2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro

[Tracer]

In regards to Suneohair's Post: WOW!

If a Stoakley chipset is able to help that much in Cinebench, I'm throughly stunned.

Currently the Mac Pro's board gives about a 4.75x Multiplier with an 8-Core System.

With 3.33GHZ Harpertown Samples, we're looking at scores of 3330+ Scores in the Cinebench Multi-Render Test. Current 8-Core Systems give about 2300.

Thats about a 45% Improvement in rendering time.

Stoakley sounds really tempting.

Tracer

 

[Multimedia]

The Current 8-Core Mac Pro Is Clovertown

If they pick up Clovertown after Harpertown release I would be rather annoyed. Lets hope Apple decided to skip Clovertown in favor of a nice Harpertown update.

I'm not sure what you mean. They are using Clovertown now.

 

[suneohair]

I'm not sure what you mean. They are using Clovertown now.

Apple is only using the 3ghz clovertown quad. They aren't using it in the rest of the line. The rest are woodcrests.

I am saying it seems Apple decided to skip the 2.0 and 2.66 Clovertowns. Lets hope that move was to wait for Harpertown. Hope that is more clear.

 

[jrichman63]

MM congrats on you new refurb, I'm sure it will hold you over. I can not beleive that I am holding out longer than you! I can't cave now. I'm trying to save as much moeny as possible for the "updated Mac Pro/Dream Computer". Also educational discounts I believe only apply to 1 desktop a year. Please tells us when you can where your deal came from. I'm going to an apple store today to play with an Iphone and the new Imacs in person.

Right now i'm in the midst of completing a MSD thesis and I can rationalize waiting for the dream machine, becouse it would be the ultimate distraction at this piont. (Thesis merely requires word processing and internet) So right now I'm considering getting the cheapest mac I can get ( mac mini) to help me reliably finish this MSD and hold me over. I say cheapest because I don't want to subtract money from my future mac pro purchase. Any suggests there?

For every one,

What is most cost effective way to make large purchases from apple
-apples student developers club??
-apples educational discount (any diffecne between teachers and students?) gf's a teacher
-Online save on taxes?

Does choosing any option exclude one for directly returning or dealing with apple stores (as I know I would like the comfort of knowing when I purchase a 30' ADC /Mac Pro, if there are any blemishes I can get this resolved during the purchase)

This really is an incredable forum. Thanks to every one who supports it.

 

[suneohair]

You bought a refurb MM!? NOOOO!!!!!

EDIT: translation of chinese article on Tyan SS board: http://www.google.com/translate?u=h...tent-415127.html&langpair=zh|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8

Student ADC is my choice. Which is why I am waiting. I want to use it well.

 

[Multimedia]

I Did Not Buy A Refurb

You bought a refurb MM!? NOOOO!!!!!

EDIT: translation of chinese article on Tyan SS board: http://www.google.com/translate?u=h...tent-415127.html&langpair=zh|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8

Student ADC is my choice. Which is why I am waiting. I want to use it well.

No it's not a refurb. It's a previously owned by someone for a couple of months fully loaded with an Apple 23" ACD HD as well for a very low price. I'll give details how and for how much when I get it. Specs are:

Dual C2D 2.66GHz Xeon Woodcrest MP

5GB RAM (2x 512MB + 4x 1GB)
150GB WD Raptor 10K rpm Boot Drive
TWO 500 GB HDs
the 250GB drive that came with it
Bluetooth Module

23" Apple ACD HD

Thanks for that translation. Looking good. It's comforting to see the words "Stoakley-Seaburg" in print somewhere other than on this thread.

I plan to join ADC for $500 in October just before Leopard is released when it comes out since the ADC price will be so much lower than the academic price as to save the $500 when buying including the copy of Leopard that will come from ADC as part of the regular membership mailing in November - probably.

But that point is probably mute since we're all probably going to wait for what we want until after Leopard ships anyway. You know it could very well be that Apple doesn't want to ship the Harpertown (H) in SS with Tiger due to the possible fact it will need Leopard to work. I.E. they may be developing Leopard at the high end to specifically work really well with H in SS since Tiger may not be able to help manage proper data flow in a SS logic board properly.

 

[flappo]

good luck , mm , i hope everything goes well for ya

i know you were let down badly by that guy on here not so long ago

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

Congratulations mate, I'm sure you'll be blown away by the difference between the G5 and 4 Core Mac Pro. Looking forward to seeing some pictures of the new setup!

 

[AidenShaw]

might be faster with 4 GiB

5GB RAM (2x 512MB + 4x 1GB)

MM - unless you really need the extra GiB, you might find that the system is measurably faster without the 2 512 MiB FB-DIMMs.

The memory system is fastest with 4 DIMMs due to the fact that each memory bank "daisy-chains" the request. The 2nd DIMM in a chain has higher latency than the first.

In addition, the pair unbalances the memory, so requests to that 1 GiB aren't pumped to 4 DIMMs at a time.

So, if you're only using 2 or 3 GiB - pull out the two 512 MiB DIMMs....

 

[slughead]

MM - unless you really need the extra GiB, you might find that the system is measurably faster without the 2 512 MiB FB-DIMMs.

Theoretically, yes.

They've yet to really 'measure' it though, so I'd say it's insignificant.

 

[Sun Baked]

Theoretically, yes.

They've yet to really 'measure' it though, so I'd say it's insignificant.

If you don't need the extra gig it'll be faster (and quite hard to measure).

The second the VM Manager comes into the equation it'll be slower, and rather easy to measure the lack of 1GB of memory.

 

[Multimedia]

Say What?

MM - unless you really need the extra GiB, you might find that the system is measurably faster without the 2 512 MiB FB-DIMMs.

The memory system is fastest with 4 DIMMs due to the fact that each memory bank "daisy-chains" the request. The 2nd DIMM in a chain has higher latency than the first.

In addition, the pair unbalances the memory, so requests to that 1 GiB aren't pumped to 4 DIMMs at a time.

So, if you're only using 2 or 3 GiB - pull out the two 512 MiB DIMMs....

Theoretically, yes.

They've yet to really 'measure' it though, so I'd say it's insignificant.

If you don't need the extra gig it'll be faster (and quite hard to measure).

The second the VM Manager comes into the equation it'll be slower, and rather easy to measure the lack of 1GB of memory.

You guys are really confusing me now. Anyone else know if I really should pul the 512's or not? I don't even uderstand what a VM Manager is and if you mean I should leave them in or take them out Sun Baked.

Or should I add TWO 2GB sticks and leave the 512 in to complete the octet.

 

[suneohair]

You lose quad channel since you will have 3 pairs. I would put 2x2GB, it is cheaper (from what I can tell) that way you have quad channel and more slots for the future.

That is what I will be doing. Adding 2x2GB.

 

[ironic23]

You lose quad channel since you will have 3 pairs. I would put 2x2GB, it is cheaper (from what I can tell) that way you have quad channel and more slots for the future.

That is what I will be doing. Adding 2x2GB.

I thought as long as you had 2 pairs, you'd be accessing the memory in quad channel while the 3rd pair isn't in quad channel mode but won't affect the first 2 pair's performance? Can't remember where i read this from. Do you have an article or some document to clarify this?

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

When does the Mac Pro arrive Multimedia? Would you mind running me through how you're planning to hook up the Quad and Octo when you have both in your office?

 

[suneohair]

I thought as long as you had 2 pairs, you'd be accessing the memory in quad channel while the 3rd pair isn't in quad channel mode but won't affect the first 2 pair's performance? Can't remember where i read this from. Do you have an article or some document to clarify this?

I don't. I don't see how you could have some running in quad and not the rest. Doesn't make much sense. It could be though. I will look into it.

Anandtech doesn't really talk about other configs, but they say 4 sticks gives you quad (which we know), maybe some else can confirm this.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=12

More from barefeats: http://www.barefeats.com/quad09.html

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't. I don't see how you could have some running in quad and not the rest. Doesn't make much sense. It could be though. I will look into it.

Anandtech doesn't really talk about other configs, but they say 4 sticks gives you quad (which we know), maybe some else can confirm this.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=12

More from barefeats: http://www.barefeats.com/quad09.html

I was just about to post that Anandtech link but when I previewed my post I saw you beat me to it.

The Quad Channel gains look to be slim to none in real world usage so having more RAM so you are less likely to dip into Virtual Memory looks like the better way to go.


Lethal

 

[ironic23]

I don't. I don't see how you could have some running in quad and not the rest. Doesn't make much sense. It could be though. I will look into it.

Anandtech doesn't really talk about other configs, but they say 4 sticks gives you quad (which we know), maybe some else can confirm this.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=12

More from barefeats: http://www.barefeats.com/quad09.html

Thanks for the reply. I thought the same way as you but read somewhere (i'm trying to see if i can retrieve the document/article) that the system will have the first 2 pairs run in quad channel mode while the odd pair will not.

I've read those articles and you are right, they don't really say if what i've mentioned is right or not (although we know for sure that 2 pairs will give you quad channel mode).

If someone has more insight about this, please share. Thanks.

 

[Topper]

I don't even understand what a VM Manager is

VM - Virtual Memory.
When you are working with CPU intensive applications, it is possible to run out of memory. When that happens, virtual memory enables that program or programs to use more memory than is physically present on the computer.
It does this by swapping out portions of memory to disk in order to re-use that memory for other processes. But this also means reduced system performance on the Mac OS X.

Above all you want enough phyical memory to run the applications that you are using.
I don't know the exact pairing of DIMMs that is needed to make the optimal use of memory.

You've got 5GB of memory.
The major question becomes can you run your applications with 4GB of memory?
Applications like MemoryCell, Memory Monitor, and Activity Monitor will tell you if you are using virtual memory.
If you are using virtual memory with 4GB of memory then I think you've got to put those 2 512MB chips back into the computer.
Keep in mind that I don't know if these other people are correct about taking out the 2 512MB chips.

If this is something you already know, then I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[suneohair]

The gains I think will be more apparent in SS and possibly leopard. It also depends on the usage, as you can see from the Anand article, certain apps see a considerable improvement. Thats not to say you shouldn't fill it. However...

2GB DIMMs are cheaper than 1GB DIMMs even on Omni.
4x1GB = ~$368
2x2GB = ~$345

That is even better over at OWC (pricewise):
4x1GB = ~$339
2x2GB = ~$329

And of course these fluctuate. I have seen the 2x2GB set closer and at $299.

With that in mind, why not go 2x2GB in the first riser, move the 2x512MB to the second, and you get 5GB while keeping quad channel. That is what makes sense to me. I don't quite understand why some have gone with 4x1GB. Any particular reason MM?

 

[slughead]

I'd leave in the extra pair of 512mb... it's so much more useful than the phantom speed boost that would come from quad channel (which nobody has been able to consistently measure).

 

[suneohair]

I'd leave in the extra pair of 512mb... it's so much more useful than the phantom speed boost that would come from quad channel (which nobody has been able to consistently measure).

Regardless, i don't see the point in using 3/4 of your available memory banks when you can get 2x2GB cheaper than 4x1GB and keep the 2x512MB and get the "phantom speed boost." I just don't understand. You are killing your expandability if you got the 4x1 route.

upon searching here is an interesting and rather definitive answer (at least in the mind of the writer). http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=209

"One tip to take away from all this for the prospective Mac Pro user: The fastest Mac Pro memory configuration consists of four (4) FB-DIMMs. Not more. Not less."

Of course, that doesn't say you have to do it, but it would be fastest you can do. Of course more memory helps as well.

 

[Alpinism]

boy, its absolutely a BAD TIME TO BUY ANYTHING PRO now. Why ? because the next iteration of apple "Pro" (MP, MBP) would be a revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

*Below are all pure speculation*

a) The MP would probably all come equipped with 8 core with updated GPU. This should separate itself from the "consumer" iMac.

b) All the MBP would probably use the new Quad core2 extreme CPU.

To me (Final cut studio, photoshop, maya user), all of the above are significant.

The only thing is, nothing will be updated until the new "45" intel CPU is out and it maybe Mac World 2008 before we will see these new REVOLUTIONARY pro machines.

 

[0007776]

boy, its absolutely a BAD TIME TO BUY ANYTHING PRO now. Why ? because the next iteration of apple "Pro" (MP, MBP) would be a revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

*Below are all pure speculation*

a) The MP would probably all come equipped with 8 core with updated GPU. This should separate itself from the "consumer" iMac.

b) All the MBP would probably use the new Quad core2 extreme CPU.

To me (Final cut studio, photoshop, maya user), all of the above are significant.

The only thing is, nothing will be updated until the new "45" intel CPU is out and it maybe Mac World 2008 before we will see these new REVOLUTIONARY pro machines.

If you are expecting a quad core MBP in the next revision then that would mean that it will not be updated for almost another year, before a notbook quad core is out.

 

[AidenShaw]

Regardless, i don't see the point in using 3/4 of your available memory banks when you can get 2x2GB cheaper than 4x1GB and keep the 2x512MB and get the "phantom speed boost." I just don't understand. You are killing your expandability if you got the 4x1 route.

Interesting to see the various benchmarks that point out that memory configs only make a minor difference in performance. Thanks.

My post was to say that it "might" be faster with 4 balanced DIMMs, and if you aren't using more than 2 or 3 GiB - pull out the 5th GiB.

Nice to see that everyone seems to be agreeing with that idea - if you don't need more than 4 GiB, stick with 4. If you *do* need more than 4 GiB - add them in whatever combination you want. The "hit" from a less than ideal config is much less than the gain from having more memory.

Also, I didn't check to see that the humongous Mac Pro only has 8 memory slots. This week I've been working with some super cheap white-box Woodcrest servers that have 16 memory slots - it seemed to be a good number. I figured that since the MP was some much bigger than these white box servers that it would have 16 FB-DIMM slots.