing performance and redundancy.

You also have to figure out the capacity usage (i.e. how many GB/month) in order to see how fast you're running through capacity. From this, you can figure out how many drives you need to start with, and ports the card would need (then add 4 for future expansion, as it's much easier and cost effective to add drives rather than swap them). Use enterprise level drives, and keep a spare or two handy (depending on the drive count).

So for example, if you needed to start with 8 drives, you'd want to get a 12 port card. Assuming you need more than 4x drives, you have to obtain external enclosures and cables. Compared to consumer systems, RAID is on the expensive side. But you get what you pay for.

You can boot OS X off the array, and there are cards that can boot on a Mac, as they have EFI firmware (you do have to flash it, as the default is BIOS). I'd recommend Areca first, as they work in Macs, and offer a really good value. Atto is a bit easier to use (UI is cleaner), but they're also more expensive, and can lack a particular useful feature - the ability to upgrade the cache size (helps with performance, and can store more data in case of a power outage).

You also want to use the battery backup unit with a card, and a good UPS as well.

More details, namely with drive counts/capacity requirements, including the growth rate, would be immensely helpful.

-Is there anything I'm completely unaware of that could boost my performance? such as software/hardware not mentioned, maintenance, upcoming product?
Increasing the RAM might also be in order.

[vogelhausdesign]

Not at this time, as there's no access to the firmware. A 3rd party utility might be a possibility in the future.


To take advantage of the FX4800, you need the right software. Unfortunately, what I'm aware of, is for Windows. So I'd say skip it.

EVGA does make a Mac version of the GTX285, and currently is the fastest card you can get (that's EFI firmware out of the box). Injectors and flashing the ROM has been done on PC cards to save funds or give options that otherwise aren't available, if you want to consider that route.


Yes, as the parallelism of drives can significantly improve throughputs. But you need to understand that this isn't the easiest or inexpensive thing to do.

You can try software based arrays (0/1/10 is possible via OS X). Cards offer additional levels, performance, and features (aimed at stability and ease of recovery). A proper card will contain an NVRAM solution for parity arrays (solves the write hole issue), and also helps with performance. The clue is to make sure it has it's own processor (such as an Intel IOP or PPC chip), and cache installed. Otherwise, it's using the system's CPU/s to do the work (it means there's no NVRAM solution at all, so parity based arrays are NOT advisable with these). Generally, such cards are inexensive, and refered to as Fake RAID controllers (system resources + drivers).

Assuming you go with a decent card, and you want to keep it internal, you'd need an adapter kit from MaxUpgrades ($165USD) that allows you to connect the HDD bays to a 3rd party card.

You'd need to think about the RAID levels, and decide what you're after in terms of balancing performance and redundancy.

You also have to figure out the capacity usage (i.e. how many GB/month) in order to see how fast you're running through capacity. From this, you can figure out how many drives you need to start with, and ports the card would need (then add 4 for future expansion, as it's much easier and cost effective to add drives rather than swap them). Use enterprise level drives, and keep a spare or two handy (depending on the drive count).

So for example, if you needed to start with 8 drives, you'd want to get a 12 port card. Assuming you need more than 4x drives, you have to obtain external enclosures and cables. Compared to consumer systems, RAID is on the expensive side. But you get what you pay for.

You can boot OS X off the array, and there are cards that can boot on a Mac, as they have EFI firmware (you do have to flash it, as the default is BIOS). I'd recommend Areca first, as they work in Macs, and offer a really good value. Atto is a bit easier to use (UI is cleaner), but they're also more expensive, and can lack a particular useful feature - the ability to upgrade the cache size (helps with performance, and can store more data in case of a power outage).

You also want to use the battery backup unit with a card, and a good UPS as well.

More details, namely with drive counts/capacity requirements, including the growth rate, would be immensely helpful.


Increasing the RAM might also be in order.

Ok, so I think for now I'm actually good for a while on just the 6TB I have, the drives are separated as follows:

HD ( applications/peripherals)1TB
Backup ( time machine) 1.5TB
Designs (2d/3D Renders) 1TB
eDrive ( partition of designs drive) 15GB
Media ( music) 1TB + 1TB external
LaCie fw800 ( downloads/Misc) 256GB
Caviar Black External ( movies/completed animation) 1TB via USB2

My backup is used for client files and files essential to operating client work immediately following a crash.

My reason for wanting RAID is mainly stability and performance increase, with the possibility in the future to expand hyper polygonal renders (completed HD).

As for a graphics card, I'm willing to try anything.. from what I'm reading you all are saying stick with my 4870 HD for now and wait for something better to come along? correct?

As for ram, I do need to upgrade. How much of a performance increase do you think is possible with most of the graphic software capping out around 3g, with possibility of 6g via scratch. And by the way, after checking my system further I found that I do not have 16g, i have 14g, 2g x6 + 1g x2 factory ram. Same speed, everything is matched and installed correctly in the right slots, just the size difference in slot 4/8. Am I messing with my bandwidth by configuring this way?

[nanofrog]

Ok, so I think for now I'm actually good for a while on just the 6TB I have, the drives are separated as follows:

HD ( applications/peripherals)1TB
Backup ( time machine) 1.5TB
Designs (2d/3D Renders) 1TB
eDrive ( partition of designs drive) 15GB
Media ( music) 1TB + 1TB external
LaCie fw800 ( downloads/Misc) 256GB
Caviar Black External ( movies/completed animation) 1TB via USB2

My backup is used for client files and files essential to operating client work immediately following a crash.

My reason for wanting RAID is mainly stability and performance increase, with the possibility in the future to expand hyper polygonal renders (completed HD).
You'd want to seriously consider it, but do the research on the RAID levels (the RAID wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID) is a good start). If you want a parity based array, you need to use a proper hardware controller, as Fake RAID won't cut it. You can use an eSATA card (inexpensive & driver support is all that's needed) in combination with Port Muliplier enclosure/s for backups.

Different RAID levels affects how much of the total capacity is actually usable, so details would be needed for the specifics.

Also keep in mind, you'd need to go with enterprise drives for the array, so the ones you have would be usable for backup purposes only, once you transfer all of the data needed to the array. At least they're not going to be left unused. ;)

As for a graphics card, I'm willing to try anything.. from what I'm reading you all are saying stick with my 4870 HD for now and wait for something better to come along? correct?
If possible, yes. Personally, I'd think the 4870 could hold you over for a bit, until something better ships. By implementing other aspects to improve the system's bottlenecks (i.e. RAID and RAM disks for PS), you might get better performance out of the existing graphics card, as the system can feed it fast enough.

But if you must have something now, the GTX285 is the only Mac capable card available that works OTB.

As for ram, I do need to upgrade. How much of a performance increase do you think is possible with most of the graphic software capping out around 3g, with possibility of 6g via scratch.
It's possible to get around the 3GB limit for PS by using RAM disks. You can conatenate (JBOD) them together for a large memory space. It's far faster than HDD's, and the array can keep them fed with data as well. Check out this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=820476&highlight=RAM+disk), as it could prove useful to you.

And by the way, after checking my system further I found that I do not have 16g, i have 14g, 2g x6 + 1g x2 factory ram. Same speed, everything is matched and installed correctly in the right slots, just the size difference in slot 4/8. Am I messing with my bandwidth by configuring this way?
Filling the 4th DIMM slot per CPU does cut bandwidth to dual channel operation. But most software can't utilize triple channel DDR3, and of what can, none of it is what you use, so you're fine with filling all DIMMs. So go for capacity IMO.

You can go with triple channel if you wish for the possibility future software will use the bandwidth, but that's up to you.

[gugucom]

If I had the funds I would go for 4x8GB and 4x4GB. It should be a combination that gives a massive RAM capacity with very little bandwidth loss if at all. As the memory bandwidth of the MP4,1 is absolutely massive you are very unlikely to ever use it unless run all 8 cores at the limit. As soon as the 64-bit version of photoshop runs you will not need a RAM disk to use the RAM.

Re SSDs and a RAID card I did not criticise the idea of their use. I just thought a lower cost card and smaller SSDs would also do the job.

[nanofrog]

Re SSDs and a RAID card I did not criticise the idea of their use. I just thought a lower cost card and smaller SSDs would also do the job.
SSD's on RAID cards is expensive, and in high write environments, the proven reliability and much lower costs of mechanical drives makes much more sense right now.

SSD's great for read use, but the cells worst case write limits are really low (specification data by the flash manufacturer). 1E4 for MLC, 1E5 for SLC.

They make up for it with wear leveling, but the numbers the drive makers generate, are based on manipulated statistics. It's not data from 100% of the cells, but the best 90th percentile. The missing 10% is going to die much faster, and why it's recommended you don't totally fill them to have cells for wear leveling. That's where the 10% unused space comes from for wear leveling. Some even hide it, such as Intel. But it's a bare minimum amount. More is better, but as the capacity is typically small, may not be practical due to their storage needs.

[VirtualRain]

I don't understand some of this advise. If you go with four SSDs you certainly do not need a capacity of 640 GB. It would be a waste of money to keep old projects and mass data on an SSD array. The Areca card also seems a bit overblown for what it is meant to do.

Re. the GTX 285 I seem to remember that the drivers for Pro apps are sloppy work and make it slower than the 4870.

Well, I did say the 4 SSD's was the "balls-out" option... In fact, I think I was simply echoing your suggestion of a RAID card and 4 SSD's. :confused: You were also the one who seemed to suggest budget wasn't an issue. :confused: Perhaps you should re-read your own post. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I would still suggest an SSD or two for your OS/Apps... it will make a noticable difference... more than any other suggestion here so far.

The GTX285 was merely a suggestion to drive two 30" displays... which for this kind of work would almost seem essential.

[nanofrog]

Anyway, I would still suggest an SSD or two for your OS/Apps... it will make a noticable difference... more than any other suggestion here so far.
If a RAID is implemented though, the funds could be better used for additional parallelism, lending it to outperform SSD in most things, save random access. But even random access is improved by RAID. Thinking in terms of balance, it's not worth it. SSD's will make the OS load faster, and the applications on their initial load as well. But once up, it remains in memory. After that, the array becomes more important.

If budgets aren't an issue, then fine. But that's not common, so the funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Either the RAID or in additional memory, which is faster than SSD's. :p

[VirtualRain]

If a RAID is implemented though, the funds could be better used for additional parallelism, lending it to outperform SSD in most things, save random access. But even random access is improved by RAID. Thinking in terms of balance, it's not worth it. SSD's will make the OS load faster, and the applications on their initial load as well. But once up, it remains in memory. After that, the array becomes more important.

If budgets aren't an issue, then fine. But that's not common, so the funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Either the RAID or in additional memory, which is faster than SSD's. :p

In my previous PC, I ran four WD Raptors in RAID0 on an Areca 1210 with 256MB of cache and the performance of that, at least subjectively, doesn't hold a candle to the dual SSD's in RAID0. I think the 4K random read benchmarks would also back that up.

I think anyone who's run SSD's knows what I'm talking about, and knows that there's no going back to magnetic storage for OS/Apps. It does make a huge difference in perceived performance if nothing else.

[gugucom]

I agree with VirtualRain on that. The disadvantage of running four huge disks at high speed all the time is the energy use. It also means you have to use up your HDD ports for the system array and you will have the additional cost and space of external storage for backup.

Running two or three small SSDs from a RAID card enables you to have a generous system drive of 160-240 GB which will not wear out quickly if you do your housekeeping. The mass data storage and backup has still four HDD ports left so that you can run without external storage at all. That makes for a clean setup without a bunch of cables and clutter. Because the HDDs will do very little running you can use green drives and they will not wear out quickly.

[nanofrog]

In my previous PC, I ran four WD Raptors in RAID0 on an Areca 1210 with 256MB of cache and the performance of that, at least subjectively, doesn't hold a candle to the dual SSD's in RAID0. I think the 4K random read benchmarks would also back that up.

I think anyone who's run SSD's knows what I'm talking about, and knows that there's no going back to magnetic storage for OS/Apps. It does make a huge difference in perceived performance if nothing else.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about budget constraints as well. SSD's are faster a 4k, and with random access. But if there's a limited budget, a mechanical array can make more sense.

There's also the issues associated with SSD's, as their relatively new. Particularly the write capabilities are unproven in comparison for RAID use, especially if you go with say a parity array. And for sequential performance, SSD can't touch mechanical drives for writes in most cases.

It's going to depend on specific needs and budgets. But given the OP's information, and presuming funds aren't unlimited, it seems to me that a mechanical array would be better than SSD's.

I agree with VirtualRain on that. The disadvantage of running four huge disks at high speed all the time is the energy use. It also means you have to use up your HDD ports for the system array and you will have the additional cost and space of external storage for backup.
In enterprise environments, power use makes a huge difference. But for a small quantity of drives (workstation, consumer, or SOHO), ~12W per disk for mechanical isn't that big a deal at all. Especially if performance is of a high priority.

Running two or three small SSDs from a RAID card enables you to have a generous system drive of 160-240 GB which will not wear out quickly if you do your housekeeping. The mass data storage and backup has still four HDD ports left so that you can run without external storage at all. That makes for a clean setup without a bunch of cables and clutter. Because the HDDs will do very little running you can use green drives and they will not wear out quickly.
That bit of capacity may be too small though, especially for video/graphics work, given the posts and emails I've had with such users. Capacity is consumed rather quickly it seems.

Then there's the differences between read and writes in terms of reliability. There's no long term data to support the fact it can last for years for writes, just manufacturer data (which I accept with some hesitation, due to omissions/manipulation of the data). Especially if RAID is used. Some seem to have been rather disappointed with SSD stripe sets IIRC.

[VirtualRain]

Keep in mind, I'm talking about budget constraints as well. SSD's are faster a 4k, and with random access. But if there's a limited budget, a mechanical array can make more sense.

It seems every thread gets into a religious debate about the pros/cons of SSD's (usually between you and me :p since Tess is notably absent these days). It's a shame because it is a religious experience to have an SSD or two, but it's not anywhere near that having mechanical RAID... IMHO... and I've used both.

We should ask the mods to post a sticky where we go 12 rounds on the subject and then just link to that every time someone asks about how to improve their systems performance. ;)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the impression the OP is on a budget... if he is, he's on a much healthier budget than most!... He's got a fully loaded 2009 Mac Pro with eight 2.93GHz cores, probably over $10K in software, and he's asking about how to improve the performance! :p :eek: :rolleyes:

[nanofrog]

It seems every thread gets into a religious debate about the pros/cons of SSD's (usually between you and me :p since Tess is notably absent these days). It's a shame because it is a religious experience to have an SSD or two, but it's not anywhere near that having mechanical RAID... IMHO... and I've used both.
I like SSD in concept, and I do think they're wonderful for OS drives (or any high read usage).

But they're not the best technology right now for high writes, as it's yet unproven in reliability terms. I'm accustomed to having to deal with very high reliability, so I approach things like this with caution. If the data's not out there, I'd want to test it myself, and so far, there's no long term studies with SSD in high write situation data. I'm also accustomed to drive makers manipulating data (the use of a 90th percentile statistical analysis is a major clue IMO), or representing it in a specific manner (not real world so to speak, as it's typically for a unique situation). So the only information I can really go with, is the fundamentals with current Flash technology from the chip manufacturers. Which isn't that wonderful.

SSD's are also rather expensive, which is another problem.

We should ask the mods to post a sticky where we go 12 rounds on the subject and then just link to that every time someone asks about how to improve their systems performance. ;)
Maybe not a bad idea. :D

Also, I'm not sure where you got the impression the OP is on a budget... if he is, he's on a much healthier budget than most!... He's got a fully loaded 2009 Mac Pro with eight 2.93GHz cores, probably over $10K in software, and he's asking about how to improve the performance! :p :eek: :rolleyes:
Life experience. There's always a budget, for any size company, even if it's been thought out properly for the needs.

If I have a client that says "they're in a big hurry and money's no object", I turn them down, or come up with a payment schedule as the job proceeds.

The reasoning is, I've witnessed and experienced first hand situations like this (total payment due at completion), and the end result was always the same. They didn't pay the bill, and filed for bankruptcy instead. No assets, so there's nothing. Just a waste of time.

So presuming there is a budget, even a well planned one, the OP would have to figure out if SSD's really an option. As it's really only going to help with booting (OS drive), I don't see it as worthwhile, as the system is likely to be left on most of the time, if not 24/7. So using the mechanical array makes more financial sense. The money saved by not going with an SSD/s (if an array was attempted), could be better used to pay for the mechanical array (better for a high write environment) or additional memory, which is also advisable.

If the budget is truly high enough where it doesn't matter, the OP can go ahead and stuff up to 2x SSD's on the logic board without throttling the ICH10R in an '09. If so, then any mechanical array must go on a card to avoid throttling the throughputs, as I must presume simultaneous access with the usage described.

[vogelhausdesign]

Hey guys , sorry for the short update. I'm on my iphone right now and will read and give replies to each individual who has posted in this thread since my last reply.

I have a QUICK question however, what does http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=811768 this thread mean for my setup? is their now a graphics option available to me that wasnt there before? If the hyperlink does not work for some reason, it is the post on the new ATI Flashing GUI

Sorry for not addressing your suggestions in this post, I will get to everyone individually in a short while.

I'd like to thank you all again, and hope that you continue to suggest everything worthy that comes to mind. I truly appreciate it.

EDIT: At this time, I see a substantial decrease in the cost/GB{SSD} in the VERY near future. So , not because of my budget, but because I would really feel a lot of money going to waste if at this time in 2009 I spent resources on drives I for see costing 50-60% less in 2010. For now, I will gladly take advice on a system running no more than (1) SSD as boot, and or a raid configuration maximizing efficiency and performance.

I'd like you to note this, do not take my budget into consideration. I wouldn't spare any reasonable expense for my personal, or client work.

[nanofrog]

For now, I will gladly take advice on a system running no more than (1) SSD as boot, and or a raid configuration maximizing efficiency and performance.
This would be fine, but you need to look at the different RAID levels, and choose. Also recall that the ICH10R in your system is throttled. So I'd recommend going with a RAID card for the mechanical array to maintain throughputs.

[iamcheerful]

... I'd like you to note this, do not take my budget into consideration ...

I honestly love to say that for myself and most if not all the people in the world :p

To be fair, vogelhausdesign did also add "I wouldn't spare any reasonable expense for my personal, or client work."

Well said, especially with the ever wonderful word "reasonable".

[vogelhausdesign]

Hey guys , sorry for the short update. I'm on my iphone right now and will read and give replies to each individual who has posted in this thread since my last reply.

I have a QUICK question however, what does http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=811768 this thread mean for my setup? is their now a graphics option available to me that wasnt there before? If the hyperlink does not work for some reason, it is the post on the new ATI Flashing GUI
anyone?

[VirtualRain]

This would be fine, but you need to look at the different RAID levels, and choose. Also recall that the ICH10R in your system is throttled. So I'd recommend going with a RAID card for the mechanical array to maintain throughputs.

While the ICH has a limit, I'm not sure I would refer to it as "throttled". Throttled implies Intel intentionally cut it's performance. I suspect it's 660MB/s throughput was considered ample at the time it was designed the same way 3Gbps was considered ridiculous for a SATA device. SSD's are exposing a few new bottlenecks. :D

At any rate, the ICH throughput shouldn't be a factor if he's only considering a single SSD and perhaps a mechanical RAID array to boot... an SSD's probably good for 250MB/s and a 4 drive RAID0 array maybe 400MB/s?

BTW, OP, glad to hear you are considering an SSD! You will thank yourself! ;) :D

[nanofrog]

While the ICH has a limit, I'm not sure I would refer to it as "throttled". Throttled implies Intel intentionally cut it's performance. I suspect it's 660MB/s throughput was considered ample at the time it was designed the same way 3Gbps was considered ridiculous for a SATA device. SSD's are exposing a few new bottlenecks. :D
I see it as throttled as it's not capable of full SATA throughput per port (375MB/s*6 = 2.25GB/s, which is more than the QPI can even handle). Given what's available to the ICH10R, I see it as 1/3 of what the QPI is capable of (666.67 MB/s minus switching overhead to provide ~660MB/s). I can't get over the impression they set a fixed value in the chipset rather than allow dynamic band allocation to keep the size smaller for higher yeilds.

But I understand your point, and it's adequate for mechanical. My issue is, they weren't blind sided by SSD's, as they were working with their own SSD products and the Nehalem architecture at the same time, and had to realize it would be limited.

Now for Windows Server in the enterprise environment, it's not a problem, as it's expected that the ICH10R would be used for mechanical drives, not SSD, and if high througputs are needed, a RAID card would be used (or FC card to a SAN).

Again, assuming mechanical drives, its even fine for Linux as ZFS/Z-RAID/Z-RAID2 pools are desired to get the max performance for the least cost possible. More drives would require an HBA as well. Again, expected by those implementing it.

But SSD has a place in workstation use as OS/app arrays, not just single drives. That's were the ICH10R's limitations are being exposed, as well as enthusiast users that run mulitple SSD's. Granted, this is a smaller aspect of the market, but it's an important one IMO. It's undermining the performance value these systems have been marketed to provide for workstation systems, as I feel such users are being blind sided on this aspect.

At any rate, the ICH throughput shouldn't be a factor if he's only considering a single SSD and perhaps a mechanical RAID array to boot... an SSD's probably good for 250MB/s and a 4 drive RAID0 array maybe 400MB/s?

BTW, OP, glad to hear you are considering an SSD! You will thank yourself! ;) :D[/QUOTE]

[TheStrudel]

anyone?

The option is for flashing a PC 4870 or 4890. In both cases, it would be an upgrade, but a very marginal upgrade - either doubling your VRAM or getting a slightly faster card. Since you already have an  4870, there is no real reason for you to upgrade your card in such a fashion at this time, unless you have a real need for something, such as two DVI ports. It's a really cool utility for people like me who flashed a card, but it won't really help you in a substantial way.

Now, that may be different if the 5870 is released for mac and we flash it in a similar fashion, but you'll hear about it here when that happens. For now, ignore your graphics card unless you need to run more displays. You're fine with what you've got. Though I do suggest that a good display is always warranted - I suggest a nice IPS panel 23" or larger.

[Demonfart]

But, how is the GTX 285? Is it build for mac? How does it compare to the HD 4870?

Apple just replaced my ATI card with the GTX 285 so I'm in a particularly good position to report the differences between the two, and they are large (the ATI card not playing well with Snow Leopard, and third party monitors, is apparently a known issue for Apple). That GTX card destroys the ATI card, especially in my graphics software (I don't game on my workstation so I'm not sure about performance in games). I use Adobe CS4, and that's about it...lots of motion graphics, large format print work, a bit of editing and web development.

[tecton]

Re. the GTX 285 I seem to remember that the drivers for Pro apps are sloppy work and make it slower than the 4870.

In regards to the gtx 285 there's some nice info here:
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal14.html

Although I think you are right in that the drivers are a bit sloppy, you'll still eke out a slightly better performance than the 4870 most of the time.

[giffut]

... would see two core improvements ready for immediate gains and with reasonable spendings:

1. get more RAM, best upgrade to a total of 32GB (if you definitely see a RAM shortage, which I might suspect, as you probably work simultaneously on different applications)

2. put your system (OSX/applications) on an SSD, preferable Intel X25 series, and keep it completely free of any data besides eMail and text documents (you already did this, I think); the fast SSD will give OSX disc caching a great boost (and it is happening, even with lots of system memory available)

Now, concerning RAID, you need to figure out, if you have a pool of data which is significantly bigger than any available harddisc to buy at the moment (that´s 2TB) and if you want to keep it like this. In that case, RAID 6 might be the perfect solution, BUT: You need a good hardware RAID card for this, RAID certified harddiscs according to your planned size and double them to have an adequate backup in place. RAID is and ever will be compromise about performance (speed, size). Built in redundancy like in RAID 5/6 is just a minor safeguard, but second or third backup is the real deal. If you want a 8TB RAID 6 system, don´t forget to think about backing up 8TB, too.

For your workflow, I don´t really see the necessity to have a RAID solution for speed (RAID 0/10). My advice: If you can keep it simple, keep it there: Single drives with single cloned backups is the easiest in follow up and maintainance. Like: one internal drive goes to a dedicated external backup drive of the same size (you even could use USB based casings for this).

The graphics can´t really be improved at the moment for a significant speedup regarding your application usage. Wait it out.

PS

I know, some of the things were already mentionned, I just wanted to clarify my focus.

[vogelhausdesign]

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay! So I'm seeing a lot of RAM/RAID suggestions here. Which is great, however.. There is possibly a new dilemma, and I've been thinking about this at length. Of ALL the thing I could spend money on , or improve in this MP09, what about just getting a top end 2010? I don't know much about the new processors, or the overall performance.

But would it just be better and less of a hassle overall to just upgrade to the 2010 model? I'm assuming faster RAM, more GPU capability, better support, cooler temps.

What do you guys think? Would my computer as is be worth much in this market for re-sale?

On a side note. How do you feel about a 2tb Striped soft-raid for OS/Apps, i know i'd be wasting some space. but is their any benefit to doing this? I know soft raid's are scary but I have a pretty efficient backup system going.

Oh and another thing, I remember thinking their was a way to "daisy-chain" 4870's together using a certain pin configuration, and that it was possible to double the speed by making 1 card 2 cards. Am I just completely losing it, or did I see that as an option??

**Let me know what you think about the 2010 MP's ,i know it's early.. but should I start saving cash for ram/SSD for a 2010? or beef my 09' and be happy until 2011.

[frimple]

But would it just be better and less of a hassle overall to just upgrade to the 2010 model? I'm assuming faster RAM, more GPU capability, better support, cooler temps.

I doubt that the next gen GPU's for the Pro would not be backwards compatible with the 09 model. Faster RAM is likely (or at least I would think so) as they've crippled it now @ 1066Mhz when the CPU's on die memory controller can go up to 1333Mhz. Not sure what you mean by better support. Cooler temps and lower energy bills would be a by-product of the 32nm fabrication coming in 2010 from Intel.

I guess my main question is what are you resource bound by now? Where are your bottlenecks? Are you maxing out the CPU usage that you have now? Is the fact that Apple hates us when it comes to GPU choices whats causing you grief? Finding your current bottlenecks will go a long way in getting valuable answers on which course is better.

What do you guys think? Would my computer as is be worth much in this market for re-sale?

Of course everything used is less than new and everything old is less then current. Mac's don't depreciate as much as PC's, but you'll take a hit if you wait to sell it until you have a new one. Conversely, if you could "make due" with another machine for a few months between selling your current pro and buying a new one, do you really need the latest Pro?

[nanofrog]

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay! So I'm seeing a lot of RAM/RAID suggestions here. Which is great, however.. There is possibly a new dilemma, and I've been thinking about this at length. Of ALL the thing I could spend money on , or improve in this MP09, what about just getting a top end 2010? I don't know much about the new processors, or the overall performance.

But would it just be better and less of a hassle overall to just upgrade to the 2010 model? I'm assuming faster RAM, more GPU capability, better support, cooler temps.
Most of the issues are likely to follow from the '09 into the 2010 models. You'd still lack access to the firmware, and need adapters to use the HDD bays with a 3rd party internal RAID card.

Unless there's a new ICH, the existing ICH10R will also follow (throughput limit of ~660MB/s), as does the chipset family. The existing bottlenecks in drive throughputs will follow, even if it has SATA III (6.0Gb/s), as there's no mechanical drives that can use it. SSD's will be another story, but with the issues with the ICH10R, it won't mean much.

Temps will likely be about the same, but you will get an additional pair of cores, so it is technically more efficient.

I'd also expect the DIMM count to remain low, and I'm not sure on the RAM frequency. Maybe 1333MHz, and more doubtful if 1600MHz would be allowed, even if available in the IMC. I'm more on the idea they'll use the slowest clock all the parts they choose to use have in common. Assuming Apple follows their most recent history.

Prices aren't likely to be that pretty either from what information has released on the Gulftowns, and likely have lower clocks than the existing models (base, mid, high end) to meet cost constraints (along with Apple's notorious high margins).

Ultimately, it's a bit early yet, as there's little information on the Intel parts, let alone the MP's as they'll actually ship. But from what is available, it's not looking good IMO.

What do you guys think? Would my computer as is be worth much in this market for re-sale?
Yes, but don't expect to get every cent up put into it back (and things like RAID cards and drives will be transferable to a new system if you do). When the '09's shipped, the '08's were suddenly in high demand, given the lack of stellar performance increases and costs. Again, I'm thinking history is going to repeat itself very closely to last time. Even if similarly priced, the clocks may be the hinderance for users with far less multi-threaded software needs in terms of performance (clocks have an impact in single threaded performance, not core quantities).

On a side note. How do you feel about a 2tb Striped soft-raid for OS/Apps, i know i'd be wasting some space. but is their any benefit to doing this? I know soft raid's are scary but I have a pretty efficient backup system going.
It's possible to do, and you'd definitely want to run a good backup system.

That said, you have to determine what level of redundancy you might want (thing in terms of can you afford the down time needed to repair if there's a problem). If the answer is Yes, go for it. If not, you'd need to go another route (either a different array type, or perhaps an SSD).

Oh and another thing, I remember thinking their was a way to "daisy-chain" 4870's together using a certain pin configuration, and that it was possible to double the speed by making 1 card 2 cards. Am I just completely losing it, or did I see that as an option??
Cross Fire, but it's not supported in OS X. Nor is SLI for the nVidia cards.

**Let me know what you think about the 2010 MP's ,i know it's early.. but should I start saving cash for ram/SSD for a 2010? or beef my 09' and be happy until 2011.
Personally, boost the existing model, as the new system will still have bottlenecks that plague all new systems if they're not addressed. Options such as RAID cards, and larger memory capacities for example.

I doubt that the next gen GPU's for the Pro would not be backwards compatible with the 09 model. Faster RAM is likely (or at least I would think so) as they've crippled it now @ 1066Mhz when the CPU's on die memory controller can go up to 1333Mhz. Not sure what you mean by better support. Cooler temps and lower energy bills would be a by-product of the 32nm fabrication coming in 2010 from Intel.
They are, but the boards will need a firmware update (CPU microcode), which Apple won't provide. They'll do this to sell the new machines, as they've done since the Intel switch that I'm aware of (maybe longer as I didn't follow the PPC models much, but you get the idea).

I guess my main question is what are you resource bound by now? Where are your bottlenecks? Are you maxing out the CPU usage that you have now? Is the fact that Apple hates us when it comes to GPU choices whats causing you grief? Finding your current bottlenecks will go a long way in getting valuable answers on which course is better.
Precisely.

[gugucom]

You are using this machine more for graphics work than rendering which means the increased core count is not going to do you a lot of good. Memory bandwidth isn't a problem either with the massive bandwidth the Nehalems have by birthright.

So logically you want to increase RAM capacity because nothing speeds up things as running in RAM does. Get yourself 48 GB of RAM and a fast boot drive for OS X and Bootcamp (gaming). However you do that is more an issue of religion than technology. Both options, striped HDD or striped SSDs with a SATA Raid card is just some thing you need to bring behind you and be done with.

There is only one reason I would wait some months and that is the unlikely case that Apple fits four more DIMM slots. That would save a ton of money on the 8GB DIMMs that could be used towards upgrading from the 5500 to the 5600.

[VirtualRain]

I guess my main question is what are you resource bound by now? Where are your bottlenecks? Are you maxing out the CPU usage that you have now? Is the fact that Apple hates us when it comes to GPU choices whats causing you grief? Finding your current bottlenecks will go a long way in getting valuable answers on which course is better.

+1... OP, what are you trying to accomplish... really?

As for your direct questions...
- The 2010 Mac Pro will have 6 cores per processor but will be otherwise identical to a 2009 Mac Pro (at least I can't imagine Apple will spend a cent to revise the internals other than adding the new processors and firmware). Can you make good use of more cores? Is that holding you back now?
- The resale value on Mac Pro's in my area is pretty strong. Check Craigslist in your area to see how many are listed and their asking price.
- A SW RAID0 array is fine, it's no less reliable than a HW RAID0 solution and in Mac OSX is super simple to setup and the load on the processor is insignificant. However, if you are serious about performance, get a couple of SSD's in RAID0. It seems insane to me to have spent what you have and NOT be running a pair of SSD's.
- There's no way to link two 4870's in OSX.

[nanofrog]

You are using this machine more for graphics work than rendering which means the increased core count is not going to do you a lot of good. Memory bandwidth isn't a problem either with the massive bandwidth the Nehalems have by birthright.
Exactly, and the existing machine is already capable of dealing with 64bit applications, so those still 32bit won't require the OP to get a new system when the 64 bit versions ship (assuming they're obtained).

So logically you want to increase RAM capacity because nothing speeds up things as running in RAM does. Get yourself 48 GB of RAM and a fast boot drive for OS X and Bootcamp (gaming). However you do that is more an issue of religion than technology. Both options, striped HDD or striped SSDs with a SATA Raid card is just some thing you need to bring behind you and be done with.
Ideally, both. You get the raw speed of SSD for random access for the OS and applications, and the reliability and inexpensive capacity of mechanical drives for data.

There is only one reason I would wait some months and that is the unlikely case that Apple fits four more DIMM slots. That would save a ton of money on the 8GB DIMMs that could be used towards upgrading from the 5500 to the 5600.
At this point, I'm going to assume they'll use the same case again, so fitting additional DIMM slots per CPU is unlikely (logic board + daugher board implementation again). It can even allow the same daughter boards to be used, just with different CPU's, and firmware. The logic boards could change, assuming 10G Ethernet and/or Light Peak is actually implemented. Then there's also the issues of keeping it the same for memory cost reasons, which pushed the sales of the current Octad models, as you're aware. They need some reason to differentiate/force the sales of the DP systems, and the DIMM count is one effective way to do that. :rolleyes: :(

[iamcheerful]

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay! So I'm seeing a lot of RAM/RAID suggestions here. Which is great, however.. There is possibly a new dilemma, and I've been thinking about this at length. Of ALL the thing I could spend money on , or improve in this MP09, what about just getting a top end 2010? I don't know much about the new processors, or the overall performance.

But would it just be better and less of a hassle overall to just upgrade to the 2010 model? I'm assuming faster RAM, more GPU capability, better support, cooler temps.

What do you guys think? Would my computer as is be worth much in this market for re-sale?

On a side note. How do you feel about a 2tb Striped soft-raid for OS/Apps, i know i'd be wasting some space. but is their any benefit to doing this? I know soft raid's are scary but I have a pretty efficient backup system going.

Oh and another thing, I remember thinking their was a way to "daisy-chain" 4870's together using a certain pin configuration, and that it was possible to double the speed by making 1 card 2 cards. Am I just completely losing it, or did I see that as an option??

**Let me know what you think about the 2010 MP's ,i know it's early.. but should I start saving cash for ram/SSD for a 2010? or beef my 09' and be happy until 2011.

Do you need a machine now? If not, max out the 2010 then.
If you do not need a machine by then, then wait out and max out the 2011.

[frimple]

They are, but the boards will need a firmware update (CPU microcode), which Apple won't provide. They'll do this to sell the new machines, as they've done since the Intel switch that I'm aware of (maybe longer as I didn't follow the PPC models much, but you get the idea).

Totally agree, new CPUs won't be a drop in replacement but new GPUs (I know, I should have just said graphics cards) should be.

[gugucom]

...fitting additional DIMM slots per CPU is unlikely (logic board + daugher board implementation again). It can even allow the same daughter boards to be used, just with different CPU's, and firmware. The logic boards could change, assuming 10G Ethernet and/or Light Peak is actually implemented. Then there's also the issues of keeping it the same for memory cost reasons, which pushed the sales of the current Octad models, as you're aware. They need some reason to differentiate/force the sales of the DP systems, and the DIMM count is one effective way to do that. :rolleyes: :(

I do agree that the most likely outcome would be Apple keeping the tray and the logic board with just the most basic upgrades required by the new CPU generation.

I don't agree with the probable reason for the idiotic DIMM slot count on the Nehalem tray. I simply think they ran out of space because they integrated the boost fans into the heat sinks. Next someone who had to decide on a possible design compromise was too dumb to realize they had gone from dual channel to triple channel. If this was done to force people towards octads for memory capacity at least the octads would have been fitted with 12 slots. They did not do this. So all hints towards a dumb design compromise.

I also agree that it will probably not be changed because few people will even realize what happens and even fewer will complain. So the same moron who took the decision will likely think that he has no reason to change a thing.

[nanofrog]

I don't agree with the probable reason for the idiotic DIMM slot count on the Nehalem tray. I simply think they ran out of space because they integrated the boost fans into the heat sinks.
I expect them to recycle the coolers, as they'll be able to handle the loads, as they're to have similar TDP's. Ultimately, it's a cost savings for Apple to do so.

Next someone who had to decide on a possible design compromise was too dumb to realize they had gone from dual channel to triple channel. If this was done to force people towards octads for memory capacity at least the octads would have been fitted with 12 slots. They did not do this. So all hints towards a dumb design compromise.
I do think it's intentional, but combined with limited physical area due to the layout (as much design choices, such as recycling the case). But it appears to me, that another couple of slots could have been squeezed on. It likely would have required another layer for the traces to do so, and was decided against, even though possible. Cheapness and intentional pushing of the Octads makes more sense to me.

Granted it's possible that the engineers responsible were morons, but the actual design was done by Intel, who's engineering dept. is quite capable (definitely aware of the channel configuration of LGA1366). So costs would be the likely reason, followed closely with marketing. That's how I derived my conclusions anyway. :D :p

I also agree that it will probably not be changed because few people will even realize what happens and even fewer will complain. So the same moron who took the decision will likely think that he has no reason to change a thing.
They won't want to make many changes in order to reuse as much as possible, and tool up faster. Ultimately, the goal is super simple: save money. Now it's possible some incidental items may change, but it's not a total re-design in my view. Just some possible mods, such as 10G Ethernet and Light Peak, assuming they actually implement them (these would affect the PCIe lanes, since both require PCIe to connect to the chipset). PCI will continue to be used for audio, but that may be it. Otherwise, the simplest change, to make is firmware (adding the necessary microcode). And Intel will almost certainly do the board work again.

[gugucom]

In the past MP logic board and heat sink design was done by Foxconn. I havn't checked for their logo on the 2009 logic board but I would be extremely surprised if the design was by Intel. I have not seen an Intel reference design with the Apple tray solution.

[giffut]

... wouldn´t hazzle to upgrade your whole machine just after one year. That´s insane; and in the end you still would need to upgrade RAM and HD specs, anyway for the new machine, too.

Get as much RAM as you can afford now and a good quality SSD for your system drive (to speed up OSX caching). There is no need to have stripped RAID arrays for this, it just gives you the hazzle to deal with it and having permanent severe backup strategies - keep this limited to your data drives. As a matter of facts: Do keep your data seperated from each other on drives adapted to the workload (fast speeds: SSD, huge sizes: 2TB HDs, RAID 0/5/6 etc.pp.). You don´t need to get the maximum possible throughput, but the one which is best for your type of work. Faster is not always the best - but certainly, it´s the most expensive.

Keep it simple, do only adapt to necessities your workload enforces, do NOT succumb to wishes and best dream scenarios.

[nanofrog]

In the past MP logic board and heat sink design was done by Foxconn. I havn't checked for their logo on the 2009 logic board but I would be extremely surprised if the design was by Intel. I have not seen an Intel reference design with the Apple tray solution.
I've not seen the '09's internals to see any markings. But what I saw (and other information) indicated Intel did the '08's. It made sense to me, as they have the experience, and Apple could use the purchasing power to their advantage. Then there's supply issues. From one source, it's easier to actually get the parts in on time (CPU's + logic boards in this case), not strung out as a supplier was late in delivery (dog ate the artwork, Customs, boat sank, pirates,...).

My familiarity with Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision) for Apple products has led me to believe they do the portable devices and laptop systems. It's possible they did the MP boards as well, but I'd not seen any indications of it.

They did do a lot of work with HP for system boards (still do AFAIK). Hon Hai is a huge operation.

[VirtualRain]

Given Intel's own X58 motherboard offers only 4 DIMM slots, it's strong evidence to suggest that they were involved with the Mac Pro board layout.

[nanofrog]

Given Intel's own X58 motherboard offers only 4 DIMM slots, it's strong evidence to suggest that they were involved with the Mac Pro board layout.
At least one does (WX58BP (http://www.intel.com/products/workstation/motherboards/wx58bp/wx58bp-overview.htm)), which is an SP Workstation board. ;) The slots are quite different, but it at least proves Intel even did this. They certainly have the know-how, are would be capable (production and engineering facilities), and could do it quickly (given the reference designs and resources).

Intel does a lot of ODM work, as does SuperMicro last I knew.

[gugucom]

http://www.intel.com/Assets/Image/prodlarge/S5500HV_lg.jpg

Intel DP 5500 board with 12 DIMM slots

Only entry level 5500 workstation boards have 4 DIMM slots per socket. All Intel full workstation boards have 6 DIMMs per socket. Intel have no tray solution as Apple uses it. Foxconn are specialized in board to board solutions such as trays.

[nanofrog]

[QUOTE=gugucom;8873469Intel DP 5500 board with 12 DIMM slots

Only entry level 5500 workstation boards have 4 DIMM slots per socket. All Intel full workstation boards have 6 DIMMs per socket. Intel have no tray solution as Apple uses it. Foxconn are specialized in board to board solutions such as trays.[/QUOTE]
For a custom board, any of them would likely be willing to do a dual board set-up though to get the contract (main + daugher config).

I see the 4 DIMM slot config primarily as a result of the decision made to keep the existing case. Even though the daughter board allowed for additional surface area, the coolers used don't help matters at all. It also appears to implement cut cost cutting measures (reduced the needed layers to add in more DIMM slots). Marketing is more of an afterthough from the engineering side IMO, but the business side I'm sure picked up on it immediately. Then decided it was a nice way to push the Octads. There were almost certainly some conversations by the engineers to get the additional slots IMO, but were rebuffed over it.

Lower production costs and the ability to push the Octads = win - win to Apple's business sense in my mind.

I've not seen such a crippled DP board anywhere else.

[Tutor]

Clean up

[VirtualRain]

RAM disks are essentially a waste. They look great on benchmarks, but the thing is, you are wasting double the RAM... a more technical explanation is below (from a guy that worked at Apple) but essentially, if you load a 1GB App into a RAM disk and then execute it from there, OSX will simply cache it in real RAM again (consuming another 1GB of your real RAM).

Rather than copy it to the Ramdisk, you might as well just let OSX load what you need into RAM. It takes the same amount of time, and you don't need to guess what OSX needs, it will load whatever it needs into RAM and execute it from there and cache it there long after it's no longer needed (until RAM runs low).

The slowest activity is loading whatever you want to run into RAM, whether you do it to a RAM disk or you let OSX do it at run-time, it's still faster loading it from an SSD.

Think about it... it makes no sense to use a RAM disk if the OS is caching every app you run in RAM anyway.

Quote from an Apple Engineer...

That thing is snake oil, as are the vast majority of ramdisk products on OS X. Designing a ramdisk that works well on OS X is remarkably difficult because backing a block device into wired memory causes the contents to be double buffered above it in the Unified Buffer Cache.

For transient data on systems with no VM pressure, what will happen is the file is created, the object backing it sits in the UBC, it might get synched to disk, but unless you are running low on ram it stays in ram as well. That is why you see no speed increases, all you are doing is eliminating the background asynch writeout, and you are wasting a lot of ram to do it. More importantly, if you are actually creating a wired ram disk you are eating a ton of kernel address space which can be an issue if you have a lot of memory (large page tables) or several video cards.

Source (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=368792&postcount=76)

[iamcheerful]

VirtualRain, any comments on this article (http://osxfaq.com/tips/ram/index.ws) relating to RAM disk.

Apparently Apple also made used of RAM disk in remote installation then ...
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA28388?viewlocale=en_US

[nanofrog]

RAM disks are essentially a waste. They look great on benchmarks, but the thing is, you are wasting double the RAM... a more technical explanation is below (from a guy that worked at Apple) but essentially, if you load a 1GB App into a RAM disk and then execute it from there, OSX will simply cache it in real RAM again (consuming another 1GB of your real RAM).

Rather than copy it to the Ramdisk, you might as well just let OSX load what you need into RAM. It takes the same amount of time, and you don't need to guess what OSX needs, it will load whatever it needs into RAM and execute it from there and cache it there long after it's no longer needed (until RAM runs low).

The slowest activity is loading whatever you want to run into RAM, whether you do it to a RAM disk or you let OSX do it at run-time, it's still faster loading it from an SSD.

Think about it... it makes no sense to use a RAM disk if the OS is caching every app you run in RAM anyway.

Quote from an Apple Engineer...



Source (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=368792&postcount=76)
It seemed to me, that it could make sense in cases where 32bit apps were used (i.e. PhotoShop), given the address limitations (memory capacity over what the application can use). It's not needed for most things, and not for 64bit apps at all.

//Grrr...Software dragging behind as usual....//end rant :p

Either way, you do still need to get the data from disk to memory faster to really utilize memory or RAM disks. SATA is still a substantial bottleneck. :(

[VirtualRain]

VirtualRain, any comments on this article (http://osxfaq.com/tips/ram/index.ws) relating to RAM disk.

Apparently Apple also made used of RAM disk in remote installation then ...
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA28388?viewlocale=en_US

Hi, the article appears to agree with the engineer I quoted above... They say...

For some computer systems, a RAM disk may make very little sense, as OS X's built-in virtual memory and i/o caching may duplicate some of the features provided by using a RAM disk.

However, it's not a matter of "may"... it will duplicate it in cache.

The other link appears to be dealing with a very special case during install of the OS.

Just think about it logically and you will see a RAM disk is a wasted step... Anything you run is going to be loaded into and cached in RAM anyway.

[Tutor]

Clean up

[vogelhausdesign]

Ok guys, I'm back! So I wanted to address a few of the questions and responses I got from all of you wonderful people helping me out, and we'll do it in an easy to read format, so here we go!

1. From what I'm understanding, an SSD boot drive will help me out substantially, I plan on getting one of these, preferably intel 160gb unless I'm told about something else that's better.
a. these drives are 2.5" for the most part, so tell me what i need to mount it, or if there is a 3.5" for the same price somewhere.

2. The more I read about the gtx285 the more I think I got screwed on buying the 4870, it benches at almost 4x the speed in gflops! Should I still wait until the 2010 models come to see if we get a better option? i Do need something solid.
a. to answer questions about my work, i plan on using AE/C4D + Modo and ALSO Ableton Live 7 in 2010 substantially. As my work goes right now I do a lot of rendering and I'm just learning how to get myself into trouble with AE. My company will most likely adopt a high end large body format with 1080p DSLR, so video editing will rest in the hands of my computer.

3.I'm not sure I understand this terminal command for addressing RAM to software under snow leopard. and it looks terrifying. anyone want to dumb that response down for me? I'm a designer first, nerd/apple fanboy 2nd :)

4.I think as it stands right now, I WILL be keeping this machine throughout 2010 ( thanks nanofrog ) That means I'll be maxing ram specified for this machine, however do you think the market will shift away from the dd3 8500 mac ram modules?
a. If so, should I wait and see if the price will drop on a 32gb matched set? OWC seems to still have the best price for this.

5. Still no way for me to upgrade these processors? My office is kept pretty cool. Still looking for a safe overclock solution :)

6. Going to hold off on raid solutions until I get a SSD. When I do get one, should I mechanical raid the remaining 3 bays in my machine, and switch to a drobo backup?

Thanks everyone who has suggested anything to me in this thread, keep it coming!:)

[VirtualRain]

Good choices.

The Intel SSD is the one to get... and the 160GB Gen2 (G2 in the model name) has the best performance. Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-160GB-Mainstream-Solid-SSDSA2MH160G2C1/dp/B002IGT7IU/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1259346337&sr=8-4) has a pretty good deal on these.

To mount it, get the IcyDock adapter (http://www.amazon.com/2-5-3-5-Ssd-sata-Convert/dp/B001KN8PSK/ref=pd_bxgy_e_img_b).

Forget the RAM disk as I mentioned.

You can always sell the 4870 and get the GTX285.

I would hold off on the 32GB of RAM for awhile... until you see more native 64bit apps in your workflow and the price is more palatable.

Let us know how it goes!

[nanofrog]

1. From what I'm understanding, an SSD boot drive will help me out substantially, I plan on getting one of these, preferably intel 160gb unless I'm told about something else that's better.
a. these drives are 2.5" for the most part, so tell me what i need to mount it, or if there is a 3.5" for the same price somewhere.
The Intel 160GB (Gen 2) is the one to go with from current consensus. Mounting can be done in the empty optical bay. You need to let us know if you're willing to DIY or not, and exactly how many drives you plan to install.

Ready made mounts are usually a bit expensive (there's an exception or two, depending on specifics), and it's best to place it in the empty optical bay (leaves HDD bays open for 3.5" drives).

There is a 3.5" model line though, called the Colossus by OCZ, but untested right now. They do offer larger capacities though (up to 1TB), but it's not exactly inexpensive.

2. The more I read about the gtx285 the more I think I got screwed on buying the 4870, it benches at almost 4x the speed in gflops! Should I still wait until the 2010 models come to see if we get a better option? i Do need something solid.
a. to answer questions about my work, i plan on using AE/C4D + Modo and ALSO Ableton Live 7 in 2010 substantially. As my work goes right now I do a lot of rendering and I'm just learning how to get myself into trouble with AE. My company will most likely adopt a high end large body format with 1080p DSLR, so video editing will rest in the hands of my computer.
nVidia cards don't fare that well under OS X, as the drivers aren't wonderful. They've always underperformed compared to their PC counterparts. ATI cards tend to function better under OS X, as the drivers seem to work more efficiently.

But ultimately, it's up to you. If you can benefit from the GTX285, then get it. Otherwise, keep the 4870, and upgrade again later (future card not yet announced).

4.I think as it stands right now, I WILL be keeping this machine throughout 2010 ( thanks nanofrog ) That means I'll be maxing ram specified for this machine, however do you think the market will shift away from the dd3 8500 mac ram modules?
a. If so, should I wait and see if the price will drop on a 32gb matched set? OWC seems to still have the best price for this.
DDR3 will be around awhile, in all the variants, so there's no real hurry. I'm with VirtualRain on this one. Wait and see if you need it. If so, get it, as the memory market could still lower the prices a bit on the larger capacity DIMM's.

5. Still no way for me to upgrade these processors? My office is kept pretty cool. Still looking for a safe overclock solution :)
You can upgrade processors in the '09 MP's. You cannot however, OC them.

6. Going to hold off on raid solutions until I get a SSD. When I do get one, should I mechanical raid the remaining 3 bays in my machine, and switch to a drobo backup?
You've a few options.

1. Install the SSD to the optical bay, leaving all 4x HDD bays open for 3.5" drives. You could still fit another HDD in the optical drive for Windows if you wish, but you'd need an interface card for it at a minimum, unless you pull the optical drive and make it external.

2. Backups could be done via NAS or via eSATA and a Port Multiplier enclosure. Both will work, and you'd have the ability to run a 4x member array if you wish (level will depend on whether or not its software based - OS X - or a true RAID card, and the features it offers).

[vogelhausdesign]

I've yet to use optical for anything but large recording consoles back in my engineering days.

I'm more than willing to DIY anything. let me know if their is info out there on SSD via optical bay. ( still not sure where the hell my optical bay is) hah.

By the way, if the DIY involves tape or glue, count me out :)

[Transporteur]

For mounting the SSD in the lower optical bay, please read this thread -> Click (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=810466&highlight=ssd+optical+bay)

[gugucom]

For mounting the SSD in the lower optical bay, please read this thread -> Click (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=810466&highlight=ssd+optical+bay)

The plastic holder in post 16 is probably the version you want to utilize here. The ODD bay is a cage which sits in front of the PSU on top of the Mac Pro. You can extract it when the main lever that unlocks the case is in the unlock position.

[nanofrog]

I've yet to use optical for anything but large recording consoles back in my engineering days.

I'm more than willing to DIY anything. let me know if their is info out there on SSD via optical bay. ( still not sure where the hell my optical bay is) hah.

By the way, if the DIY involves tape or glue, count me out :)
No, you dont' need to use tape or glue.

Take a serious look at the link given, as it has a few possibilities (ready-made solutions).

But if you need to have both an SSD + HDD (i.e. single drive = Windows boot disk), you'd be best using an old (prefferably DOA) CD/DVD drive. Disassemble for the metal plates, and use one of them. Just drill some holes to mount the pair of drives. Rather easy and inexpensive. A few cables would be needed, but they're not expensive either, and possibly not included with ready-made solutions either.

There's even the possibility of using zip ties to attach an SSD to the bottom of an HDD drive. Seriously. It does work, and is the cheapest thing I can think of, and it's not reliant on glue/adhesives (can't fall due to adhesive failure).

[iamcheerful]

Regarding your SSD mounting thoughts ...
vogelhausdesign, I'll make this a quick post. Given budget is not a constrain, you may consider the following options

1) DX4 - Link (http://www.transintl.com/store/category.cfm?Category=2799&RequestTimeOut=500)
2) Pro Caddy (select 2009 models) - Link (http://www.transintl.com/store/procaddy.cfm?RequestTimeOut=500)
3) Pro Sled 2.5" (will take up one of the hdd bays) - Link (http://www.transintl.com/store/category.cfm?category=2787)
4) This 4th link (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=334) brings you to MaxUpgrades, Mac Pro section. Select the respective system you are purchasing and have a look at the options provided.

All these above suggestions are not exactly cheap to some, but imho, it is a reasonable cost especially those solutions offered by Transintl.

Note: This post is merely a simple short compilation of options which mac users have shared on MRF over the years.

p.s. pardon me if these options have been suggested in this thread. 've been following the thread mostly, but i've kinda lost track!

[gugucom]

A few cables would be needed, but they're not expensive either...

I don't agree. He has got a 2009 which has a ready made SATA headed cable in the second ODD bay. Just attach the SSD and mechanically fix the SSD. Best and least expensive ready fixture is the one in post 16 of the linked thread.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/extremepcgear_2077_7172673

http://www.xpcgear.com/scythe-2-5-to-5-25-bay-rafter.html

[nanofrog]

I don't agree. He has got a 2009 which has a ready made SATA headed cable in the second ODD bay. Just attach the SSD and mechanically fix the SSD. Best and least expensive ready fixture is the one in post 16 of the linked thread.

http://www.xpcgear.com/scythe-2-5-to-5-25-bay-rafter.html
That will work with SSD's alone, and is quite a nice and inexpensive solution. :)

My comments about DIY were if a separate Windows disk was desired as well. And in an '09, it would require another SATA port for one of them (and cables for both power and data), unless the optical drive was removed and placed in an external enclosure. ;)

[vogelhausdesign]

Ssd aside.. 2010 24 virtual cores? Tempting, tell me they're made of cardboard and I won't buy a whole new mp every year

[iamcheerful]

Ssd aside.. 2010 24 virtual cores? Tempting, tell me they're made of cardboard and I won't buy a whole new mp every year

They are made of cardboard.
But I still would love to know you purchase a whole new mp yearly. :p

I talk the talk, you'll walk the walk. We make perfect partners ;)

[vogelhausdesign]

They are made of cardboard.
But I still would love to know you purchase a whole new mp yearly. :p

I talk the talk, you'll walk the walk. We make perfect partners ;)

As of 2009. I've owned every MP since 1.1 ... so sad.

[iamcheerful]

what took you so long with the 2009 Mac Pro? Or do you mean to tell me you already have a 2009 Mac Pro for yourself and you are now just building another for her?

[vogelhausdesign]

what took you so long with the 2009 Mac Pro? Or do you mean to tell me you already have a 2009 Mac Pro for yourself and you are now just building another for her?

I've got something up my sleeve here.. I'll make a post about it when the time is right

[vogelhausdesign]

Quick question here,

So i recently installed iStat menus, and SMC Fan Control on my machine and I had a few questions:

1.SMC Fan control is safe for mac pro? What's the ideal settings for this soft smc controller? anyone use it on their 09 octo?

2.iStat menu, I thought it would be great to be able to monitor my machine with these great little menus, however, I didn't think if they themselves would slow down my machine. What do you all think, is having the extra sensor monitors and all the bells and whistles actually making my machine run slower?

It's winter where I am now and I have the heat cranked, bringing up the ambient temp so I thought "Hey, I'll just boost my fans and then check to see if my workstation is going to blow up by using iStat"

[vogelhausdesign]

Anyone? I know some of you are sick of this thread :) if you don't want to bump it just PM me, thanks again

[Transporteur]

iStat menues does not affect todays computers at all, especially not when they have 2.93GHz times 8. :rolleyes:

Anyway, how did you manage to get SMC Fan control running?
It's not supported on the '09 Mac Pro. I tried it once to speed the fans up to their max (just to see how high they can get) but it did not work.
What are your intentions to use it?
The existing fan control is pretty much perfect. No reason to manipulate it.

[thagomizer]

I have used ICY DOCK to mount two SSDs in my Mac Pro. Very easy to use, and cheap. Once the ICY DOCK is screwed to the Mac Pro's drive sled, you can remove/replace the SSDs without removing any screws.

http://www.amazon.com/2-5-3-5-Ssd-sata-Convert/dp/B001KN8PSK/ref=pd_cp_e_0