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

[RebootD]

The 2.66GHz processors are the same price as the 3.0GHz 2008 option Apple offered but the whole system costs $1,100 more. The 2.26GHz are half the price of the 2.8GHz processors previously used. They may be expensive compared to desktop processors, but not what Apple have been using for the past two and a half years.

Wow I didn't know the price for the new chips until I read this thread.. now that justifies why so many are peeved! Plus, do other 5500 series Xeon boards only have 8 dimm slots?? It doesn't make any sense to have a triple channel board with 8 rather than 9? You can either buy a decently priced 12GB kit to use triple channel or have to buy 6/4GB chips for more ram but that costs as much as the computer!

Either way why even put 8 slots if it makes no sense to USE the last two?

 

[Umbongo]

Wow I didn't know the price for the new chips until I read this thread.. now that justifies why so many are peeved! Plus, do other 5500 series Xeon boards only have 8 dimm slots?? It doesn't make any sense to have a triple channel board with 8 rather than 9? You can either buy a decently priced 12GB kit to use triple channel or have to buy 6/4GB chips for more ram but that costs as much as the computer!

Either way why even put 8 slots if it makes no sense to USE the last two?

Most dual processor boards that have been shown have 12 or 18 memory slots. Apple appear to have used 8 slots because they couldn't fit 12 and have a clean design without changing the case, and they didn't want to step back down from 8 to 6.

 

[Chris7]

Not trying to be rude but perhaps your missing the numbers here. There is no way that the dual socket motherboard + perhaps larger PSU justifies $1000 premium over a system that had the same CPU cost...

Not rude at all -- I should have given the numbers more than a glance. On the 2009, 8 core base model, the chips are $848 cheaper, and the computer is $600 more expensive. Do I have this right? This means Mac makes an extra $1448 per unit (?).

I haven't used PC's in a while. Do they work now?

-Chris

 

[BenRoethig]

Not rude at all -- I should have given the numbers more than a glance. On the 2009, 8 core base model, the chips are $848 cheaper, and the computer is $600 more expensive. Do I have this right? This means Mac makes an extra $1448 per unit (?).

There are other factors, but unless we're missing something, Apple's Mac Pro margins do seem to be much higher than previous models and the rest of Apple's lineup.

I haven't used PC's in a while. Do they work now?

Vista will turn into a full blown alcoholic in short order, but what I've seen of Windows 7 seems remarkably stable and usable for a product of the copy machine of Redmond. That seemed to copy the right things this time around.

 

[davewolfs]

Not rude at all -- I should have given the numbers more than a glance. On the 2009, 8 core base model, the chips are $848 cheaper, and the computer is $600 more expensive. Do I have this right? This means Mac makes an extra $1448 per unit (?).

I haven't used PC's in a while. Do they work now?

-Chris

Yes, Apparently they can even run OS X

 

[-hh]

Wow I didn't know the price for the new chips until I read this thread.. now that justifies why so many are peeved!

While these numbers do provide some insight, the 'Leap of Faith' that most people are doing is in assuming that these are the prices that Apple is paying ... and also, what Apple was paying back in 2008.

We all know that some amount of good old fashioned 'wheeling and dealing' took place for the whole Intel transition negotiation, plus we've seen Apple get new chips before they were available to other vendors and so on. As such, we have a pretty good clue that Apple's relationship with Intel is something other than "pay the MSRP price".

As such, knowing the retail prices that we mortals have to pay is useful, but it isn't definitive in regards to Apple.

There are other factors, but unless we're missing something, Apple's Mac Pro margins do seem to be much higher than previous models and the rest of Apple's lineup.

Plus, the price was developed & announced during some very dark days of the current economic recession, and given Apple's predeliction for conservative guidance, could very easily be based upon very low (eg, conservative) sales projection estimates. If one cuts your projected sales volume in half, the per-unit amortized share cost of the fixed costs literally double.


-hh

 

[jjahshik32]

I dont know what it is but I really really do want the 2.26GHz mac pro. After seeing the benchmarks the 2.26GHz seems like a great value now that I think about it.

But no matter what I cannot pull the trigger on one. I have 6k in cash right now ready in hand, I can drive over to the apple store which is only 15 minutes away and pay in cash no problem (I can even get the 2.66Ghz 8 core model as well). But I dont know whats keeping me from doing it right now.

Damn this mac mini!! I thought after a couple of weeks with it, that I would think its too slow for my daily usages.. but this damn little machine is still too efficient and fast!!

Only reason I'd want to get the mac pro is to store all my bluray movies and to use it to play 1080p content to my sony bravia.. but then again the mini does it pretty well especially with the built in fw800. Ahh well for now I will wait until summer to purchase the Mac Pro. See how well this mac mini can chug along.

 

[natteaap]

First things first, if you start by bragging that you can buy anything you want and anything under a 2.93 Octo is below you...well lets just say that two words are coming to mind and it's initials are D & B.

I am in the market for my first pro and as "poor" & "bummy" as this may seem to some people, It looks like my target budget for my computer is around the price of the Octo 2.26 around 3500 W/tax. So I have seen all the tests, and I am still uncertain on what I should do. With the nehalem's new architecture being able to run multi threads to one core it sounds like I should go that route, however I am still debating on a previous gen. Does anyway have a definitive unbiased opinion or am I on my own....

Yep, same here. So very confusing. The 2.26 are only marginaly faster then the 2008 octo 2.8 but much more expensive.
But then again, what if Logic upgrades for this hyperthreading, and FCP. The apps that i use most frequetly; Then I'm stuck with this yestertech, which will run nicely, but is not what i was in the market for in the first place. But I can't wait for another year to see it coming. I need to buy before april.

And to make things worse, there's this 2.66 quad, which is faster then the 2.26, lot's cheaper. But stops at 8 Gb. And does it do multitasking the big apps as well as an octo?

aaaargh, it IS really frustrating.

And then adding the comment of Rhyme animal, Pro tools is not working yet, another thread on this states that Logic is working, but not smoothly.

Pfff, only two choices. Or Apple ****ed up and spent to much time on that idiotic "look at myphone" and it really became Mackintoys
or
they have a monkey up their sleeves, which can come out asap as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RhymeAnimal]

more 2cents

Ya know, having switched to a 2008 mac pro, I am completely blown away by how fast, reliable and completely quiet this thing is. I have to do a ton of compression on video edits for my work, and this computer just blasts through the encoding. Pro Tools is just smooth and efficient, tons of plugins humming away. It works beautifully with my ACD 20" and the firewire ports have no dropout issues due to 800/400 conversion .

I think there's a lot of collective neurosis on these message boards from tech-heads who need the latest chipset/etc. But I'd say to everyone: take a look at your needs, really think about how you'll be using your mac pro, and make a choice accordingly. Don't worry about having a 2009 model just to have a 2009 model.

 

[lukewind]

Just wait

I have a 2.26 mac Pro and I can't complain about the speed. Its fast as hell and works with HD video real nice. All you need to do is wait for a few years and the system will become even faster.

As companies like Adobe start creating their software to run better on quad core and dual quad core systems a 2.26 system will eventually become much faster then the other systems with only one main chip.

 

[kaks]

Side note : [I tried compressor 3, on the base mac pro with the 1080p Canon 5D Mark II sample from the Canon Japan website.

I tried exporting to AppleTV, and i hit the preview button to see the result, you know that window with the slider (never used the compressor before). The playback was choppy. Is that normal?

Or maybe i was doing something wrong.]

Regardless, i think the 2.26ghz mac pro is pretty fast. Sure it wont pop up and open everything in split seconds, but when you can use all 8 cores and programs get extra nehalem instructions built in its going to be a lot faster. At some point i was running Logic Pro, Compressor, iPhoto and Aperture at the same time, switching from one app to another, carrying out operations, like export etc.. and it just did it no questions asked, or any pauses .

Remember MMX, SSE, SSE2 etc..? Well we saw the speed boost. Sure right now there may not be a huge speed increase, but over the next few months as programs get updated, maybe even with the Snow Leopard release as developers change over to 64bit only, or optimize their programs a bit more, we'll definitely see the increase.

Im expecting my 2.26 mac pro tomorrow. I hope its what i think it is. The 2.8 mac pro is still a great purchase at a right price, but if you can afford the new mac pro buy it. Dont think anyone will regret it.

I read some posts saying the Pro tools dont work well...for now? Apple should release an update or just a new version. As for virtualization VMWare built in some optimizations in their Fusion program for the nehalem processors.

Anyway, this kind of reminds me of the DPReview forums when the D3X showed up .

If on the other hand you can wait a year, then wait...the next mac pro im guessing will probably get a re-design and next year's processors will be simply unbelievable if they go with the 32nm and 8 core chips.

Thats it for my late night rant .

now going to clean/clear my desk for tomorrow's arrival.

 

[jjahshik32]

Side note : [I tried compressor 3, on the base mac pro with the 1080p Canon 5D Mark II sample from the Canon Japan website.

I tried exporting to AppleTV, and i hit the preview button to see the result, you know that window with the slider (never used the compressor before). The playback was choppy. Is that normal?

Or maybe i was doing something wrong.]

Regardless, i think the 2.26ghz mac pro is pretty fast. Sure it wont pop up and open everything in split seconds, but when you can use all 8 cores and programs get extra nehalem instructions built in its going to be a lot faster. At some point i was running Logic Pro, Compressor, iPhoto and Aperture at the same time, switching from one app to another, carrying out operations, like export etc.. and it just did it no questions asked, or any pauses .

Remember MMX, SSE, SSE2 etc..? Well we saw the speed boost. Sure right now there may not be a huge speed increase, but over the next few months as programs get updated, maybe even with the Snow Leopard release as developers change over to 64bit only, or optimize their programs a bit more, we'll definitely see the increase.

Im expecting my 2.26 mac pro tomorrow. I hope its what i think it is. The 2.8 mac pro is still a great purchase at a right price, but if you can afford the new mac pro buy it. Dont think anyone will regret it.

I read some posts saying the Pro tools dont work well...for now? Apple should release an update or just a new version. As for virtualization VMWare built in some optimizations in their Fusion program for the nehalem processors.

Anyway, this kind of reminds me of the DPReview forums when the D3X showed up .

If on the other hand you can wait a year, then wait...the next mac pro im guessing will probably get a re-design and next year's processors will be simply unbelievable if they go with the 32nm and 8 core chips.

Thats it for my late night rant .

now going to clean/clear my desk for tomorrow's arrival.

Lucky you!! I'm fighting myself not to get the new Mac Pro just yet and to wait it out a bit longer... but everyday my thirst for power growws... I too have a huge desk that would be awesome to place the mac pro on top of and I have a 24" LED ACD...

I might break down and pick one up at the local store tomorrow as well.

 

[davewolfs]

I have a 2.26 mac Pro and I can't complain about the speed. Its fast as hell and works with HD video real nice. All you need to do is wait for a few years and the system will become even faster.

As companies like Adobe start creating their software to run better on quad core and dual quad core systems a 2.26 system will eventually become much faster then the other systems with only one main chip.

By the time that happens a whole new breed of Mac Pro's will be available

 

[jjahshik32]

By the time that happens a whole new breed of Mac Pro's will be available

Then those new breed of Mac Pros wont be able to be fully utilized as software is lagging.. Thus the cycle continues.

 

[kaks]

Lucky you!! I'm fighting myself not to get the new Mac Pro just yet and to wait it out a bit longer... but everyday my thirst for power growws... I too have a huge desk that would be awesome to place the mac pro on top of and I have a 24" LED ACD...

I might break down and pick one up at the local store tomorrow as well.

Huge desk? Cool ... unfortunately i dont . Not until September when i move .

I wish i was back home now that you mentioned your desk. I've got a custom built stainless steel 2.5m workbench. Now thats were id love to have it on heh.

If you are thinking of waiting 3 months, then buy it now. If 6 months then wait? I guess..

 

[Ploki]

I have a 2.26 mac Pro and I can't complain about the speed. Its fast as hell and works with HD video real nice. All you need to do is wait for a few years and the system will become even faster.

As companies like Adobe start creating their software to run better on quad core and dual quad core systems a 2.26 system will eventually become much faster then the other systems with only one main chip.

Then those new breed of Mac Pros wont be able to be fully utilized as software is lagging.. Thus the cycle continues.

isnt that future proofing in a way
well, its not present proofing anyway

if you ask me the whole intel generation is lagging due to tons of PPC legacy

 

[Play4keeps]

Ya know, having switched to a 2008 mac pro, I am completely blown away by how fast, reliable and completely quiet this thing is. I have to do a ton of compression on video edits for my work, and this computer just blasts through the encoding. Pro Tools is just smooth and efficient, tons of plugins humming away. It works beautifully with my ACD 20" and the firewire ports have no dropout issues due to 800/400 conversion .

I think there's a lot of collective neurosis on these message boards from tech-heads who need the latest chipset/etc. But I'd say to everyone: take a look at your needs, really think about how you'll be using your mac pro, and make a choice accordingly. Don't worry about having a 2009 model just to have a 2009 model.

I Coundn't agree more
Because in AUG 2010 shhhhhh Westmere

 

[dazz]

I waited forever to get the '09 Mac Pro. Finally got it last Friday. Now my problems are legion.

- Does not work well with Pro Tools. Tons of drop outs, slow rendering. Saw a long thread on this, I guess a lot of other people are having same problem
- No Firewire 400 port. Tried using a converter to import DV footage, tons of drop frames. I was naive to believe a converter would work flawlessly
- Benchmark scores basically the same as '08 model.
- spent more $$$ than I would have on '08, + had to buy a converter for my ACD 20"

Regretful

RA

which one did you get?

 

[Marsil]

Im very satisfied with my 2009 Mac Pro 2x2.26 I set it up yesterday and it works just great. It fast and seem stable. I got it with 16GB ram and 2TB hardrive with the ATI card.

It is just so well build and fast. Worth the penny for me

 

[nicolasmasset]

My benchmarks

Mac Pro Early 2009 Quad 2.66 (NOT OCTO), Radeon 4870, 8 GB ram

Cinebench: 3605 (1 CPU) , 14497 (x cpu), Multiprocessor speedup - 4.02

Geekbench 32:
Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.1.2 for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 6884 8318
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 13277
Memory Memory performance 4323
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 3977

Xbench unexpectedbly quits when doing the Text graphics portion.
Xbench without gaphics scores 193.02
(Details at: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=354188&doc2=1&setCookie=true)

Hey, these are some pretty good benchmarks imo!

 

[toke lahti]

Unfairness in MP pricing is not related to what those CPUs' price is now. Their price will be dropping all the time, but MP's price will remain same as long as this model is sold. Eg. 1-2 years.

 

[Mac Husky]

Unfairness in MP pricing is not related to what those CPUs' price is now. Their price will be dropping all the time, but MP's price will remain same as long as this model is sold. Eg. 1-2 years.

Exactly - that´s the point Signed without arguing.