Mac Pro vs. Hackintosh

[Glen Quagmire]

The Fractal Design Define Mini case isn't at all bad looking. I've been researching Hackintoshes in case the next Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive (or it gets scrapped entirely), and this case is what I'd probably end up using, together with an mATX motherboard. It's nice and clean-looking, reasonably compact and has a decent number of hard drive bays.

One thing I do like about it is that there isn't an ugly logo on the front.

[Tutor]

Originally Posted by Tanax

The only thing keeping me from going hackintosh in terms of a tower-computer is the lack of a decent looking case. All the cases are plastic and ugly and the aluminum cases are just weird looking.

The Mac Pro is an exceptionally constructed tower and its internals and the system with "trays" are genius since it's really easy to maintain a clean and good looking computer while at the same time keeping it easy to add extra memory or other things. If there were any tower available for PC that are similar to that of the build-quality of a Mac Pro, even if it's 250$+~, I'd buy it and build a hackintosh because I definitely agree with everything else about Mac Pro's being overpriced.

... ,

Amen. There are other cases that are roomy and completely functional, but nothing that I've seen exceeds the look of that Mac silver surfer. I like sleek styling and a front grill. However, I'm more interested in cooling. So I now use modified Antec Twelve Hundreds. They are discussed in post #1 [Building your own: 2(b)] here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...9#post14424499 .

[chych]

The only thing that makes me hesitant about going the hackintosh route is upgrading OS X, i.e. from 10.7 to 10.8 and the future. Can someone comment on how they've handled major OS X upgrades on a hackintosh?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Tutor

, unless it's using a $1000 SandyBridge E i7 3960X or a $583 i7 3930k (in the hands of a clock tweaker) being compared to the top of the line $6K+ DP 2010 Mac Pro. [See, e.g., http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/562206 or
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/533324 and compare with this http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/...chmarks/#64bit] I know that the SB examples are running Windows, but historically its been more difficult to get the Mac score equivalent using Windows on the same system. Also, to compare the performance of one tweaked i7 980X (6 core Westmere) to that of the Mac Pro (Mid 2010) dual X5650 2.66 GHz (12 core - Xeon Westmeres), compare e.g.,http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/482105 with http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/...chmarks/#64bit .

Until Sandy Bridge Xeons arrive...

Mac Pros always top out at 2x what an i7 can do because of the dual sockets. On the low end, sure, an i7 is comparable. But i7s can't keep up with Xeons as the hardware scales. Building an i7 is hardly building the Hackintosh equivalent of a Mac Pro, simply because the Mac Pro can always have two of the same chip.

[Angelo95210]

I am writing this from an Hackintosh (see my profile) which is more stable than my iMac...

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by goMac

Until Sandy Bridge Xeons arrive...

Mac Pros always top out at 2x what an i7 can do because of the dual sockets. On the low end, sure, an i7 is comparable. But i7s can't keep up with Xeons as the hardware scales. Building an i7 is hardly building the Hackintosh equivalent of a Mac Pro, simply because the Mac Pro can always have two of the same chip.

For those that use software that can leverage the additional cores consistently, sure. But your statement is a special case, not the majority of MP users.

At best, there might be one or two applications within a particular suite that can actually leverage as many cores as are available (true n core multi-threaded), but keep in mind those particular applications may not be what most of the user's time is spent working in.

Please stop ignoring/neglecting to mention this fact, as it's critical to a lot of users here in MR.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nanofrog

For those that use software that can leverage the additional cores consistently, sure. But your statement is a special case, not the majority of MP users.

I don't know if I agree with that. The Mac Pro is a special case machine. If you don't need the multithreading, you probably shouldn't even be buying the Mac Pro in the first place.

Originally Posted by nanofrog

At best, there might be one or two applications within a particular suite that can actually leverage as many cores as are available (true n core multi-threaded), but keep in mind those particular applications may not be what most of the user's time is spent working in.

I'm a developer, all my apps I use multithread. If you're in video, you're in a similar situation. You'd probably have a hard time naming a current video app that does NOT multithread.

Originally Posted by nanofrog

Please stop ignoring/neglecting to mention this fact, as it's critical to a lot of users here in MR.

Dude, if you don't need multithreading, you shouldn't be buying a Mac Pro. You shouldn't be buying anything with more than two cores. If you don't have multithreaded apps, you're in the wrong forum.

The reason Apple has been upping the core counts is because a lot of apps are actually multithreaded. Multithreading being some rare thing is a falsehood I see reported over and over here. Open your Activity Monitor sometime and actually look at how many threads your apps are using. iTunes alone right now is using 49 threads on my machine. Safari 19. Mail 13. Twitteriffic 8. XCode 24 (and it's idle.) (And all threads on the system will automatically be balanced across all cores, so yes, all those threads are being distributed across all 8 cores on my machine.)

Sure, they're not going to max out a 12 core machine by themselves, but most apps haven't actually really been single threaded since OS 9. People who suggest nothing multithreads are a few years behind.

[Cindori]

It may be true that Mac Pro with it's double Xeons outperform top notch desktop CPU's.


But that only stands for the ~6 first months of a new Mac Pro. By that time, desktop CPU's and GPU's reach a new generation, desktop users can easily upgrade, but Mac Pro users are stuck with their hardware for like, 1,5 years forward.

So basically, over time, desktop builds overpower the Mac Pro the majority of the time.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by Cindori

It may be true that Mac Pro with it's double Xeons outperform top notch desktop CPU's.


But that only stands for the ~6 first months of a new Mac Pro. By that time, desktop CPU's and GPU's reach a new generation, desktop users can easily upgrade, but Mac Pro users are stuck with their hardware for like, 1,5 years forward.

Um.... actually for me that is a bonus. Most users barely push their systems anyway..... and I kinda like having a system that is now 4 years old, and that I expect to get another 2 years out of at a minimum .... without spending any extra money. Or extra time. I never worry about OS updates.... I just update when I have time and never need to check first. For the work I do, it is still plenty fast enough. And it's solid.

Mind you I am one of the lucky ones who got the 2008 8 core MP, which was considered one of the great values for the money that Apple offered.

[Cindori]

Well, my post was not directed towards you.

You're obviously not pushing your machine, so my arguments are irrellevant for your case.

[Tutor]

Originally Posted by goMac

Until Sandy Bridge Xeons arrive...

Mac Pros always top out at 2x what an i7 can do because of the dual sockets. On the low end, sure, an i7 is comparable. But i7s can't keep up with Xeons as the hardware scales. Building an i7 is hardly building the Hackintosh equivalent of a Mac Pro, simply because the Mac Pro can always have two of the same chip.

Hope that you're right because that "Until" might have been better stated as "if," that first "always" as "used to," that first "can" as "could," that first "can't" as "can," and that last "can" as "could," if Apple abandons the Mac Pro. I own 4 Mac Pros which I have tweaked* and I also have what many believe may be some of the fastest self-built systems on the planet, so I say with some confidence that you're 100% correct in stating, "Building an i7 is hardly building the Hackintosh equivalent of [the top end dual processor] Mac Pro [equipped with the fastest Intel processors of the same generation]," but I have to add that building systems with the same processor chip(s) as any designated Mac Pro (and not to mention the processor chips that Apple refused to provide as a refresh, such as the 3690, 5580, the 5590, the 5675, the 5680, the 5690, etc.) has yielded systems 40 to 60% faster by every measure and for much less $$$$$$.

*In fact, I was the first member of this forum to report successfully swapping the processors in a 2009 Mac Pro in the early summer of 2009, even before Anand did so successfully. Then, I taught other forum members how to do so.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Tutor

Hope that you're right because that "Until" might have been better stated as "if," that first "always" as "used to," that first "can" as "could," that first "can't" as "can," and that last "can" as "could," if Apple abandons the Mac Pro. I own 4 Mac Pros which I have tweaked* and I also have what many believe may be some of the fastest self-built systems on the planet, so I say with some confidence that you're 100% correct in stating, "Building an i7 is hardly building the Hackintosh equivalent of [the top end dual processor] Mac Pro [equipped with the fastest Intel processors of the same generation]," but I have to add that building systems with the same processor chip(s) as any designated Mac Pro (and not to mention the processor chips that Apple refused to provide as a refresh, such as the 3690, 5580, the 5590, the 5675, the 5680, the 5690, etc.) has yielded systems 40 to 60% faster by every measure and for much less $$$$$$.

Right. I think my point is that saying that a Hackintosh can match a current Mac Pro as a blanket statement is bad. If you have high end apps that scale, Mac Pro is better. If you don't, you probably shouldn't be considering a Mac Pro anyway.

People who need gpus faster than what the iMac can provide typically fall into the category of people who need multiple cores anyway.

[nanofrog]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't know if I agree with that. The Mac Pro is a special case machine. If you don't need the multi-threading, you probably shouldn't even be buying the Mac Pro in the first place.

There are other reasons for buying a MP besides true n core multi-threading. In the case of what Apple offers, it's the only system that can allow for easily upgraded HDD's and PCIe cards (not just upgrading the GPU, but allow for things like RAID, FC, 10G Ethernet, or even Infiniband).

Now I'm not saying that users don't want or need true n core multi-threading, but the software a particular person is using may not provide it for all applications within the suite (most in fact, from my observations).

As it happens, creative suites fall in this category (i.e. some parts of CS 5.5 are single threaded or for limited core counts, such as PS only using 2 cores, though there may be many more), as do some engineering and scientific applications (i.e. based on ancient code).

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm a developer, all my apps I use multi-thread.

Rare case. Seriously. I can't recall how many times commercially available software isn't capable of this across the entire suite.

Privately developed software (not commercially available), is where I see the exceptions. Which is expensive to do, and why it's rare in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by goMac

If you're in video, you're in a similar situation.

Actually, it's not. CS 5.5 is a good example.

Specific applications are, but not the entire suite. Call and speak to one of the design engineers of the suite in question, and you'll discover this for yourself.

Originally Posted by goMac

Dude, if you don't need multi-threading, you shouldn't be buying a Mac Pro. You shouldn't be buying anything with more than two cores. If you don't have multi-threaded apps, you're in the wrong forum.

Do not presume you remotely know what I do or what I require for a system.

As it happens, I no longer use a MP (got one in 2008, and returned it within the 14 day return due to the poor ROI once the hardware upgrades and software used were taken into account).

I ended up building a custom solution that was cheaper and was better suited to my specific needs.

As it happens, not all of my software is true n core multi-threaded either, and I'm using engineering software (Electronic Design Automation). Given the type of software, a Xeon is needed for the ECC memory (recursion = cannot afford a bit error in memory).

As it happens, about 50% of my engineering software is true n core multi-threaded (which is higher than most professional suites I've researched), but I don't spend all of my time in those portions of the suites. Less than half actually, particularly when considering everything (email, research via a web browser,...) that use common, single threaded applications that aren't part of any engineering suite. So when I account for time spent where, a DP wasn't the best way to go (Hex core Xeon = better cost-performance ratio).

Originally Posted by goMac

The reason Apple has been upping the core counts is because a lot of apps are actually multi-threaded.

It's due to Intel increasing core counts, as they can no longer push clock frequencies.

When the cores are leveraged, they do produce a faster result. But there are 2 parts to this, which comprise of hardware + software. Intel can only control the former. The software is up to the particular vendor, and Intel cannot force them to change their code, assuming it can even benefit from true n core multi-threading in the first place (not all can).

Originally Posted by goMac

Multi-threading being some rare thing is a falsehood I see reported over and over here. Open your Activity Monitor sometime and actually look at how many threads your apps are using. iTunes alone right now is using 49 threads on my machine. Safari 19. Mail 13. Twitteriffic 8. XCode 24 (and it's idle.) (And all threads on the system will automatically be balanced across all cores, so yes, all those threads are being distributed across all 8 cores on my machine.)

They're not all simultaneously executed due to how resources are used. They're "active", but in reality, most are stored in memory, and are actually idle (not processed in consecutive clock cycles).

The real key however to differentiating between threading in the sense you're using it and multi-core systems, is the n core aspect, which denotes multi-core systems. It's this latter case I'm talking about, and expected you realized that.

[David085]

Sounds interesting a G5 case Mod.

[Tanax]

Originally Posted by Glen Quagmire

The Fractal Design Define Mini case isn't at all bad looking. I've been researching Hackintoshes in case the next Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive (or it gets scrapped entirely), and this case is what I'd probably end up using, together with an mATX motherboard. It's nice and clean-looking, reasonably compact and has a decent number of hard drive bays.

One thing I do like about it is that there isn't an ugly logo on the front.

Originally Posted by Tutor

Amen. There are other cases that are roomy and completely functional, but nothing that I've seen exceeds the look of that Mac silver surfer. I like sleek styling and a front grill. However, I'm more interested in cooling. So I now use modified Antec Twelve Hundreds. They are discussed in post #1 [Building your own: 2(b)] here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...9#post14424499 .

Definitely! There are cases, such as the Fractal Design cases that actually doesn't look too bad. I even have a Fractal Design Define XL for my gaming PC so I definitely think they're alright.

But no, there is nothing that exceeds the look of the Macs.
However! I did find another company that makes extremely nice Mac-like cases, called "Viako".



The only thing is that it's a bit too small for my needs. I need it to be able to fit a motherboard that supports a SB-E i3930k, a fan for it, 1 2.5" SSD, 1 3.5" HDD aswell as a fullsize GPU-card a lá GTX 580/680. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that Viako have any products that support those specs :/

Buhu, I don't want a tower I want a small mini-pc -like computer but enough room to fit a workhorse CPU & GPU in it.

[SR2Mac]

Originally Posted by Tanax

The only thing keeping me from going hackintosh in terms of a tower-computer is the lack of a decent looking case. All the cases are plastic and ugly and the aluminum cases are just weird looking.

The Mac Pro is an exceptionally constructed tower and its internals and the system with "trays" are genius since it's really easy to maintain a clean and good looking computer while at the same time keeping it easy to add extra memory or other things. If there were any tower available for PC that are similar to that of the build-quality of a Mac Pro, even if it's 250$+~, I'd buy it and build a hackintosh because I definitely agree with everything else about Mac Pro's being overpriced.

Don't get me wrong. For those that need that kind of power the Mac Pro isn't overpriced. But the only market that Apple currently has NOTHING in is for the prosumers. Those that don't want a compromised computer in the form of an iMac with _mobile_ GPU and non-easy upgradability. I get the idea of the iMac, it's great for people who want it to "just work" - and the iMac isn't a bad computer by any measurements. But for those of us who wants a more easially upgraded computer, it really isn't for us. So we have the Mac Mini instead... but it's the same thing there really. Plus it's so small, you can't add extra hdd's/ssd's so you'll need external cases.

Not to mention, mobile GPU isn't the best for gaming, doing rendering, etc. If you're working with graphics for a living, the Mac Pro is definitely the way to go. But for me, who does the occassional graphics-work where I need rendering capability aswell as needing good graphics for gaming, an iMac is just not good enough. And the Mac Pro is TOO good for my needs.

So, hackintosh is really the most viable choice... IF(!!) they had a good looking case.

So, you'd call this guy's two PC case builds as being less than decent looking?

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?h...page=1#1227850

The first one really does look like the "Black Sheep" of the Mac Tower Pros, and the airflow design in that PC case is even better and is becoming the standard for other cases to follow...

[Tutor]

Originally Posted by SR2Mac

So, you'd call this guy's two PC case builds as being less than decent looking?

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?h...page=1#1227850

The first one really does look like the "Black Sheep" of the Mac Tower Pros, and the airflow design in that PC case is even better and is becoming the standard for other cases to follow...

I love PunkNugget's case.

[flatfoot]

Originally Posted by David085

Sounds interesting a G5 case Mod.

My Power Mac G5-i7

There are a lot more (and more nicely done) G5 mods in the tonymac forums.

[SDAVE]

Originally Posted by Cindori

I'm pretty happy with my NZXT H2. While it is plastic, it sports a much smarter design then the Mac Pro when it comes to expansion.

The front is covered by a door, and behind it are front fans that are connected by magnets. You can just pick them off, and behind them you can access 8 HDD sleds to remove/add drives. Without removing any side door. Trays feature rubber around the screws, so no vibration sound which you get in the all-aluminium Mac Pro.

The case is only $99.

Image

Image

Also fairly easy to get good cable management, here is a pic from my build:

Image

It's even much more silent then my old 2006 Mac Pro. Specs are: i2500k (OC to 4.5GHz), 8GB 1600Mhz ram, ATI 6950 1GB.

Thats still an ugly case

[SR2Mac]

Originally Posted by flatfoot

My Power Mac G5-i7

There are a lot more (and more nicely done) G5 mods in the tonymac forums.

This one is by far (IMHO) is the BEST G5 model PERIOD. With 3 x 480 GTX's. And all 6 monitors works side, by side, by side, by side, by side, by side... LOL!!!

http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co...dg5hackia.html

But I still like this one:

http://www.tonymacx86.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=48807

Night all...

[SR2Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

Right. I think my point is that saying that a Hackintosh can match a current Mac Pro as a blanket statement is bad. If you have high end apps that scale, Mac Pro is better. If you don't, you probably shouldn't be considering a Mac Pro anyway.

People who need gpus faster than what the iMac can provide typically fall into the category of people who need multiple cores anyway.

I have a Gigabyte UD7 using a W3680 @ 4.2 GHz (water-cooled), 12GB RAM 1600 MHz ($1,600 total cost) and did a side by side render with my friends Top of the Line Mac Pro (that he spent $5,800 for) and mine was faster. By the way I'm using high end apps (Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Motion, etc.) and I've been a 15+ year Mac Pro user and I can confidently tell you that I LOVE the performance of my Mac Hak Pro and even better I have a Dual Xeon (SR-2 Setup) that is twice the speed. Lastly, there are quite a few small production companies that have caught onto this some time ago and have made that switch. I just caught on a little later. Better late than never though. Now imagine what you can do with all that money saved. Build ANOTHER hackie and now you have a mini rendering farm and you will still have $2,600 left over to use for... ANOTHER hackie... now you have a small company worth of viable FULLY working Mac Hak Pros with STILL a $1,000 left over. And you get to make it look like a Hot Rod on top of that.

PS - You get to meet and build relationships with great guys (and mentors) like Tutor, who's teaching me that Underclocking is a better way to go, and I'm learning that he is correct...

----------

Originally Posted by Cindori

I'm pretty happy with my NZXT H2. While it is plastic, it sports a much smarter design then the Mac Pro when it comes to expansion.

The front is covered by a door, and behind it are front fans that are connected by magnets. You can just pick them off, and behind them you can access 8 HDD sleds to remove/add drives. Without removing any side door. Trays feature rubber around the screws, so no vibration sound which you get in the all-aluminium Mac Pro.

The case is only $99.

Image

Image

Also fairly easy to get good cable management, here is a pic from my build:

Image

It's even much more silent then my old 2006 Mac Pro. Specs are: i2500k (OC to 4.5GHz), 8GB 1600Mhz ram, ATI 6950 1GB.

Hi Cindori,

Clean build. I like it. You ought to post your build here where it can be voted on:

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/ind...?showforum=295

It's a new topic called MacMod of the Month. Again, nice rig... Later...

----------

Originally Posted by SDAVE

Thats still an ugly case

I'd like to see yours...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SR2Mac

I have a Gigabyte UD7 using a W3680 @ 4.2 GHz (water-cooled), 12GB RAM 1600 MHz ($1,600 total cost) and did a side by side render with my friends Top of the Line Mac Pro (that he spent $5,800 for) and mine was faster. By the way I'm using high end apps (Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Motion, etc.) and I've been a 15+ year Mac Pro user and I can confidently tell you that I LOVE the performance of my Mac Hak Pro and even better I have a Dual Xeon (SR-2 Setup) that is twice the speed. Lastly, there are quite a few small production companies that have caught onto this some time ago and have made that switch. I just caught on a little later. Better late than never though. Now imagine what you can do with all that money saved. Build ANOTHER hackie and now you have a mini rendering farm and you will still have $2,600 left over to use for... ANOTHER hackie... now you have a small company worth of viable FULLY working Mac Hak Pros with STILL a $1,000 left over. And you get to make it look like a Hot Rod on top of that.

Sorry, but it's just a matter of numbers... Your four core is going to be slower than an 8 core of the same vintage. Like you said, the dual Xeon is twice the speed.

There just isn't any way that with a well tuned 8 core that your 4 core was faster at Motion and After Effects. You make sure you have an SSD in there to keep the processor fed, and it'll blow a 4 core out of the water.

[lixuelai]

1) W3680 is a 6x
2) It depends on the clockspeed. A lot of high end Hackintoshes are overclocked and programs typically scale better with frequency than # of threads.

That is just the cpu, for every component in a Mac Pro you can build a Hackintosh that has better. And no OSX doesn't magically run better on a Mac Pro because it is a Mac.

Anyway it is foolish to argue performance vs a Hackintosh... Custom built PCs typically offer better performance than ones made by like Dell/HP etc. However that doesn't prevent most professionals from buying workstations vs building themselves even when performance is important. Same applies to the Mac Pro.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by goMac

Sorry, but it's just a matter of numbers... Your four core is going to be slower than an 8 core of the same vintage. Like you said, the dual Xeon is twice the speed.

There just isn't any way that with a well tuned 8 core that your 4 core was faster at Motion and After Effects. You make sure you have an SSD in there to keep the processor fed, and it'll blow a 4 core out of the water.

Many of the higher core count models are clocked lower. The 12 core mac pro even fully upgraded is clocked lower than the 6 core. He's using an overclocked version of the cpu used in the 6 core mac pro (yes it's a $600 cpu that started around $1000 retail in a $3800 machine). It would surprise me if one blew the other away assuming linear scaling from the software, but his results aren't impossible, and an ssd is unlikely to change that. If he's dealing with heavy realtime playback on video, he's most likely using a raid setup already. SSDs do very little for anything cpu intensive. I'm not sure why you're even arguing this when it's been debunked many times over.

He won't get support from Apple, and he's missing full license compliance. Neither of us considers a hackintosh an option, so there is little point in debating it.

[weisjt]

I built a i7 2600k hackintosh into a g5 case. hardest part was making the case mods to get everything to fit but the outcome was a fast cost effective and fun to build computer. check it out.




intel i7 2600k
gigabyte z68x-ud3h-b3
samsung 830 ssd 120gb boot drive
2 tb hdd (not pictured)
4x4gb corsair low profile ram
hd 6870 graphics card( not pictured)
custom built airport wireless and bluetooth card, apple branded.

everything on my computer has worked great and is very fast, i haven't over clocked anything yet. still waiting to get another ssd to dual boot into windows for better over clocking software. overall I paid about 1200 dollars for everything including the tools and components all bought new.