I do to. I was also leaning towards the 08' model, but after hearing it can take 16gb of ram I think I am going to go for the 2.66 09' model. I know the 4gb chips are expensive, but I will get 8gb right now, then put in 16gb in another year or so when the price has dropped.
2.8ghz 8-Core or the new 2.66ghz Quad Nehalem?
- Thread starter nomotivs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do to. I was also leaning towards the 08' model, but after hearing it can take 16gb of ram I think I am going to go for the 2.66 09' model. I know the 4gb chips are expensive, but I will get 8gb right now, then put in 16gb in another year or so when the price has dropped.
nicolasmasset
macrumors regular
Yeah I read that macworld review too, but it's totally contradicting to all the other benchmarks here on the boards by tesslator and the barefeats ones, where they all say the 2.8 octo beats the new quad...
I'd like to get newer tech too, but it's all so confusing. Thing is, the new quad is only 200€ more so the price difference isn't really an issue. Actually, why don't I make a list of pro's:
2008 octo pro's:
- 8 cores
- stable with software now
2009 quad pro's:
- future cpu upgrade possible
- faster ram
- faster drives
- faster graphics with minidisplay built in for the 24" screen.
I also just read something on gearslutz about the new quads having better audio latency due to the newer memory architecture.
AndyDiamond
macrumors 6502
I have been in this dilemma too.
Here's what I did.
I have a June 2004 dual 2.5 G5 with 4GB RAM, stock ATI 128MB card etc.
It's the liquid cooled one (never had a problem).
Still going strong using usual graphics apps (CS3, Quark, Final Cut Pro, Motion etc) and ProTools 7.44.
Wanted to upgrade so I could run the latest versions of apps that were seemingly optimized for Intel machines (or will no longer support PPC) etc etc.
I was stoked to hear about the new Mac Pro releases in March.
Until I saw the prices.
I'm not dissing Apple's pricing (I'm in New Zealand).
Sure - a pro machine costs more but our exchange rate took a bath which has made the prices very high.
So, I was looking at going with a stock Octo 2.26 (6GB RAM) at approx $4200 USD or trying to find a run out Octo 2.8 2008 (stock with 2B RAM) which were retailing at around $2,800 US.
Looking at the speed tests the 2008 was slower that the 2009 but not by much and I figured moving from the G5 either machine would be a screamer.
Also, I run ProTools and I know the 2008 machines are stable for it.
So, quite by chance I came across an ex-lease stock 2008 2.8 Octo (2GB RAM, 256MB video) plus CTO BlueTooth added, keyboard and mouse for $2100 US (and believe me that is a good price where I am).
No warranty and a couple of scratches but it's working great.
I had to buy an ADC to DVI adapter to run one of my ADC Formac displays off it but so what.
Ordered an extra 12GB of RAM from OWC to bring it up to 14GB - I'll be set for another 3 years at least and I saved a bunch of cash while improving my computing power by a truckload.
Here's the deal - buy the fastest stuff you can get with what $$ you have.
Scout for the deals - I got a screaming second hand machine for half the price of a new one but it does not have half the power!
Now I can get better performance without having blown a wad of cash and not take too much of a hit if I want a Nehlam in the next 24 months (ie. 2nd gen 2010 version).
I'll be able to sell my G5 for OK money too.
Here's what I did.
I have a June 2004 dual 2.5 G5 with 4GB RAM, stock ATI 128MB card etc.
It's the liquid cooled one (never had a problem).
Still going strong using usual graphics apps (CS3, Quark, Final Cut Pro, Motion etc) and ProTools 7.44.
Wanted to upgrade so I could run the latest versions of apps that were seemingly optimized for Intel machines (or will no longer support PPC) etc etc.
I was stoked to hear about the new Mac Pro releases in March.
Until I saw the prices.
I'm not dissing Apple's pricing (I'm in New Zealand).
Sure - a pro machine costs more but our exchange rate took a bath which has made the prices very high.
So, I was looking at going with a stock Octo 2.26 (6GB RAM) at approx $4200 USD or trying to find a run out Octo 2.8 2008 (stock with 2B RAM) which were retailing at around $2,800 US.
Looking at the speed tests the 2008 was slower that the 2009 but not by much and I figured moving from the G5 either machine would be a screamer.
Also, I run ProTools and I know the 2008 machines are stable for it.
So, quite by chance I came across an ex-lease stock 2008 2.8 Octo (2GB RAM, 256MB video) plus CTO BlueTooth added, keyboard and mouse for $2100 US (and believe me that is a good price where I am).
No warranty and a couple of scratches but it's working great.
I had to buy an ADC to DVI adapter to run one of my ADC Formac displays off it but so what.
Ordered an extra 12GB of RAM from OWC to bring it up to 14GB - I'll be set for another 3 years at least and I saved a bunch of cash while improving my computing power by a truckload.
Here's the deal - buy the fastest stuff you can get with what $$ you have.
Scout for the deals - I got a screaming second hand machine for half the price of a new one but it does not have half the power!
Now I can get better performance without having blown a wad of cash and not take too much of a hit if I want a Nehlam in the next 24 months (ie. 2nd gen 2010 version).
I'll be able to sell my G5 for OK money too.
Cameraman12
macrumors member
There's two things would make me hesitant to buy a '09 Quad core right now. One, lets face it, the quad core's are going to get phased out in probably less than a year. It's just like when the G5's came out and Apple offered the single 1.6ghz model. In less than a year everything was dual processor (and then quads) and you couldn't give the single 1.6ghz models away if you tried. In a year those quad core's are going to die the same death. Check back by Christmas and you won't see the words "quad-core" anywhere on Apple's site unless its in an imac.
Two, wasn't Intel and Apple touting that more cores was more future proof than clock speed?
Two, wasn't Intel and Apple touting that more cores was more future proof than clock speed?
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
UGH! I am having a hell of a time finding an Apple Store with the 08 8core 2.8s in stock. Also, even though I do freelance creative work for a living, I never went the full route of a business license...will this hamper my ability to purchase the 2.8 at $1899 at all?
If I can't find the 2.8 at $1899 by the end of this week, I may just have to bite down and buy the 2.93 QUAD with the 4870...anyone think I'm being foolish?
musicforfilm
macrumors newbie
I just did basically the same thing. I found a "end of line" 2.8 8 core for $1899. It's brand new, not a refurb, never used. I just couldn't pass up a deal like that. The Apple store was actually very understanding of my concerns, and said I could use it for a month and if I was not satisfied they would let me return it for a 10% re-stocking fee. To me this was a no-brainer and there may be some more of those lying around if anyone is so inclined.
Oh, I guess I stand corrected on the memory for the 2.66 i7 machine. I was told that Apple would not support anything more than 8 GB, but I guess that does not mean the same thing as the warrantee being voided. My concern is this: might there be a heat issue with 16GB in the new MP? I just don't understand why Apple would limit that machine to 8GB. Some folks say it is a marketing thing, but to market a new machine with a RAM limit like that doesn't make sense. I do wish anyone well who loads that machine up - I'd like to know how it stands up over a couple of years.
cmaier
Suspended
Shouldn't be any heat issue with ddr3. I don't think apple has "limit(ed) the machine to 8GB." That's just all they sell it with. Probably because people who aren't paying for the upgrade to two processor sockets aren't likely to pay the massive price increase for the bigger dimms.
For 1899, I would definitely go that route too. Apple's refurbs of that model when they have been available this week have been 2399, so to get new for that price is a really good value.
Prices I've been finding on the 2 models are about the same, so it is just a matter of deciding which would be best for me.
Prices I've been finding on the 2 models are about the same, so it is just a matter of deciding which would be best for me.
musicforfilm
macrumors newbie
I am thinking the same way. The $1899 got me. The $2500 for the base model new Mac Pro seemed a little high. I have an 920 quad core i7 PC with 64 bit Vista, and I must say the chip is really amazing for handling samples. But, I got this custom made PC from VisionDAW with the 2.6 quad i7, 12 gigs of RAM and 3 hard drives for around $2600 just last month. Is there something different about the chips Apple is using?
As far as use: what is your primary program? I don't do pro tools; my DAW is Digital Performer. I have been having a heck of a time finding out exactly how DP uses CPU, and supposedly it spreads out over multiple cores. Some of the stats I have seen suggest that the older model may actually be better for my program, but it is still unclear to me. The RAM issue was actually somewhat less of a concern.
As far as use: what is your primary program? I don't do pro tools; my DAW is Digital Performer. I have been having a heck of a time finding out exactly how DP uses CPU, and supposedly it spreads out over multiple cores. Some of the stats I have seen suggest that the older model may actually be better for my program, but it is still unclear to me. The RAM issue was actually somewhat less of a concern.
Take a look a little earlier in the thread - someone confirmed from OWC that it will take >8GB with 4GB DIMMs (post #45)
nicolasmasset
macrumors regular
Yikes! I just did a bit of math to calculate the total cost to go get the unit in the uk (from belgium) including all the other unnecessary shopping, junkfood, hostel and castle visiting that would be joined with that 2 day roadtrip and came to the conclusion that the difference I'd have to pay for a 2.26 instead of the 2.8 would only be 300!
I guess I might as well stay home and get the 2.26 then!
I guess I might as well stay home and get the 2.26 then!
I'm not convinced that Apple will phase out the quad machines so soon - but none of us know for sure, so we'll just have to wait and see!
You were able to order a single 2.8GHz processor machine with the previous Mac Pros as a BTO and these were available for the same time as the other 2008 models, so personally I don't think the G5 comparison is sufficient proof that Apple will stop offering quads within the next eight months.
In any event, if a quad performs nicely for a user, it doesn't matter if Apple stops selling them.
Frozengeek
macrumors member
Comparison
If you go for the 2008, then I'd get 2gb memory sticks, they seem to be the sweet spot. Get four of them, installed per Apple directions in your manual, and leave the rest open for future expansion. If you get the 2009, get 6gb (2gb x3) and put your 1gb sticks away for later in case you need to take the computer in for service.
The 2009 seems to have the 10-20% performance advantage, spiking higher in the video applications to 30-40%. Since memory access is so much faster, and floating point benchmarks are almost twice as fast for non-multithreaded apps, this isn't surprising. Overall, however, if you can save a couple hundred bucks on the 2008, put it into a software RAID 0 on a couple 1TB drives and you may increase your performance substantially. It seems that HD speed is the one weakness of the base models. Some folks are forking out the cash for an SSD, but there are cheaper ways to get most of the performance advantage and a lot more drive space.
Oh ok, it's just that you said that it SMOKES the 08 model
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?
If you go for the 2008, then I'd get 2gb memory sticks, they seem to be the sweet spot. Get four of them, installed per Apple directions in your manual, and leave the rest open for future expansion. If you get the 2009, get 6gb (2gb x3) and put your 1gb sticks away for later in case you need to take the computer in for service.
The 2009 seems to have the 10-20% performance advantage, spiking higher in the video applications to 30-40%. Since memory access is so much faster, and floating point benchmarks are almost twice as fast for non-multithreaded apps, this isn't surprising. Overall, however, if you can save a couple hundred bucks on the 2008, put it into a software RAID 0 on a couple 1TB drives and you may increase your performance substantially. It seems that HD speed is the one weakness of the base models. Some folks are forking out the cash for an SSD, but there are cheaper ways to get most of the performance advantage and a lot more drive space.
Cameraman12
macrumors member
Kinda makes me think... most of the real world app tests being done between the 2009 Nehalem's and the 2008's are comparing the 2008's with the much slower stock 320gb drive from last year. That drive was no speed demon and notoriously slow as mentioned by many reviewers. I wonder what would happen to the results if the those drives were swapped with the same WD 640gb drives in the 2009 for a mere $68? Just a thought.
Mattww
macrumors 6502
What kind of performances does the Quad 2.66 give on the new Apple TV pre-set in Handbrake and can you run other intensive applications at the same time as Handbrake?
Frozengeek
macrumors member
Ripping Matrix and Shrek. I'll post results with 2.66 quad Nehalem.
thats the best thing i ever heard!
everybody is drooling over CPU/RAM speed yet most dropouts i get are due to HD speed... :S
Frozengeek
macrumors member
Handbrake
Shrek was 24min under Handbrake on the 2.66 quad 6gb RAM.
Activity monitor showed CPU bouncing from around 400% to 700% with most of the time in the 500's.
I'll do Matrix next.
Shrek was 24min under Handbrake on the 2.66 quad 6gb RAM.
Activity monitor showed CPU bouncing from around 400% to 700% with most of the time in the 500's.
I'll do Matrix next.
Frozengeek
macrumors member
Matrix
Matrix (Apple TV default settings, NOT legacy settings) was 44min, 75fps. This was the double-layer DVD. For some reason, Activity monitor showed a lot of time in the 700's, perhaps because of the 16x9 aspect and different content than the Shrek fullscreen DVD. Hyperthreading probably making a good difference here.
Too bad most video programs don't use the CPU cores as efficiently as Handbrake, but if you're doing a lot of encodes, an 8 core machine might be handy.
Matrix (Apple TV default settings, NOT legacy settings) was 44min, 75fps. This was the double-layer DVD. For some reason, Activity monitor showed a lot of time in the 700's, perhaps because of the 16x9 aspect and different content than the Shrek fullscreen DVD. Hyperthreading probably making a good difference here.
Too bad most video programs don't use the CPU cores as efficiently as Handbrake, but if you're doing a lot of encodes, an 8 core machine might be handy.
gnasher729
Suspended
Usually the 8 GB limit is based on the number of memory slots, and the size of chips that you can buy today at a reasonable price. So you have four slots, and you can buy 2 GB chips at a reasonable price; maybe 4 GB costs 5 times more. So this means: Apple will never claim the machine can use 16 GB, and accept no responsibility at all if it can't, but most likely it can, and in a year or two 16 GB will be affordable. Some of their engineers have probably read the specs for 4 GB chips, and they will come up with hardware that will not break with 4 GB chips if they can avoid it easily.
RebootD
macrumors 6502a
Ugh I am so terrible at making decisions! I've never needed a Mac Pro but now I do and I keep going back and forth between:
2008 2x 2.8 / 16GB / extra 1TB HD - $2,900
2009 1x 2.66 / 8GB / extra 1TB HD -$2,800
Part of me just doesn't want to pay that much for the quad when I know they proccessor is cheap ($300 range) the board is the low end 4 DIMM board (I read $250) plus the hard drive, $60 video card etc you are paying about $1,000 for the components and $1,400 for the case, osx and iLife.
nicolasmasset
macrumors regular
Same here! I think I'm going for the octo '08 after all. But only with 8gb ram, That's mooore than enough! I think with apple's next OS, we'll see most day-to-day-use-apple-stuff like safari etc. multicore efficient, so the extra singlethreaded gain you'd get from the new quad wouldn't be such a big deal. That and I'd get a stable system now. And I could spend the cash difference to buy a raptor drive or something to make it even faster.
RebootD
macrumors 6502a
I'm leaning that way too. It's never been so confusing with a refresh before because it depends on what you do that makes a system 'better'.
If like me you use the adobe print suite, FCE 4 and Lightroom 2 having 16+GB of ram is very useful. That begs the question does having a slower 2.8 but with 2x the ram BEAT a faster quad, but with half the ram?
If I were doing 3D/FCP/XCODE the 2.26 would be an easy decision but for the next 12-18months no software I have is ready to utilize the power, so there is little benefit for me to buy a machine now with software that won't use it's best capabilities.
Or maybe I think too much!
nicolasmasset
macrumors regular
I'm leaning that way too. It's never been so confusing with a refresh before because it depends on what you do that makes a system 'better'.
If like me you use the adobe print suite, FCE 4 and Lightroom 2 having 16+GB of ram is very useful. That begs the question does having a slower 2.8 but with 2x the ram BEAT a faster quad, but with half the ram?
If I were doing 3D/FCP/XCODE the 2.26 would be an easy decision but for the next 12-18months no software I have is ready to utilize the power, so there is little benefit for me to buy a machine now with software that won't use it's best capabilities.
Or maybe I think too much!
According to the benchmarks, the only thing the 2.8 should be slower at is single threaded apps. Perhaps you should do what I did, I rang up ableton and asked the tech guys there what system I should get for their software!
I think if I was doing graphic stuff I would maybe go for the quad for the higher single core clock speed. But for audio software where each audio track can use one core, the more cores the merrier!