MacPro 2008 vs a New iMac?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by umbilical, Jul 6, 2012.

  1. umbilical macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #1
    hi, I have a macpro 08, 3,1 2xquadcores, so 8 cores, with 8gb ram and a SSD hard drive; that machine can be faster than a new imac with 8gb ram and a SSD?

    I dont know if keep it or change it for a iMac, or my macpro is more faster and it worth keep it?

    thanks
     
  2. pprior macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #2
    Depends on what you're doing with it. What apps are you trying to run that you need more speed?
     
  3. cledet macrumors regular

    cledet

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #3
    I prefer the Mac Pro because I love having the ability to easily upgrade most of the components. Up to 4 HDDs, 32GB of RAM, two Super Drives, and PCI-E slots for additional upgrades like USB 3.0 and eSATA ports. Can't beat that ;)
     
  4. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #4
    thanks, well I use for web designer, coder..., adobe CS programs... mostly photoshop, illustrator, maybe video edition but rarely

    and well running windows for a couple of apps, very low apps performance... not heavy apps, even I dont run games, I dont be a gamer...

    but I like running fast, (I hate a slow machine)

    ----------

    yes sounds good, see my video card nvidia gt8800 is dead :(

    I go today to order a new 1gb nvidia 5770 http://www.macconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=11870984

    and maybe buy more ram and a two hd of 3tb, I just have 1tb
     
  5. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #5
    Awesome. No one has even mentioned the speed of any of these choices. WHAT iMac? WHAT 2008 Mac Pro? What is the clock speed? i5, i7? Kind of imperative you get this info or you can just write the options on torn paper and throw them to the wind. The first piece to blow back at you is the faster Mac.
     
  6. pprior macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #6
    Photoshop and many adobe apps are well known to waste usable cores, so a faster processor will speed things up (check out: digiloyd)

    However apps that do use the cores like premiere or after effects will be much faster with the 8 cores, but you don't have enough ram to feed them all.

    For everyday "snappiness" I would personally recommend you double your ram, add a new/faster SSD and make sure you keep (hard) disks no more than 1/2 full.

    I don't think the imac will be fast(er) enough to justify the cost, and if the video cards keep being updated, adobe apps are starting to use them more and you can't upgrade the imac at all to help there.
     
  7. zMacintoshz macrumors regular

    zMacintoshz

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Location:
    NY, FL
    #7
    the current iMac can support up to 32GB of Ram too
     
  8. kingtj macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    Brunswick, MD
    #8
    Yeah....

    I'd say you're probably still better off with a 2008 Mac Pro than a new iMac.
    I own one myself, and after upgrading the video card to the fastest Radeon it would take, upgrading it to 12GB of RAM, and putting in an SSD as my boot drive? It feels like a brand new machine, really.

    What technologies are in the new iMac that you don't have on a Mac Pro? Thunderbolt -- but do you really care right now? The way I see it, the iMac users are more likely to care about that because of the lack of upgrade options otherwise. You can still put actual full length expansion cards in slots in your Mac Pro (for things like high-end video capture boards, hardware RAID, or pro sound cards).

    I have better display options on my Mac Pro too. I could run a quad monitor setup if I wanted, or go with a pair of 28" displays, or ??
     
  9. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #9
    thanks sounds good keep it the macpro

    by the way you upgrade the video card? I have problem right now, my gt8800 is dead!
    so I need buy a 5770
    http://www.macconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=11870984
    but wait!!!
    I hear that this can works
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150561

    mmm better choice in this days for a video card on my macpro 2008, 3,1 ??? help!
     
  10. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
  11. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #11
    well I mean my macpro 3,1 8cores 8gb ram SSD vs the new imac with 8gb ssd (latest model or even the future mac rumored for oct/nov)
     
  12. 24Frames macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    #12
    If you ask in the Mac Pro forum most respondees will tell you to buy a Mac Pro.
    If you ask in the iMac forum...
     
  13. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #13
    haha lol good point!,
    but speeds are speeds, just exist one response
     
  14. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    By the way, if you already own the mac pro (noted dead gpu line) then I'd stick with that. I just wouldn't necessarily buy a mac pro 3,1 with unknown history today. Dead gpus seem to be a common complaint with that one. An ssd isn't a bad idea here. That model had expensive ram. While ram is the fastest, an ssd can also be used to hasten scratch disks if you're dealing with a long history palette + large files.

    Illustrator can be annoying, and it doesn't scale well at all. Most stuff in photoshop takes advantage of around 4 cores. It's not like it can never put more into use, but the returns fall off a cliff past 4. The 4 in the newer imacs, especially the 27" i7 are significantly faster per core. I could understand not wanting to get a new one with mountain lion. At this point it's kind of an unknown, and it will most likely take some time for bug fixes.


    Don't pay attention to the rumors. They are often bad information. There's very little reason for it to slip that late if it's just the typical refresh, which is what I'd expect.

    You don't seem to understand this stuff very well. The imac is technically faster for what you're doing. Overall ram is cheaper. Go with a minimum of 16GB. You can even go 32. The point is not to hit scratch disks in these applications. They scale horribly beyond 4 cores. I'm not sure if the 2008 model gpus are supported for gpu acceleration. It's not worth upgrading as it only pertains to a couple functions, but ideally you want that as it hastens a few actions by a large margin if you use them. I wouldn't go with the 2008 unless you find a really good deal on one. It's old, and it's not likely to be supported forever. Apple sort of has to support 2009 and later because they still sell what is essentially that machine. If I was going to bring up counter points to the imac here, none of them would be an issue of processing power. also the 2008 mac pro uses expensive ram. Make sure you look up the total cost of any potential upgrades before buying one.
     
  15. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #15
    thank you! great response

    well for have buy 8gb ram, a ssd, new video card and a 3tb, I need around $750 (ram is expensive for this one)
     
  16. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #16
    by the way, best memory for this mac? brand? Crucial?
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    You'll probably end up buying that drive either way. I usually buy my own, especially when they're that large. RAM seems to have gone up in price for that model. You could probably get away with 8GB total if you're going with an SSD that can handle the scratch data. I have no idea how large your files get, or if the SSD will get thrashed in terms of write cycles. Ram is still better, but right now if you're at 8, an SSD can do pretty well beyond that point. You shouldn't see lag. The 5770 isn't a bad bet as long as it's working fine with whatever version of OSX you will be using on your current machine. With CS6 liquify and a few other things can benefit from OpenCL based acceleration with the 5770 being on the supported list.

    Technically from a cpu perspective, the 27" imac would still be faster in these applications. If I owned a mac pro 3,1, I'd stay with it. If it was a new purchase of used mac pro vs new imac, it would be a tougher decision, but I'd probably go with a newer mac pro than that. My issues with the imac aren't so much raw performance. They're more servicing issues and things, and I think there are better displays out there. I think they can make sense for people looking at the low end mac pro + thunderbolt display assuming the lack of many internal drives isn't a big issue. I'd probably want to go with applecare on any imac due to past display issues that I've seen with them, and that Apple charges a fortune to service a drive in one. You can still add an SSD yourself, but it's not a fun process. They're designed as closed systems. The way to do this would be to remove the screen via suction cups.

    ----------

    It doesn't matter that much. I usually look at Crucial, OWC, and Newegg on ram. I look for testing done with such ram if I'm not buying something certified for Macs, even if it's just a number of reviews indicating use on macs. I memtest ram as soon as it's installed. I just run several cycles overnight in single user mode the day it's installed to check for any potential issues.
     
  18. G5isAlive, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012

    G5isAlive macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    #18
    I don't know the Radeon HD 6870, but the one you linked I don't think works in a mac pro... you have to buy a mac version for that (at about $100 more (edit)).

    I do have and like the Radeon 5770.
     
  19. pprior macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #19
    ram here OWC which is currently running around $275 for 8gb. That's expensive, but when I bought mine I was paying that much for EACH 2 gb so don't complain :)

    If you're 1tB drive is slow, getting a faster HD will speed up if you can't get all your data on the SSD and a bigger/faster HD you can always take with you when you upgrade later.

    Agree I'd certainly not buy a 2008 MP now, but I see no reason to spend a bunch more for a minimal speed bump to an imac which then is limited for future upgrades. just MHO.
     
  20. umbilical thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Location:
    FL, USA
    #20
    well I buy the 5770 on macconnection.com some minutes ago:

    Subtotal: $229.00
    Shipping & Handling: Best Way - Ground $0.00
    Tax: $16.03
    Total: $245.03


    and yes the memory is expensive for 8gb
     
  21. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #21
    Glad others can answer this (with great assumption powers apparently) as you STILL did not. A 3,1 means only the model it can have 2.8GHz - 3.2GHz Quad to Eight core Xeons. An iMac can be i3, i5, or i7, both Quad and Dual variants and a range of clock speeds. Answering your questions accurately requires you list your intended models you are comparing. Good luck.
     
  22. Melbourne Park macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    #22
    Current iMac is maybe not the fastest deal

    Because you can buy a macbook pro retina model, which ships standard with an SSD. Its faster than an i7 iMac too. Although the memory is fixed, it'll run external monitors even better than an iMac. And it has cheaper external expansion - due to USB-3.0 being standard. Plus it has a retina display, that would be great for Photoshop and photographic apps (when they adapt to the new displays technology). And its portable.

    And then, there is the cheaper Macbook Pro - that can have an SSD added into its DVD drive slot (I think it can anyhow).

    Ivy Bridge is about notebooks IMO, and Apple is too these days. Hence the long time in improving the Mac Pro, and the long time in improving even the iMacs these days. Which are essentially big notebooks anyway.
     
  23. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    I kind of went with an assumed 2011 i7 3.4 there given that especially with options like refurbs they aren't that bad and figured it against the 2.8 given that it was the most popular.

    Ivy Bridge is a bigger boost on notebooks. I mentioned gpus could be an improvement too. You need to remember that Ivy doesn't exist for the Mac Pro right now. Sandy Bridge E is the latest in workstation grade cpus, and Apple skipped them for now. I wouldn't be that surprised if they use them next year anyway or used them mixed with ivy if it's not a complete lineup. Workstation cpus tend to run with the same chipsets for 2 generations, so everything would be pin compliant anyway with sandy bridge e compared to the Ivy equivalent which is due out next year. It has nothing to do with being about laptops. Intel is just behind, and Apple is just rehashing the same thing right now.
     
  24. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #24
    Very cool. I may just keep asking. But the hordes answering are keeping my grin etched. Is it me or is this a very strange "opinion" poll?
     
  25. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #25
    It is... I get how the advice often reflects personal opinion on which machine they favor. The difference in efficiency and power in the two machines was a much different relationship a while back. I'm somewhat in disagreement with the idea that Apple will come out with an imac-pro like machine in the next couple years. Their design priorities are somewhat flawed by a need to look pretty taking precedence over other things. Note how many people want to see a thinner imac. It wouldn't change the look when in use. It wouldn't free up desk space. It's more just a novelty design as opposed to starting by engineering a good internal setup and building a case around that.


    I try to give information rather than projecting too much of my own opinion which tends to be that I am not that much in favor of imacs although if you're looking at the cheapest mac pro + a thunderbolt display, you could also consider an imac. This looks like a weak buying year anyway. Apple probably pushed out the rMBP in the current year to offset that. Otherwise the potential hardware gains are unimpressive unless you really need CUDA. In the OP's case they're not looking at buying a mac pro + TB display. Personally I kind of hoped the mini would become more of a headless imac than a headless macbook. I'm still not sure why they shoved the power supply inside that tiny box.
     

Share This Page