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

[Abidubi]

It was $2299 or so. And I highly doubt the 2009 2.67 GHz quad is 2x as fast as the 2008 2.8 GHz quad in general.

Well all we have to go by is the geekbench score which is 1.5 times faster. I would love to compare it with cinebench as it gives the 2006 quad a good wooping. Not 2X but for $200 not too bad.

If you do single thread stuff, the 2.93 beats the 3.2 by a small margin for about $500 less.

 

[Tesselator]

Depends on what you look at.

2008 Quad 2.8 = $1999 (was it? It was $2499 canadian)
2009 Quad 2.66 = $2499 ~ 2X increase in performance

I only know US and Japan's prices. The 2008 2.8GHz octad was released in the USA on Jan 8th, 2008 for $2799.

There was a 2.8 quad released at the same time for $2,299 though. Maybe that's the confusing factor?

Mac Pro Quad 2.8GHz (2008) $2,299 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 2.8GHz (2008) $2,799 NEW​

I was comparing the octad in my list.

Here's all the Mac Pro Base Prices in the USA:

2006
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199 NEW
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 NEW
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299 NEW

2007
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz $3,997 NEW

2008
Mac Pro Quad 2.8GHz (2008) $2,299 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 2.8GHz (2008) $2,799 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz (2008) $3,599 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 3.2GHz (2008) $4,399 NEW​

.

 

[Abidubi]

I know, but I was just trying to say that it isn't all as bad as it seems across the board.

 

[Tesselator]

Here's the Cinebench10 results.

Here's all of the base prices including the 2009 models just released:

2006
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299 NEW *

2007
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199 *
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 *
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299 *
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz $3,997 NEW *

2008
Mac Pro Quad 2.8GHz (2008) $2,299 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 2.8GHz (2008) $2,799 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz (2008) $3,599 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 3.2GHz (2008) $4,399 NEW *

2009
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 2.93GHz $2,999 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.26GHz $3,299 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.66GHz $4,699 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.93GHz $5,899 NEW *​

* = Appears in the above benchmarks.​

Intel Processor Pricing (supplied by commander.dada)

• 2008 Models:
  1 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 ($2299 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 x 2 = $1594 ($2699 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 3.00GHz X5472 Harptertown: $958 x 2 = $1914 ($3599 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown: $1279 x 2 = $2558 ($4399 overall Mac Pro price)
  
  
• 2009 Models:
  1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
  1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
  2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Intel's price lists:

• Nehalem based Xeon launch pricing:
  http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html
  
• Pricing for all other Intel processors:
  http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...1EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

.

 

[Abidubi]

I thought the old 3.2 was $3999... so $1400 less.

Why would you need 8 cores to do single threaded stuff? Before, you would have to buy an 8 core to get the fastest single thread performance (2.8->3.2). Now you don't need to waste money on cores you don't need (2.66->2.93).

So again, faster single thread performance than the last model, for $1400 less.

 

[Tesselator]

I thought the old 3.2 was $3999... so $1400 less.

Why would you need 8 cores to do single threaded stuff? Before, you would have to buy an 8 core to get the fastest single thread performance (2.8->3.2). Now you don't need to waste money on cores you don't need (2.66->2.93).

So again, faster single thread performance than the last model, for $1400 less.

Oh, you're saying like these two in comparison:

Mac Pro Quad 2.93GHz (2009) $2,999 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 3.2GHz (2008) $4,399 NEW

Yeah, sure. Of course. I mean if you don't need the other half of the machine then for sure, why pay for it.


PS: The old 3.2 pricing.


.

 

[Infrared]

This may be severely naive of me, but I've noticed 3.2GHz Intel Core i7 cpu's from November 2008 can be found for ~£120 cheaper than their original £720 price/1k. If the 3.2GHz Core i7 dropped this much in 4mnths, is it unrealistic to imagine that in 3-4yrs the Nehalem Xeon 2.66GHz or 2.93GHz may also be found affordably for a cpu upgrade in a 2.26GHz MP 2009? Or, at least more affordable than the £1K or so bump in price between the 2.26GHz and 2.66GHz MP 2009? I'm asking because I really don't know about these things but I'm hopeful. What about QPI speed? Would the 2.66 or 2.93GHz cpu's be compatible with the 2.26GHz MP?

Would be better to look at the past price dips for Xeons, not the consumer
grade i7s. Intel charges a heavy premium at the server end of the market,
and the price curves over time may not be the same. We're talking about
different customer expectations (it's a different demographic), a different
ability to pay, etc etc.

 

[BenRoethig]

And SATA for your optical drive might come in handy when optical drive technology goes from 52x read to 900x.

It might also come in handy when all future optical development has gone SATA...which was about a year ago. IDE is an obsolete connector.

 

[mikenap]

2D performance

Here's a question for the tech's in the forum. Does Multithreaded performance help with multiple, memory hungry apps all running at the same time? My ideal workstation would be the fastest possible (for the money) system to run the Creative Suite of apps (design premium, no video/3D at all) with a big font collection and a few utilities. I own a large format print shop and use allot of large, multilayered PSD files, multipage indesign docs, Illy files, etc. I usually open up my major apps first thing, as well as web/email/utilities, and hammer the machine 10 hours a day. I actually am running an old 2.7 PM with 5 gigs and a RAID, and am ready to upgrade.

In the opinion of the group, does the Quad Core machine with the 4000 + score look good for my type of work, or maybe the older generation? It's all about staying fast all day long using big 2D files. Any advice appreciated!

 

[Jouhne]

Here's a question for the tech's in the forum. Does Multithreaded performance help with multiple, memory hungry apps all running at the same time? My ideal workstation would be the fastest possible (for the money) system to run the Creative Suite of apps (design premium, no video/3D at all) with a big font collection and a few utilities. I own a large format print shop and use allot of large, multilayered PSD files, multipage indesign docs, Illy files, etc. I usually open up my major apps first thing, as well as web/email/utilities, and hammer the machine 10 hours a day. I actually am running an old 2.7 PM with 5 gigs and a RAID, and am ready to upgrade.

In the opinion of the group, does the Quad Core machine with the 4000 + score look good for my type of work, or maybe the older generation? It's all about staying fast all day long using big 2D files. Any advice appreciated!

Go for the Octo 2,66 with 12 GB RAM. You will need that with all the unoptimized files your customers will bring you

 

[Tesselator]

Here's a question for the tech's in the forum. Does Multithreaded performance help with multiple, memory hungry apps all running at the same time?

Yes it does! But one doesn't have to be a tech to know it.

In the opinion of the group, does the Quad Core machine with the 4000 + score look good for my type of work, or maybe the older generation? It's all about staying fast all day long using big 2D files. Any advice appreciated!

the 2.66 or 2.93 quad maybe - yeah... Ya don't need 8 cores for 2D.

 

[Appelflap]

So according the ^Cinebench10 results:

Between 2009 Quad 2.93 & 2009 Octo 2.26

Single core render: Quad 2.93 = 28.4% faster
Multiple core render: Octo 2.26 = 32.6% faster

Hmm.. Its obvious both certainly have advantages. I still can't make my decision though..

 

[Tesselator]

...
...
Delete me

 

[tomhayes]

I went with the quad 2.66

I decided to go with the Quad 2.66 vs. the Octo 2.26, based alrgely on single thread performance, price differce, and future resale value. $800 more for the octo for 25% more performance, BUT ONLY on apps that are 8 core aware is not need by *me* at the moemnt.

Hope it gets here this week!

 

[mikenap]

Wow... this makes it harder to support the quad

This is a bit of a bummer... just went to macsales.com and priced out 12 gigs of RAM for the quad... WOW. You need to use 4 gig sticks to get anything beyond 8 gigs on the Quad due to the 4 ram slots. Take a look at the price difference between the quad and the octo for phat ram upgrades... Yikes!

 

[Marx55]

Is the Mac Pro quiet or noisy? How does it compare to a Mac mini, which is bedroom quiet. How many decibels? Thanks.

 

[BenRoethig]

This is a bit of a bummer... just went to macsales.com and priced out 12 gigs of RAM for the quad... WOW. You need to use 4 gig sticks to get anything beyond 8 gigs on the Quad due to the 4 ram slots. Take a look at the price difference between the quad and the octo for phat ram upgrades... Yikes!

Right now 4GB DDR3 DIMMs are prohibitively expensive.

Is the Mac Pro quiet or noisy? How does it compare to a Mac mini, which is bedroom quiet. How many decibels? Thanks.

Dead quiet for a tower. They use large low-RPM case fans for airflow and large heatsinks with no CPU fan.

 

[avkills]

Great work! But how about adding a 2.66GHz Octad to that list?? Someone on this forum ran a geekbench test.

You may want to look closer, it's there.

-mark

 

[Gonk42]

large heatsinks with no CPU fan.

The heat sinks have fans in them if you look at the photos (I think it was on the unboxing thread but it may have been another one), it doesn't mean they're not quiet though, just not entirely passively cooled.

 

[jjahshik32]

You may want to look closer, it's there.

-mark

Lol, of course its there now, since my original post about the 2.66GHz was posted a day or couple of days before it was added to the chart.

 

[jjahshik32]

The heat sinks have fans in them if you look at the photos (I think it was on the unboxing thread but it may have been another one), it doesn't mean they're not quiet though, just not entirely passively cooled.

Are you serious?? Fans inside of those big block of aluminum next to the RAM slots?? If so damn I dont like a machine where it has too many fans, because fans tend to break down and cause more headaches. Especially with added noises.

Why couldnt they designed it to passively cool the RAM. I guess heat sinks on the RAM was very convenient indeed.

 

[nanofrog]

Are you serious?? Fans inside of those big block of aluminum next to the RAM slots?? If so damn I dont like a machine where it has too many fans, because fans tend to break down and cause more headaches. Especially with added noises.

Why couldnt they designed it to passively cool the RAM. I guess heat sinks on the RAM was very convenient indeed.

Too much heat is produced to use passive heatsinks.

Even the '06 - '08 models weren't really passive. The case fans and aluminum CPU cover created a chamber with fans in a push-pull configuration, similar to a wind tunnel. Air was forced over the cooling fins.

 

[jjahshik32]

Too much heat is produced to use passive heatsinks.

Even the '06 - '08 models weren't really passive. The case fans and aluminum CPU cover created a chamber with fans in a push-pull configuration, similar to a wind tunnel. Air was forced over the cooling fins.

either way there seems to be 3 more additional big fans compared to the last gen. More dust build up to worry about and failures.

 

[aibo]

It might also come in handy when all future optical development has gone SATA...which was about a year ago. IDE is an obsolete connector.

Was it ever an issue? Anyone with an "old" Mac Pro has always been able to use use SATA optical drives... simply plug it in and route a SATA cable of one of the two unused ports on the motherboard.

 

[nanofrog]

either way there seems to be 3 more additional big fans compared to the last gen. More dust build up to worry about and failures.

Computer's aren't exactly maintenance free, but it's not that bad.

As per the failure rate, it should be acceptable. I wouldn't think it any higher than water cooling, as that would involve ~3 fans with a 360mm radiator (for 2 CPU's an a graphics card), and a pump as well.