Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone else disappointed by the 2.26ghz 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro's performance?
- Thread starter jjahshik32
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm waiting on the benchmarks for the 2.93 quad core before I buy. I think many more people would be considering it if it didn't have the 8 Gig RAM limit.
I totally agree, but I think there's a good explanation for it... people need to understand Intel's development cycles to realize why this is the case...
My previous post on this.
HAHA -- I about fell off my chair laughing:
"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!"
You people crack me up.
Seriously though...if they would have used IDE for this new Mac Pro...I would have went ballistic. WHITE BOX?
Cinebench is very "real-world-ish"!!! It will show you what a hard hitting single threaded app will act like as well as how the multiple cores scale when using well written multi-threaded apps. It will also show you how the GFX accelerator performs but I didn't include that data as there are too many cards out there and not enough people benchmarking.
Here's the latest results (as of today)
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7248080/
Yeah! Thank god they got rid of that horrible optical drive IDE bottleneck. Now we can finally burn DVDs at 500x with this new SATA goodness. Also, optical drives when operating on SATA are whisper quiet, according to you.
The old IDE drives are very clunky. I also use Dell Workstations - which have used SATA Drives for years....they are whisper quiet. Apple's media drives have been a big turn off for me. I remember the 1st time I added an extra optical drive and saw the IDE cable...I had it posted on eBay within the hour. That's crazy! IDE in 2008?!!
I apologize I didn't write this backwards for you.
The old IDE drives are very clunky. I also use Dell Workstations - which have used SATA Drives for years....they are whisper quiet. Apple's media drives have been a big turn off for me. I remember the 1st time I added an extra optical drive and saw the IDE cable...I had it posted on eBay within the hour. That's crazy! IDE in 2008?!!
You, sir are brilliant. I don't know how I didn't understand that before... switching drives over to a SATA bus magically removes the noises they make. It has absolutely nothing to do with the manufacturer or drive model. It was that ancient IDE bus the whole time!
I have no idea why anyone would get a quad over last year's 2.8 octo. Too slow, not enough ram expansion, and the DDR3 boost is minimal.
I would not trade my current 2.8 octo for a quad.
However, I would trade my current 2.8 octo for a Nehalem octo, even at 2.26. I would expect dual proc systems to hold their value better.
Thanks for your input. I have the 2.26 ordered. The thing is my tasks are pretty much, Vista X64, Office, QuickBooks, VMWare, Photoshop, nothing real extreme. If the Quad would hold it's value decent I'd rather have that for the possible performance boost for single threaded apps....or is that just stupid? $$$ is not the nagging issue....I just for once thought maybe 8 is overkill for this computer. Also: I'm an online teaching administrator, I teach online courses, etc...I use Mac's so I can accept any assignment format, etc.. thanks.
Another minor upgrade to the MacPro is PCIe lanes. I mean, didn't the old configuration have some restraints in the number of lanes used at a time compared to the new one? The older model had only one slot running at full 16x, the '09 has two that could run at 16x. I need to do more research on all the hardware I need, but heck, if I need two cards running at 16x, that may justify the price hike.
VMWare and Photoshop are two places you will want more ram for sure, and more cores. If you aren't doing too many VMs at once either should be fine, but I would go octo.
If I were in the market, I'd probably buy last year's octo at the current prices out there. You could get 32 gigs of ram and have money left over versus getting the base octo this year.
I ordered my octomac 2.26 this morning and am not disappointed at all. I figure the newer software later on will take more advantage of the multi-threading tasks and such.
I am going from a Mac Mini Intel core Solo.
Thanks
I am going from a Mac Mini Intel core Solo.
Thanks
The old Mac Pro had for full x16 sized slots with two x16 PCI-E 2.0 and two x4 PCI-E 1.1. The new Mac Pro has two x16 PCI-E 2.0 and two x4 PCI-E 2.0 according to the official documentation.
Why are there no benchmarks of the 2.66ghz Octad?? Are people simply skipping the 2.66ghz model and only either going for the base 2.26ghz or the highest 2.93ghz..
I usually thought people would like to meet at the middle for the price/performance. I'm so eager to see the bench difference between the 2.66ghz vs. 2.93ghz.
I usually thought people would like to meet at the middle for the price/performance. I'm so eager to see the bench difference between the 2.66ghz vs. 2.93ghz.
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I'm curious what you think would be the best way to spend $4-5K on one of the new Mac Pros. My primary focus is music and in particular Ableton Live. I was about to pull the trigger on the low end stock Octocore, but now I'm having some second thoughts. What would you recommend?
So far at looking at the benchmarks (especially seeing the 2.66ghz octad) I would get the 2.66ghz octad over the 2.93ghz octad.
Let me ask this, the 8 Core 2.6 is FASTER then the Quad (4) Core 2.6 right? or is this where the issue is coming?