2008 Mac Pro 3.2GHz 8 core upgrade to 2009 Mac Pro

[bozz2006]

Where you get Quad core from? the OP says, and i quote:



Personally I think the OP should go do some homework...

2008 3.2 MP vs 2009 2.66 MP
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com
http://www.everymac.com

And I'm assuming I shouldn't even think about downgrading to a 2.66GHz 4 core?

there

 

[pr33tz]

I thought I'd update this thread...

After a couple of days thinking it through I've decided to stick with my current setup and save the extra cash to put towards a complete overhaul in 6/12/18 months time whenever it's actually required.

I spent a few hours with a 24" ACD and as much as it is nice, I've decided it's not worth the money to me and my Dell 22"'s are good enough for now. Actually, they're very good but that's another thread.

So thanks to all the advice, I've saved around £800. I guess the beers are on me! 😀

 

[andrei.barbuta]

Smart move.

I would have gone with the 24" ACD although the fact that i can't user the nvidia 285 kinda sucks.
I have a Dell 2407WFP and I am very pleased with it. I also want to get a Mac Pro in January and after much debate it appears that a 2x3.2 is better then 2x2.26 Nehalem so i guess i'm gonna go with that if i will be able to find it.
Anyway...smart move sticking with your original setup, maybe you will just upgrade to a 30" next time. 🙂

 

[Igantius]

I only gave my personal inclination. The main benefits are not relaed to the OP's current usage….

Thanks – at first, I had assumed you were talking in more general terms, but then wondered if there were advantages specific to the OP’s situation.

 

[skyline r34]

I thought I'd update this thread...

After a couple of days thinking it through I've decided to stick with my current setup and save the extra cash to put towards a complete overhaul in 6/12/18 months time whenever it's actually required.

I spent a few hours with a 24" ACD and as much as it is nice, I've decided it's not worth the money to me and my Dell 22"'s are good enough for now. Actually, they're very good but that's another thread.

So thanks to all the advice, I've saved around £800. I guess the beers are on me! 😀

Good decision just upgrade your current Mac Pro with Ati 4870 or 285 GTX and add more ram then you should be good to go, I started saving up a year ago for the 2010 Mac Pro and Apple's LED 30" inch and already managed to put away close to $7,000 that's not including selling my current 3.2 Mac Pro, So start saving for the 2010 Mac Pro if your looking into buying a new Mac Pro or max out your current Mac Pro with upgrades.

 

[jjahshik32]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm using it for general stuff like email, web browsing, itunes etc. I'm also using it for light photo editing with Aperture and sometimes Photoshop. Recently I've been working with video conversion for transferring video cam footage onto DVD but that's only once in a while.

Like I mentioned, I don't use the Mac Pro to its full capabilities but given that I won't be out of pocket by upgrading, I thought I should consider it. 😀

Why dont you wait until Snow Leopard is out? Then you can decide if the Nehalem Architecture is any better than your Harpertown.

But as is right now I'd keep you 3.2GHz (higher clock) much faster than the 2.26GHz (even with turbo boost it only goes up as high as 2.6GHz clock speed).

Like someone mentioned above, just get the GPU and more memory other wise I think you'd be wasting serious $$$. Especially if all you do is check the mail, surf the web, video conversion stuff.

 

[scoobs69]

Your 2008 3.2GHz Mac Pro will be faster at running Aperture and Photoshop than the 2009 2.26GHz Mac Pro. So for that alone, it would be a very bad upgrade — even if it was a wash monetarily speaking.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm using it for general stuff like email, web browsing, itunes etc. I'm also using it for light photo editing with Aperture and sometimes Photoshop. Recently I've been working with video conversion for transferring video cam footage onto DVD but that's only once in a while.

Like I mentioned, I don't use the Mac Pro to its full capabilities but given that I won't be out of pocket by upgrading, I thought I should consider it. 😀

 

[pr33tz]

Sorry to bump this thread but I've hit another dilemma...

I've been offered £2100 for my 3.2 Mac Pro with 8GB RAM and 2TB HD. I've also been offered a 1 month old Nehalem 2.66 8 core with standard spec for £2400. From the feedback I got, it wasn't worth upgrading to a 2009 2.26 model but how about the 2.66 model? Is it worth £300?

I've checked Barefeats and they show benchmarks for the 2.26 and 2.93 models but couldn't see any for the 2.66.

 

[Genghis Khan]

oooh....it gets close

however, the answer is the same as before. for the apps you use it for, the 3.2GHz will still be faster...

yet, the 2.66GHz octo is a multi-core beast with the latest tech


i reckon this is too close to call, and is up to you. the issue is, for the stuff you're doing, your current Pro is faster, however you're getting the second fastest multi-core mac money can buy for only a bit more...

 

[pr33tz]

oooh....it gets close

however, the answer is the same as before. for the apps you use it for, the 3.2GHz will still be faster...

yet, the 2.66GHz octo is a multi-core beast with the latest tech


i reckon this is too close to call, and is up to you. the issue is, for the stuff you're doing, your current Pro is faster, however you're getting the second fastest multi-core mac money can buy for only a bit more...

It's very tempting. I've started using Handbrake more and more although I'm not sure how this would be affected. I'm also thinking that if I upgrade now, I can almost certainly skip the next update (6 core cpu's?). Got to decide quick though, I don't think the 2.66 model will be around for long at that price.

 

[Jarman74]

I've been offered £2100 for my 3.2 Mac Pro with 8GB RAM and 2TB HD. I've also been offered a 1 month old Nehalem 2.66 8 core with standard spec for £2400. From the feedback I got, it wasn't worth upgrading to a 2009 2.26 model but how about the 2.66 model? Is it worth £300?

I've checked Barefeats and they show benchmarks for the 2.26 and 2.93 models but couldn't see any for the 2.66.

I think I would pull the trigger on that, but actually I am a bit puzzled. In another thread, I have read what follows (in a nutshell, why going for/keeping a high-end 2008 machine should be better):

You may be more fortunate than you realize. 😉

• Does well with hardware based RAID (no adapters needed to use the HDD bays)

• Doesn't have the ICH10R bottleneck that's in the '09's, that's particularly applicable to SSD's in RAID, or even 6x fast HDD's. Limit = 660MB/s from the information out there, and is acknowledged by Intel.

• Additional SATA ports available ('09's have no PATA interface for optical drives, so one of them <6 total> gets used for the Superdrive)

• Uses EFI64 firmware, so you can still opt for future upgrades for graphics cards & will allow you to continue to use future versions of OS X in full 64bit

• Upgrades are cheap, even 800MHz FB-DIMM ATM

At the moment I could buy the following refurbished 2008 MP:

Two 3.2GHz Intel Quad-Core Xeons
2 x 1 GB DDR2 ECC 800 MHz fully buffered DIMMs
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB (2 DVI dual-link)
Serial ATA 500 GB 3 Gb/sec 7.200, 16 MB cache mem
Two SuperDrives 16x

The price is *exactly* the same as the 2009 low-end 2.26 octo with the most basic config you can find at the Apple Store. Which way would you guys go?

 

[jjahshik32]

Honestly... What is the attraction of the 24" display?
The Dell 2409 has a nicer display IMHO, plus it's matte.

For a few hundred quid more you can get a 30", it'll match the MacPro better esthetically. Biggest question, do you really need the real estate??

You havnt used a 24" LED ACD personally at home have you? Especially calibrated. 😀 Its gorgeous!!

As to the OP, just keep your 3.2GHz Mac Pro and just stick an ATI 4870 in it then you can buy the 24" LED and its much cheaper for you.

 

[pr33tz]

I think I would pull the trigger on that, but actually I am a bit puzzled. In another thread, I have read what follows (in a nutshell, why going for/keeping a high-end 2008 machine should be better):



At the moment I could buy the following refurbished 2008 MP:

Two 3.2GHz Intel Quad-Core Xeons
2 x 1 GB DDR2 ECC 800 MHz fully buffered DIMMs
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB (2 DVI dual-link)
Serial ATA 500 GB 3 Gb/sec 7.200, 16 MB cache mem
Two SuperDrives 16x

The price is *exactly* the same as the 2009 low-end 2.26 octo with the most basic config you can find at the Apple Store. Which way would you guys go?

Read the thread, I was in the same boat and decided not to upgrade to the 2.26 model. However, the 2.66 model is more appealing...

You havnt used a 24" LED ACD personally at home have you? Especially calibrated. 😀 Its gorgeous!!

As to the OP, just keep your 3.2GHz Mac Pro and just stick an ATI 4870 in it then you can buy the 24" LED and its much cheaper for you.

Just when I convinced myself I don't need the 24" ACD...

However, the ACD + 4870 combo is ~£800. Not sure how that works out cheaper. 😛

 

[Jarman74]

Read the thread, I was in the same boat and decided not to upgrade to the 2.26 model. However, the 2.66 model is more appealing...

I did, but it seems 2009 MPs are less convenient regardless of what model you choose. Again from nanofrog (in this thread):

Try to locate a 3.2GHz '08 Octad model, in either used or a refurbished. They're just as fast, or faster than the 2.93 Octad '09 models, and are less expensive.

So I'll keep following your thread 😛

 

[Genghis Khan]

@Jarman74

Go with the '08 3.2GHz.

Unless you do intense computational stuff (Handbrake/3d rendering/video encoding e.t.c.) the '08 will be much faster.