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

[pr33tz]

I remember reading some threads few months ago about how the new 2009 2.26GHz 8 core was faster than the 2008 3.2GHz 8 core (in some apps). I wasn't too fussed as I don't use my current Mac Pro to it's full capabilities but now I am thinking of upgrading. Here's why;

I want to get the new 24" ACD and to use it with my current Mac Pro. I'd need to buy an ATi 4870 to go with it. That's a total cost of ~ £780 using the edu store.

I can get the new 2.26GHz 8 core with 12GB RAM, ATi 4870 and 24" ACD for ~ £3000 using the edu store. I *should* be able to sell my current 3.2GHz 8 core for ~£2200 which would mean I pretty much break even (unless I upgrade the HD's).

My question is would it be worth the hassle? Has anyone else made this move and never looked back/regretted it?

Any help would be appricated.

 

[Trivial rock]

I would keep the 3.2Ghz 8 core rather than buy a 2.26Ghz 8 core. Just buy the card and display. Just my opinion.

 

[UltraNEO*]

Well... May we ask what sort of work your using your MP for, only then will it be possible to advise you on the best solution. I have the 2008 3.2 too and it's fine for everything I use it for - mostly video/audio editing.. I find having sufficient RAM installed and optimising the storage system makes the whole machine a tad bit nippier.

 

[pr33tz]

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.

 

[UltraNEO*]

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.

If that's the case, there's no real reason to upgrade, there's nothing the new machine will give you that your old one doesn't already do. If I was you, I'd save the money for something better...

You know you can buy the graphics card from Apple, along with the monitor you want and install them both in the 2008 MP, it'll work fine! (From my knowledge it only has issues with the 2006 edition)

As an alternative you could always by a non Apple card and flash it but that means you'll need to work out which model you'd need and a source for it's EFI ROM... This way you'll have more graphic memory and support for standard DVI displays..

 

[pr33tz]

I thought about getting a flashed 4870 but none of them (currently) have a mini displayport for the 24" ACD. Also, I wouldn't be losing any money form upgrading (apart from maybe ~£100 to upgrade the hard drives).

Given the choice (if they both cost the same), what would you have?

 

[gugucom]

I would probably consider the move. The 2009 machine has the higher memory bandwidth, hyperthreading and the better upgradability. It features the 1366 CPU socket which will carry everything that Intel releases to the market over the next 2 years at least. So you will definitely have future options like the 3,3 GHz W5590 CPUs and likely the core i9 series six core Gulftowns.

 

[Umbongo]

I wouldn't consider it an upgrade. Your current system should outperform a 2.26GHz 2009 on everything you listed. I very much doubt you'd notice any performance improvement.

Also do you really want the Apple display? You can probably get a flashed 4870 and an NEC LCD2490WUXi (better display) for the same sort of price.

 

[UltraNEO*]

I thought about getting a flashed 4870 but none of them (currently) have a mini displayport for the 24" ACD. Also, I wouldn't be losing any money form upgrading (apart from maybe ~£100 to upgrade the hard drives).

Given the choice (if they both cost the same), what would you have?

You've taking in the cost for the RAM upgrade too, right?
Cause 5400 and 5500 uses different RAM modules.

8GB Kit (4GBx2) comes in at £532.44 inc. VAT
12GB kit (4GBx3) come in at £799.24 inc. VAT

And looking at the pattern of updates in the past (every 12~14months) the current line is due for refresh in about six months... but if you have your heart set on a upgrade, even though your not using it to it's full potential, I don't think one here can really talk you out of it.

 

[Genghis Khan]

For what you use it for (single-threaded applications), your 3.2GHz will be much faster than the new 2.26GHz...

 

[Umbongo]

You've taking in the cost for the RAM upgrade too, right?
Cause 5400 and 5500 uses different RAM modules.

8GB Kit (4GBx2) comes in at £532.44 inc. VAT
12GB kit (4GBx3) come in at £799.24 inc. VAT
.

He can get 12GB in 2GB DIMMs which is around £210 with EDU discount or through crucial.

 

[pr33tz]

I wouldn't consider it an upgrade. Your current system should outperform a 2.26GHz 2009 on everything you listed. I very much doubt you'd notice any performance improvement.

Also do you really want the Apple display? You can probably get a flashed 4870 and an NEC2490WUXi for the same sort of price.

This is one option, I could get a flashed 48** and buy a Dell/HP or even an NEC 24". Would the 2.26GHz be worse than what I have?

I would probably consider the move. The 2009 machine has the higher memory bandwidth, hyperthreading and the better upgradability. It features the 1366 CPU socket which will carry everything that Intel releases to the market over the next 2 years at least. So you will definitely have future options like the 3,3 GHz W5590 CPUs and likely the core i9 series six core Gulftowns.

This is why i'm considering it. I've read on one thread that someone has upgraded to a 3.3GHz already.

You've taking in the cost for the RAM upgrade too, right?
Cause 5400 and 5500 uses different RAM modules.

8GB Kit (4GBx2) comes in at £532.44 inc. VAT
12GB kit (4GBx3) come in at £799.24 inc. VAT

And looking at the pattern of updates in the past (every 12~14months) the current line is due for refresh in about six months... but if you have your heart set on a upgrade, even though your not using it to it's full potential, I don't think one here can really talk you out of it.

The BTO option for 12GB RAM is £200 which is factored into my price. It would be nice to have the latest Mac Pro but not if it disadvantages me in any way. I don't have my heart set on it yet, just looking for opinions/advice.

I guess the only reason for thinking about upgrading is beacaue of the 24" ACD. If I can talk myself out of that then I don't think I'd bother upgrading.

 

[UltraNEO*]

I wouldn't consider it an upgrade. Your current system should outperform a 2.26GHz 2009 on everything you listed. I very much doubt you'd notice any performance improvement.

Also do you really want the Apple display? You can probably get a flashed 4870 and an NEC LCD2490WUXi (better display) for the same sort of price.

Right! Me and the OP are using the same system..

Though, I use mine for work... and IF i was seriously thinking to upgrade, i'd be jumping to the Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core. It just makes more sense but personally I'd have to upgrade the RaidCard too!! Which isn't financially viable IMHO.

 

[pr33tz]

For what you use it for (single-threaded applications), your 3.2GHz will be much faster than the new 2.26GHz...

Thanks, this is useful to know. Will the basic stuff ever be multi-threaded? I'm guessing not in the near future.

 

[pr33tz]

Right! Me and the OP are using the same system..

Though, I use mine for work... and IF i was seriously thinking to upgrade, i'd be jumping to the Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core. It just makes more sense but personally I'd have to upgrade the RaidCard too!! Which isn't financially viable IMHO.

What if someone said to you that you could swap your 3.2GHz for a 2.26GHz for no extra cost? (keeping RAM, HD etc the same) Would you say no?

 

[kellen]

I wouldn't. You would be moving to a slower processing speed for single threaded apps and wouldn't see an advantage.

Just buy the 4870 and the monitor. 3.2->2.26 both being 8 cores isn't worth it.

The only other things you get are more firewire 800 ports, faster memory, sata disk drives and a few other things. With your usage, I don't think you will see an improvement over anything.

 

[UltraNEO*]

I guess the only reason for thinking about upgrading is beacaue of the 24" ACD. If I can talk myself out of that then I don't think I'd bother upgrading.

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??

 

[UltraNEO*]

What if someone said to you that you could swap your 3.2GHz for a 2.26GHz for no extra cost? (keeping RAM, HD etc the same) Would you say no?

I would say NO in my situation, simply because I'll have to spend another £500~700 on a decent RAID card.. only to waste time reconfiguring the HD's for the new card, that means hours of downtime... time I could use to actually rest.

 

[pr33tz]

Ok, thanks guys... I think you've given me enough advice for me to think twice before upgrading to a 2009 Mac Pro. I will consider the Dell/HP 24", the problem is nowhere around here has it on display so you can't actually see what it looks like. I tried the 30" ACD at home and it's too big. I think 24" would be just right.

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

 

[kntgsp]

It will be faster in any apps that utilize the hyperthreading. Your 3.2Ghz octo has eight threads, whereas the new octo has 16 threads.

Ok, thanks guys... I think you've given me enough advice for me to think twice before upgrading to a 2009 Mac Pro. I will consider the Dell/HP 24", the problem is nowhere around here has it on display so you can't actually see what it looks like. I tried the 30" ACD at home and it's too big. I think 24" would be just right.

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

The 2.66Ghz quad will perform slower than your 3.2Ghz octo. Both have eight threads available, but the clock speed on the older one will probably still beat the Nehalem regardless of the lower memory bandwidth.

But between an octo 3.2Ghz Penryn and an octo 2.66Ghz Nehalem, the Nehalem will win in anything that utilizes the hyperthreading properly.

 

[bozz2006]

It will be faster in any apps that utilize the hyperthreading. Your 3.2Ghz octo has eight threads, whereas the new octo has 16 threads.



The 2.66Ghz quad will perform slower than your 3.2Ghz octo. Both have eight threads available, but the clock speed on the older one will probably still beat the Nehalem regardless of the lower memory bandwidth.

But between an octo 3.2Ghz Penryn and an octo 2.66Ghz Nehalem, the Nehalem will win in anything that utilizes the hyperthreading properly.

he's actually asking about the 2.66 quad core, so no, the 2.66 won't beat your 3.2 in anything.

 

[UltraNEO*]

he's actually asking about the 2.66 quad core, so no, the 2.66 won't beat your 3.2 in anything.

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

I remember reading some threads few months ago about how the new 2009 2.26GHz 8 core was faster than the 2008 3.2GHz 8 core (in some apps). I wasn't too fussed as I don't use my current Mac Pro to it's full capabilities but now I am thinking of upgrading....

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

 

[Igantius]

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

Well, according to the figures you gave, buying through the HE Store etc., if you did do that, then you’ll have a bit of ready cash once you sold your current machine, bought the new one. The new machine offers far more performance than you (currently) require – also, there are Apple offerings, other than Mac Pros, which would get the job done nicely, based on what you said your usage is. On the basis of that, I would say that considering about ‘downgrading’ has a fair bit of logic to it.

Personally, I would stay with what you’ve got. Have a look at the links UltraNEO* provided.

I would probably consider the move. The 2009 machine has the higher memory bandwidth, hyperthreading and the better upgradability. It features the 1366 CPU socket which will carry everything that Intel releases to the market over the next 2 years at least. So you will definitely have future options like the 3,3 GHz W5590 CPUs and likely the core i9 series six core Gulftowns.

Sorry if this is a really silly question, but in terms of the OP’s current usage, what would be the main benefits of these?

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

They did, but then started talking about the quad version

 

[skyline r34]

Just upgrade your 3.2 Mac Pro

I have a 3.2Ghz 8-Core/8800GT/4GB/1TB/twoSuperDrives, at first I was thinking the same way you are selling my current Mac Pro for 2009 2.93 Mac Pro with 4870 but sense I can use Ati's 4870 on my current Mac Pro and use the 24" inch Apple's LED why bother spending more money, in my opinion if that's all you do is email, Internet, light photo and video editing just stick with your current Mac Pro and just upgrade the GPU,Ram and you should be find, That's is what I'm doing I'm upgrading my GPU from 8800GT to EVGA 285 GTX and waiting for Apple's LED 30" inch and hope Apple will include adapters but I'm saving up for next years Mac Pro 32nm if you want a new Mac Pro I advise you just to wait until 2010 to buy it and just upgrade your current computer

 

[gugucom]

Sorry if this is a really silly question, but in tterms of the OP’s current usage, what would be the main benefits of these?

I only gave my personal inclination. The main benefits are not relaed to the OP's current usage. Both the existing and the alternative machine would be very suitable for what he does. The alternative machine would have the benefit of a more modern platform and would offer a longer utilization period due to better upgradability. Many people buy new machines in 3-5 years intervalls as technology becomes obsolete. Having the opportunity to do a cost neutral modernisation now could be an advantage in the long run. I am aware that people have different preferences, so those may be reasons you cannot identify with. Your milage may vary.