I don't feel using a pair of 150W CPUs to do what a single 130W CPU can do is "worth it" at all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro 3,1 worth it?
- Thread starter Beachguy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where did power consumption suddenly come into the equation? In any case it's hardly extra KWs of power just the power that would be drawn by a bright light bulb if the system was running full tilt.
Why shouldn't power consumption be part of the equation? It's not just the amount of power it pulls from the outlet, there's also the insane amount of heat those things spit out along with the hot RAM they use.
A 1600 lumens bulb draws 26W.
Long Star 26W Commercial Grade 120V Bright White CFL Bulb | FE-IISB-26W/50K | Bulbs.com
So, 2 x X5482 running full tilt is the equivalent of about 11.5 of these bulbs.
A 1600 lumens bulb draws 26W.
Long Star 26W Commercial Grade 120V Bright White CFL Bulb | FE-IISB-26W/50K | Bulbs.com
So, 2 x X5482 running full tilt is the equivalent of about 11.5 of these bulbs.
I'm sure power consumption is a consideration but I do not believe it is the OP's primary, or even secondary, consideration. Cost appears to be the primary one. If power consumption were the primary driver then a six core 4,1 or 5,1 is the wrong choice as the six core 6,1 provides more performance and uses less power.
[doublepost=1481036417][/doublepost]
Well, maybe. A $400 4,1 / 5,1 is likely to be a quad core configuration. As my benchmarks show the eight core 3,1 the OP is considering is faster at multi-threaded workloads then what a $400 4,1 / 5,1 configuration would provide. Furthermore its single thread performance would likely be 10-15% less than a $400 4,1 / 5,1.
Given this, at least for the very limited benchmarks I provided, the 3,1 is still a decent purchase at the current, or slightly more, asking price.
I own a 3,1 and use it every day. However, I would not buy one today at all.
It's old and it feels old and slow in general use. As a platform, it's increasingly difficult and expensive to keep it even close to up to date (this goes for all cMPs), and yes, it does burn a huge amount of power.
Of course, you can't buy a new Mac for what these go for, and almost everyone has to live within a budget. But I think these things are just too old to sink money into anymore. Indeed, I don't think any cMP is worth it anymore unless you have a very specific application that needs to run 8 cores non-stop.
It's old and it feels old and slow in general use. As a platform, it's increasingly difficult and expensive to keep it even close to up to date (this goes for all cMPs), and yes, it does burn a huge amount of power.
Of course, you can't buy a new Mac for what these go for, and almost everyone has to live within a budget. But I think these things are just too old to sink money into anymore. Indeed, I don't think any cMP is worth it anymore unless you have a very specific application that needs to run 8 cores non-stop.
At the right price they are still usuable and a good workhorse, I've read posts on here from people running the even older 2006 daily. I think if you want to run an older Mac Pro you have to have a bit of enthusiasm and passion.
Looking at it from a purely economic and logical point of view then no, just buy a cheap generic desktop Windows PC.
Looking at it from a purely economic and logical point of view then no, just buy a cheap generic desktop Windows PC.
I agree 100%. I use one everyday, but for the price of what the 3,1's go for currently, all one must do is spend a tad bit more and get much newer hardware (Mac Pro 4,1)
Well, frankly, I don't think a 4,1 or 5,1 are all that much better either, though I'd swap if it was free or nearly so. The form factor is essentially identical to a 3,1 as is graphics compatibility (or lack thereof), they have got 32nm vs. 45nm uPs, slightly faster memory, 4 PCI-2 slots instead of a mix, and a few other tweaks. In the end, they are all strictly legacy machines from top to bottom, with not a single feature that would be considered up to date (the case is awesome though).
By comparison, a proper modern version would have a 14nm uP with up to - what - 22 cores these days?, PCI-3, TB-3, USB-C, DDR-4, 14nm graphics cards, etc. That all adds up to such a huge leap that the cMP's are all just old.
By comparison, a proper modern version would have a 14nm uP with up to - what - 22 cores these days?, PCI-3, TB-3, USB-C, DDR-4, 14nm graphics cards, etc. That all adds up to such a huge leap that the cMP's are all just old.
Do you have an SSD? The increase in CPU performance between a 3,1 & a more modern system is not that great (single threaded it's not even double) whereas the difference in performance between the original HDD & a modern SSD is vast. I have a couple of Samsung EVO 850s in RAID-0 on an Apricorn Velocity PCIe card & that has really boosted the performance although the best bang for buck is simply replacing the HDD with a single SSD.
I bought my 3,1 new in 2008 so it's been great value but it's not worth replacing it with a 5,1 as the performance increase just isn't sufficient considering the mad prices that the 5,1s sell for with old technology & no warranty. I could buy a brand new well hung 5K iMac with 3 years warranty for the price that some people are asking for a dual 6-core 3.46GHz 5,1.
I was looking at Passmark which gives Single Thread rating of 2342 for a 4GHz i7-6700K & 1378 for an X5482 i.e about 70% more but still less than double the performance
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5482+@+3.20GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6700K+@+4.00GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5482+@+3.20GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6700K+@+4.00GHz
Yes, I had that exact SSD setup (Apricorn card plus 2x 850 EVO's in RAID 0). BEWARE. This setup was or became problematic. The system would hang for long time periods for no apparent reason. It would also totally choke if I tried to open more than a few dozen files at once (e.g., loading photos into a photo viewing program). It was not a "trim" issue since it was only half full, and the latter is a read operation unaffected by trim anyway. The performance was also barely greater than a single EVO on the same Apricorn card. I eventually started over without RAID 0, and the problems abated without a noticeable drop in performance. To the contrary, it felt faster due to the lack of problems.
Like you, I also looked at upgrading to a 5,1. I kind of wish I had bought one when Apple put out its "last call" 3+ years ago. But I put in the EVOs and a 280X instead. Now, the used prices for a good 5,1 are not worth the performance increment given that the platform is so old.
Recently, I built a 6700K system (Linux) running with a 1-click overclock at 4.6 GHz. In real-world applications, it's 5 times faster in single core speed and 3 times faster in multi-core (despite having half the cores) than my 3,1. My new base MBP (non-touch) is also 2x faster by the numbers and feels so much more responsive than my 3,1 that the 3,1 is now a pain to use.
Most of the "value" in a 3,1 isn't its day to day performance anymore. It's in its ability to reliably run all 8 cores non-stop for weeks without the slightest thermal issues. If that's your thing, then it's great (though still slow by today's standards). But as a general use machine, it's old, slow, power-hungry, and beaten handily by almost any modern computer.
I have been the 2x1TB RAID-0 set for over a year. Performance is about 50% better with RAID-0 than with a single EVO 850 & I haven't seen any problems with performance. I actually set it up with RAID-0 because I wanted a 2TB disk so the extra performance is just a bonus. I am also using it with a 40" 4K screen driven by a 4GB GTX680 so always have a lot of windows open & programs running. It doesn't feel slow at all.
I do have a rMBP with 2.6GHz i7 which the benchmarks have as about 50% faster single threaded & higher multithreaded throughput than my dual CPU 3.2GHz 3,1. The rMBP certainly feels fast not least because of the wicked fast SSD but while it feels faster than the 3,1 it doesn't make the 3,1 feel so slow in comparison that it's a pain to use.
I did the same (2x 1TB) for the same reasons. Here's the thread I started on the topic:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-duo-x2-plus-raid-0-samsung-850-evos.1874724/
I was getting 660 R/W, and eventually concluded this was about normal. I don't know the numbers on my current setup and can't test it at the moment, but it was the freedom from the very annoying lags that made me move from RAID 0 anyway.
Maybe it's mostly the blinding speed of my Linux box, but I do feel let down with the speed of my 3,1 (single 850 EVO on the Apricorn card, 280x, 12GB) these days. It's probably going to be relegated to duty as a legacy software machine soon, with the nMBP handling general tasks, assuming a 4 or 5k display works well with it.
Last edited:
I'm glad that I didn't read your thread before buying the second EVO 850
I did see someone else posting in that thread that said they had no problems so it seems the very annoying lags were something specific to your setup.I'm still happy with my 3,1 & it is faster than when I bought it due to SSD & a GTX680 replacing the ATI 2600. I do have my rMBP for comparison so it's not like I'm happy because I don't know any better
It's still good for editing video in either FCP X or Premier Pro & now that PP has proxies it should enable me to edit 4K without problems.