MacPro Processor Questions

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Schkeen, Jul 27, 2009.

  1. Schkeen macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #1
    Ok, I am driving myself to insanity over the last couple of days. I am buying a new Mac Pro. Going to max it with RAM (16 GB-3rd Party) & HDD (3 1 TB - 3rd Party), the Radion Video Card. Completely stuck on processor. I will be using Adobe Premiere, Photoshop & Lightroom on an everyday basis (owner of wedding videography/photography business). 95% of current video work is SD. Choosing between the single 2.93 or dual 2.26.

    Right now, I am running 32 bit XP, Pentium 4 D 3.4, with 3 GB Ram. Now, I've seen all the speed and bench test on the Mac Pro Processors. And to me, I cannot justify getting the 2.66 or 2.93 dual. I mean, those test results are in seconds, and they are pretty much a couple seconds different on every test. To me, not worth $1400 or $2500 to upgrade.

    So my two main questions are:

    1. Which processor - single 2.93 or dual 2.26?
    2. How much faster will this be with than current system?

    Looking for honest opinions, because I cannot search any more reviews and read any more speed test. Thanks.
     
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    Note: the 16GB of RAM is meaningless because the CS apps are only 32-bit.
     
  3. Schkeen thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #3
    Understood, but for $200 for the additional 8GB, why not? it has to be good for something, right?
     
  4. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    Not if you're not using any apps that will take advantage of it. The OS only needs about a gigabyte on its own.
     
  5. Guiyon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    #5
    That may be the case for a single application, if he has multiple apps running they each could use up to 4GB so it won't be a total waste.
     
  6. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #6
    I was under the impression that they all shared the same 3.3GB.
     
  7. the vj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #7
    I have a dual quad core 2.6 and after installing 10GB it got actually slower, I have a 3D animation software, After Effects, photoshop and illustrator and when rendering something in after effects the computer becomes literally useless. It takes ages to switch from one application to the other, about 10 seconds.

    So... having more than 6GB of ram at the most is useless. Every software has it piece of ram, more ram means nothing.

    Then, having 3 hard drives... I have the main one for applications and a 600GB for storage and projects, that is it. And external 2Terabite for storage. And I work in HD.

    So...

    I recomend you a good video card, 500 MB is enough. 8 processors will do wonders in the final render, very quick. 6GB of ram is more than enough. I had a quad G5 with 4.5 GB and it was enough for the 5 years I had it.

    My recomendation is that, and do not waste your money in things you won't use, get an extra monitor or something but do not eb a show off, it is stupid.
     
  8. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    Also build into 32-bit CS4 is the ability to take additional RAM and use it as a scratch [RAM] disk that is significantly faster than your secondary storage.
     
  9. Schkeen thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #9
    Ok, but how much faster is that dual 2.66 compared to dual 2.26?
     
  10. Guiyon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    #10
    Nope, each application gets its own 4GB virtual address space.
     
  11. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #11
  12. Cynicalone macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
    #12
    For most Apps 2.93 Quad will be faster than a 2.26 Octo. Most apps cannot use multiple cores, so you might find 8 to be overkill. So to answer your question get the 2.93 Quad.

    RAM is another matter. If you need a lot of RAM an Octo is significantly cheaper to upgrade. The Octo has twice the RAM slots of the Quad leaving room for expansion later.
     
  13. QuadRants macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    #13
    8 core tray in a quad core macpro

    Does anyone know if i can put a 8 core 2.26ghz tray in my o9 quad core macpro?
     
  14. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #14
    I don't think it has been confirmed by anyone. Probably works out cheaper to sell what you have and buy a refurb 2.26GHz. There aren't prices online for 2009 Mac Pro parts that I have seen, but the "retail price" on a 2008 board was $800 and the heat sinks were $100 each.

    edit: MacPalace have parts: http://www.applepalace.com/apple-mac/apple-parts/mac-pro-parts/mac-pro-early-2009/index.asp

    You'll want a copy of the service manual to work out what you need.
     
  15. Maserati7200 macrumors 6502a

    Maserati7200

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Location:
    11230, Midwood, Brooklyn, NY, USA, North America
    #15
    Actually if you install 16GB of RAM in a Mac Pro you aren't maxing it out. A Mac Pro could take 32GB of RAM.
     

Share This Page