Mac Pro 2010 vs. Mac >2013

Help404

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2011
16
0
France
Hello,
It maybe asked before but I didn't find it.
So i have a Mac pro mid 2010 :
3,33 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 Go 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2048 Mo
and 1to SSD + 2HDD*2To + 1HDD*4To.

I use it for music making in Ableton Live 9 and Pro Tools 12 mostly, but I need to store a lot. I have a big collection of HD movies and lossless music.
Should it be wise to invest in Mac Pro after 2013?
As far as I know I can sell my Mac Pro at 2200US$ I think.

Any advice?
 

flowrider

macrumors 603
Nov 23, 2012
5,538
1,964
Come on - You searched and couldn't find anything on this subject? It's been discussed in many many threads. The consensus here is mixed. I'm one of the folks who like the expandability of the cMP and would not own a nMP because of it's lack of expandability and the fact that is uses proprietary parts (ex. GPU). Do a search there's much written here.

Lou
 

VAGDesign

macrumors 6502
Feb 1, 2014
344
187
Greece
Keep it and buy more storage :)
With nMP (2013) you have more limitations regarding storage than with your cMP 2010.
So, I would invest in storage (if you need speed, get PCIe SSDs) and external USB 3.0 drives or docks that can handle 4TB, 6TB etc.

If you need more processing speed, upgrade to 12 Cores and double the RAM.

This is my advice :) I hope this helps.
 

Help404

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2011
16
0
France
Thanks for the quick reply.
Ow I can add more RAM? I thought it was 32Go max...
I will think about that! Thanks.
 

ActionableMango

macrumors G3
Sep 21, 2010
9,263
6,249
If you need a nMP, but you can wait a while, I certainly wouldn't get the 2013. The 2013 is 2 years old right now and an update should be coming in the next few months. Because Apple doesn't lower their price over time for aging models, if you bought a nMP today you'd be buying a 2-year old computer at brand new pricing just like people did on day 1. If you wait for an updated nMP, you'll pay the same price but get a much better, updated computer.

The nMP's drive does not have sufficient capacity to match your existing storage. If you switch to a nMP you'll need to change from internal storage to external storage. So you'll need to invest in Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 drive enclosures, or get a NAS to plop the drives into.
 

dmylrea

macrumors 68030
Sep 27, 2005
2,689
3,077
I seem to read it again and again, people using their Macs to make music. Is "making music" really that intensive that you need a powerhouse system? I mean, seems like a Mac Mini (quad core previous gen would be nice) and a thunderbolt drive enclosure to house the data and (in this case a bunch of HD movies and music) would suffice.

What is gained by a using a new Mac Pro in this case for making music?
 

williamh

macrumors regular
Feb 24, 2006
107
8
I seem to read it again and again, people using their Macs to make music. Is "making music" really that intensive that you need a powerhouse system? I mean, seems like a Mac Mini (quad core previous gen would be nice) and a thunderbolt drive enclosure to house the data and (in this case a bunch of HD movies and music) would suffice.

What is gained by a using a new Mac Pro in this case for making music?
All the plugins, virtual instruments, VST effects are both ram and cpu demanding and only people in this field understanding how efficient Mac Pro can do in this profession.

Also, having only ONE Mac Pro is never enough to host large orchestral templates for composers.
 

p.l

macrumors member
Jun 3, 2015
97
29
I seem to read it again and again, people using their Macs to make music. Is "making music" really that intensive that you need a powerhouse system? I mean, seems like a Mac Mini (quad core previous gen would be nice) and a thunderbolt drive enclosure to house the data and (in this case a bunch of HD movies and music) would suffice.

What is gained by a using a new Mac Pro in this case for making music?
A year ago i set up a Composer with 4x 12-core 3.33ghz 64gb ram Mac Pro's - 1 for the main workstation and 3 Nodes to process there Orchestra samples.... So Adobe isn't the only pro apps to munch through cpu and ram
 

Macdctr

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2009
606
291
Ocean State
Ow I can add more RAM? I thought it was 32Go max...
I will think about that! Thanks.
With a single CPU tray the max RAM you can go is 64GB and with a dual CPU tray you can go with 128 GB RAM using 16GB bars. If you're okay with staying with the single CPU footprint, the 3.33GHz 6-core processor you already have is a good processor.

You can grab a few kits with 16GB bars from eBay... here's an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/32GB-2x16GB-DDR3-1333MHz-PC3-10600-240-PIN-ECC-REGISTERED-RDIMM-SERVER-RAM-8R-/391297768408?hash=item5b1b2a1bd8:g:-dIAAOSwbqpTuYH8
 
Last edited:

Help404

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2011
16
0
France

williamh

macrumors regular
Feb 24, 2006
107
8
I believe OWC offer the turnkey upgrade for cMP, from one cpu to dual cpu, but it's quite expensive.

With the money, you might wanna consider buying a 2013 Mac Pro as master and your current cMP as slave, connecting via Ethernet using Vienna Ensemble Pro.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
12,766
5,577
Hong Kong
Buy the whole dual CPU 5,1 (or 4,1) and then sell your current one may be a cheaper way to upgrade from single to dual.
 

Help404

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2011
16
0
France
I believe OWC offer the turnkey upgrade for cMP, from one cpu to dual cpu, but it's quite expensive.

With the money, you might wanna consider buying a 2013 Mac Pro as master and your current cMP as slave, connecting via Ethernet using Vienna Ensemble Pro.
Yeah it's way too expensive for me!! All of this cool me down... I think Im gonna wait for nMP 2016...
 

Shamgar

macrumors regular
Jun 28, 2015
141
77
A 2010 Mac Pro with a single CPU has a practical limit of 48 GB of RAM. (The RAM slots can take 64 GB, but the processor can't address all of it. Interestingly, the dual processor models can handle all 128 GB.) Would 48 GB would be a sufficient improvement in RAM for you? Or do you need more? If that's enough, a 3x16 GB kit would be much cheaper than a new computer or processor tray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAGDesign

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
12,766
5,577
Hong Kong
A 2010 Mac Pro with a single CPU has a practical limit of 48 GB of RAM.
Not really, with X56xx, a single 5,1 can boot with 64G RAM. With a W36xx, can boot up to 56G RAM (3x16 + 8). 48 was assuming not using the X56xx AND only use same size RAM stick.
 

Help404

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2011
16
0
France
After all that talk, the OP decides to wait for new model. LOL>
Sorry for that but Im trying to choose the best and new stuffs are attractive even it doesn't fit for me for HDDs.

A 2010 Mac Pro with a single CPU has a practical limit of 48 GB of RAM. (The RAM slots can take 64 GB, but the processor can't address all of it. Interestingly, the dual processor models can handle all 128 GB.) Would 48 GB would be a sufficient improvement in RAM for you? Or do you need more? If that's enough, a 3x16 GB kit would be much cheaper than a new computer or processor tray.
Thanks.
Well I just have to add 1*16GB for my 32GB already existent, I don't know if it will make a great difference.

Not really, with X56xx, a single 5,1 can boot with 64G RAM. With a W36xx, can boot up to 56G RAM (3x16 + 8). 48 was assuming not using the X56xx AND only use same size RAM stick.
Mine is 6 Core Xeon W3680, no? So I can add 1*16 + 1*8

Thanks for those precisions.
 

xWhiplash

macrumors 68000
Oct 21, 2009
1,775
686
Why are people still demanding internal spots for hard drives? Actually, the new Mac Pro offers better expansion. Thunderbolt makes internal spinning HDD pointless since you should get close to the same speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derived

pat500000

Suspended
Jun 3, 2015
8,515
7,386
Why are people still demanding internal spots for hard drives? Actually, the new Mac Pro offers better expansion. Thunderbolt makes internal spinning HDD pointless since you should get close to the same speeds.
close? or faster? I thought it would be faster.