Is £690 a good price for a '06 2g Pro?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by lovehaight, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. lovehaight macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #1
    I am worried because it does not run 64 bit natively..any ideas?
     
  2. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #2
    The price is right and there are work arounds for the Windows 64-bit problem.
     
  3. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #3
    That sounds like a bargain. What processors and how much RAM?

    It'll run 64-bit processes and applications just fine. It's only the EFI that's 32-bit, as far as I'm aware, and that's out of the way once it's booted.

    What has windows got to do with it?

    Do you mean this problem. I suppose there are a couple of workarounds. I use OS X.

    :confused:
     
  4. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #4
    the machine is custom 2gz zeon 4g Ram.......No the problem is Snow Leop..I have been told it will not run 64 bit natively only 32...my concern is that all future updates and apps from mac will no doubt be made for native 64...some have said it's not an issue, but my friend (mac buff) says 'they can think that if they want'...as I am running powerbook g4 at the moment I am sure it will be a huge improvement, however I would like some opinions on whether it might be better to spend a little more and get a core2 laptop, or similiar, or if this really is a good deal, and I will be happy for a couple years...
     
  5. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #5
    Well, a 2006 Mac Pro has EFI32 firmware which indeed will prevent the use of a 64-bit Snow Leopard kernel. It will not prevent the use of 64-bit apps though. The restriction is less than ideal but it will not be significant for anybody who is likely to run the machine with just 2-8 GB RAM. It will probably become more of a restriction in 3 or 4 years time when OS X is two generation further developed and people will routinely run something like 32 or 48 GB of RAM. The machine will be 8 years old then and will probably have earned the money you are paying now. I would go for it if I had the offer and be in your position.
     
  6. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #6
    thank you..so you think its better than going for a laptop with core 2?
     
  7. iamcheerful macrumors 6502

    iamcheerful

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    #7
    what are you looking for in a system?
    value purchase?
    portability?
    expandability?
    neatness (goes a few ways ... small footprint or all hdds in a system etc)?

    bottom line - satisfy your needs by getting what you want ... mmm ... or should it be 'satisfy your wants by getting what you need'. ok, i'm as confused as you are.

    p.s. i hope you get what i'm driving at with the above comment. keep us posted on your decision.

    p.p.s. my personal TiPB G4 400MHz lasted me till first quarter 2008 before i was forced to get a new system. i went with a mac pro 2008 (a slower coach as compared to the current systems, specifically the i7 systems, but she serves my needs and wants and probably will con't serving me well for another 5+ years, fingers & toes crossed).

    i was thinking in the most simplified manner. 8-core system, 1-core per year, it keeps my head from aching. :)
     
  8. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #8
    A 2006 MP and a Core Duo Laptop are not comparable at all. The laptop has portability and nothing else, no 64-bit, little RAM, no expansion, poor graphics.

    The 2006 MP will run OS X with 64-bit apps, MS Windows 64-bit, quad CPUs, octad CPUs, massiv 16/32 GB RAM, up to six HDD and SSDs, two optical drives, modern graphics (ATI HD 4870). In terms of performance you can expect the MP to outperform the laptop by a factor of 10 or 20, depending of upgrades.
     
  9. akadmon macrumors 68010

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    New England
    #9
    Woah! Aren't you overselling the MP a little (a lot, actually!)? I have access to my kids two top of the line MBPs (early 2008 and the current model), and while my MP is clearly snappier, it's nowhere near 5 times faster for any task, let alone 10 or 20 times faster :eek:

    OP, if you don't require portability, you will be quite happy with the 2006 MP for at least the next 3 years. Just give it plenty of RAM (which is a lot less expensive these days than it was 3 years ago when I got my MP) and fill up your HD bays. The price is right,
     
  10. Billydelp4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #10
    +1. Agreed. I am all about the mac pro but 10-20 seems a bit steep. I was looking at some geekbench scores which put 2008 macbook pros around 3000. I know my mac pro pushes 11,000. thats almost 4x...

    Billy
     
  11. iamcheerful macrumors 6502

    iamcheerful

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    #11
    i wonder how steve will reply ... allow me to speculate (based on a recent report of what apparently is steve's reply)

    should go something like this i believe ...
    "Get both. Not that big of a deal.

    Steve

    Sent from my iPhone"

    lol, the signature will almost be as long as the e-mail itself.
     
  12. iamcheerful macrumors 6502

    iamcheerful

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    #12
    with respect to graphics (or maybe gaming to be specific), i can find it believable if the 10 to 20 times if we're talking about is compared to a core2 with a pathetic integrated low end graphic card option.

    when we couple the poor graphics option and a slower hdd ...

    well, with all the above said, i also believe that what i am comparing is simply maxing out the mac pro and skimping on the portable. not a fair comparison at all.

    so let's just compare out of the box experience with the macs of 2006, it definitely will not be 10-20x more powerful. more powerful yes, but probably within 10x (it is definitely a stretch to even say 10)

    all said, to our dear TS, lovehaight, ask yourself again what you are after and make a purchase base on that. if you are determine to make the 64-bit native your main worry no-matter-what ... then get a mac that is 64-bit native.

    just list out what you are after then allow the mac community to share their experiences.
     
  13. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #13
    I have a 2007 Mac Pro with a pair of 2.66 GHz quad-core processors fitted. I also have a 2.93 GHz 2009 Macbook Pro 17. Both are running Snowy at their respective defaults.

    There's no comparison. As soon as I am running anything in the background, my "old" Mac Pro eats my lappy for breakfast.

    In your shoes, depending on your requirements for multi-tasking, I'd snap up that Mac Pro and look around for a pair of 2.66 or 3.0 GHz processors, either duals or preferably quads, according to budget.
     
  14. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #14
    I think I will..my understanding is that the processors cannot be upgraded at all (2006) due to design I dont know if thats the case, the person who told me was quite sure..but 2gz should still run decent speeds I assume
     
  15. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #15
    That's bad news about the processors not being upgradable. If only I'd known that before I upgraded mine. The performance gains I've experienced must be an illusion. I'd better put the original ones back!

    Perhaps your friend would like to put this chap right as well.

    </sarcasm>

    2 GHz is quite respectable, though...
     
  16. nightfly13 macrumors 6502a

    nightfly13

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Ranchi, India
    #16
    He's talking about Core Duo, not a 2008 model.

    I think you guys are thinking about the new C2D laptops, which are vastly superior to the original core duo MBP (I had one until recently). That 2006ish vintage machine was capped at 2GB and couldn't do much at 64-bit, irrc.

    I won't get into 10x vs 4x, but both are 2006 vintage machines, and the difference is definitely dramatic.
     
  17. iamcheerful macrumors 6502

    iamcheerful

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    #17
    that's good! it is your very opportunity to ask for a discount on such a model. £580 or less would be a more fair deal. :cool:

    most of us were under the impression that you are getting a mac pro which is possible to upgrade. :D
     
  18. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    They are. Both gugucom and Tesselator have upgraded 2006 machines with dual Quad cores.

    I think 690 quid is a pretty good deal for that machine. If it's not fast enough, grab a little money, put in some decent processors, upgrade the RAM and you get a damn fast machine that will run circles around every Core2Duo MacBook you can get.
     
  19. flatfoot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    #19
    So did bozz2006 and flatfoot...
     
  20. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #20
    I do know what I'm talking about. I owned a max upgraded MP 2006 with 16 GB RAM, a pair of 3,0 GHz X5365 quad CPUs and an SSD RAID0 boot array. The machine also ran Vista64 off an SSD in AHCI mode and scored 22,000 in Cinebench rendering test under Windows multi core.

    For comparison is an old 2006 Intel MacBook laptop with Core Duo CPU, not a modern MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo. As I said before that machine isn't even 64-bit capable and I would be surprised if it can be upgraded beyond 1 GB RAM at all. It came with 512 MB RAM a 1,83 or 2,0 GHz dual core 32-bit CPU that wasn't upgradable and very primitive Intel chipset graphics. Without ever having owned such a machine I would put it somewhere at or around 1000 in Cinebench which explains why I have said that the performance factor can be as different as 10-20 for a max upgraded machine.

    If you carefully look for single threaded benchmarks with 32-bit apps I would still expect a 3,0 GHz Xeon to outperform a 2,0 GHz Core Duo by 50%. Even with the original 2,0 quad CPU the MP should outperform the laptop due to higher memory bandwidth and capacity in any given task. Just the only thing the old MacBook has over a Mac Pro is portability. One more caveat about buying old laptops. Usually the batteries are practically dead and the mechanical stability of the old plastic body was nowhere near to the unibody version that we are used to now.
     
  21. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #21
    thats very good newa..am i correct that the 2gz is the very first mac pro? (custom) so i would definitely be able to upgrade the processer? sorry, i've never even used a pro, but am anxious!
     
  22. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #22
    Yes, that was the very first MP from 2006. The machine was a two socket quad with the cheapest dual core CPUs they did. Usually the machine had two 2,66 dual core CPUs.

    It is very simple to upgrade this machine from two dual core to two quad core CPUs. The problem with those upgrades is getting the server CPUs at a sensible price on the used parts market. The upgrade CPUs go from anywhere like 100 € for a pair of 2,66 GHz dual cores to 1200€ for a pair of 3,0 GHz quad cores. But the higher upgrades sometimes pop up for surprisingly low prices. I got my x3565s for a net cost of 310€ after selling the original CPUs. So patience is often rewarded by nice bargains for those who need to operate on low budget.

    One thing that is for sure. Your MP will beat anything that Apple build before in terms of G4 or G5s in terms of running modern software and stuff like flash. I used to have massive problems with my G5s with h.264 movie playback. No MacPro will ever have that.

    [​IMG]

    Have a look at Tesselator's Cinebench chart. You will find your 2,0 2006 quad and the 2007 octad. The 2007 octad really is the same machine with upgraded CPUs. You will notice the huge advantage of octads over dual core machines when it comes to rendering or handbrake.
     
  23. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #23
    You guys are genius..thank you very much! definitely going for it! can I ask another unrelated question? my powerbookg4 ppc speakers arent working..but my headphone jack is..showing red light in jack...have tried resetting pram, nvram, ensuring midi settings are not muted and at 44.1 and removing and playing with the jack rapidly and restarting the mac then switching my amp off. So far no joy..Cheers
     
  24. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #24
    Glad we could help.

    If you're seeing red light from the headphone socket, it means the optical output is enabled.

    You should be able to sort this out via the "Sound" panel in system preferences or the "Audio MIDI setup"" app in the utilities folder.

    If that doesn't work, you'd be better off posting the question in the powerbook section.
     
  25. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    #25
    no one there can help, figured I'd go to the big boys..tried both your suggestions with no joy....back to the pro, I made a mistake, its not the processor, I meant the EFI , that cant be upgraded can it? what are the realistic future limitations of the ones that come with my model?
     

Share This Page