last chance dissuasion, buying '09 2.26 Octad 2moro

[ekoe]

I've enjoyed following all the Nehalem Mac Pro discussions here the past couple weeks. Regardless, I've not been convinced to purchase an '08 2.8 Harpertown Mac Pro Octad over an '09 2.26 Nehalem Mac Pro Octad despite prevailing opinion of regarding value per performance.

I'm building an edit suite. This will be my first Mac Pro. I'll be using FCS2 FCP6, Motion and Color, as well as CS4 and Soundtrack, possibly Shake.

The '09 2.26 octad with 4870 is the most I can afford at the moment since I have other hardware peripherals to purchase in this build. The '08 2.8 octad upgraded to similar spec comes in only £400 cheaper. I want something I can build on, and possibly upgrade, to remain fully competent for a good few years (~4-5 hopefully).

I'm prepared to call this Apple specialist video systems specifier tomorrow and close the deal. Any dissenters? I still have a finger on an '08 2.8 octad... last chance to convince me I'd be better of with the 2.8 octad.

Likewise, I'd appreciate any feedback regarding why the '09 2.26 octad might be a better choice.

 

[jjahshik32]

I've enjoyed following all the Nehalem Mac Pro discussions here the past couple weeks. Regardless, I've not been convinced to purchase an '08 2.8 Harpertown Mac Pro Octad over an '09 2.26 Nehalem Mac Pro Octad despite prevailing opinion of regarding value per performance.

I'm building an edit suite. This will be my first Mac Pro. I'll be using FCS2 FCP6, Motion and Color, as well as CS4 and Soundtrack, possibly Shake.

The '09 2.26 octad with 4870 is the most I can afford at the moment since I have other hardware peripherals to purchase in this build. The '08 2.8 octad upgraded to similar spec comes in only £400 cheaper. I want something I can build on, and possibly upgrade, to remain fully competent for a good few years (~4-5 hopefully).

I'm prepared to call this Apple specialist video systems specifier tomorrow and close the deal. Any dissenters? I still have a finger on an '08 2.8 octad... last chance to convince me I'd be better of with the 2.8 octad.

Likewise, I'd appreciate any feedback regarding why the '09 2.26 octad might be a better choice.

Get the 2.26GHz Octad and forget the 2.8GHz last gen.

Reasons why:

1) Newer technology still not tapped into yet. Future software will utilize them fully.
2) QuickPath Interconnect technology.
3) 40% less latency compared to previous gen.
4) Already outperforms a 3.2GHz 8 core last gen model.
5) Still not much said about turbo boost which is a huge plus.
6) 2x faster memory speed in the Nehalem as to the previous gen 8 cores.
7) Optical drive is now SATA cable instead of the ide cable on the last gen.
8) When snow leopard hits, the Nehalem could see a HUGE boost in performance and other softwares too.
9) Better resale value to sell if your upgrading a few years later to the new precious.

 

[IainH]

Sorry this isnt of much use to the thread - but OMG FINALLY A MENTION OF SHAKE ON HERE.

I was thinking this place was for audiophiles only.

 

[IainH]

I just ordered mine, so if that isnt an insentive to get yours, I dont know what is!

 

[stix666]

Well I ended up going for a mac mini (for now)

By the time I genuinely need a mac pro (about a year), I suspect the price of the 2.26 octad will be down by the price of a mini. I also suspect the performance gains for the new architecture will be well and truly established as the software gets optimised to utilise all those new features.

 

[amoergosum]

I'm going to order a '09 2.26 octad with the ATI card today or tomorrow (for FCP and PS CS4).

 

[PowerPaw]

Mine arrives today (apparently) with 12GB - go with the latest technology, this is a significant purchase and don't think Apple didn't spend the time on getting the right balance of CPU options with the previous generation in mind.

At issue here is everyone had expected a 2.66GHz entry level 8 core system and resetting those expectations coupled with the price increase has been difficult for many of us to accept.

The 2.8GHz represents the best price performance if you can get one and if you are OK with last generation HW however.

 

[MCHR]

At issue here is everyone had expected a 2.66GHz entry level 8 core system and resetting those expectations coupled with the price increase has been difficult for many of us to accept.

The 2.8GHz represents the best price performance if you can get one and if you are OK with last generation HW however.

+1

Without berating that point, the 2.66 should have been offered at the pricing of the 2.26. It's as though Apple started offering too many options (five MPs this release, WTF?), in addition to the departure in architecture. No wonder many of us are waiting, comparing and deliberating on the machines and pricing.

 

[PowerPaw]

The options are indeed bewildering however I was set on an 8 core and needed to stop procrastinating and take action. The older generation was definitely an option but as I didn't believe I would ever notice the difference between the 3.2GHz 2008 vs the 2.26GHz 2009 I went for the newer technology.

Over the time I'm going to keep the box and the relative performance differences, the decision was really not all that hard to make in the end except I can't boast about the size... I mean the speed of my clock and I think for many that is the stem of the issue

All the Mac Pros are going to be fast, they just get more and more stupidly expensive as the clock size... I mean speed increases.

 

[seadragon]

2009 Octo Mac Pros:

2.26 upgraded to 2.66 = 18% faster clock speed for 44% more money.
2.26 upgraded to 2.93 = 30% faster clock speed for 82% more money!

 

[twig16]

I've enjoyed following all the Nehalem Mac Pro discussions here the past couple weeks. Regardless, I've not been convinced to purchase an '08 2.8 Harpertown Mac Pro Octad over an '09 2.26 Nehalem Mac Pro Octad despite prevailing opinion of regarding value per performance.

I'm building an edit suite. This will be my first Mac Pro. I'll be using FCS2 FCP6, Motion and Color, as well as CS4 and Soundtrack, possibly Shake.

The '09 2.26 octad with 4870 is the most I can afford at the moment since I have other hardware peripherals to purchase in this build. The '08 2.8 octad upgraded to similar spec comes in only £400 cheaper. I want something I can build on, and possibly upgrade, to remain fully competent for a good few years (~4-5 hopefully).

I'm prepared to call this Apple specialist video systems specifier tomorrow and close the deal. Any dissenters? I still have a finger on an '08 2.8 octad... last chance to convince me I'd be better of with the 2.8 octad.

Likewise, I'd appreciate any feedback regarding why the '09 2.26 octad might be a better choice.

If you use that 400 quid for 16GB of RAM and some faster HD's to software RAID, you end up with a much faster system with the 2008 model.

 

[jjahshik32]

2009 Octo Mac Pros:

2.26 upgraded to 2.66 = 18% faster clock speed for 44% more money.
2.26 upgraded to 2.93 = 30% faster clock speed for 82% more money!

Sounds like the 2.26GHz is the one to buy, especially considering that in most cases its faster than the 3.2GHz of last gen and being cheaper compared to it as well.

I'm seriously considering picking up the 2.26GHz today.

 

[twig16]

Sounds like the 2.26GHz is the one to buy, especially considering that in most cases its faster than the 3.2GHz of last gen and being cheaper compared to it as well.
.

Again, more nonsense from you. Absolutely 100% untrue. Go away.

 

[jjahshik32]

Again, more nonsense from you. Absolutely 100% untrue. Go away.

In most cases it is faster than the 3.2GHz model. So I think you need to be the one to go away.

 

[KBS756]

In most cases it is faster than the 3.2GHz model. So I think you need to be the one to go away.

think that geekbench chart says it all even if in real world it isnt the fastest yet the way software will be written in the future it will definitely be better for one to buy a new nehalem mac pro over a 3.2 prev gen. That said once i arange finances (about 2k short ... just need to finish one more web development job) ima going to go all out 2.93ghz octo with student ADC. Since i can only use that discount once im making sure its somethin i can use for a good time to come for my work. (even though yes i know 2.93 is overkill but when it comes time to sell hopefully will sell easier)

 

[rylin]

(even though yes i know 2.93 is overkill but when it comes time to sell hopefully will sell easier)

Eh, high-end equipment loses value faster.

 

[ekoe]

Just as an update... I didn't make a purchase today because I have some vendors competing on price and I'm awaiting qoutes. The configuration I'm looking at is the 2.26GHz with 8GB RAM (4x2GB modules) in preparation to upgrade to 12GB RAM (6x2GB modules) 'sweet spot' that BareFeats discovered.
The 64-bit Geekbench results are very interesting, but if I remember correctly, the 3.2GHz 08 did beat the 2.26GHz in other tests. That doesn't deter me. I think the 2.26GHz is more affordable (I can't even locate a 3.2GHz 08 octad), and I think it will prove faster as future apps emerge. Also, in a couple years I'm going to begin stalking for a pair of upgrade CPUs, so there's a bit more headroom the 2.26GHz can avail.
Maybe I'll list the lowest vendor qoute here? Would that violate the forum rules, I wonder?

 

[ekoe]

Alright, I'm psyched. I heard back from the vendors and am very pleased with the work of Daniel Tuffin at CypherAMS (http://www.cypherams.com/) in delivering the lowest qoute, well below any advertised pricing I've found. I'll be closing the deal on Monday (it's after hours here in the UK).
The system will consist of:
'09 MP 8-core 2.26GHz, 8GB RAM, 640GB HDD, SD, ATI Radeon 4870
Final Cut Studio 2
Blackmagic Decklink HD Extreme 3 PCIe 4:4:4 video I/O card
1.5TB G-RAID external drive
M-Audio Studiophile AV40 monitor speakers
Wacom Intuos3 A5 tablet
and AppleCare.
CypherAMS installs, configures and tests the system before delivery for a nominal fee.
This is in no way an ad for CypherAMS, but I do recommend anyone in the UK looking to build an edit suite to definitely give them a look see.

 

[Ploki]

Get the 2.26GHz Octad and forget the 2.8GHz last gen.

Reasons why:

1) Newer technology still not tapped into yet. Future software will utilize them fully.
2) QuickPath Interconnect technology.
3) 40% less latency compared to previous gen.
4) Already outperforms a 3.2GHz 8 core last gen model.
5) Still not much said about turbo boost which is a huge plus.
6) 2x faster memory speed in the Nehalem as to the previous gen 8 cores.
7) Optical drive is now SATA cable instead of the ide cable on the last gen.
8) When snow leopard hits, the Nehalem could see a HUGE boost in performance and other softwares too.
9) Better resale value to sell if your upgrading a few years later to the new precious.

you REALLY SHOULD stop spreading your religious disinformational beliefs around the forum
here i fixed it:
1) Newer technology still not tapped into yet. Future software will utilize them fully.
leopard is 06 mac pro old, future software has yet to utilize current hardware..

2) QuickPath Interconnect technology.
3) 40% less latency compared to previous gen.
summed to the same point: faster hardware bus.

4) Already outperforms a 3.2GHz 8 core last gen model.
benchmarks differ on this one.

5) Still not much said about turbo boost which is a huge plus.
it disables other cores, for someone craving for multithreading this might not be a plus + it generates more heat.

6) ~1.2-1.5x faster memory speed in the Nehalem as to the previous gen 8 cores.
memory is not 2times faster.
800x2 =1600mhz
nehalem = 1033 and 1333 mhz not really 2 times.

7) Optical drive is now SATA cable instead of the ide cable on the last gen.
this is really not such a big deal, you can connect a SATA drive on the 08 gen

8) When snow leopard hits, EVERY octo WILL see A boost in performance and other softwares too.

9) Better resale value to sell if your upgrading a few years later to the new precious.
this however holds completely true.

TO THE OP:
great choice, great machine! im sure it will serve you great.
dont count on CPU upgrades tho, these dont drop prices very often
peculiar choice of speakers though but anyway, congratulations!

 

[ekoe]

The M-Audio Studiophile AV40 have been reviewed well (five stars from MacWorld) and they're very affordable.
http://www.maudio.co.uk/news/en_gb-1175.html
I know they're consumer and all, but I just need something decent. I can't afford to spend £500 on a pair of professional near-field monitors right this moment.
I hope I can live with them.

 

[Ploki]

im yet to find a pleasant sounding nearfield... i imagine they would be a tad weak on the bass-side.
Tascam VLX5 perhaps? 2x the price though.

 

[Jouhne]

6) ~1.2-1.5x faster memory speed in the Nehalem as to the previous gen 8 cores.
memory is not 2times faster.
800x2 =1600mhz
nehalem = 1033 and 1333 mhz not really 2 times.

Please everyone do your search before... The Nehalem Xeon got the same QPI/memory architecture than Core i7 right ? So ...

QPI:
From a technical point of view, a QPI link is bidirectional and has two 20-bit links—one in each direction—of which 16 are reserved for data; the four others are used for error detection codes or protocol functions. This works out to a maximum of 6.4 GT/s (billion transfers per second), or a usable bandwidth of 12.8 GB/s, both read and write.

FSB:
The FSB on the most recent Intel processors operates at a maximum clock frequency of 400 MHz, and address transfers need two clock cycles (200 MT/s) whereas data transfers operate in QDR mode, with a bandwidth of 1.6 GT/s. With its 64-bit width, the FSB also has a total bandwidth of 12.8 GB/s, but it’s usable for writing or reading.

So a QPI link has a theoretical bandwidth that’s up to twice as high, provided reads and writes are well balanced. In a theoretical case consisting of reads only or writes only, the bandwidth would be identical to that of the FSB. However, you have to keep in mind that the FSB was used both for memory access and for all transfers of data to peripherals or between processors. With Nehalem, a QPI link will be exclusively dedicated to transfers of data to peripherals, with memory transfers handled by the integrated controller and inter-CPU communications in multi-socket configurations by another QPI link.

3) 40% less latency compared to previous gen.
summed to the same point: faster hardware bus.

The advantage of an integrated memory controller isn’t just a matter of bandwidth. It also substantially lowers memory access latency.

More here.

 

[Ploki]

why did you quote me on Memory speed and then talk about bus speed?
QPI is nothing more than another instance of hardware bus, it has replaced FSB. i was talking about memory stick speeds not QPI speed.
because that "memory speed" in my understanding, the whole memory+architecture combination sits under the term "memory throughput" usually.

please elaborate the maximum FSB being 400mhz or show me a source because i know my mac pro says it has a 1600mhz FSB, so i dont know if we are talking about two different things or?

and the second quote:
yes, i realize that, thats the "architecture" advantage (QPI, i should have written BETTEr not faster.), but what i was trying to say with that is that all the things that make nehalem better wont be MORE better with a new OS because most of the benefits are hardware nature, not software nature.

ugh, what you get down the line is the apples advertised 2.4x better memory throughput compared to the previous model, but this is all due to QPI replacing FSB, and no OS will enhance/change/whatever that, which was my point.
if you go over my post again you should notice that i didnt mistakes you quoted me for i did my homework and i did read up on both architectures..

 

[Jouhne]

please elaborate the maximum FSB being 400mhz or show me a source because i know my mac pro says it has a 1600mhz FSB, so i dont know if we are talking about two different things or?

It's in my post QDR. 4 x 400 MHz = 1600.

I don't think that snowleo will make advantage of 0,00001% of Mac Pro '09 users. It will loose some fat but it will be for all Macintosh. Maybe in 3 or 5 years we'll see the results of GC and OpenCL. Yes I'm talking to you Adobe.

 

[Ploki]

It's in my post QDR. 4 x 400 MHz = 1600.

I don't think that snowleo will make advantage of 0,00001% of Mac Pro '09 users. It will loose some fat but it will be for all Macintosh. Maybe in 3 or 5 years we'll see the results of GC and OpenCL. Yes I'm talking to you Adobe.

my bad, went too fast through it. "quad pumping"
about GC, it would be nice that apple took advantage of it too (logic LOGIC)