Mac Pro - Previous Gen (Harpertown) VS Nehalem???

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by puntergood, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. puntergood macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    #1
    mac pro - Previous Gen (Harpertown) VS Nehalem ???

    Hey there, I'm in dire need of a new mac, and am debating the options and would appreciate any input and feedback.


    Mac Pro 8 core 2.8, 3.0. 3.2 ghz- Previous Gen w/ HarperTown Processor??

    OR...

    Mac Pro 8 core 2.26, 2.66, 2.93ghz w/ Nehalem Processor??


    The cost vs. the speed / power and performance benchmarks are all over the place. Wanted to know what people have experienced personally, rather than read.

    It's mainly needed for Final Cut Pro (HD footage) & Pro Tools.

    Thanks in advance!!
     
  2. zer0tails macrumors 65816

    zer0tails

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    if you can afford it I'll go with an 8-Core Nehalem. Otherwise, the harpertown's are still smokin' fast machines. I have one and I think it's the bang for your buck machine
     
  3. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #3
    What he said.
     
  4. LukeConway macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #4
    If you can get the 2009 Mac Pro..... GET IT!



    No questions asked..... Having all the threads.... Nehalem>(Harpertown)

    -Luke
     
  5. polterdice macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    Except that he said he was using Pro Tools and last I knew that software doesn't support multi threading, DigiDesign's workaround is to turn off the feature, thus bringing it back to 8 physical and 0 virtual cores.

    I'd say it depends on how religiously you use Pro Tools. If that's your main program and you can afford upgrading your mac later, I'd go with Harpertown until DigiDesign upgrades Pro Tools to utilize the Nehalem processors. Who knows when a new Pro Tools will release?
     
  6. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #6
    yeah, it's up in the air at the moment

    but for Final Cut and Pro Tools the 2.66GHz Nehalem is the same speed as the 2.8GHz Harpertown.

    In the future, FCS will be developed to work better with the Nehalem Mac Pro's so it depends how long you want to keep the machine.


    At the moment, the 2.8GHz Octo Mac Pro still holds the title of best bang for buck.
     
  7. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #7
    If you wish to run a hardware RAID setup, it's far easier and with greater choices for the '06 - '08 models. MUCH harder in the '09's, and the solutions will cost more as well.

    Given the software mentioned, worth mentioning. ;)
     
  8. cosmos macrumors regular

    cosmos

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    #8
    Agreed. Also, if you went with a 2.8 Octo, the money saved could be put into much needed (aftermarket) memory.
     
  9. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #9
    Yep! the 2008 models are the sweet-spot deals! The 2008 2.8 is basically the same speed at everything as the 8-core 2.66 and it's $2,000 cheaper!

    Also the 2008 3.2GHz is the fastest machine Apple makes from any year for 80% of your applications. (it's BY FAR the fastest for ProTools!!!) On the remaining 20% of the applications the 2009 2.93 GHz can be up to 5% faster. Certainly not worth the $3,000 extra dollars IMO.


    .
     
  10. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #10
    if you ask me its yet to be developed to work great with 2008 machines.
    probably before FCS and LP8 will be developed to work good on even 2008 machines, 2010 will already be out. or 2011.
    mac pro's were 2006,2008,2009, right?
     
  11. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
  12. trixter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
  13. Abidubi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal
    #13
    Except that the quad 2.93 is faster than the 3.2 in 90% of apps (most programs can't use more than 4 cores... if that) and costs less than a refurb 3.2. The octo machines are honestly a dumb purchace unless you are doing heavy rendering, need more than 16GB of RAM, need 16GB right now, or use a specialized program that makes use of as many cores as available. That goes for the 2008 machines as well, except that you needed to pay for 4 more cores if you wanted speed faster than 2.8 Ghz. Now there is no reason to get an octo.

    There was a time when you had to sit around and wait for your computer to save/open a text document. The hardware has advanced to a point where you're only stressing it in extreme situations. Programming wont catch up for at least 5 years.
     
  14. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #14
    First you're comparing apples and oranges. Octad vs. Quad isn't the topic and the OP seems sold on 8-cores. Me too BTW. If you're using any well threaded apps at all it's quite worth it. Using any of these apps: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=721038 ? Get an octad! And the 3.2 Octad is half the price of the 2.93 octad. Additionally if you use more than 1 or 2 apps at a time it's also advantageous. This is why Apple went with 8 cores in 2007 and still offers them today. Snow Leopard is slated to improve this advantage across all multi-core intel Macs.

    Secondly the 3.2 is faster (like I said) in all INDEPENDENT benchmark and real-world tests where the CPU is not flooded. By flooded I mean the core(s) are pegged and hold at 99% ~ 100%. In every other test the 3.2 wins. How many apps do you have the peg the processors at 100%? I have some 3D renderers and a few benchmark programs that do this and that's it. So if you're spending all your time rendering and nothing more then get the 2.93. If however you spend more time animating, modeling, photo editing, video editing, game playing, web browsing, music editing and composing, or etc. then get the 3.2 - as it's faster than the 2.93 at those things AND 1/2 the price.


    .
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    The last price I'm aware of for a new 3.2GHz Octo '08, was $2799. Not too old (a week maybe). So it's definitely possible to get one substantially cheaper than the 2.93 Octo '09. Even with any applicable discounts. :p

    As for performance, it's not trumped by the 2.93 Octo for much, except where the memory bandwidth hits the limit. In this situation, the new architecture (tripple channel DDR3), will show itself rather well. Otherwise, it makes better sense to get the '08, and use the savings for upgrades. :D
     
  16. Abidubi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal
    #16
    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac?mco=MTE3NjY

    It is listed at $3799 not $2799. That's with 2GB of RAM and 500GB HD. 2.93 quad is $2999. The quad doesn't completely destroy the 3.2 for speed, but it is faster, cheaper and newer (not previously owned/abused).

    And as for programs using 4 or more cores, there are a handful compared to the thousands of available programs that can't use more than 1 or 2.

    1 year ago the story was not much different. 5 years ago things were a little, but not much.
     
  17. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    It was from a 3rd party source (PowerMax.com), not Apple. The ad's still up, but they ran out of stock rather quickly. :eek: ;)

    I hadn't checked Apple for refurbs, so I wasn't aware they wanted that much. It's still quite a bit cheaper though, especially compared to the current Octo new. ;) They have an Octo 2.93 for $4999 up ATM.

    I don't know about you, but I can do a lot with $1200. :D
     
  18. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #18
     
  19. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #19
    And where are you seeing it for that?

    I see it for $5751 Here: http://www.powermax.com/parts/show/c-nmp-cto-e293

    And $7008 with a raid card here: http://www.powermax.com/parts/show/c-nmp-cto-e293rd

    Apple wants $5,899.00 for it on their site with the minimum configuration. That's $6000 by the time you get it home. :p

    So really isn't that $2,000 difference? Heck for that you actually could have 1TB of SSD... LOL!
     
  20. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #20
    I think he means at the Apple refurb store. It was $4999 for the 2.9GHz octo model. Not sure if it hasn't been snatched up at 2330 PST.
     
  21. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #21
    Yup. :)

    Since the pricing Abidubi posted was from Apple's refurb section, I stuck to that for the price difference. ;) If PowerMax actually gets any of the 3.2 '08's in again, and compare it to a new 2.93 Octo '09, the savings is even bigger. :eek: :D
     
  22. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #22
    Ah, OK... that makes sense now. So 2.93's are already in the refurbished section huh? Hmmm.
     
  23. frimple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #23
    If they get any more in I will freak out! :eek:

    BTW, no one's cancelled their orders yet... darn it. :(
     
  24. jon9091 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #24
    I'm so glad I got my 3.2 at the $2799 price. What a helluva deal that was! This machine is smokin'.
     
  25. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #25
    Yup. :eek: :) Now that really inspires confidence. ;) :p
    It's certainly worth checking their site often, and perhaps even a phone call. Who knows...they might get something else in, such as a refurb. ;)

    Just don't think too hard if it does, as you'll miss out. Again. :D :p
     

Share This Page