Mac Pro vs. Hackintosh

[Tutor]

Originally Posted by Photovore

I don't think you could run OpenCL on any GPU whatsoever, ... .

True, but OCL runs robustly on all of my ATI cards and systems. Because I've tweaked my base clock, the enhancements that get applied to the CPU(s) also get applied to QPI (which is sort of like the buss in earlier systems). Thus, video card performance improves. So I get much improved OCL and OGL performance, plus I can better tweak my video cards individually in bios (and in other applicable utilities). See in my sig the Cinebench 11.5 GPU score my HIS 4890 achieves in OSX (47.90). In Windows 7, it's in excess of 84.

Originally Posted by Photovore

... .though ... you'd still need to use Apple-approved cards that they've written drivers for.

Not exactly the case. Apple never approved the 4890, nor any HIS card. Plus, OGL and OCL are, of course, open; its a technology that also exists on purely Windows systems. There are tweakers, like Netkas, who focus mainly on video card related issues and provide solutions applicable to many platforms. In other words, there's is cross-pollination - Mac->Hac->Mac->Hac->etc. Even Linux plays a role in the pollination chain and there are such chains that extend to other system components.

Originally Posted by Photovore

(If that's important to you; it is to me.)

Open GL and CL are both important to me and my old 4890's serve me well on both fronts. I do have more recent ATI cards from the 5xxx and 6xxx families in other more recently built systems for which the same applies.

Finally, Mac Pros have never been admired for the video cards placed in them by Apple. Truth be told ---many Mac Pro owners are limited 2nd hand tweakers (relying on the success of pioneering 1st hand tweakers) because if you removed the sides from their machines, you'd probably find sitting in that lower or third PCIe slot a video card that Apple never sold retail or offered as one of it's overpriced options and if you pulled out the processor tray of, particularly, a 2009 Mac Pro you might find a Westmere or two, or how about those upgraded 2006 Mac Pros. In the end, we're just dealing with matters of degree, necessitated by a lack of meaningful options at the retail level.

[Photovore]

Originally Posted by Tutor

True, but OCL runs robustly on all of my ATI cards and systems. Because I've tweaked my base clock, the enhancements that get applied to the CPU(s) also get applied to QPI (which is sort of like the buss in earlier systems). Thus, video card performance improves....

...OGL and OCL are, of course, open; it a technology that also exists on purely Windows systems....

Open GL and CL are both important to me and my old 4890's serve me well on both fronts. I do have more recent ATI cards from the 5xxx and 6xxx families in other more recently built systems for which the same applies.

Finally, Mac Pros have never been admired for the video cards placed in them by Apple....

Thanks for the reply; interesting information, though I don't think it helps me at the moment other than intellectually!

I am seriously hoping that MPs don't go away. I have a project which entertainment industry pros tell me should be successfully licensed worldwide. It requires over 1 TFlop/second. I've achieved that with an AMD 5870 + 4 CPU cores under OpenCL/XCode/C. (A 12-core perhaps, or a 16-core more certainly, could do it under OpenCL without a GPU, based on my calculations.)

I need to be able to say something like "Hardware requirements: one commercially available base system + one commercially available GPU".

Now, I'm a while away from sending it out! In fact I'm a couple of weeks away from my first live show. But 1) I trust the opinion of my professional friends who've worked all over the world, and 2) I simply must have faith in myself, as anyone must, or otherwise what would ever get done, that is new, in the first place?

SO, if the MP were to go away, then yes, of course I am competent to port to another OS, with different APIs for screen services, timing, filesystem, enormously complex UI, OCL + OGL + interoperability, what am I forgetting.... *BUT*, I sure don't want to have to stop what I'm busily doing now and spend several hundred hours on a rewrite!

[braindeadfool]

Originally Posted by macmastersam

if you have the money to build a mac pro-like hackintosh, then surely you should be able to have enough money to buy the real mac pro?

Except the real Mac Pro isn't available with the latest processors, and is more limited in RAM and storage than the Hackintosh? Show me an Apple machine that's shipping with 2 builtin SSDs, 2 x 8TB RAID sets and 4 hot swappable drive bays, GTX 580 video cards, and 2 x Xeon 5690s at 3.46GHz. LOL show me an Apple machine with one of those things. If I can build more for less, have some fun, and learn something, why the heck not?

I guess you could say my build cost about what a Mac Pro did would be true, but I'd argue that they aren't equivalent machines. Mine is quieter, faster, more flexible and offers more.

[macmastersam]

Originally Posted by braindeadfool

Except the real Mac Pro isn't available with the latest processors, and is more limited in RAM and storage than the Hackintosh? Show me an Apple machine that's shipping with 2 builtin SSDs, 2 x 8TB RAID sets and 4 hot swappable drive bays, GTX 580 video cards, and 2 x Xeon 5690s at 3.46GHz. LOL show me an Apple machine with one of those things. If I can build more for less, have some fun, and learn something, why the heck not?

I guess you could say my build cost about what a Mac Pro did would be true, but I'd argue that they aren't equivalent mJachines. Mine is quieter, faster, more flexible and offers more.

Except the real mac pro will have a legit copy of mac OS, in which you can ask for help for because it isn't torrents or copied onto pc hardware.

Well for a start the two xeons add to nearly £2,400, so already it is more expensive then the base model mac pro just for 2 CPUs, dodo you just shot yourself in the foot and disproved your own point and saying hakintoshes are cheaper to make, The current mac pros can hold up to 4 SSDs, so that's twice your expectations, so the jokes on you buddy, lol.

Then, you must go on to say that your hakintosh is more upgradable. Shut it. Both are just as upgradable as each other. The mac pro is older, hence it can't take as much storage as you think it would.

But if a hackintosh pleases you more than the real thing, then go ahead and do that. And just out of interest: do you actually own a hakintoshes this powerful and if so, what do you even use it for??

[tandeh]

This case on tonymac's IMO is excellent

[braindeadfool]

Originally Posted by macmastersam

Except the real mac pro will have a legit copy of mac OS, in which you can ask for help for because it isn't torrents or copied onto pc hardware.

I purchased the copy of Mac OS X Lion on my machine, thank you very much. There is legal debate in the US as to whether my violation of the Apple EULA is illegal or not. I've owned real Macs since the Mac Plus, thanks. I've called Apple 3 times in 25 years regarding OS/software problems. They are batting 0/3 for being able to help me.

Originally Posted by macmastersam

Well for a start the two xeons add to nearly £2,400, so already it is more expensive then the base model mac pro just for 2 CPUs, dodo you just shot yourself in the foot and disproved your own point and saying hakintoshes are cheaper to make, The current mac pros can hold up to 4 SSDs, so that's twice your expectations, so the jokes on you buddy, lol.

Oh! I'm bleeding!

You misinterpret my expectations and specifications. My system has 2 SSDS and 11 conventional hard drives; 4 of the conventional hard drives are hot-swappable by design. My system has an GTX 580, although it boots equally well (maybe better) with the AMD Radeon 6870. Yes, an entry level quad-core Mac Pro costs $2499 USD. Thats with a 2.8 GHz Xeon, I guess that's a 5560 Xeon. Let's see I can buy a 12 Core Mac Pro with 2.93 GHz Westmeres (Xeon 5680) for a cool $6199 USD, with a single 1 TB hard drive and WOW an AMD Radeon 5770 and (WOW a second time, 6 GB RAM).

My machine costs a bit under that to build, including the cooling system (an optional luxury), 3.43 GHz Xeon 5690s (that's 12 cores, not 4 bud), 2 SSDs, RAM, and video card. I admit to buying the video card second hand;although a video card costing 1/3 of mine would exceed the performance of the current Apple offering. I already owned the other hard drives. The mess of cables and boxes holding them beside my Mac Pro was part of the reason I wound up building my own machine.

Originally Posted by macmastersam

Then, you must go on to say that your hakintosh is more upgradable. Shut it. Both are just as upgradable as each other. The mac pro is older, hence it can't take as much storage as you think it would.

Not sure what you have up your you know what about this, but no, they aren't equally upgradeable (I own a Mac Pro, too). My machine also has 7 full length PCI-e slots (4 16x and 3 8x), 2 rear eSATA ports, 10 USB-2 ports and 2 USB-3 ports on the motherboard. Oh, and 12 DDR-3 RAM slots. I could run (and it's been done with this motherboard) 7 high performance video cards, although I currently run 1 video card, 2 SAS cards, a proprietary digital I/O board, an extra FW/USB card, and an extra network card. My case was designed to hold 24 full size drives, or 48 SSDs....

Originally Posted by macmastersam

But if a hackintosh pleases you more than the real thing, then go ahead and do that. And just out of interest: do you actually own a hakintoshes this powerful and if so, what do you even use it for??

My latest "mac" http://www.overclock.net/t/1238540/b...vga-sr-2-build

It's used for a series of multithreaded applications which do complex medical simulations involving real-time data; sorry the rest of that information is proprietary. And it's pretty mean in Photoshop, too.

[macmastersam]

Originally Posted by braindeadfool

I purchased the copy of Mac OS X Lion on my machine, thank you very much. There is legal debate in the US as to whether my violation of the Apple EULA is illegal or not. I've owned real Macs since the Mac Plus, thanks. I've called Apple 3 times in 25 years regarding OS/software problems. They are batting 0/3 for being able to help me.



Oh! I'm bleeding!

You misinterpret my expectations and specifications. My system has 2 SSDS and 11 conventional hard drives; 4 of the conventional hard drives are hot-swappable by design. My system has an GTX 580, although it boots equally well (maybe better) with the AMD Radeon 6870. Yes, an entry level quad-core Mac Pro costs $2499 USD. Thats with a 2.8 GHz Xeon, I guess that's a 5560 Xeon. Let's see I can buy a 12 Core Mac Pro with 2.93 GHz Westmeres (Xeon 5680) for a cool $6199 USD, with a single 1 TB hard drive and WOW an AMD Radeon 5770 and (WOW a second time, 6 GB RAM).

My machine costs a bit under that to build, including the cooling system (an optional luxury), 3.43 GHz Xeon 5690s (that's 12 cores, not 4 bud), 2 SSDs, RAM, and video card. I admit to buying the video card second hand;although a video card costing 1/3 of mine would exceed the performance of the current Apple offering. I already owned the other hard drives. The mess of cables and boxes holding them beside my Mac Pro was part of the reason I wound up building my own machine.





Not sure what you have up your you know what about this, but no, they aren't equally upgradeable (I own a Mac Pro, too). My machine also has 7 full length PCI-e slots (4 16x and 3 8x), 2 rear eSATA ports, 10 USB-2 ports and 2 USB-3 ports on the motherboard. Oh, and 12 DDR-3 RAM slots. I could run (and it's been done with this motherboard) 7 high performance video cards, although I currently run 1 video card, 2 SAS cards, a proprietary digital I/O board, an extra FW/USB card, and an extra network card. My case was designed to hold 24 full size drives, or 48 SSDs....



My latest "mac" http://www.overclock.net/t/1238540/b...vga-sr-2-build

It's used for a series of multithreaded applications which do complex medical simulations involving real-time data; sorry the rest of that information is proprietary. And it's pretty mean in Photoshop, too.

How did you get a real copy of mac OS lion?

Seems like a pretty awesome machine, even if I have to admit. Lol. How much ram has it got? A terabytes worth?

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by macmastersam

if you have the money to build a mac pro-like hackintosh, then surely you should be able to have enough money to buy the real mac pro?

Maybe it's not about the money at all...maybe it comes from the pride you get by building the tool.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by jchase2057

Raw power isn't everything.

Maybe. But it helps a lot.

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by macmastersam

How did you get a real copy of mac OS lion?

Seems like a pretty awesome machine, even if I have to admit. Lol. How much ram has it got? A terabytes worth?

You can buy the Lion USB thumb drive or upgrade from a DVD copy of Snow Leopard.

[braindeadfool]

Originally Posted by macmastersam

How did you get a real copy of mac OS lion?

Seems like a pretty awesome machine, even if I have to admit. Lol. How much ram has it got? A terabytes worth?

USB stick From the apple store....

24gb is all I need

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Maybe it's not about the money at all...maybe it comes from the pride you get by building the tool.

Pride and enjoyment I'm sure Chris.

It's kinda sad that tinkering with computers is looked down upon by the mac community, just as it is macs being looked down upon by the gaming/customisation communities.

[tandeh]

Originally Posted by tandeh

This case on tonymac's IMO is excellent

sorry heres the link:


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...nymacx86com-20

[derbothaus]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

It's kinda sad that tinkering with computers is looked down upon by the mac community, just as it is macs being looked down upon by the gaming/customisation communities.

???. The sheep think it is not to be touched as marketing has infected the brains. You get MORE props for hacking the Mac than a PC made to be hacked. Even gamers give it up. PC's are a joke to customize as they practically give you a map and key for it.

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by derbothaus

???. The sheep think it is not to be touched as marketing has infected the brains. You get MORE props for hacking the Mac than a PC made to be hacked. Even gamers give it up. PC's are a joke to customize as they practically give you a map and key for it.

No I mean macs in general are looked down upon by those who build their own cheap systems. It's all silly.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by itsamacthing

Agree with you, but 2 years to upgrade a computer is weak sauce. They should have had 2 refreshes in between adding things like USB3. Waiting 2 years just for a new CPU is pathetic. Intel has an obvious roadmap and Apple should build hardware to take advantage of it. If they keep to their own schedule, then it's like trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole. i.e.: 2 years between Mac Pro refreshes.

I agree with you, but, the Intel E5 release was very strange. I am lukewarm about USB3. The first-gen controllers and drivers were definitely half-baked and offered little improvement over USB2-- barely competing with FW800. I do think the problems are solved and it is time to roll out USB3 along with everything else.

Apple should release something between a Mac Pro and Mac Mini. Use all desktop grade parts, no mobile parts like in the iMac. That mac, shall we call it the "Mac" could be refreshed every 8 to 10 months. It should contain all the latest and greatest features found in motherboards we can buy like USB3, over clocking, and more.

This will give them a larger desktop market. It will be the fastest mac on the planet (extreme i7 for example), and the Mac Pro will be the most powerful (cores for pros).

The mid-tower Mini-Pro is something that everyone talks about. I don't know why Apple doesn't release such a product, other than than it would appear to be in a very low margin, highly competitive product space, and would therefore probably look too expensive "Apple Tax" wise.

Or, maybe they really are just going to migrate away from the "creative" market and let Adobe on Windows7 own that.

[wonderspark]

I personally know of a handful of PCs running OSX fitted into a Pelican case specifically for editing RED footage on movie sets. They fit a Dell monitor into the lid, power it from the generator on set, stick it in a tent and it works better than any Mac Pro that I know of. They were all built by people who know what they're doing, but they do it because it's cheaper and more powerful than a real Mac Pro. They would choose a Mac Pro if they worked better or were a better choice, but they haven't been for a while now.

[itsamacthing]

Originally Posted by wonderspark

I personally know of a handful of PCs running OSX fitted into a Pelican case specifically for editing RED footage on movie sets. They fit a Dell monitor into the lid, power it from the generator on set, stick it in a tent and it works better than any Mac Pro that I know of. They were all built by people who know what they're doing, but they do it because it's cheaper and more powerful than a real Mac Pro. They would choose a Mac Pro if they worked better or were a better choice, but they haven't been for a while now.

This is really not surprising at all. The various boot loaders are pretty mature now and the community has amazing support. If Apple can't make desktop computers anymore, they should go ahead and open up the OS and allow computer companies to make computers for them. Can you imagine if someone told Steve Jobs 20 years ago that his company would one day have a problem bringing desktop computers to market? That they would be advertising a 2 year old computer as being new?

[derbothaus]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

No I mean macs in general are looked down upon by those who build their own cheap systems. It's all silly.

Gotcha. I would have said "It's all Nerdy". All computers have their uses. Mac's have strengths , PC's have strengths. You only fight about brand affiliation when you first cut your teeth. It''s like some sort of initiation right. And it is "silly".

[dagomike]

Originally Posted by itsamacthing

Can you imagine if someone told Steve Jobs 20 years ago that his company would one day have a problem bringing desktop computers to market? That they would be advertising a 2 year old computer as being new?

You must have not been around during the PowerPC days.

I think the Xeons used in the Mac Pro generally cater to the enterprise, not end users. Intel obviously has a greater sense of urgency with the i-line of CPUs, which drive basically the entire PC market.

Not only is the market small, but the product cycles and needs are different. Other than choosing to use the CPU, not sure how much blame Apple really deserves. It's frustrating, but obviously Apple hasn't just been sitting on the product for six months. And because it''s such a low volume product, it's not worth updating without new CPUs.

----------

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

The mid-tower Mini-Pro is something that everyone talks about. I don't know why Apple doesn't release such a product, other than than it would appear to be in a very low margin, highly competitive product space, and would therefore probably look too expensive "Apple Tax" wise.

Or, maybe they really are just going to migrate away from the "creative" market and let Adobe on Windows7 own that.

If you price out a Hackintosh to an top of the line iMac spec with a high end IPS display (Apple/Dell), the price is ball park. Apple kills us on memory and SSD, but, nothing new there.

I think Apple could put together an i7 mini-tower for $1500 and make a nice profit.

[C. Alan]

Originally Posted by dagomike

I think Apple could put together an i7 mini-tower for $1500 and make a nice profit.

As they say, "You are preaching to the Choir..." The mid tower has been a hole in their lineup for years.

[tamvly]

Originally Posted by C. Alan

As they say, "You are preaching to the Choir..." The mid tower has been a hole in their lineup for years.

Amen.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by ashman70

Yes you are running OSX unlicensed, so there is that which you have to live with, but over at tonymacx86 they do not and will not tolerate discussions about pirated software and always tell people to buy Snow Leopard or Lion if hey want to build a Hack, I understand even if you buy it and install it on non Apple hardware, you are violating the EULA.

Actually, you can't "violate the EULA". The EULA tells you what copies you are allowed to make and which copies you are not allowed to make, and installing MacOS X on a non-Apple branded computer is not allowed, therefore it is _copyright infringement_. And if you compare the price of Lion and a comparable Windows version, it's obvious that the price is designed to keep Mac users happy when Apple made good money on the hardware sale.

There is also an automatic DMCA violation, so you better don't do anything that would upset Apple. Psystar was ordered to pay $2,500 per copy of MacOS X that they made.

Originally Posted by braindeadfool

I purchased the copy of Mac OS X Lion on my machine, thank you very much. There is legal debate in the US as to whether my violation of the Apple EULA is illegal or not.

Actually, that debate has been over for a few years, thanks to Psystar. You purchased the right to install MacOS X Lion on any Apple-branded computer of your choice.

[Wild-Bill]

Originally Posted by tandeh

This case on tonymac's IMO is excellent

If you're looking for something to fix a large dual-socket board, check out this review. They have a picture with the EVGA SRII in it....

http://m.hardocp.com/article/2012/04...bo_case_review

[SR2Mac]

I know this comment was made by xgman a week and a half ago:

Originally Posted by xgman

I've built more high end, over clocked, custom PC's than I can count and got sick of the endless tinkering so I went to Apple. I have absolutely zero interest in returning to a build your own system.

To answer this simply is to say - I guess you're done here and no further thoughts need to be made, as I haven't seen any further comments from you.

As for what mslide said:

Originally Posted by mslide

You imply that building a PC, with performance similar to that of a Mac Pro, means endless tinkering. It doesn't. All you have to do is pick your components right the first time, build it, install whatever OS and you're done (and not bother with overclicking, water cooling, etc).

The "build it and you're done..." comment is correct, but the first part of "building a PC, with performance similar to that of a Mac Pro..." is not totally accurate. It's not "slightly" better. It's OVERWHELMING BETTER on a few counts.

1) My SR-2 setup is 35% faster as my last recorded GB score is: 34771 as opposed to the 22,000 to 24,000 GB scores that you'll max out on with a maxed out Mac Pro.(and it's nicer looking).

2) Plus, is literally 1/3 the cost ($4,000) of the HIGHEST PRICED TOP-OF-THE-LINE Mac Pro (with all the trimmings) at $11,500.

3) Lastly, my system is Underclocked (of all things) which in turn gives it better, more efficient performance that Apple hasn't even touched yet. (Thanks again, Tutor... )

So you get the best of both worlds; a custom built PC (to YOUR specs), AND you get to run Mac OS X on top of that. All of this is just my experience since I've been a 15+ year Mac owner (since the Quadra 605 days) and now see the difference of doing it yourself.

PS - I have to say there is a part of my that can't help upgrading. The great thing is you can (little by little) with a PC. Without having to spend an arm and a leg getting a whole new Mac Pro. Also, with PC parts, you get to sell what you don't want to use anymore on eBay and get most of your funds back in your pocket. Later...