Mac Pro 2.93Quad Vs 3.2OctRefurb Vs 2.66Oct, what is the best for audio production?

[Ploki]

its used yeah, but still with warranty and "new" looks if nothing else not many used products have a "new" look

 

[Tesselator]

Very true. I've bought a few refurbished computers in the past and it's always been impossible for me to see any use on anything. It's always been identical to brand new. <shrug>

 

[ekwipt]

Now everything is clearer. In brief Audio Softwares (see the note posted by Tesselator of Steinberg) still does not make good on HT systems and ekwipt table clearly shows the superiority of the Mac Pro 2008 ... at this point, my choice would the 3.2Oct refurb at 3700eur!! I tried to find a new 2.8Oct, but are now unavailable! Refurb products are reliable? I saw that you can apply the extension AppleCare and this point agrees to buy and also the case for 3 years remaining quiet.... I think and i hope to make the right choice!

Thank you at all for your valuable suggestions

but i think this will change, there's no way apple will let their new computers be slower than their older ones, a software update on logic will fix this for sure, it's just a matter of time.

I think the Quad 2.93 is the best choice unless you have money to kill

Changed what i'd buy:

MacPro Quad 2.93
Intel X-25M 80Gb SSD
ATI Radeon 4970
Seagate 7200.12 500Gb Samples Drive
Logic Studio

 

[Tesselator]

but i think this will change, there's no way apple will let their new computers be slower than their older ones,

Well they didn't really. They adjusted their price scheduling +$1,000 ~ +$2,700 and then tried to sneak this by us by comparing each unit to the one faster from last year.

So they're basically trying to say that the 2.66 quad in 2009 is about equal to the 2.8 octad from 2008. And for a few specific parts of a few specific apps this may be true. In general of course, it's not true at all. Anyway it seems that this is the logic they're using for their new pricing - by looking at the new machines and the new prices. When (if?) they come out with a 3.2 Nehalem it will be the fastest Mac ever and probably at all things. Until then don't be fooled and compare the number of physical cores and the clocks between machines as common sense would dictate that we should. At least for general use.

Snow Leopard isn't going to change this unless they do something crazy like cripple it when installed on older machines and that just doesn't make any sense. The percentage gains the new machines see will be the same percentage gains we see on all Intel Macs across the board.

 

[select]

At the end, after several searches, i found a new 2.8 at 2500eur .... I have saved a lot and i keep them for a possible new purchase future .... the 3.2 refurb was too expensive and not convenient!

 

[Tesselator]

Congratz man. The 2.8 octad is a wonderful machine! You'll be happy!

 

[nicolasmasset]

Nice one!

 

[Ploki]

but i think this will change, there's no way apple will let their new computers be slower than their older ones, a software update on logic will fix this for sure, it's just a matter of time.

I think the Quad 2.93 is the best choice unless you have money to kill

Changed what i'd buy:

MacPro Quad 2.93
Intel X-25M 80Gb SSD
ATI Radeon 4970
Seagate 7200.12 500Gb Samples Drive
Logic Studio

wont be slower, but wont be significantly faster either, and i very much doubt that quad 2.93 will be faster than 2.8x8 for audio.

to the OP:
congrats

 

[ekwipt]

wont be slower, but wont be significantly faster either, and i very much doubt that quad 2.93 will be faster than 2.8x8 for audio.

to the OP:
congrats

Nehalem ram is a lot lower latency than the fbdimm. When logic is able to handle HT, i think it will pawn the older 2.8 octos, especially for heavy sample users (EXS or BFD etc.) when using a lot of effects the newer Nehalem design will help too.

 

[Tesselator]

When logic is able to handle HT, i think it will pawn the older 2.8 octos,

I don't. Nope, not at all. Also I think the question is not when but if. This issue hasn't been resolved in the past 6 or 7 years on PeeCee. Bios options have had to be used to turn off HT. And if Apple offers the same solution (and I think they might have to) then not only will they "not be significantly faster" they will actually be near identical to clock/core comparisons from 2008 or previous.

 

[blackcrayon]

I don't. Nope, not at all. Also I think the question is not when but if. This issue hasn't been resolved in the past 6 or 7 years on PeeCee. Bios options have had to be used to turn off HT. And if Apple offers the same solution (and I think they might have to) then not only will they "not be significantly faster" they will actually be near identical to clock/core comparisons from 2008 or previous.

Perhaps but I'd like to think that Apple, who wrote the OS, the application (in this case anyway with Logic), AND designed the hardware- would be able to figure out how to make HT work properly... None of the PC vendors would've been able to claim even 2 of any of those 3 parts of the equation.

 

[Infrinjensen]

I have the 1st gen Mac Pro 2.66 quad, and I want to make it faster and able to handle more with protools 8 without buying another computer... Is there a way to upgrade the processor/cores to that of the 2008 2.8 octo that everyone raves about? Will I notice that much of a difference with a 2.8 over the 2.66? I already know I'm gonna get 4 more GB ram. I like to stack lots of plug-ins..



Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 5 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08