2.8 octo 3,1 or 2,26 octo 4,1?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by malana, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. malana macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    #1
    hello,

    my first post in this forum!

    I have to buy a mac pro. software used is photoshop, illu, ae, c4d, realflow - professionally.

    my question is: should I buy a 2.8 octo, 2600 early 2008 with 24 months of apple guarantee for 1900 EUR or a refurbished (12 months guarantee) 2,26 octo, 120 early 2009 for 2600 EUR.

    both with receipt for taxes.

    hyperthreading - does it do anything for heavy rendering? my new project is creating and post-pro of macro hi-speed (up to 1200 fps) footage in 3D. is there a difference with nehalem?


    thank you!!
     
  2. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #2
    For multi-threaded performance, the '09 has a slight edge on that particular '08, but the '08 has a slight edge in single-threaded performance. So it's close, overall.

    The '08 offers a better overall value IMO, and is easier to upgrade in terms of an internal hardware RAID, as the '09's require an adapter to use the internal HDD bays ($165USD). Then there's the possibility with being throttled by the ICH10R (~660MB/s throughput), which is a potential with the use of SSD's.

    Upgrades aren't horrible for the '08's, and it has more memory slots (if you really need a fair amount of memory, this is important, and the software listed, I'd think this would interest you).

    Apple's US Refurbished site sells an '08 3.2GHz Octad for the same as a base '09 Octad (2.26GHz; MSRP). IIRC, the '09 has a slight discount now, given the holiday shopping season. I've no idea if there's one available where you are, but it's a nice way to go. It gets the 1yr warranty, and you can add the extended Apple Care to it, which is highly recommended (Apple's repair parts tend to be expensive).

    No, you benefit from real cores (assuming the software is well written for multi-threading, as some is limited to 2 or 4 cores).
     
  3. digiworx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #3
    Get the 08 model if you really need it now or wait for what is coming early next year.

    If you can`t wait I`d get the fastest 08 model you can buy even the 2.8GHz has quite a lot of grunt. I bought the Octo 2.26GHz last week...going back today as it gets replaced with the Octo 2.8GHz. Photoshop, Lightroom, Indesign, Illustrator is PAINFULLY slow on the Octo 2.26GHz...in fact it is that slow that my 3-year old Macbook Pro 2.16GHz with an SSD almost was able to catch up if you don`t have to many applications running. I bought a used 08 model with 2xQuads at 2.8GHz and put in 16GB RAM plus an SSD as OS harddrive...it`s still damn fast. There was a quote I read somewhere "the octo 2.26 is sometimes a bit faster than the octo 2.8 but most often slower while the octo 3.2 beats it in almost every task". That should all change next year hopefully but then I could have waited for the next revision. Actually I`m very happy with the 08 model as it is...awesome value! Then I can sell it 2011 to get the next bigger revision with software that will be optimized by Adobe hopefully :)

    Hope that helps...don`t buy the octo 2.26GHz if you regulary use Adobe Photoshop and such because you won`t like it if you`re a performance orientated used like I am :D
     
  4. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #4
    Take a look at this (Cinebench results for both single and multi-threaded operation on various MP's). :)
     

    Attached Files:

  5. digiworx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #5
    These are benchmarks...I don`t entirely trust them anymore since I had both systems with same software setup standing to each other. I actually brought the new octo 2.26 back and kept the 08 model which I`m very happy with :) now back to work hehe lots of things to catch up :cool:
     
  6. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    The stated benchmark reflects exactly what you said.
    The 2.26GHz octad is definitely slower in single threaded apps due to it's lower clock speed.
    But that a 3 year old MacBook can catch up, sorry that sounds a 'little' odd.
     
  7. malana thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    #8
    thanks! you have been all very helpful.
    normally benchmarks don´t do the trick for me either. but since cinebench is from maxon (I hope, it's for 64bit already), and since rendering in c4d will be my prime task, It looks alright for me.
    So I'm gonna buy the 2.8 octo (which is 50 euros less today, so only 1850 EUR), which leaves me some cash for a decent screen as well.

    excellent board, thank you (I've been a reader for years anyway).
     
  8. digiworx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #9
    Sorry I should have used my glasses :D probably misread the 2.66 as 2.26 :) for the part about the Macbook Pro, it has a SSD inside and tasks that mainly use a single core and almost no memory (saving photoshop files for example) go figure...2.16 and 2.26 are not that different there. All in all it was slower but certain tasks where really comparable which left me really disappointed with the octo 2.26. Anyway happy now...thanks for correcting me on my mistake :eek:

    @malana, don`t think you`ll regret it :) have fun getting the work done...
     
  9. malana thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    #10
    I've got another question, since you all have been so helpful.

    which video card suits my need best? I know, I have to flash the ROM. atm, a HD 2600xt with 256 megs is included. but since this card might a little bit slow for my purposes...
     
  10. seisend macrumors 6502a

    seisend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland, ZG
    #11
  11. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    It's pretty sure that you have!
    Please check the linked threads for further info.
     
  12. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #13
    The '08 models do offer the best value. They compare very well with the '09 systems, and can be had for less. They're the best MP's ever released to date IMO, as there's exceptionally little software that can utilize the advantages of the Nehalem systems (i.e. triple channel memory bandwidth).

    You'd want to look at an HD4870 or GTX285 for OTB cards. If you're willing to flash or use injectors, you can use cards not available otherwise, and/or save money.

    A flashed PC version of the 4870 will be the easiest to deal with IMO, as there's nothing to "fix" after an OS update. Search MR, as there's quite a bit on this, and a few members who are into this area extensively, who are quite willing to offer help and advice. :)

    I'm sure you do actually (any app that uses the Quicktime X code causes high temps, yet the CPU utilization is low; less than 1% with 67+C :eek:). It's not been limited to some, but all the '09 MP's. :(
     
  13. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #14
    I've owned both and hands down the 2.26GHz kills the last gen in terms of overall speed!

    The new Nehalem architecture is a dream! :D

    I run 16 spaces with a gazillion apps running including 2 vmware and my 2.26GHz mac pro's cpu does not even go any higher than 8%.
     
  14. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    The '09's are better suited to VM. And if used with software that can actually take advantage of the additional memory bandwidth, it would as well.

    In terms of raw performance, the 3.2GHz is an awsome system when compared to the 2.26 base '09 Octad though. It wins in both single and multithreaded used for the same money (refurb vs. normal MSRP = $3299USD, not any holiday discounts can can be found now). Using 3D software as it exists now anyway. No idea when the software will actually catch up to Nehalem architecture, which could change this. But given current development cycles, I'm not under the impression it's really soon for the most part.

    But the best thing that can be done in either, is solve the bottlenecks that still exist. It's practical, and the results can be seen in daily use = benefits a user NOW, not some unspecified time when the software catches up (and it's still applicable then too). Namely upgrade the memory and drive system to keep it all fed. :D
     
  15. seisend macrumors 6502a

    seisend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland, ZG
    #16
    Right now playing back music in Quicktime X .

    CPU Before playing back : 54 / 44
    CPU while playing back (5mins) : 54 / 44

    usually, I listen to music in iTunes. Even there I see no difference. I listen to music a lot and I watch the iStat bar a lot ! I use iStat menu. I've seen a thread called "mac pro 09 running hot" or something like that a while ago about the same and I've watched my system back then too. I don't see any CPU heat increase ! Although I'll keep an eye on it for a while !

    Just watched now on Apple.com a Quicktime 1080p Trailer (2,5min) while playing back a track in Quicktime X . CPU Temp after Trailer finished: 56/46 .
    Now while writing this text it's 56/44 again.

    edit: my mac pro's CPU heat is always around 40-60°C
     
  16. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    Audio Decoding KILLS MacPro (2009) green factor is the thread. ;)

    The following would be greatly appreciated. :)

    1. Check the system for idle temp, ambient temp, and CPU utilization prior to testing.
    2. Run iTunes, Flash,... (any Quicktime X app) for ~20min.
    3. Report back to the linked thread

    Ideally, idle should be ~40C max. But even at what you're listing, assuming its as low a CPU utilization as other posters, it's still a bit on the warm side (less than 1%). The same process on the Windows side stays at the idle temps from what I've noticed (MP's or PC versions, @ ~0.7% core use).

    Other details might be needed to make a better comparison (i.e. firmware revision, as there could be a new one out, that's only been released on newer machines that's the cause).

    Thanks. :D
     
  17. seisend macrumors 6502a

    seisend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland, ZG
    #18
    I'll do that. But as I said. I am monitoring my temps hell a lot and I've never seen an increase in iTunes and Quicktime. But I have to say, I had NEVER temps max. 40°C even in idle mode. Temps are always around 40-60 in desktop work , listening to iTunes and stuff. But I'll watch that too (still). This is the wrong thread here though, we will continue in the other one...
     
  18. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #19
    It's appreciated, and why I asked that you post there, so we don't further detour this thread. ;)
     

Share This Page