About to buy 3.0 ....should I REALLY go 2.8 instead?

[macz1]

You can see it this way:

You buy a 2.8 GHz Mac Pro, but it's as fast as an 3.0 GHz Mac Pro of the last generation. Performance wise, you get an 3.0 GHz Clovertown witch consumes much less energy.

an 8core 3GHz Clovertown was the ultra top of the line a couple of weeks ago...

 

[jconly]

Not in my market..

The top-of-the line machines from their days has always commanded better resale-value when I have sold them. (And I just sold a 2x2,5ghz liquid cooled PM)

BUT, with the old machines, there was more than the proc that was diferent too usually, now it's basically the same machine, so it doesn't matter so much anymore.

Anyway, I'm going with the 3ghz. When working with Photoshop and those applications, it's the ghz that will help you, NOT the 8 cores. And I am fully aware that it will not be an insane increase in performance, but it will be some. That means it will last me a little longer, AND be differentiated from the horde of 2.8ghz Mac Pros that will flood the market when we start selling these things. I personally think that will make some difference when selling, but of course not the whole cost of the upgrade. Still though, slightly higher price, probably slightly easier to sell, and will last you a little longer, while you'll get your work done slightly faster while you've got it. Costs a little and gives a little, this is a machine I make money on, so I could take that hit, considering I'll have the machine as my main source of income for the next years.

Def some food for thought, and in contrast to the opinion of most as well.
This was my initial thinking, but what I need to figure out is just how processor dependent Photoshop actually is. From what I've been observing, not much. It's mainly come down to RAM and HD I/O. So, with only minimal speed increases from 2.8--->3.0, is it even all that likely I would be noticing the differences in a Program that basically relies on RAM and Scratch disk to do its job?

 

[krye]

If you're concerned about resale, then look at eBay. The last generation of Mac Pros still seem to be fetching pretty close to retail prices.

 

[dblester]

i am in the same boat here i am unsure of what processor to choose i was originally dead set on the 3.2 but then after looking over benchmarks and looking over the forums i have become unsure.. i am going to be using my machine for photoshop / illustrator/ some after effects/ indesign apps like that... will there honestly be any actual noticeable speed difference between the different processors i already ordered 16gb of ram from owc, so going with the 3.0 or 2.8 will really only allowing me to save some money on this but i want to have a machine that will last me about 4-5 years.. anyone here have the 3.0 or 3.2 yet? and what are your thoughts on it? thanks in advance

 

[MacProUser]

i am in the same boat here i am unsure of what processor to choose i was originally dead set on the 3.2 but then after looking over benchmarks and looking over the forums i have become unsure.. i am going to be using my machine for photoshop / illustrator/ some after effects/ indesign apps like that... will there honestly be any actual noticeable speed difference between the different processors i already ordered 16gb of ram from owc, so going with the 3.0 or 2.8 will really only allowing me to save some money on this but i want to have a machine that will last me about 4-5 years.. anyone here have the 3.0 or 3.2 yet? and what are your thoughts on it? thanks in advance

With the 3GHz model you´ll get about 10% more speed compared to the previous model (clovertown) - for a significant reduced price ! Can´t get wrong with that ...

 

[dogbait]

If you're even asking the question 'Do I need it', chances are you don't. That extra 7-15% increase in speed is of less benefit than spending the money you save on more memory or a fast drive array; because the majority of the time your Mac's processors will be sitting around waiting on the hard drives.

 

[kingtj]

I can't agree more!

I've been in the computer field for close to 17 years now, and I have *yet* to see almost anyone hang onto a system for 6 years and still find that more "sensible" than replacing it with a newer one.

(Ok, I met *one* guy who was still happily chugging along with an old IBM 286 class PC running MS-DOS, a good 10 years after he originally purchased the system. The only things he ever did with the computer were spreadsheets in Lotus 1-2-3, and printed out address labels with "My Maillist Pro". In his case, it made no sense to buy anything newer, as long as his old machine didn't totally die on him.)

But usually, upgrading a computer every 3-4 years is about the smartest time-frame. Your old machine still holds a little bit of resale value when it's only 3 or 3.5 years old, so you can use that to offset your new system's cost. (At 5-6 years out, your old machine becomes MUCH harder to resell, and you're often lucky to get pennies on the dollar of its initial cost.)

It's true that you get a little more "useful life" out of your machine if you spend more, up front, going with a bigger/better configuration. (That's similar to the theory that it's wise to buy a new car "fully loaded" with options, because they have better resale value.) But you still have to find the "sweet spot" with computer upgrades.... EG. When upgrading a hard drive today, the largest you can go and still stay in the optimal "price vs. storage space" area is a 750GB drive. The 1TB drives generally cost you about a $50 premium on "gigabytes per dollar". (Of course, certain people will pay the premium, like if you're an iMac owner who can only fit ONE drive in the machine, and you want as much internal storage space as possible.)

Same thing with CPUs. Intel always releases a range of speeds of any new CPU of theirs, with the top couple fastest models commanding big price premiums. That's part of how they recoup their R&D costs. The people having to have "the best, at any cost" will pay the big markup, subsidizing the rest of the product line for them. The "sweet spot" for the new Xeons happens to be the 2.8Ghz model right now.

If the hopes of the performance jump with the advent of Nehalem are even half-way accurate, even 4 years from now I suspect the performance standard for high-end desktop workstation PCs (Macs, Windows or what-have-you) will have advanced to far that you'll want a new system.

Perhaps it might make more sense to 'bank' the money a 3.0 or 3.2 would cost, get a 2.8, and simply get used to the idea of upgrading in 3 or 4 years?

I know you're looking at a large outlay (maybe 10 grand), so easier said than done. I also know that when the standard is for computers in your niche to be 3x's faster, have 3x's the storage, triple the RAM & much faster hard drives, well, it's hard to stay with the old product.

I don't just just what all is running the price of your system to 10 grand.

For sake of argument, if you bought a 5 grand Penryn 2.8 setup NOW, and then sold it & bought a 5 grand Nehalem system in first quarter '09, would the sacrifices you make this year really have enough practical impact to offset the gains you'd have the next 5 years (of your proposed 6+ year cycle)?

Just my 2 cents; hope it's somehow helpful. Good luck with your system.

Richard.

 

[jconly]

If you're even asking the question 'Do I need it', chances are you don't. That extra 7-15% increase in speed is of less benefit than spending the money you save on more memory or a fast drive array; because the majority of the time your Mac's processors will be sitting around waiting on the hard drives.

I guess I neglected to respond earlier to the other individual who made the same comment on more memory and better storage.

The 8 GB's that I already have budgeted are more than sufficient, as is the Raid 10 "working images" array that will be built to accompany my JBOD image archive. Really, that argument is irrelevant.

And perhaps you misread the title of my thread. I didn't ask if I needed it. I asked wether everybody's advice to go with 2.8 is valid in my specific situation. The question isn't whether or not I'll be able to utilize 3.0, as I know I will at some point in time. The question is whether it's a financially sensible investment at THIS moment in time.

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

 

[Reach]

Def some food for thought, and in contrast to the opinion of most as well.
This was my initial thinking, but what I need to figure out is just how processor dependent Photoshop actually is. From what I've been observing, not much. It's mainly come down to RAM and HD I/O. So, with only minimal speed increases from 2.8--->3.0, is it even all that likely I would be noticing the differences in a Program that basically relies on RAM and Scratch disk to do its job?

The difference is felt towards the end of the computers life, not much now. I usually keep my stationary Mac about three years, and towards the end I really notice whatever extra I got when I bought the machine.

Don't know if that makes sense, but if you don't do überheavy work in PS it won't matter that much now. But it will matter once time passes, CS4-5 arrives etc etc.

 

[MacProUser]

The difference is felt towards the end of the computers life, not much now. I usually keep my stationary Mac about three years, and towards the end I really notice whatever extra I got when I bought the machine.

Don't know if that makes sense, but if you don't do überheavy work in PS it won't matter that much now. But it will matter once time passes, CS4-5 arrives etc etc.

I totally agree with that !

 

[jconly]

The difference is felt towards the end of the computers life, not much now. I usually keep my stationary Mac about three years, and towards the end I really notice whatever extra I got when I bought the machine.

Don't know if that makes sense, but if you don't do überheavy work in PS it won't matter that much now. But it will matter once time passes, CS4-5 arrives etc etc.

This is what I was trying to get at in my last post.
I'm well aware I won't be fully utilizing 8 cores of 3.0 NOW..

But down the road, thats a different story.
And alright, maybe I'll be upgrading before the 6 year mark, so let's say I do go on a 4 year cycle. I don't doubt that in 4 years I'll be using the processor to it's potential.

 

[kem]

Buy the fastest you can afford. If total cost is an issue, getting more RAM over processor speed will be more important. The $800 or whatever you save by not getting a 3.0 buys you 16GB of ram.

Photoshop will make use of more then 4gb of ram in CS3: (quoted from an forum post I found)
"VM BUFFERING IN PHOTOSHOP CS3
On Macintosh computers, Photoshop can directly access up to about 3.5GB. When there is more than 3.5GB of document data, Photoshop writes data to its scratch files as necessary. On a computer with 4GB or less of RAM, the data is transferred directly between the scratch files on disk and the Photoshop RAM. On a computer with more than 4GB of RAM, Photoshop tells the operating system to use the extra RAM as a buffer for the Photoshop scratch file. In this case, when document data no longer fits in the 3.5GB of Photoshop RAM and is written to the scratch file, the operating system stores it in the extra RAM and can retrieve it from there much faster than it could be read from disk. This lets Photoshop take advantage of more than 4GB of RAM to significantly increase performance with very large documents."

And an article i read on barefeats: while processing a 300mb file CS3 was using about 13gb of memory on a 16gb system.

 

[relbbircs]

This is a helpful thread.

It got me thinking: I'd had on order the 3.0, with 4 GB of ram and the 8800, but to be honest, the only thing I really needed of those three enhancements to the stock machine was ram. Mostly I'm using the machine for audio editing (large files that are usually 2 GB or larger, using Sound Track Pro) and routine web tasks. Never or almost never use the thing to play games.

So this morning I canceled the order, placed an order at OWC for 8 GB of ram (4x2), for delivery tomorrow, and went to a local Apple store and bought the stock machine.

I'm too exhausted from all this to have opened it up yet or started to transfer everything from my Power Mac (dual 2.3 G5), but I saved net about $1,050, and have a machine much more suited to my purposes with twice as much ram.

I figure I'll upgrade again in 2-3 years.

 

[jconly]

Buy the fastest you can afford. If total cost is an issue, getting more RAM over processor speed will be more important. The $800 or whatever you save by not getting a 3.0 buys you 16GB of ram.

Photoshop will make use of more then 4gb of ram in CS3: (quoted from an forum post I found)
"VM BUFFERING IN PHOTOSHOP CS3
On Macintosh computers, Photoshop can directly access up to about 3.5GB. When there is more than 3.5GB of document data, Photoshop writes data to its scratch files as necessary. On a computer with 4GB or less of RAM, the data is transferred directly between the scratch files on disk and the Photoshop RAM. On a computer with more than 4GB of RAM, Photoshop tells the operating system to use the extra RAM as a buffer for the Photoshop scratch file. In this case, when document data no longer fits in the 3.5GB of Photoshop RAM and is written to the scratch file, the operating system stores it in the extra RAM and can retrieve it from there much faster than it could be read from disk. This lets Photoshop take advantage of more than 4GB of RAM to significantly increase performance with very large documents."

And an article i read on barefeats: while processing a 300mb file CS3 was using about 13gb of memory on a 16gb system.

Wow, a 300MB file using 13GB of RAM.
Right before I read this, I had decided to just go with the 3.0.

But, perhaps I might be better off with 16gb of ram instead of the 10.

 

[drag0nreb0rn]

Crazy talk, all Crazy talk.. Most of you buy new machines every few years. Those of you that don't, this post is not for you.

As I buy a new machine every 1-3 years, getting 3.2 makes no difference whatsover. so what shave a couple of seconds off your rendering? There are upgrades that add a lot of value for low cost and upgrades that add little value for high cost. This is little value, high-cost.

If you are a gamer, the extra mhz are good, but are you really playing Crysis on this thing? And if so, get the 8800gt instead of ATI.

If you are an Adobe /final cut type of person, 8 cores does a hell of a lot of good. the extra mhz don't buy you enough to pay the inflated price. Take the extra cash and buy more ram or a blu-ray burner.

If you were already doing that, then get RAID 5 going so your data is secure.

if you are rich, then don't bother checking to see if it makes sense, you will buy the best anyway. These puppies are crazy fast for $2799. I would save your money for your next machine in 2 years.

Just an opinion.. I wouldn't waste 3 seconds considering 3.0ghz or 3.2ghz.. Now if the FSB was slower at 2.8 like it was originally rumored, then we could talk.

 

[kem]

To clarify more, they were running the Retouch Artists - Photoshop Speed Test (as seen in the stickied thread in this forum), but instead of using the 3.5mbjpg that comes with the test they substituted it with a 300mb file. So it a pretty intense operation that was occuring to use up that much ram.

Wow, a 300MB file using 13GB of RAM.
Right before I read this, I had decided to just go with the 3.0.

But, perhaps I might be better off with 16gb of ram instead of the 10.

 

[jconly]

To clarify more, they were running the Retouch Artists - Photoshop Speed Test (as seen in the stickied thread in this forum), but instead of using the 3.5mbjpg that comes with the test they substituted it with a 300mb file. So it a pretty intense operation that was occuring to use up that much ram.

I'm going to read more about the specifics of this test to see exactly what is being done to the file.

But regardless....
It's a really tough call for me. My future (3+ years) is very difficult to predict at the moment, as I'll be entering a new geographic market.

I can afford either system at the moment, with sufficient funds remaining for the proper amount of RAM and storage (I don't care THAT MUCH about the test, I'll be more then happy with 10GB.) So the decision comes down to when I think I'll be able to upgrade the system.

I've always updated on a 3/4-year cycle previous to this. But then again, this system is much more expensive than any other I've ever purchased.

But, if I won't be upgrading for 5 or 6 years, I'm going the 3.0 route. If I think I will be able to upgrade within the 3/4 year cycle, or even if I want to go through the hassle of selling and buying Nehalem, I'll buy the 2.8.

Sure I could invest the money saved and then sell of the system to upgrade on a shorter cycle.....

But honestly, the more I think about it, reliability is a necessity with the short deadlines I encounter. More frequent computer updates is a bittersweet thing. The downtime of dealing with upgrades is not an additional burden I wish to inflict upon myself, especially while managing a freelance business. In fact, after I make this purchase, I'll be doing what I can to break my ties with the time consuming evils of Apple-RSS feeds and forum trolling. Ive gotten somewhat addicted as I've been impatiently awaiting the release of these new systems. I need to drop that and put the focus back on my work.

It's still up for debate till the end of the night (as I NEED to purchase the machine tomorrow morning), but right now I think I'm leaning to the 3.0.

 

[MacProUser]

By the way - nobody knows what a Nehalem system exactly looks like in future. It´s a completely new architecture and I bet there will be some extra trouble when changing to one of those early models (remember when the first MacPro came out). So why not buying a proofed running system as the current Mac Pro in a better equipped version - as for example the 3 GHz model. You win at least some extra time to see how this upcoming technology (hardware AND software) will work. A Mac Pro should be useful even running for more than 3-4 years ...
Some people mentioned the economical side of the story - that I understand. They also mentioned, more RAM would boost performance more than processor speed - and I agree, too ! So in my eyes, the advice has to be:


Choose the 3.0 instead of the 3.2, get some extra RAM for the money you´ve saved - and use your system for a minimum of 5 years !


That´s what I´m going to do ;-)

 

[SCLlama]

I personally went for the 3.0. I contemplated the 2.8 just like you, but I like the idea that in the next "performance bump", the 3.0 will probably still be around. Though that is really only my own mind games . Not to mention I went for the middle of the road when I got my G5 about 5 years ago, and I feel it gave me an extra year or so of use for what I am doing.

 

[irishgrizzly]

I see it like a sports car – you can spend more on the model that does an extra 20kph but I'll rarely get up there to use it.

I do take the earlier point about distinguishing your model at reselling time – but in 3 years that extra .2ghz will seem like weak sauce.