Anyone else disappointed by the 2.26ghz 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro's performance?

[jjahshik32]

So basically you're getting the same speed of a (early 2008) 2.8ghz 8 core penryn mac pro's speed at best.

I'm not disappointed by the 2.93ghz since it rounces all the previous gen mac pros but its in the 5k mark.

I have a feeling that the 2.66ghz and the 2.93ghz is the only one really worth buying if you want something faster than the previous gen mac pros.

Also anyone see any geekbenches done on the 2.66ghz 8 core model?

 

[Boneoh]

Personally, I am not. I am moving from a MacBook Pro to the Mac Pro.

Performance is a moving target. I assume that the performance increase that I will get will be awesome.

I can't wait to get to the point with my development when I can use all of the cores in my financial modeling! This puppy should more than meet my needs.

 

[eelmac]

to be fair, the previous Mac pro was a beast, so this doesnt bother me, but still pricier than the previous Mac Pro :/ then again your getting DDR3 ram and more of it

 

[Justinm59]

nope I'm not, still ordering it looking forward for it to get here.

 

[aibo]

The previous 8-core Mac Pro was an amazing value. The 2009 one is a big disappointment. Faster architecture means nothing if you're reduce the clock speed by 600MHz... it's equivalent to putting wide, dodge viper-like tires on a Honda Civic. Its just pointless if the engine isn't putting out the power to make any use of it.

 

[nanofrog]

The previous 8-core Mac Pro was an amazing value. The 2009 one is a big disappointment. Faster architecture means nothing if you're reduce the clock speed by 600MHz... it's equivalent to putting wide, dodge viper-like tires on a Honda Civic. Its just pointless if the engine isn't putting out the power to make any use of it.

I like the analogy.

 

[sigmadog]

Stepping up from G5 will be an amazing change. I accept that the 2.26 octa-core is not as fast as previous systems when it comes to single-threading, but it is still faster than my current setup. And when multi-threading, it will knock my socks off.

I could probably pick up a 2008 version for cheaper, but I purchase a new computer about every 5-6 years, and having the latest technology when I do buy is more useful to me in the long term than pure processing power.

In the end, because I wait so long between purchases, I'm always happy with the speed gains I experience. And the money issue is not as important either, because $3600 over six years is only $600 per year. Big whup.

 

[SnakeOiler]

The previous 8-core Mac Pro was an amazing value. The 2009 one is a big disappointment. Faster architecture means nothing if you're reduce the clock speed by 600MHz... it's equivalent to putting wide, dodge viper-like tires on a Honda Civic. Its just pointless if the engine isn't putting out the power to make any use of it.

Its a computer, not a car. Only thing pointless is the claim you make with merely hand waving. What you are saying, in a car analogy, is like saying - "I put a new intake and exhaust on my civic and it 'feels' and sounds faster". No real evidence to back your claim. You are only looking at the whole picture through a pinhole.

 

[aibo]

Its a computer, not a car. Only thing pointless is the claim you make with merely hand waving. What you are saying, in a car analogy, is like saying - "I put a new intake and exhaust on my civic and it 'feels' and sounds faster". No real evidence to back your claim. You are only looking at the whole picture through a pinhole.

The evidence is the benchmarks posted today in Cinebenech and Geekbench showing the new $3300 8-core machine is slower than last year's $2800 8-core. I am looking forward to real-world benchmarks, however.

 

[Chaos123x]

I can't beleave us complainers were right!

 

[alanlindsay]

Bottom line: if you buy a 8x2.26 '09 over a 8x2.8 '08 you're getting a less powerful computer for $500 more. Maybe things will change when new software is released, but right now that's it.

 

[m1stake]

This isn't a surprise.

I've got a 2008 dual quad hidden in the back of the warehouse waiting for May.

 

[superpalmtree]

Not Really

For $500 more you're getting a faster computer. You are also getting a computer that will have a higher resell value when you want to upgrade. I see no reason one would buy an old 2.8 over the new 2.26 - I believe the people that push this reasoning are the ones who own the 2.8 and want to think this new Mac Pro is a waste -- I wouldn't buy an old Mac Pro no matter what the price difference. Not to mention DDR3 RAM, SATA Optical, and the technology that will get faster as software evolves.

Bottom line: if you buy a 8x2.26 '09 over a 8x2.8 '08 you're getting a less powerful computer for $500 more. Maybe things will change when new software is released, but right now that's it.

 

[aibo]

For $500 more you're getting a faster computer.

Link showing it's faster? So far from what I've seen, $500 says you're getting slower. And SATA for your optical drive might come in handy when optical drive technology goes from 52x read to 900x.

 

[VirtualRain]

The root of the problem is that Intel is charging a significant premium for Nehalem Gainstown processors, primarily because there is no competition from AMD and there's also only a very niche market for these processors. When you add rediculous Apple margins on top, you are at stratospheric pricing which is the only reason Apple is offering the 2.26... to make it look more palitable.

I tend to agree with the person who said buying a 2.26GHz Gainstown is stupid... you are buying a race car that has been seriously detuned. Why would you do that? A 2.93GHz Quad is a much smarter choice.

Also, Gainstown is a server CPU... it was designed from the ground-up to handle large code-base multi-threaded loads such as database processing and VM's. Unless you are doing this kind of work, it's not an ideal application of technology to your task.

Keep in mind you are always going to get the best bang-for-your-buck on the die-shrink of Intel's "Tick-Tock" product cycle where every two years there is a new microarchitecture with an intervening die-shrink of that technology in-between. Harpertown (2008 Mac Pro) was the 45nm shrink of the Core2 microarchitecture and Westmere will be the 32nm shrink of Nehalem. The die-shrink brings improved clock speeds and lower costs which means more bang-for-your-buck.

If you really want good bang for your buck you will need to wait for next year (or buy last year's model as many suggest). But, If you want the latest and greatest, pony up now and open your wallet!

 

[sigmadog]

Bottom line: if you buy a 8x2.26 '09 over a 8x2.8 '08 you're getting a less powerful computer for $500 more. Maybe things will change when new software is released, but right now that's it.

I don't dispute this. However, as I've indicated, the advances in technology and length of service potential more than make up for the initial drop-off in performance and may (I say may) be overcome with software down the road.

 

[superpalmtree]

I don't need to provide a link: it's logical. And even if it's the same speed...I'd rather spend more and have dual i7 CPU's, DDR3 RAM, and a better built Mac Pro. And a year from now the 2.8's are going to be older and worth even less. The 2.8's actually in my opinion weren't that great, quality wise. The DVD ROM with IDE was always so loud and old school. It's about time Apple got with the program.

Link showing it's faster? So far from what I've seen, $500 says you're getting slower. And SATA for your optical drive might come in handy when optical drive technology goes from 52x read to 900x.

 

[jjahshik32]

For $500 more you're getting a faster computer. You are also getting a computer that will have a higher resell value when you want to upgrade. I see no reason one would buy an old 2.8 over the new 2.26 - I believe the people that push this reasoning are the ones who own the 2.8 and want to think this new Mac Pro is a waste -- I wouldn't buy an old Mac Pro no matter what the price difference. Not to mention DDR3 RAM, SATA Optical, and the technology that will get faster as software evolves.

If infact the 2.8ghz 8 core of previous gen mac pro is faster than the 2.26ghz of nehalem and actually it is cheaper than $500 because you can buy it at a lower reduced price than its original price.

Probably somewhere of a total $700-$800 cheaper as to the nehalem say if you find one at an online store trying to get rid of them (macmall but wow it sold out with the quickness).

Anyway your argument doesnt make much sense.. your getting something slower than the previous gen but the resale value will probably equal in the long term between the two. Because if you sell your nehalem mac pro 2 years from now it will probably fetch $400-$600 lower than what you paid for but the 2.8ghz 8 core would fetch $500 less than what you paid for now but you only paid something like $2650 for it as to $3500 (after taxes of course).

 

[aibo]

I don't need to provide a link: it's logical. And even if it's the same speed...I'd rather spend more and have dual i7 CPU's, DDR3 RAM, and a better built Mac Pro. And a year from now the 2.8's are going to be older and worth even less. The 2.8's actually in my opinion weren't that great, quality wise. The DVD ROM with IDE was always so loud and old school. It's about time Apple got with the program.

You do need to provide a link. Do you have any evidence to support your "logical" thinking that the new Mac Pro is faster? The benchmarks would say you don't. Do you have any evidence that IDE was the cause of the optical drives being loud? Is this suddenly fixed by moving the drives to a SATA bus? LOL! Please explain. I'd love to hear this "logic".

 

[More]

I wouldn't say I'm disappointed by the offerings at all but yes the 2.26GHz mac pro definitely makes me feel very happy about my month and a half old 2008 3.2Ghz mac pro.

My analysis...

2.26 GHz Mac Pro (2009). A bit cheaper but just as fast as the 3.2GHz at multi-core processes but MUCH slower at single threaded processes by a considerable margin. For single threaded apps you're missing out on the raw clock speed of the 3.2GHz and these apps will suffer. My recommendation would be to hunt down a second hand or refurb 2008 model if you can find one. You'd be able to get the same multi-core performance of the new 2.26 unit and enjoy the extra speed available to single core apps.

2.66 GHz Mac Pro (2009). A full £1120 more expensive than the 2.26! That's a LOT of cash that could be used for the likes of more memory, faster hard drives (SSD), a 30" cinema display etc. Multi-core performance is much better than the 2008 3.2Ghz but single threaded process are still a tiny bit short of the 3.2GHz... all for an extra £1120! This is a FAST machine if you take advantage of multi-core apps. Much better than the 3.2GHz but still a little short on single-threaded performance for the price. Unless you use a lot of multi-core apps this isn't worth the additional £1120 imho. The money would be better spent on ram and/or fast drives.

2.93 GHz Mac Pro (2009). It's a monster. Much faster than the 3.2GHz Mac Pro in multi-core apps by a good margin and faster for single threaded apps also. This is a powerhouse but this super computer comes at a HUGE price. In the UK this config is DOUBLE what I paid for my 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro.

Basically you have to look at the software you use. If you're running efficient multi-core apps that USE all cores properly and time is money the 2.93 will pay for itself in no time. An amazing choice if you can afford it.

At the opposite end of the spectrum you have the 2.26GHz dilema as stated above. This machine will probably be the main choice for most users. The additional cost of the 2.66 and 2.93 is substantial and you really have to balance your needs over wants to make sure you don't just waste money.

My view is maybe slightly biased since I just splashed on a 3.2GHz mac pro just over 6 weeks ago but I honestly think this machine is the best value/performance you can get. This machine may not have the fancy new architecture BUT it's just as fast as the 2.26 for multi-core performance and MUCH faster for single threaded apps.

Hindsight is always a great thing but if I chose to wait for the new macs I would have been pretty pissed to find out that my new option was the 2.26 considering the hit in single threaded apps over the 3.2.

I'll say it again but there's something nice about having the fastest mac pro from 2008 rather than having the slowest mac pro 8 core from the 2009 refresh.



PS. Just wanted to add that since the ATI Radeon HD 4870 is available as an upgrade kit for 2008 mac pros... again what else can I say

 

[superpalmtree]

For everyone who would rather buy an OLD Mac Pro - go for it! No PRO that can afford it will buy an old 2.8 over the new Nehalem Mac Pro. Throw benchmarks out the windows -- the new Mac Pro will dominate the old Pro 2.8 -- it's so silly to not think so. I think the people who believe this use iMac's, mac mini's, and macbooks and have nothing better to do but confuse people who can afford the new Mac Pro's.

If infact the 2.8ghz 8 core of previous gen mac pro is faster than the 2.26ghz of nehalem and actually it is cheaper than $500 because you can buy it at a lower reduced price than its original price.

Probably somewhere in the $700-$800 cheaper say if you find one at an online store trying to get rid of them (macmall but wow it sold out with the quickness).

Anyway your argument doesnt make much sense.. your getting something slower than the previous gen but the resale value will probably equal in the long term between the two. Because if you sell your nehalem mac pro 2 years from now it will probably fetch $300-$400 lower than what you paid for but the 2.8ghz 8 core would fetch $500 less than what you paid for now but you only paid something like $2650 for it as to $3500 (after taxes of course).

 

[superpalmtree]

I know you own the 2.8 Mac Pro. So you will do whatever it takes to be happy with your lagging technology. The new 2.26 is at par with the old outdated Mac Pro 2.8...and as software evolves it will pull further and further ahead. -- I'm not providing links to benchmarks - I could care less....It's obvious.

You do need to provide a link. Do you have any evidence to support your "logical" thinking that the new Mac Pro is faster? The benchmarks would say you don't. Do you have any evidence that IDE was the cause of the optical drives being loud? Is this suddenly fixed by moving the drives to a SATA bus? LOL! Please explain. I'd love to hear this "logic".

 

[m1stake]

For everyone who would rather buy an OLD Mac Pro - go for it! No PRO that can afford it will buy an old 2.8 over the new Nehalem Mac Pro. Throw benchmarks out the windows -- the new Mac Pro will dominate the old Pro 2.8 -- it's so silly to not think so. I think the people who believe this use iMac's, mac mini's, and macbooks and have nothing better to do but confuse people who can afford the new Mac Pro's.

LOL. Throw benchmarks out the windows? Yeah, forget performance! You're funny.

 

[superpalmtree]

So you think the lagging 2.8 would outperform the 2.26? Now that is funny...

LOL. Throw benchmarks out the windows? Yeah, forget performance! You're funny.

 

[aibo]

I know you own the 2.8 Mac Pro. So you will do whatever it takes to be happy with your lagging technology. The new 2.26 is at par with the old outdated Mac Pro 2.8...and as software evolves it will pull further and further ahead. -- I'm not providing links to benchmarks - I could care less....It's obvious.

What a contradictory statement. If the technology from last year's mac pro is "lagging", why is it benchmarking faster? Please explain how this is "lagging". And hey, at least you've changed from claiming it's "faster" to saying it's "on par". Maybe you're coming closer to reality. Oh and I'm still waiting to hear how moving the optical drive to a SATA bus fixes the optical drives from being "so loud".