Mac Pro 2009 vs Intel I7 4770 K.

[h9826790]

For PC gaming purpose, going from 2.8 Quad to 2.66 Hex may decrease the performance due to lower single thread performance.

In fact, it's better to get a X5677, which will give you 3.46GHz (23.6% improvement) but 40% cheaper than the W3690, and way more cheaper than the X5690 at this moment.

Of course, for multi core performance, the X5650 is a little bit better, and only cost about 40% of X5677.

 

[P00t]

For PC gaming purpose, going from 2.8 Quad to 2.66 Hex may decrease the performance due to lower single thread performance.

In fact, it's better to get a X5677, which will give you 3.46GHz (23.6% improvement) but 40% cheaper than the W3690, and way more cheaper than the X5690 at this moment.

Of course, for multi core performance, the X5650 is a little bit better, and only cost about 40% of X5677.

Hardly much difference between the two to be honest.

Check here for instance... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5677-vs-Intel-Xeon-X5650

 

[h9826790]

Hardly much difference between the two to be honest.

Check here for instance... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5677-vs-Intel-Xeon-X5650

I think it really depends on how you use it. From your link, it clear state that the 5677 has more than 30% higher clock speed.

Also, it perform 23% better on Passmark (single core).

For all core performance, yes, you may hardly feel any difference. However, for any single thread application. You will meet the bottleneck much sooner with the 5650.

Of course, if 2.66GGHZ is fast enough for your usage, and the bottleneck is at somewhere else, then you won't feel any difference at all.

 

[augusto58]

Augusto: I don't know if you purchased the Mac Pro 2009 already?

If you did you can potentially double it's speed for about 80 Euros, which in my opinion it's pretty close to the performance of the i7.

My current setup is a Mac Pro 2010 I purchased refurbished from Apple last year.

Just over a week ago I became interested in PC Games after some disappointment in the new consoles (Xbox One) and saw that I could do better with my Mac Pro.

I had an original Apple branded ATI Radeon 5770 HD Graphics Card, I have put in a PC card in place of that which is a GTX 660 by EVGA, which has already gone over double in performance there alone.

My next upgrade is the CPU...

I have the 2010 Mac Pro with just one Quad Core (4x) CPU running at 2.8Ghz
My options were getting the fastest compatible chip but that costs too much for me at the moment, this was a 3.43 Hex Core (6x) for 200Euro's

After looking around and asking on here, I found out that I could install a smaller hex core Xeon X5650 chip which cost me 60Euro's shipped.

When I install this chip it will make my system twice as fast, which is crazy enough and enough power for me for what I do and plan to do.

If you haven't already purchased a Mac Pro system, perhaps look for a 2010 model since you wouldn't need to flash the bios and the 2010 are only about 30% more than a 2009.

If you can spend abit more, get a Dual Quad system where you could install 2 cheaper chips and tripple the speed.

My current 2010 model benchmarks at 8554 with Geekbench
When I upgrade the CPU it will be twice as much as that.
If in the future I have some extra funds, I plan to get a Quad CPU Board for my 2010 and I'll install 2 of the 2.66 Hex Core X5650 and I'll get over tripple my original system.

I hope that makes sense for you in Italy.

----------

P.S. Also the 2010 is easier to upgrade the CPU since it has a better socket design on the CPU chip holding mech.

I have not bought because they are unsure what to do, I'm afraid of making a mistake to take a car obsolete and slow !!!!

But when I read your advice and I am convinced more and more that good and right thing to buy a MacPro 2009 !!!!!!!!!!!!
And still a powerful machine and expandable enough to know how to do.
thanks for your very useful advice.

Now decided to buy the MacPro 2009-75% !!!!!!!!

Hello.

----------
The thing I'm very indecisive and: better to take a 2009 MacPro 4 core or 8-core ????
the price change much between the 2!
Maybe I misunderstood but the powers between the 2 are a little different, right?
In that case, I'd rather take the 4 core and then improve it later, what do you think?
Thanks.

 

[CASLondon]

Do you colour grade video? Edit, transcode, and compress video or special effects in After Effects? Do you produce music with lots of tracks with lots of real-time plug-ins? I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

If not, get a single while the price is dropping. If yes, then get a dual.

I'm sure I already said this earlier on your journey, but its really about what you use it for.

if you don't use those multicore straining functions, and you are trying to be economical, its better for you to spend your money on one very fast CPU rather than two slower ones, because most things you do will benefit from clock speed to some degree. Only some will benefit from 12 cores of it.

 

[h9826790]

For the 2009 model, it's much much easier to upgrade the CPU on the quad core machine.

About the performance, it all depends on your work. If 6 cores and 64G RAM is enough for you, then the single CPU setup is good enough. No need to go for a dual CPU Mac Pro. However, technically, the dual CPU Mac Pro may has 100% more processing power than the single CPU option, which is not "little different".

 

[augusto58]

Do you colour grade video? Edit, transcode, and compress video or special effects in After Effects? Do you produce music with lots of tracks with lots of real-time plug-ins? I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

If not, get a single while the price is dropping. If yes, then get a dual.

I'm sure I already said this earlier on your journey, but its really about what you use it for.

if you don't use those multicore straining functions, and you are trying to be economical, its better for you to spend your money on one very fast CPU rather than two slower ones, because most things you do will benefit from clock speed to some degree. Only some will benefit from 12 cores of it.

Tancks : Mela:

----------

For the 2009 model, it's much much easier to upgrade the CPU on the quad core machine.

About the performance, it all depends on your work. If 6 cores and 64G RAM is enough for you, then the single CPU setup is good enough. No need to go for a dual CPU Mac Pro. However, technically, the dual CPU Mac Pro may has 100% more processing power than the single CPU option, which is not "little different".

Tancks : Mela:

 

[flowrider]

I have a 5,1 Dual CPU Mac Pro. I have gone from the stock Dual E5620s to W5590s to X5677s. I could have afforded dual 5690s, but for what I do 8 cores is plenty. I was also thinking power draw and heat. My thinking was that the 4 core X5677 would run cooler and require less power than the the X5690. They do run cooler than the W5590s.

Lou

 

[Cancaro]

info

excuse me for intruding into the discussion, but this mac pro below may have the same power as a I7 4770 K?

I feel powerful and in 2009 and you can easily update right?
Thanks.



http://www.ebay.it/itm/Apple-Mac-Pr...mputing_Apple_Desktops_CV&hash=item35df4bd0c5

 

[h9826790]

this mac pro below may have the same power as a I7 4770 K?[/url]

If you upgrade it to the W3690 (which considered a very easy job), you will have almost the same multicore performance. However, there is no way for the cMP to further increase it's single core performance, and the 4770K is much better on this aspect.

 

[Synchro3]

If you upgrade it to the W3690 (which considered a very easy job), you will have almost the same multicore performance. However, there is no way for the cMP to further increase it's single core performance, and the 4770K is much better on this aspect.

Yes, same multicore speed, if the 4770K is overclocked to 4.4 GHz: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=19581576#post19581576

At normal speed the 4770K is 20% slower.

 

[Cancaro]

If you upgrade it to the W3690 (which considered a very easy job), you will have almost the same multicore performance. However, there is no way for the cMP to further increase it's single core performance, and the 4770K is much better on this aspect.

do the upgrade and not an easy thing, I'm not able to do it, also I have to spend money to do it.

my question was no update, mac pro 2008 8 core i7 4770 against the original K original.

Thanks.

 

[Parsuto]

I open this forgotten discussion.
A mac pro 2008 8-core 16 GB RAM 2 Processors 2.80 Intel Xeon 5400 series ("Harpertown") SSD 240 gb might have the same performance as an I 7 4790 k 16 GB RAM?

I do not have a mac pro most powerful but least equal performance, what about?

thank you

 

[ITguy2016]

I open this forgotten discussion.
A mac pro 2008 8-core 16 GB RAM 2 Processors 2.80 Intel Xeon 5400 series ("Harpertown") SSD 240 gb might have the same performance as an I 7 4790 k 16 GB RAM?

I do not have a mac pro most powerful but least equal performance, what about?

This is a very opened ended question because which is faster would depend a lot on the specific application(s) you intend to run. For single thread performance the i7 is going to be much faster than the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro. For multi-threaded applications the Mac Pro might be faster but that would require an application which could scale, almost linearly, to utilize the extra cores. However, and this is just speculation, I can't think of an application where this would be the case.

If you're asking which one to choose I would say the i7 in almost every situation.

 

[Parsuto]

Editing with FCPX 10.2.3 on p 1920x1080 Apple ProRes 422 HQ.

thank you
[doublepost=1475158001][/doublepost]

This is a very opened ended question because which is faster would depend a lot on the specific application(s) you intend to run. For single thread performance the i7 is going to be much faster than the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro. For multi-threaded applications the Mac Pro might be faster but that would require an application which could scale, almost linearly, to utilize the extra cores. However, and this is just speculation, I can't think of an application where this would be the case.

If you're asking which one to choose I would say the i7 in almost every situation.

Anyway, what I wonder is a I7 4790 K is faster agree but how ??

Very fast or slightly faster mac pro?
Because if the difference is small for me nothing changes, thanks.

 

[ITguy2016]

Editing with FCPX 10.2.3 on p 1920x1080 Apple ProRes 422 HQ.

thank you
[doublepost=1475158001][/doublepost]


Anyway, what I wonder is a I7 4790 K is faster agree but how ??

Very fast or slightly faster mac pro?
Because if the difference is small for me nothing changes, thanks.

I can't give you an exact answer. However here is one way to look at it:

The i7 4790K is a quad core, hyper threaded processor which has a base clock of 4GHz and a Turbo Frequency of 4.4GHz (which is likely to be achieved in single thread performance). Thus for single thread performance, based on clock speed alone the i7 is 42% faster @ 4GHz. At 4.4GHz it's 57% faster. Include the architecture improvements and its performance is going to be higher than just the frequency differences.

For multi-threaded performance the Mac Pro has 8 real cores and the i7 has 4 real cores. Thus the Mac Pro has twice the number of cores. However the processors in the 3,1 lack Hyperthreading which is present in the i7. Thus the core deficiency of the i7 is offset by the inclusion of Hyperthreading. since Hyperthreading is not a capable as a real core we can't say the i7 has the equivalent of 8 cores in every situation. However in some instances, transcoding appears to be one, Hyperthreading does provide the equivalent speed up of a real core thus offsetting the lack of real cores in the i7.

With a faster memory bus and more updated motherboard surrounding it the above analysis leans significantly in favor of the i7. For 1 - 4 core applications the i7 is essential the winner in just about every case. For applications which utilize 5-8 cores the i7 is still a contender. In fact I would say that unless an application benefits from 7-8 real cores (and not Hyperthreading) the i7 would be the winner in 5-6 core applications as well. Likewise I would not rule it out for 7-8 core applications either. However here the Mac Pro might be a contender. I would definitely benchmark the application on both but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the i7 wins.

IMO the 3,1 Mac Pro is a great system (I have one) but I wouldn't buy one for performance reasons. Having an expandable workstation would be the reason to choose one. Performance...not really unless benchmarks for your specific application show otherwise (and if they did I wouldn't be surprised the difference is very large).

 

[h9826790]

Editing with FCPX 10.2.3 on p 1920x1080 Apple ProRes 422 HQ.

thank you
[doublepost=1475158001][/doublepost]


Anyway, what I wonder is a I7 4790 K is faster agree but how ??

Very fast or slightly faster mac pro?
Because if the difference is small for me nothing changes, thanks.

For Hackintosh, that should be much faster.

This table is before OC. And if you choose the K CPU in the Hackintosh, I couldn't think about why you want to stay at the stock frequency.

Also, no matter how many processor in the system, the single core performance won't improve.

Last but not least, 4790K has QuickSync, which the 3,1 Xeon doesn't have.

 

[Parsuto]

[Quote = "h9826790, posta: 23.629.589, Membro: 884,762"] Per Hackintosh, Che dovrebbe Essere Molto Più Veloce.
[ATTACH = completa] 660,952 [/ attach]
This tavolo E prima di OC. E se si sceglie la CPU K nel Hackintosh, non riuscivo a Pensare sul Perché si Vuole sguardo alla Frequenza di magazzino.

InOLTRE, indipendentemente dal numero di processori nel Sistema, il singolo prestazioni di base non Migliora.

Ultimo ma non Meno Importante, 4790K ha QuickSync, Che il 3,1 Xeon non ha. [/ Citazione]



thank you