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

[jjahshik32]

That would make sense: how much does Apple Charge for this card? I think it would be much better to have it bought with a new Mac Pro, same warranty, everything. I sure hope you buy an old model!

Sure its $349 but when comparing the total cost of the $3299 2.26ghz model you would still have to add $150 for the ati card and still cost you way more for slower performance.

$2500 + $329= $2849 (2.8ghz 8 core, faster performance)

$3299 + $250= $3549 (2.26ghz 8 core, slower performance)

But keep in mind this is before taxes.

 

[ilikebeer]

This discussion is not productive one bit - it's a bunch of Apple Fanatics obsessed over "my old 2.8 has to be better than anything that ever comes out again" -- If you didn't spend 10HRS a day on forums you might be able to afford a new Mac Pro.

This has to be the single-most convoluted "sentence" I've ever read on teh Interweb.

Thanks for making my day!

 

[Keniff]

This discussion is not productive one bit - it's a bunch of Apple Fanatics obsessed over "my old 2.8 has to be better than anything that ever comes out again" -- If you didn't spend 10HRS a day on forums you might be able to afford a new Mac Pro.

That made me smile, I do appreciate all the fanatics on here, but I shall just be using Logic Pro and CS4, and a few other small apps.
It's hard to troll through these forums, if you're not super technical minded, but I know just enough, to get by.

I also realize that the 8-Core is much more expandable at a later date, if I need to upgrade.
Also looking forward to see how much more it'll improve when I stick Snow Leopard in it...

 

[jjahshik32]

I do understand the mind set of some people that want the latest and greatest.

Everytime I do think about how the 2.8ghz 8 core is cheaper at a better performance, the first thing that comes to mind right after is Nehalem "new architecture" is better, so I should buy that model at the higher cost and just be happy.

But we should really really wait until all the true benchmarks comes around from barefeats to make the final judgement. We should make rational decisions.

Its like taking a trip to a vacation in hawaii and buying coach seats or going first class but either way we will both get there at the same time at a much lower cost for the trip.

 

[superpalmtree]

I do understand the mind set of some people that want the latest and greatest.

Everytime I do think about how the 2.8ghz 8 core is cheaper at a better performance, the first thing that comes to mind right after is Nehalem "new architecture" is better, so I should buy that model at the higher cost and just be happy.

But we should really really wait until all the true benchmarks comes around from barefeats to make the final judgement.

Do you think they will have benchmarks tomorrow?

 

[jjahshik32]

Do you think they will have benchmarks tomorrow?

I think so, usually barefeats comes out with the benchmarks a couple to few days after the machines have shipped.

Even if the new nehalem (especially the 2.26ghz) trounces the early 08 models, I'm still going to wait a good month or almost even 2 to see if any major issues arises from the nehalem ones. No matter HOW great a new architecture is.. rev. a will always be rev. a...

 

[nanofrog]

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

In fact, Yes. The 600MHz deficit is just too much for the 2.26GHz part to out perform the 2.8 '08 MP overall, in relation to non memory intensive, or single-threaded apps. At that point, it really is more of a function of clock speed.

Real world benchmarks will make this obvious I think.

No one said it sucks. It's a plenty capable machine, just not nearly the value compared to last year's offering.

To me, this is the real complaint. The cost increases eliminated the value of the '08 models.

 

[iMacmatician]

The cost increases eliminated the value of the '08 models.

Do you mean '09?

 

[Infrared]

So the economy is now tough for everyone? This is the answer that irritates me. He's coming from a computer that is OLD -- why in the world would he want to buy an old 2.8?

If he wants to run Photoshop, say, and use more than 8GB of RAM,
but can't afford the dual quad 2.66/2.93 models? Photoshop runs
faster on the older machine and it runs faster with lots of RAM.

The 2.26 dual quad MP is an anomaly. Most times when Apple brings
out a new machine that is more expensive, it is faster at everything
than the model it replaces. This isn't so with the 2.26, hence the
dilemma.

I'm wondering if there will be a speed bump in six months time or so.
The 3.2 will be unveiled and the 2.26 model dropped with the price
the 2.66 falling to $3299.

 

[jjahshik32]

If he wants to run Photoshop, say, and use more than 8GB of RAM,
but can't afford the dual quad 2.66/2.93 models? Photoshop runs
faster on the older machine and it runs faster with lots of RAM.

The 2.26 dual quad MP is an anomaly. Most times when Apple brings
out a new machine that is more expensive, it is faster at everything
than the model it replaces. This isn't so with the 2.26, hence the
dilemma.

I'm wondering if there will be a speed bump in six months time or so.
The 3.2 will be unveiled and the 2.26 model dropped with the price
the 2.66 falling to $3299.

Yup, I've been preaching about this since day 1. When the 3.2ghz model is out that will replace the 2.93ghz as the high end with the same pricing as the current 2.93ghz and that will allow to bump the 2.93ghz as the middle range and thus bumping down the 2.66ghz model at the base model with the $3299 price tag.

Now that would seem much more logical.

Hell maybe even bump the 2.26ghz 8 core down to replace the single 2.93ghz 4 core with the same price tag and bumping down the 2.93ghz 4 core to the $2499. Now that all would make sense.

I really see this happening around close to summer time and especially since Apple received their xeon nehalem chipsets so early as to other vendors.

 

[nanofrog]

Do you mean '09?

I was thinking in term of the fact the '08 model base was 2x 2.8GHz parts for $2800USD.

Now it's 2x 2.26GHz for $500 more, and apparently not going to be able to clearly outperform, it's less expensive, albeit slightly older sibling.

Comparing the base '08 and '09 models, it feels like we've gone backwards. And have to pay an extra $500 to boot!

 

[jjahshik32]

I was thinking in term of the fact the '08 model base was 2x 2.8GHz parts for $2800USD.

Now it's 2x 2.66GHz for $500 more, and apparently not going to be able to clearly outperform, it's less expensive, albeit slightly older sibling.

Comparing the base '08 and '09 models, it feels like we've gone backwards. And have to pay an extra $500 to boot!

I've also noticed that most 2.8ghz 8 core models are all sold out very quickly within a couple of days, especially at macmall.com!

 

[Bob70011]

Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. I'll wait until I can try it out the computer before I call it a disappointment.

 

[iMacmatician]

I was thinking in term of the fact the '08 model base was 2x 2.8GHz parts for $2800USD.

Now it's 2x 2.66GHz for $500 more, and apparently not going to be able to clearly outperform, it's less expensive, albeit slightly older sibling.

Comparing the base '08 and '09 models, it feels like we've gone backwards. And have to pay an extra $500 to boot!

So wouldn't that mean the 2.8 GHz 2008 model "eliminated the value of the '09 models" because the 2008 model is as powerful as the more expensive 2009 model? Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[aibo]

I was thinking in term of the fact the '08 model base was 2x 2.8GHz parts for $2800USD.

Now it's 2x 2.66GHz for $500 more, and apparently not going to be able to clearly outperform, it's less expensive, albeit slightly older sibling.

Comparing the base '08 and '09 models, it feels like we've gone backwards. And have to pay an extra $500 to boot!

Agreed, but I think you meant "Now it's 2x 2.26GHz for $500 more". The 2x 2.66GHz is actually $1900 more

 

[ender78]

I'm likely to buy the base Nehalem Octo over the Quad such that I have a better upgrade path. I should be able to pick up two new CPUs in a years time for a few hundred bucks. Who knows what Nehalem CPUs will be available then.

 

[shokunin]

I bought the 2008 2.8 Mac Pro when it first came available replacing my 2006 Mac Pro. Back then performance from 4 core to 8 core was a no brainer.

For those of us who already own a Mac Pro, the base octo 2.26ghz doesn't seem to provide enough performance to financially justify the upgrade. The octo 2.93, absolutely, but the price tag is nearly $6K. If you make your living off the Mac Pro on a daily basis, $6000 is a small price to pay for a leap in performance.

Now, if you don't already own the Mac Pro, then get the octo-2.26, it's not the best deal, but it's still a fast machine if your apps are multi-threaded.

Personally, I'm going to wait until either the 3.2ghz is offered or simply wait for the Westmere revision in 2010.

 

[iMacmatician]

I'm likely to buy the base Nehalem Octo over the Quad such that I have a better upgrade path. I should be able to pick up two new CPUs in a years time for a few hundred bucks. Who knows what Nehalem CPUs will be available then.

Gulftown (Westmere variant) in Q2 2010 or so will have 6 cores as well as a few other features. Clock speeds of Westmere CPUs are not expected to be markedly different from the speeds of the Nehalems they replace.

 

[m1stake]

Everytime I do think about how the 2.8ghz 8 core is cheaper at a better performance, the first thing that comes to mind right after is Nehalem "new architecture" is better, so I should buy that model at the higher cost and just be happy.

But we should really really wait until all the true benchmarks comes around from barefeats to make the final judgement. We should make rational decisions.

I'm no fan of synthetic benchmarks, because 123556 doesn't tell me how much faster X is going to be on a new computer. Comparing the numbers to each other is fairly accurate. It's been painfully clear that you won't get a faster computer unless you buy the dual 2.66 or higher.

Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. I'll wait until I can try it out the computer before I call it a disappointment.

See above.

I'm likely to buy the base Nehalem Octo over the Quad such that I have a better upgrade path. I should be able to pick up two new CPUs in a years time for a few hundred bucks. Who knows what Nehalem CPUs will be available then.

The prices don't drop.

 

[jjahshik32]

Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. I'll wait until I can try it out the computer before I call it a disappointment.

And actually compare it in real world usage against an 2.8ghz 8 core? Thats the whole point of this thread.

But I guess if you own the 2.26ghz without comparing it to the 2.8ghz 8 core model, then ignorance is bliss.

 

[v0n]

The simple fact is - the new Mac Pros, especially in Europe, are very, very, very bad value for money.
Two weeks ago you could buy MA970 (base 8 core 2.8Ghz Harpertown spec) from resellers from as low as £1559. Apple Stores had them for £1760 on day one when they were rolled out, £1719 when dollar dived to $2 per £1. £1711 on the last day, before they introduced Nahalem Mac Pros.

Base spec, single CPU, quad core Nahalem 2.66Ghz '09 Mac is now £1899. It can't be upgraded to 8 cores, it won't take more than 8Gb of memory, and at £188 premium it is to "old" 8 core Harpertown '08 mac pro what Chevrolet Aveo is to the Chevrolet's muscle cars. It's about as serious alternative to old base spec MP as Jon Stewart offering to stand for Vitali Klitschko in boxing match.

The next workstation up - 8 core 2.26Ghz Nahalem (which we now slowly discover is about the speed or even slower in some benchmarks than "old" Harpertown 8 core) is £788 more expensive than the former. One thousand, one hundred US dollars. For machine that's no faster than last years spec. Have a moment to process that - eleven hundred bucks - just think what you could upgrade that Harpertown to for that...

Regardless of how many times you read i7 spec sheet, and how many tantrums superpalmtree throws and how many one line quotes he replies to, to up his post count, buck for buck the new lineup is simply a horrible deal, especially the bottom spec single CPU mac pro - it is below par offering in jester's suit. The price difference is crazy. Insane. It's a rude joke in bad taste, especially in current economic climate. Almost 800 pounds more for machine that's no faster than last spec. Borderline outrageous. End of story.

There is nothing in Harpertown spec that would stop it from serving well for years to come. There is nothing weak about 8 core monstrocity upgradable to 32Gb of RAM and Ati 4870. Not under windows, not under OSX. Not even in server room. Not unless you do some crazy 0 minute number crunching where 10%-20% gains are worth paying $1000 for. There are no milestones in i7 architecture that would require anyone to switch immediately right here, right now. No changes that would render last year lineup obsolete over night. There will be no ground breaking modifications to OS that would suddenly advance benchmarks far enough to make you think that £800 extra was well spent.

At £1711 last month, compared to competition, Mac Pro with 8 core 2.8Ghz was great value, beefy machine to do work, editing, rendering on OSX, and gaming under Windows. At £2499, compared to competition, 8 core Mac Pro 2.26Ghz is a pretty poor spec with one heck of a crazy pricetag.

Just my 22 pence worth...

 

[Sdancott]

The simple fact is - the new Mac Pros, especially in Europe, are very, very, very bad value for money.
Two weeks ago you could buy MA970 (base 8 core 2.8Ghz Harpertown spec) from resellers from as low as £1559. Apple Stores had them for £1760 on day one when they were rolled out, £1719 when dollar dived to $2 per £1. £1711 on the last day, before they introduced Nahalem Mac Pros.

Base spec, single CPU, quad core Nahalem 2.66Ghz '09 Mac is now £1899. It can't be upgraded to 8 cores, it won't take more than 8Gb of memory, and at £188 premium it is to "old" 8 core Harpertown '08 mac pro what Chevrolet Aveo is to the Chevrolet's muscle cars. It's about as serious alternative to old base spec MP as Jon Stewart offering to stand for Vitali Klitschko in boxing match.

The next workstation up - 8 core 2.26Ghz Nahalem (which we now slowly discover is about the speed or even slower in some benchmarks than "old" Harpertown 8 core) is £788 more expensive than the former. One thousand, one hundred US dollars. For machine that's no faster than last years spec. Have a moment to process that - eleven hundred bucks - just think what you could upgrade that Harpertown to for that...

Regardless of how many times you read i7 spec sheet, and how many tantrums superpalmtree throws and how many one line quotes he replies to, to up his post count, buck for buck the new lineup is simply a horrible deal, especially the bottom spec single CPU mac pro - it is below par offering in jester's suit. The price difference is crazy. Insane. It's a rude joke in bad taste, especially in current economic climate. Almost 800 pounds more for machine that's no faster than last spec. Borderline outrageous. End of story.

There is nothing in Harpertown spec that would stop it from serving well for years to come. There is nothing weak about 8 core monstrocity upgradable to 32Gb of RAM and Ati 4870. Not under windows, not under OSX. Not even in server room. Not unless you do some crazy 0 minute number crunching where 10%-20% gains are worth paying $1000 for. There are no milestones in i7 architecture that would require anyone to switch immediately right here, right now. No changes that would render last year lineup obsolete over night. There will be no ground breaking modifications to OS that would suddenly advance benchmarks far enough to make you think that £800 extra was well spent.

At £1711 last month, compared to competition, Mac Pro with 8 core 2.8Ghz was great value, beefy machine to do work, editing, rendering on OSX, and gaming under Windows. At £2499, compared to competition, 8 core Mac Pro 2.26Ghz is a pretty poor spec with one heck of a crazy pricetag.

Just my 22 pence worth...

Couldn't agree more, excellent post

 

[nanofrog]

Agreed, but I think you meant "Now it's 2x 2.26GHz for $500 more". The 2x 2.66GHz is actually $1900 more

Oops. Fixed.

*&^% dyslexia again.

I should be able to pick up two new CPUs in a years time for a few hundred bucks.

Not if the price history of Xeon processors stays constant. They stay expensive, even more than 2yrs out.

 

[aibo]

[insert v0n's post]

But don't you understand that the optical drive on the Nehalem Mac Pro is now using a SATA bus? Superpalmtree does, and if that doesn't justify the $1100 price difference, I don't know what does! Haha... just kidding, man. Really good post and fully agreed.

 

[mackmack]

Couldn't agree more, excellent post

+1.

Apple seem to be shafting consumers lately. Glossy macbooks, glossy cinema display, and a poor value mac pro refresh.