Apple Gets Nehalem Early, h264 and VMWare Performance Boosts

[Jackal-Head]

Ignore the default configuration

the new 4core nehalem MacPro-basic can't beat the old 8core basic Hapertown in parallel (render, encoding) tasks, I highly doubt it. So the basic MacPro has become slower (!) for most of the tasks I would use it for...

I find that very confusing by Apple

Why do people make so much fuss about the "basic" model having only four cores? Fair enough, the default configuration – what you got if you didn't select any of the BTO options – had 8 cores before. But let's face it – none of us do that. Except when we're convinced that the default options are fine, anyway.

I do know that the 8-core was previously $2,499 and is now $3,299. This should be the concern, not what is basically just the Apple webstore's set of default options. "8 cores just got more expensive", as Apple would (not) say.

 

[sumowax]

It basically depends on what you do with it, what software you use and how much memory you need since the single CPU configuration currently "only" supports 4x2GB. And you won't be able to add a second CPU so you better think twice.

Either way, your (old) applications will run more smoothly, and the new Mac Pro's consume less energy.

I will be using the software in Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio 8 mostly, as well as MOTU Digital Performer, Pro Tools 7.4 and a multitude of memory extensive custom sample libraries via Kontakt 3 and a proprietary sample playback engine. With Final Cut Studio I will mostly be bringing either HDV formats or importing them (AVCHD) in to FCP as Apple's ProRes422 for editing...eventually rendering the result as H.264 Quicktime. Mostly sound to picture work, and small video work. I will eventually also be required to purchase and use Apple Shake.

On the same machine my wife will be using Aperture and Adobe CS3 or CS4 (if she upgrades).

My biggest worry is the limited RAM on the new entry level Mac Pro, as I do often use software like Vienna Symphonic Libraries and Fxpansion BFD. The confusing bit to me is that despite the obvious benefits of the new technology all around and processors wise, on paper, I'm afraid that the expandability of the RAM simply is won't be enough inevitably. I've even considered going with the previous single quad 2.8GHz model, simply for the RAM difference. However after advice, and consideration I've decided it's either a newer single quad Mac Pro, or a previous generation two quad Mac Pro.

This is why I'm confused. Theoretically faster processor and new tech, but limited RAM, or older but still suitable tech and more RAM?

We are both students.

 

[SPUY767]

Not really, he's already asked what the Xeon brings to the party that the Core i7 can't do almost as well at much less cost.

I'd like to see some benchmarks comparing the two. Let's see if the Mac Pro tax is worth it - I suspect not, but would like to be wrong if only to claw back some credibility for recommending Apple desktop hardware.

in a single Processor configuration, not much, but the regular core i7 doesn't do dual procs.

I'm assuming (hoping) hat apple will drop the price once these puppies get out into the wild and the fab yield gets to be higher. Why do you think apple gets these chips first? Apple doesn't need as many chips as a dell would, and Apple computers can command the premium that these chips require. Once the retail channel fills up with these new XEONS, I'd expect the price to drop by a grand at least.

 

[chubad]

I am conisdering replacing my G5 with a Mac Pro. I am considering though wether to get the new base model or the previous model.

One real annoying thing about the new mode is it seems to no longer comes with the ability to run two monitors. You have to splash out the $150 for a second graphics card. So $2,449 is really $2,599.

You do get a extra GB and more hard disk but you can only go up to 8GB on the new model.

New Model:
$2,449 + $150 = $2,599
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (three 1GB) memory
640GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive NVIDIA
GeForce GT 120 with 512MB

vs

Old Model:
$2,629
Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processors,
2 GB RAM,
320 GB Hard Drive,
16x SuperDrive

thoughts?

What I would do is get the single processor Quad core and get the 2.93ghz option. In most applications you will not miss the additional cores but you will notice the speed increase on all apps. The cost saving is huge compared to the 8 core.

 

[ATimson]

I'm curious how you could make a case that these are skewed towards the new model if the testing conditions are given (the small print).

Any results that Apple didn't like--that showed no, negligible, or negative improvement--they could simply omit.

 

[bikemonkey]

Bloody hell! Everytime Apple updates their hardware the Apple Crowd bitches and whines about stuff that Apple "didn't do". I'm sorry that you can't inverse the law of gravity with the new Mac Pro. The machines are better. The prices are better, if not the same. What's wrong? They're among the best in their class (respectively).

In fact I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned lack of Blu-ray.

 

[chubad]

I will be using the software in Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio 8 mostly, as well as MOTU Digital Performer, Pro Tools 7.4 and a multitude of memory extensive custom sample libraries via Kontakt 3 and a proprietary sample playback engine. With Final Cut Studio I will mostly be bringing either HDV formats or importing them (AVCHD) in to FCP as Apple's ProRes422 for editing...eventually rendering the result as H.264 Quicktime. Mostly sound to picture work, and small video work. I will eventually also be required to purchase and use Apple Shake.

On the same machine my wife will be using Aperture and Adobe CS3 or CS4 (if she upgrades).

My biggest worry is the limited RAM on the new entry level Mac Pro, as I do often use software like Vienna Symphonic Libraries and Fxpansion BFD. The confusing bit to me is that despite the obvious benefits of the new technology all around and processors wise, on paper, I'm afraid that the expandability of the RAM simply is won't be enough inevitably. I've even considered going with the previous single quad 2.8GHz model, simply for the RAM difference. However after advice, and consideration I've decided it's either a newer single quad Mac Pro, or a previous generation two quad Mac Pro.

This is why I'm confused. Theoretically faster processor and new tech, but limited RAM, or older but still suitable tech and more RAM?

We are both students.

I would not worry about "only" 8 gigs of RAM. Aperture depends an the video card heavily so you will see greater benefit on upgrading to the fastest card. Photoshop can only use 3 gigs max.
I use FCS, Aperture, Photoshop with 8 gigs and have never ran into any paging to disk du to insufficient RAM.

 

[sumowax]

I would not worry about "only" 8 gigs of RAM. Aperture depends an the video card heavily so you will see greater benefit on upgrading to the fastest card. Photoshop can only use 3 gigs max.
I use FCS, Aperture, Photoshop with 8 gigs and have never ran into any paging to disk du to insufficient RAM.

Yes, you're right. Those are not the software that worry me though, it's the huge sample libraries and such that I will have loaded into memory at times that worry me.
Now hard drive speed, due to disk streaming, is a major factor but I'm just worried that the 8GB RAM will pose a problem sooner or later. These libraries need more memory and HDD power than CPU speed, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[lewchenko]

Bloody hell! Everytime Apple updates their hardware the Apple Crowd bitches and whines about stuff that Apple "didn't do". I'm sorry that you can't inverse the law of gravity with the new Mac Pro. The machines are better. The prices are better, if not the same. What's wrong? They're among the best in their class (respectively).

In fact I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned lack of Blu-ray.

I dont get people like this. The machines are not better, and the prices are most certainly not the same or better... how on earth can you conclude such rubbish ??? Take the example above. 8 core machine now $3299. Previous 8 Core machine $2499. Yeah.. thats price equivalence for you?! Or the new top end iMAC. Same computer with a little extra memory and HD, how about an extra £449 for that one.

Apple love people like you. They can deliver the most miserable updates and you say 'Thank you beloved Apple.' You have been brain washed!

The vast majority of people can see these updates for what they really are... lame outdated tech and over priced. Thats why so many people are complaining. I wonder why you cant see it ?

 

[madog]

<<snippity>>

Everyone seems too busy arguing over the finer points of a computer that none of them will actually purchase, but I enjoyed your comment! Apple's trying to be sneaky during these hard economic times, and while the zealots will still still purchase Apple's new lineup simply becauuse they are new and not much else, many people will wisen up.

It's almost like a religion I suppose. No matter how right or wrong your ideas are about it, nothing will ever change your mind.

 

[gnasher729]

Read this: http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/published/sessions/SVRS005/SF08_SVRS005_100r.pdf

Skip to page 33 and note that strlen(just an example) only needs 3 instructions now, this instead of the previous 8.

I'd be curious why they felt they had to compare a scalar version to a version using the new instructions, and why they didn't take an SSE version as the baseline.

 

[coyote23]

I believe GM has technology in their V8 engine cars that shuts off two pistons when you don't need the power. They do not call it "turbo boost" (that would be an awesome Night-Rider feature if they did though!)

Relative to other computers, all this tech does is lessen power. Therefore, "turbo" is more of a misnomer than anything else.

OMG!

Reading is Fundamental, so is Reading Comprehension.

For Apps which utilize _only_ a single/double/whatever core, the other cores are shut-off...which then results in a BOOST to the single/double/whatever core the App in question can use. Shutting off cores available to an app which CAN'T use them (while also boosting power to the cores the App _can_ use) is NOT lessening power - it is a power increase.

Turbo Boost, while a silly marketing tool, is fair enough. The feature DOES in fact BOOST speed in certain situations.

This feature is actually a boon to those who won't/can't design their software to take advantage of multiple cores...which will be a moot point, anyway, with Snow Leopard.

 

[kabunaru]

Core i7 is much too hot for the iMac.

Even the inside of the Nehalem Mac Pro reminds me of an PowerMac G5.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I am conisdering replacing my G5 with a Mac Pro. I am considering though wether to get the new base model or the previous model.

One real annoying thing about the new mode is it seems to no longer comes with the ability to run two monitors. You have to splash out the $150 for a second graphics card. So $2,449 is really $2,599.

I thought the video cards in the machines come with display port and DVI built in, so you can run two monitors. You just might need a display port --> DVI adapter to hook up two DVI monitors.

 

[Eidorian]

Even the inside of the Nehalem Mac Pro reminds me of an PowerMac G5.

130W per CPU is nothing in a Mac Pro.

 

[Phil A.]

Just another formulaic, lame interim upgrade to suck in buyers until the next true generation update- The fractional, imperceptible performance gain and need to buy two graphics cards to support existing multiple cinema displays is non negotiable for existing customers. Mini Display adapters and glossy crappy displays are for imacs and laptops not desktops...

You don't need two video cards to support two monitors apart from the 24" glossy display you don't even like - you just need a mini displayport to dvi adapter (or dual-link to support two 30" monitors): Each card has a DVI and Mini DisplayPort port.

 

[JoeDMD]

What I would do is get the single processor Quad core and get the 2.93ghz option. In most applications you will not miss the additional cores but you will notice the speed increase on all apps. The cost saving is huge compared to the 8 core.

I was thinking along the same lines, but upgrading to 2.93 is 20% more expensive for a 10% increase in speed.

 

[iMacmatician]

The vast majority of people can see these updates for what they really are... lame outdated tech and over priced.

I understand "over priced" but "outdated"?

 

[Elektronkind]

Turbo video

"TurboBoost" is an interesting marketing choice. If clockspeed varies according to whether or not multiple cores are active, you could market in two ways:
1. Advertise higher clock-speed and acknowledge lower speed when multi-cores active.
2. Advertise lower clock-spped and brag about "TurboBoost".
Given the multiple Knightrider and "turbomagical" posts, i'm thinking they made the right choice.

Here's a video of one of the lead OS devs at Intel explaining what this Turbo Mode is and how it works:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/videos/opensolaris-intel-turbo-mode/

/dale

 

[Digital Skunk]

This is why I'm confused. Theoretically faster processor and new tech, but limited RAM, or older but still suitable tech and more RAM?

This is what worries me the most with the new lineup. I am ready to drop the money when it becomes available, but the choices are harsh. Not the mention that to get the higher than 8GB, which is somewhat a standard option on workstation class machines... not the full 8GB, but the option to go higher, you'll have to fork out $900 more dollars.

Doesn't seem like much, but then you'll want that 2.66 octo over the 2.26, so that's another $1400....

 

[SPUY767]

The vast majority of people can see these updates for what they really are... lame outdated tech and over priced. Thats why so many people are complaining.

You know, you are so right. A chip that the manufacturer has not even streeted yet and is totally unavailable outside of the new Mac Pro is so out of date it makes me want to vomit.

 

[drlunanerd]

in a single Processor configuration, not much, but the regular core i7 doesn't do dual procs.

I'm assuming (hoping) hat apple will drop the price once these puppies get out into the wild and the fab yield gets to be higher. Why do you think apple gets these chips first? Apple doesn't need as many chips as a dell would, and Apple computers can command the premium that these chips require. Once the retail channel fills up with these new XEONS, I'd expect the price to drop by a grand at least.

I'd like to believe that but I don't think Apple will about-face and lop a grand off these any time soon. Not their style, recession or no recession.

 

[drlunanerd]

You know, you are so right. A chip that the manufacturer has not even streeted yet and is totally unavailable outside of the new Mac Pro is so out of date it makes me want to vomit.

No:
iMacs, Mac mini - "lame outdated tech".
Mac Pro = "overpriced".

 

[Architect4122]

I was thinking along the same lines, but upgrading to 2.93 is 20% more expensive for a 10% increase in speed.

So there is a base 10% increase in speed in multicore applications.

What can 2.93 reach if it shuts down other cores?

 

[drlunanerd]

This is what worries me the most with the new lineup. I am ready to drop the money when it becomes available, but the choices are harsh. Not the mention that to get the higher than 8GB, which is somewhat a standard option on workstation class machines... not the full 8GB, but the option to go higher, you'll have to fork out $900 more dollars.

Doesn't seem like much, but then you'll want that 2.66 octo over the 2.26, so that's another $1400....

This is why I'm confused. Theoretically faster processor and new tech, but limited RAM, or older but still suitable tech and more RAM?

What the hell? Someone must have hacked my MR account cos I didn't post that!

Oh well.... <logs in as Digital Skunk>

Right, that's it I made my mind up. I'm ditching the Mac and getting a Dell. Oh, and I'm dumping all my Nikon gear and going pure BenQ point 'n shoot. Goddamn it there's a recession on people!!