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

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Chris7, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. Chris7 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Lost in Thought
    #1
    (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)
     
  2. bearcatrp macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    Boon Docks USA
    #2
    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.
     
  3. grue macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Somewhere.
    #3
    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.
     
  4. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #4
    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.
     
  5. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #5
    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
     
  6. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #6
    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
     
  7. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  8. hehejames macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    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. ;)
     
  9. Theclamshell macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    #9
    hope this helps :)
     

    Attached Files:

  10. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #10
    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.
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    :eek: Geekbench? Eww.... ;) :p
     
  12. OZMP macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
  13. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #13
    EFI32 vs EFI64 is serious for grafics. It sucks big time that Apple havn't had the decency to update that firmware.
     
  14. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Theclamshell macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    #15
    u meant " Macktracker? Yaa :D "
     
  16. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #16
    Thats an idea!
     
  17. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    I was looking at the part that said "Primate Labs" = Geekbench. ;) :D

    gugucom, do you have both to take a look and verify?
    I'll search the P/N's if you don't want to. :)
     
  18. Theclamshell macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    #18
    ik lol
     
  19. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #19
    Mactracker is good at finding out the various specification for Apple models - if they used a comparison other then Geekbench, it would do fine.
     
  20. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #20
    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)?
     
  21. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #21
    @ 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?
     
  22. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #22
    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:

    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).
    Unfortunately, No. :(

    I'd have to hunt for it, and assume it would mean "some disassembly required". ;) :p
     
  23. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #23
    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
     
  24. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #24
    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. ;)



    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.
     
  25. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #25
    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?
     

Share This Page