Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is a used 2006 Mac Pro better than a used 2008?

C

Chris7

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
396
0
Lost in Thought
(Edit: I posted a followup question -- #33)

Considering buying a used Mac Pro.

I'm wondering if there is any reason to buy a 2008 2.8 GHz 4-core vs. a 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core.

From what I can tell, the performance (speed) is nearly identical (except for faster RAM on the 2008 model). Is this correct?

Are the 2006 and 2007 4-core models both two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5100 series processors?

What kind of maintenance or other problems should I expect? Would I be in better shape in this regard with the 2008 model? I would expect to have the computer no more than 3 years.

This would be my first Mac Pro, so any advice is appreciated.

(As a side question, when was the first 8-core Mac Pro introduced? I thought it was 2007, but the mac archives has it in the same link as the August 2006 Mac Pro http://support.apple.com/specs/#desktopcomputers)
 
1. Not much of a speed difference but some.
2. The 2.8 is a bit faster due to faster FSB and ram.
3. 2006 uses 5100 series (woodcrest), 2007 uses 5300 (clovertown).
4. About the same maintenance but the 2008 runs cooler.
I have a 2006 and a 2008. Both are fine machines. The 2008 uses a smaller chip size so runs cooler. Cost would be your deciding factor. The 2006 quad can be upgraded to 8 cores later, which I have done.
 
Get the 2008. Apple screwed over the 2006 and 2007 models with the EFI32 firmware, and there's no official support for any video cards that don't suck.
 
what bearcat said. it should come down to price. Because of what grue said, if the prices are pretty close, I'd go with the 2008. and, for what it's worth, i have a 2006 mac pro. Nothing wrong with it, i love it actually. But, faster RAM, faster FSB, and more support for vid cards make the 2008 a more attractive choice if it isn't much more expensive.
 
Chris7 said:
(As a side question, when was the first 8-core Mac Pro introduced? I thought it was 2007, but the mac archives has it in the same link as the August 2006 Mac Pro http://support.apple.com/specs/#desktopcomputers)
Click to expand...

The first octo was introduced in April 2007. It was a BTO option added to the 2006 models. Technically it was the addition of the quad core 5365 Clovertown to the two dual core Woodcrest (5130 and 5150) CPU specs. Everything else stayed the same. That is why officially there never was a 2007 model and you find the Cloverdale octo in the 2006 specs. http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30
 
grue said:
Get the 2008. Apple screwed over the 2006 and 2007 models with the EFI32 firmware, and there's no official support for any video cards that don't suck.
Click to expand...
Really good point, and would be more of an issue over time IMO. :eek: ;)

Chris7 the '08's can be had at good prices, but patience would be needed, as well as the ability to leap at a moments notice (ready cash flow). ;) :D
 
Chris7 said:
Considering buying a used Mac Pro.

I'm wondering if there is any reason to buy a 2008 2.8 GHz 4-core vs. a 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core.
Click to expand...

I'm considering buying a used BMW.
Would there be a reason to buy a 2008 750 or a 2006 745?

What do you think the answer is? Buy the 2008 750 or the new 2009 750 which recently got refreshed. ;)
 
hope this helps :)
 

Attachments

  • Mac Pro benchmarks.png
    Mac Pro benchmarks.png
    364 KB · Views: 241
gugucom said:
It sucks big time that Apple havn't had the decency to update that firmware.
Click to expand...
Any difference in the flash chip between the '06's and the '08's?

I've not had the ability to get into both to compare, and wondering if it's a capacity issue.
 
Mactracker is good at finding out the various specification for Apple models - if they used a comparison other then Geekbench, it would do fine.
 
Dr.Pants said:
Mactracker is good at finding out the various specification for Apple models - if they used a comparison other then Geekbench, it would do fine.
Click to expand...
Bit of a side note, does it give P/N's for peripheral devices such as audio chipsets, NIC chipsets, and the like (logic board components)?
 
nanofrog said:
gugucom, do you have both to take a look and verify?
I'll search the P/N's if you don't want to. :)
Click to expand...

@ nanofrog: no, I only have a MacPro1,1. I guess that would be easy for an AASP because they get to see stripped logic boards more often.

On a second thought I would find it strange if the main firmware memory on the then new Mac Pro range was designed with such a bottle neck. I mean the EEPROMs they use on logic boards are much bigger than the stuff they do for graphics cards.

Do you know where the EEPROM is located?
 
gugucom said:
@ nanofrog: no, I only have a MacPro1,1. I guess that would be easy for an AASP because they get to see stripped logic boards more often.
Click to expand...
Definitely. :)

I thought you might have access to multiple models. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to any. :eek: :D

I had an '08 briefly, but sent it back due to my needs. RAID in particular, as I run way too many drives for the MP's internals, and external enclosures ate the "bargain" the '08's were, and then some. :rolleyes:

gugucom said:
On a second thought I would find it strange if the main firmware memory on the then new Mac Pro range was designed with such a bottle neck. I mean the EEPROMs they use on logic boards are much bigger than the stuff they do for graphics cards.
Click to expand...
32 bit code is more compact, and they may not have considered going to 64 bit at the time the board was developed. As it's a contract, it may not have been possible to make a shift in mid manufacture either, without loosing on costs (unused EEPROMs for the 32bit code, + cost of larger capacity parts for 64bit + cost of mid production change by Intel).
gugucom said:
Do you know where the EEPROM is located?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, No. :(

I'd have to hunt for it, and assume it would mean "some disassembly required". ;) :p
 
nanofrog said:
Bit of a side note, does it give P/N's for peripheral devices such as audio chipsets, NIC chipsets, and the like (logic board components)?
Click to expand...

No :( I kinda wish it did, now that you mention it; would really like to know if it was Intel or Realtek NIC inside my G5 :p
 
nanofrog said:
:eek: Geekbench? Eww.... ;) :p
Click to expand...

fun173 said:
u meant " Macktracker? Yaa :D "
Click to expand...

Yeah, MacTracker is a little different in that it takes all 1000 scores or however many there are, and averages them all together - and for each model. So it's MUCH more useful than GeekBench alone and almost useful. ;)



gugucom said:
I think you will find there is no official 2006 3.0 GHz 4-core (X5160). That ought to be a thing that people have retrofitted.
Click to expand...

No, that's incorrect. Apple released the 3.0 Quad in Q3 2006. Some 6 or 8 months after they released the other three Intel models.
 
Tesselator said:
Yeah, MacTracker is a little different in that it takes all 1000 scores or however many there are, and averages them all together - and for each model. So it's MUCH more useful than GeekBench alone and almost useful. ;)
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of that.

A few crazy people with RAID, and lots of memory (resemble anyone? :eek: ;)), could skew the results enough to frustrate some if their base models don't make the average. :p

Or does it sort those scores out as outliers, and dis-include them in the results?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back