Yeah, I'd like to stay under 2000, so that leaves me with the 2.8 octo or 2.6 quad. That's the choice I'm debating...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.8ghz 8-Core or the new 2.66ghz Quad Nehalem?
- Thread starter nomotivs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I'd like to stay under 2000, so that leaves me with the 2.8 octo or 2.6 quad. That's the choice I'm debating...
Well, how about me?
I'm currently on a dual 2.5 G5 w/ 8gb memory (maxed) and an ATi X800. It's a dinosaur I know, but with my workload starting to include some HD editing, After Effects and FCS work I know that an upgrade is in order. I still plan on keeping my digiphoto work as well. With the new work material coming in however, I feel it'd be best to get something that will last me as long as my G5 did. Current budget; ~$3200
ALSO: how much would I be able to get for my G5 you think?
I'm currently on a dual 2.5 G5 w/ 8gb memory (maxed) and an ATi X800. It's a dinosaur I know, but with my workload starting to include some HD editing, After Effects and FCS work I know that an upgrade is in order. I still plan on keeping my digiphoto work as well. With the new work material coming in however, I feel it'd be best to get something that will last me as long as my G5 did. Current budget; ~$3200
ALSO: how much would I be able to get for my G5 you think?
I was in the same boat as you. I had the g5 Dual 2.5ghz with x800xt and I sold it for $875. I bought a 2.8ghz 8-core with the business discount for $1899. Couldn't be happier. Very speedy in comparison to the G5. I'm going to put in a 4870 when they start shipping though. I've also been able to overclock mine to 3.1ghz with no problems at all... so for basically $1000 plus tax I feel like I got a 3.2ghz 8- core 🙂
sparkie7
macrumors 68030
its still one 4core cpu, it doesnt have as much power. it works by nature as an "8core", but thats 8cores derived from4, power from each core is distributed over two
Hard call.
You might actually be better served with the additional cores in '08 model, given the number of apps open at once (stated usage). Use the savings to add upgrades, such as memory and RAID. The increased HDD throughput can make a BIG difference in performance.
Finding one is going to be the hard part, so jump quick if you do choose this route, and manage to locate one. 😉 😀
Though pushing you're budget, I think the 2.26GHz Octo would make you happy, and take care of you for quite a while. 😉
Nanofrog, I'm going for the 2008 model, I found one!
I'm waiting for a quotation with 8gb ram, a 120 boot drive, and two 320 data drives.
I'm waiting for a quotation with 8gb ram, a 120 boot drive, and two 320 data drives.
VirtualRain
macrumors 603
That's very cool... I wasn't aware of that! I suppose it only works on the 2008 architecture. Do you know? It would be nice if they came out with something similar for the Nehalems. 😀
VirtualRain
macrumors 603
I know... It would be great to ramp up the clocks before a big encode job or something... 😀
MIDI_EVIL
macrumors 65816
Here is my email to OWC:
I see that you are selling up to 16GB for the new 2.66 Nehalem Mac Pro from Apple.
Does this confirm that you have tested that it can accept more than the 8GB RAM limitation that Apple has listed on their store?
I am very interested to know this, on the verge of a purchase.
Richard Collins
RESPONSE:
Hi,
Depending on the processor speed, YES you can put in 16GB possibly more.....if you send me the specs on your computer i can better answer the question so let me know 🙂
William Friel
Sales
Other World Computing, Inc.
..........
I don't know what he meant by asking for the specs as I had mentioned the 2.66... I guess I didn't mention Quad but I thought he would have assumed.
I see that you are selling up to 16GB for the new 2.66 Nehalem Mac Pro from Apple.
Does this confirm that you have tested that it can accept more than the 8GB RAM limitation that Apple has listed on their store?
I am very interested to know this, on the verge of a purchase.
Richard Collins
RESPONSE:
Hi,
Depending on the processor speed, YES you can put in 16GB possibly more.....if you send me the specs on your computer i can better answer the question so let me know 🙂
William Friel
Sales
Other World Computing, Inc.
..........
I don't know what he meant by asking for the specs as I had mentioned the 2.66... I guess I didn't mention Quad but I thought he would have assumed.
Hi - I have had the same question. I just got off a LONG phone call with Apple. Yes, you can put more RAM in the machine, I guess, but Apple will NOT support it. In other words, your warrantee is voided. I wouldn't do it if I were you.
For this reason I may just go with last year's model.
BTW, they may have been offering that 16GB of RAM for the 8 core 2.66. The 4 core 2.66 is really limited to 8 gigs unless you want to fly by the seat of your pants.
cmaier
Suspended
No, your warrantee is not voided (as long as the memory doesn't actually destroy anything). All you have to do, if you have problems, is replace your 3rd party memory with the original memory, and then apple will service it.
Disagree
Completely disagree. I own both a 2.8ghz x8 2008 Mac Pro (12g RAM) and a Nehalem 2.66 quad-core. The Nehalem is faster for almost everything I do.
I've been tracking the cpu usage on both and the only areas where the 2008 box seems to outperform is during forensic analysis of data (data carving) which is specifically optimized for the additional Xeon in the software package I use (Accessdata FTK). Since that is such a small part of what I have been doing, it pales in comparison to the quad core overall.
Ive tracked usage in video (iMovie, Handbrake, and Final cut) and the Quad core smokes the 2.8 in every category except Handbrake where it barely edges it out in performance. Surprisingly, the video tasks rarely use more than about 200% cpu on the 2008, ranging between 150-180% most of the time in iMovie, around 250% in Final Cut (but about 750% in Handbrake). The quad-core's faster memory, faster HD, faster video card (even the GT120 smokes the 2600 in the 2008) make it overall the better machine. I really thought I'd see better Photoshop responsiveness with the higher RAM (12gb) and octo processors in the 2008, but the Nehalem at 6gb is way faster for the files I'm using. Maybe if you're working with 500mb files you'd see better performance with the 2008, but I'm not doing that.
Unless you absolutely have to work with scads of RAM (evaluate this closely, you may not use what you think you're using), the 2008 would simply be a no-go for me on a new purchase. For that matter, I'd skip the 2.26x8 as well. Not compelling for the additional $$. Really really impressed with the new quad-core machines.
Completely disagree. I own both a 2.8ghz x8 2008 Mac Pro (12g RAM) and a Nehalem 2.66 quad-core. The Nehalem is faster for almost everything I do.
I've been tracking the cpu usage on both and the only areas where the 2008 box seems to outperform is during forensic analysis of data (data carving) which is specifically optimized for the additional Xeon in the software package I use (Accessdata FTK). Since that is such a small part of what I have been doing, it pales in comparison to the quad core overall.
Ive tracked usage in video (iMovie, Handbrake, and Final cut) and the Quad core smokes the 2.8 in every category except Handbrake where it barely edges it out in performance. Surprisingly, the video tasks rarely use more than about 200% cpu on the 2008, ranging between 150-180% most of the time in iMovie, around 250% in Final Cut (but about 750% in Handbrake). The quad-core's faster memory, faster HD, faster video card (even the GT120 smokes the 2600 in the 2008) make it overall the better machine. I really thought I'd see better Photoshop responsiveness with the higher RAM (12gb) and octo processors in the 2008, but the Nehalem at 6gb is way faster for the files I'm using. Maybe if you're working with 500mb files you'd see better performance with the 2008, but I'm not doing that.
Unless you absolutely have to work with scads of RAM (evaluate this closely, you may not use what you think you're using), the 2008 would simply be a no-go for me on a new purchase. For that matter, I'd skip the 2.26x8 as well. Not compelling for the additional $$. Really really impressed with the new quad-core machines.
Dammit now you've made me confused again! 🙂
I rang ableton today and they told me that live doesn't support multithreading so I'd be better off with an 8 core.
MIDI_EVIL
macrumors 65816
Sorry
Sorry to confuse you. Get whatever one is cheaper. The difference between the two isn't profound enough to compel you either way. Unless you're a peformance freak who just HAS to have that extra 10 or 20%...
Sorry to confuse you. Get whatever one is cheaper. The difference between the two isn't profound enough to compel you either way. Unless you're a peformance freak who just HAS to have that extra 10 or 20%...
Well, they wrote the software, so it seems in your best interest to go this route if possible. 😉
The '08 would certainly fit budget wise, as the '09 Octo's are more than you've listed for a budget. You'd even have funds left for upgrades or software. 🙂
Oh ok, it's just that you said that it SMOKES the 08 model 😛 Oh and if I am a performance freak, which mac pro has that 10-20% advantage? 😛
So if I go 2.8 route, how much ram should I put? Is there a magic number for this machine?
On my macbook, I regularly get up to 3gb usage, so I think 6-8gb should suffice.. Should all slots be full? etc etc.. Oh and, a 80gb boot drive or a 120gb one? 🙂
8GB would probably suffice quite well for you. For maximum throughput, you'd want to use it in Quad Channel mode. 😉
Thanks frozengeek, for sharing your experience.
It's refreshing to finally hear from someone testing a pretty good variety of apps with both machines.
I was leaning towards the '08 8-core, but now, after reading what you wrote, the MacWorld review, and reports that 16GB RAM (4x4GB) has been successfully tested, I'm finding the Quad more attractive than I thought it was.
It's refreshing to finally hear from someone testing a pretty good variety of apps with both machines.
I was leaning towards the '08 8-core, but now, after reading what you wrote, the MacWorld review, and reports that 16GB RAM (4x4GB) has been successfully tested, I'm finding the Quad more attractive than I thought it was.