Intel Xeon Processor E5-1620 v2 cheap?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dollystereo, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. dollystereo macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #1
  2. ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #2
    It's better than an i7-4770; a more apt Xeon comparison to that on a pure performance basis is the E3-1230 V2/V3. The value on a price/perf level of the Mac Pro was never in the entry level models either. If you're getting a nMP, you're going to want a higher spec processor.
     
  3. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #3
  4. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #4
    I remember the old days in 2008 when dual-cpu 8core was standard...
    Can we put the new E5-v2 cpus in the old 2010-2012 mac pro?
     
  5. JavaTheHut macrumors 6502

    JavaTheHut

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #6
    Why? Some people only need the E5-1620 V2 and Apple have offered this level of CPU since 2009. What you really want is a cheaper Mac Pro and that is a different argument.
     
  7. ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #7
    If you aren't getting a higher end model, you probably don't need more threads so four cores at those clock speeds are sufficient. As another posted mentioned, your gripe seems not to be the capabilities of this CPU, but simply that the base Mac Pro isn't cheaper. What Apple is charging and what you get is far from unreasonable.

    Also, there have always been single socket Mac Pros, so your latter assertion is false. The only difference between those and the dual sockets were the CPU/RAM daughterboard trays.
     
  8. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #8
    I think the 2999 model should be 2499, or have the 6-core as standard.

    ----------

    Yes, but I dont like the fact that the entry model has a CPU so weak. Performance wise is equivalent to a i7 4770. Price-wise is cheaper than a 4770.
    I really think the base model is over-priced. I am sure they will upgrade the base model in some months to a better CPU. I think I will skip this revision. My i7 mac mini is holding good.
     
  9. vladi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    #9
    Well CPU options in NMP are something left to be desired. None of CPUs offered are high performance versions of Xeons. I'm not even going to comment on quad since that is absolutely a waste of money as there are better performing i7
     
  10. ybz90, Dec 20, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013

    ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #10
    That's my point though -- it's not "weak" per se. As I pointed out earlier, it is superior to a 4770 and bulk OEM pricing is not a valid comparison to marked up consumer prices. And these prices are more or less in line with the industry, it's not just Apple. While you are entitled to you spend your money however you please, the Mac Pro is probably not aimed at you in particular. The people who buy the base nMP are those who don't need that much CPU power but want the dual GPU configuration. Those who need more threads buy a better processor.

    Workstations have never been a "good value" on a performance to price analysis because a lot of what you pay for isn't in the computer itself; it's intangibles such as build quality, reliability, customer support, and drivers. You're buying a pro computer. You're going to pay the pro price.

    I have to ask though. Why do you want such a powerful CPU? Is it because you don't feel you're getting what you pay for in the base model (because as I said, you're never going to get a good value out of a workstation)? If you're getting by fine with an i7 Mac Mini, you probably don't need this kind of CPU power anyway and the base Pro should be way more powerful than your needs. Additionally, the 6-core isn't actually faster per core, it just has two more. If your tasks aren't threaded to use those extra cores, they're useless to you.
     
  11. Quash macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #11
    You don't buy a quad core mac pro for it's CPU performance though. Even thought it's quite a bit quicker than my mini. The quad core is there for people who only need a fast couple of cores with a lot of GPU performance.
     
  12. spaz8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #12
    A lot of people B*tch and moan about wanting an i7 mac headless :) Just @ $1500.

    I can agree though, I thought the base config would be a 6 core for the $3K.. and come with 16 gigs of ram. Alas, my MP 1,1 came with 2x512mb sticks.

    I was hoping for a 6-8-10-12 proc lineup though.
     
  13. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #13
    I have a HP z820. I do math. So CPU is important. (Reading right now some open CL programming to see what can be done).
    Anyway, for graphics intensive apps, we will have to see. Final Cut was a heavy CPU-bound software anyway.
    I would love to have the option to choose between dual CPU or dual GPU. A 12 core (dual hex) is way cheaper than a 12-core single chip. i would probably get 2 of this machines, but the hex ones. I just complain that that should be the base model.
     
  14. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #14
    Well that's certainly not true.
     
  15. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #15
    The quad is roughly a 4770, but the other CPUs (hex, 8core and 12core) are better.
     
  16. vladi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    #16
    Yes there are better performing octa and hexa Xeons you can buy right now. I don't know bout 12 because I don't care as that CPU alone is slower than all the others if more than 8 cores are not working.
     
  17. ybz90, Dec 20, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013

    ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #17
    I based my reply on you saying you would keep using your i7 Mac Mini, which implies that's what you'd be replacining with your Mac Pro, not a HP workstation. Also, the hex as base model is unrealistic and doesn't make sense. It's silly to have it be base when there are customers who don't need or want it and those who do can simply upgrade. It's also nonsensical from a microeconomic perspective as far as maximizing profits.

    And you are right; 2x6 is more cost effective than 1x12, but if that's really your concern, and you already have a non-Mac workstation that seems to work well, why get a Mac Pro at all? Just get another HP.

    ----------

    They are only better because they have more threads. They do not perform better on a per-core basis. For the 8-core and up, they arguably perform worse due to reduced turbo. If you don't need the threads, they don't benefit you at all. There are people who don't need more than four cores, so why should Apple make the 6-core base?

    Would I love it if Apple did? Sure, but that doesn't make any sense and I would never expect them to. I just feel like your complaints are based on your needs and a sense of "value", not the market as a whole. It's like me saying Apple should just include a 1TB SSD because 256GB SSD's are cheap (I'd argue they should do a 512 standard for real but that's a different story).
     
  18. dollystereo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #18
    Good answer. I just find the Base model overpriced. When I got my 2008 mac pro (8 core), It felt right. I would really like to be able to choose between 2 processors or 2 GPUs. For them, it's the same price. (1proc=1GPU). Generally speaking, have another CPU is more useful than having dual GPUs.
     

Share This Page