Just got my Mac Pro 6-Core but it's sluggish!

[LEOMODE]

This is the OP.

I've finally finished installing all the programs and tried to run the programs typically and guess what:

They run much much faster and the speed is phenomenal! I can say that it is not as fast as SSD on a MBP, but I would say it's as close as 80-90% of the SSD speed. Bootup time is faster, clicking the icon is about 1-2bounces, and all the other programs that I run open up and close very fast.

I know it's mainly because of the CPU, motherboard, graphic card, and 10GB RAM (upgraded) that are also the main factors in helping boosting up, but comparing with my MBP overall, it is much faster! not to mention the multi-tasking is just crazy. I used to run 4 spaces on MBP and sometimes choking, now I run 6 spaces and still smooth as a butter.

So here is my final configuration:

3.33ghz 6core
10GB 1333mhz RAM (4x4x2x2 all Samsung)
1TB 7200rpm HDD
ATI Radeon 5870 1GB VGA

For the cause of my post on the sluggishness, I would say that it was the RAM problem.
Because installing programs even now writing this with new 10GB, the program does not lag at all.
So people who is looking for Mac Pro for personal use, I would say that upgrading RAM is impeccable.
Because 3GB or even 6GB won't hold it in my opinion. I'll say at least 8GB.

I've never tried Quad core 2.8 or 3.2 but I would say if you upgrade your RAM to 8GB, other MP will be enough also!
(Most of my programs that I use do not use all cores yet, although I bought it for future-proof)

 

[philipma1957]

I have the quad2.8 it is very nice with 3 sticks of 4gb ram for a total of 12gb

 

[JulianBoolean]

OP -

Glad you saw the light. The 6 core is indeed smoking fast. Much of the speed issue is matter of perception based on the last computer you had.

To illustrate a longer term historical (speed) perspective, I can share some of my speed testing with you. I downloaded the actions to run Lloyd Chambers Photoshop Huge File test. I ran the test on my four 2006 MPs at work. The results were dramatic when compared to the current crop of apple offerings. A pimped out imac (16GB ram, 2x SSD Scratch & Apps) which, by the way, has the longest time recorded on LLoyd Chambers Site completes that test in 500 Seconds - 8 Minutes, 33 seconds. My 2006 MP running CS4, 12GB of Ram and a 2x Mechanical HD RAID 0 Scratch disk completes that test in 2,852 Seconds, or 47.5 Minutes! Two of the four MPs at work have slightly slower clock speeds, and only a 1x HD for scratch. Those two never even completed the test. The apple script that runs the test timed out!

Those of us who have been working with macs for very long time, or are upgrading less frequently, are witnessing dramatic generational advancements in speed. Those that are looking from a very short term perspective based on something they had six months ago, are sometimes not appreciative of those huge speed increases.

Btw... I charted out the test results, that compared a pimped out imac to my four aging 2006 MPs, took them into the front office, and the agency is purchasing 4 new MP retouching stations, ASAP, configured anyway I wish.

-Julian

 

[brentsg]

I would say that upgrading RAM is impeccable.
Because 3GB or even 6GB won't hold it in my opinion. I'll say at least 8GB.

6GB is more than enough for most people. I do a ton of multitasking and use virtual machines a lot, and I've never felt any negative impact from 6GB. I think it's the sweet spot unless you utilize programs which are known to benefit from gobs of RAM.

 

[scottsjack]

6GB is more than enough for most people. I do a ton of multitasking and use virtual machines a lot, and I've never felt any negative impact from 6GB. I think it's the sweet spot unless you utilize programs which are known to benefit from gobs of RAM.

Au contraire. I run Activity Monitor with the dock icon set to the RAM pie-chart on my 2010 3.2 quad with 12GB of OWC RAM. With Photoshop CS5 doing something serious and Aperture 3 open the green free memory slice of pie becomes a tiny Weight Watchers slice. If Eye-TV is also running it's pretty much gone. I'm debating buying one more 4GB stick.

 

[reel2reel]

Au contraire. I run Activity Monitor with the dock icon set to the RAM pie-chart on my 2010 3.2 quad with 12GB of OWC RAM. With Photoshop CS5 doing something serious and Aperture 3 open the green free memory slice of pie becomes a tiny Weight Watchers slice. If Eye-TV is also running it's pretty much gone. I'm debating buying one more 4GB stick.

I wouldn't go less than 12 for the Hex.

 

[hugodrax]

I never understood why someone would pay so much for a castrated mac pro with half the memory slots and once CPU unit and only 3gb of ram.

A iMac would be the better buy.

 

[Hellhammer]

I never understood why someone would pay so much for a castrated mac pro with half the memory slots and once CPU unit and only 3gb of ram.

A iMac would be the better buy.

iMac's upgradeability is a joke. You can upgrade RAM, that's it. With Mac Pro, you can upgrade pretty much everything. CPU(s), GPU(s), RAM, hard drives, SSDs, PCIe cards... The list is nearly endless. IMO that's the #1 why people choose Mac Pro over iMac. It's more "future-proof" because you're not stuck with the specs it originally came with.

Also, not everyone wants the glossy 27" display. I've seen a lot people paying the extra for Mac Pro because they can't stand the glossy display. For color accurate work, an antiglare monitor is almost a must.

On a side note, there is no 6-core available for iMac so people who need/want more than a quad core, their only option is Mac Pro.