Mac Pro Unboxing Photos, Early Benchmarks and Notes

[Inconsequential]

You must be new to this whole "Apple Computer" thing.

If you mean using them since 1995, then yes, im new.

Are you sure? Looking at OWC's mid-2010 Quad-core RAM page here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory the identical sticks note only applies to using 8GB sticks.

Here's what Crucial says about the mid-2010 Quad-core:

"...you can install modules one at a time, and you can mix different densities of modules in your computer. But if your computer supports dual-channel memory configurations [this model doesn't—NCAM], you should install in identical pairs (preferably in kits) for optimal performance."

Hmm, Apple's online specs are mute on the subject, so I downloaded the User Manual. Here's what it says:

"Note: If you install different-size DIMMs in your Mac Pro, follow the order in the table. If the DIMM configuration you install doesn’t provide optimized performance, the Memory Slot Utility appears onscreen and recommends an improved configuration.
To use the utility again, go to /System/Library/CoreServices/Memory Slot Utility."

So I think that establishes that mix-and-match is allowed, although they should be installed in a certain order. It would certainly simplify things to use all the same though, but since Apple ships weird base configurations—3 x 1GB in a 4-slot Mac, what's that all about?—it's hard to do that without excessive wastage.

Too bad that Apple is stuck in the Bad Old Days on MacPro RAM pricing. A $1775 adder to go from 3GB to 16GB? Yeah, like that's going to happen.

See: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/995581/

All the information you need should be in there

 

[CFreymarc]

Hardly cost effective - but, ya!

This is Apple, if you want cost effective get a PC.

 

[DesmoPilot]

This is Apple, if you want cost effective get a PC.

I giggled.

 

[NCAM]

See: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/995581/
All the information you need should be in there

Hmm, and misinformation too. As always the problem lies in telling them apart.

Much of that discussion was about using the 6-core Westmere MBP models with 8GB RAM modules. The system I described (mid-2010 2.8 GHz 4-core Nehalem, 4GB RAM sticks) includes neither of those, so the applicability is unclear. In the absence of any authoritative information to the contrary, I'm sticking with the memory guidelines that Apple published and that I quoted earlier.

On the plus side I've received all the pieces and parts of the system I described and I'll be setting it up and evaluating it over the next week or two. If anything of interest comes to light I'll post it here. Tweaking the memory configuration isn't a big deal either way.

My main interest at this point is to determine whether there's more usable speed benefit for us in installing an SSD boot/application drive, or checking the 3.2 GHz clock speed option box. Either costs about the same $400. If the SSD option works the way I hope then I'll order the other 4 systems the same way.

(Slightly OT: I do know our next Xserve will include Apple's SSD boot drive option, but there you get the added benefit of gaining back one drive module spot in the process, which is pretty much irresistible.)

 

[DoFoT9]

Hmm, and misinformation too. As always the problem lies in telling them apart.

just incase anybody was wondering about the iMac in this situation - the iMac ONLY supports paired sticks. i found this out the hard way

 

[chrono1081]

I giggled.

Me too. PCs are far from cost effective. Cheaper, yes. Cost effective? Hardly. Thats why I get paid the big $$$ to fix them.

 

[NCAM]

On the plus side I've received all the pieces and parts of the system I described and I'll be setting it up and evaluating it over the next week or two. If anything of interest comes to light I'll post it here. Tweaking the memory configuration isn't a big deal either way.

Did the initial test drive today. 2 x 4GB plus 2 x 1GB worked fine, except that the memory utility advised me to install the higher capacity modules in the lower numbered slots. Murphy's Law being what it is, I'd done it the other way around.

So that's it for the RAM question: unsurprisingly Apple's instructions are correct, other rumours, meh, not so much.

I wasn't able to try out the OWC SSD boot drive because the particular 2.5" to 3.5" adapter I got isn't correct for this application. Grrr, new one on order.

 

[haveaname]

Beast inside!

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Me too. PCs are far from cost effective. Cheaper, yes. Cost effective? Hardly. Thats why I get paid the big $$$ to fix them.

Agreed - and that is the big thing that is lost in translation. If the end user wasn't an idiot then the Windows and Mac OS X world would be a matter of choosing between Brie and Camembert. The reality is as soon as you get an end user running Windows a laundry list of problems unfold - not because Windows is faulty but because it was designed with the assumption that the end user isn't a moron. In comes the average end user, thick as two short planks (and twice as ugly) and you end up with the person infected with a trojan in five seconds because some idiotic friend is infected by a worm.

 

[NCAM]

I wasn't able to try out the OWC SSD boot drive because the particular 2.5" to 3.5" adapter I got isn't correct for this application. Grrr, new one on order.

Quick update:

Not surprisingly the SSD is speedy. Time to boot to the Desktop is ~18 secs vs. 65 secs from the same system on a 7200 rpm hard drive. Photoshop CS5 launches in under 4 secs vs. ~16 secs. While those numbers are obviously good—and they really make me want an SSD in my MacBook Pro to replace its dog-slow 5400 rpm stock drive!—it's hard to quantify what kind of a productivity improvement there is for ordinary day-to-day work. After all, you don't reboot a Mac, or quit/relaunch its productivity apps, very often during the workday. On the other hand, apps don't keep everything in RAM; they have to go back to main storage periodically to retrieve code or data, so there should be some SSD advantage there as well.

So for me the main question is still open. The same $400 spent on the SSD could have bought a CPU speed bump from 2.8 to 3.2 GHz, 14% across the board. Would that be more productive? Perhaps the answer is mixed: go for the CPU speed bump today, since that's an upfront-only decision, then optionally drop in an SSD later when their price comes down a bit?

That may be the way I go with the other 4 Mac Pros we need to buy.