MacWorld: Benchmarks: 2.93GHz Xeon-based Mac Pros

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Boneoh, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. Boneoh macrumors 6502

    Boneoh

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    #1
  2. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #2
    Not by much... in my highly biased opinion (IMHBO) the Quad is the best value (of 2009) according to this set of benchmarks. :p

    BTW, they tested the quad with 3GB... fair test? :confused:
     
  3. Boneoh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Boneoh

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    #3
    Didn't catch that, No fair!
     
  4. psycho bob macrumors 6502a

    psycho bob

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    #4
    For me this seals the deal... I think.

    I'm upgrading from an original 2.66 QC Mac Pro so wasn't expecting a huge increase in performance compared to those moving from PPC or laptop systems.

    Apple's pricing and the current range distribution has really thrown me, I had money set aside but my intended would have been the 2.66 Octo but with the options I wanted this comes in around £3600 that's £500-1100 more than I expected.

    I do mostly Photoshop, image editing and DTP along with some DVD editing. The choice for me is between the 2.93 QC and the 2.26 Octo. The 2.26 is an amazing machine but the single threaded performance is just too low to justify the upgrade. Everyone is comparing the new 8 cores to the old 8 cores but to me it is a none starter, in the UK very few of the old ones are available and I do buy in to the belief that new tech is better.

    Looking at various benchmarks the single threaded performance of the 2.26 is somewhere between my current quad and the 2.8 but the new quads blow it away. And yes the multi thread performance is great but the quads are no slouch either.

    Despite the same number of cores the new quads are around 2x faster than the original 2.66 quad according to the Cinebench results in multi thread.

    All this talk of Snow Leopard being the big fix is unproved snake oil. With every release Apple have stated improvements in speed and whilst they might be present we are talking single digit % for the most part. Software developers need to do the catching up, even if CS5 went fully multicore processor speed plays a big part and as result have shown the 2.93 QC can hold its own against the 2.26 unless every single core is being used 100%. On clock speed alone everything else been equal the 2.93 QC is on a par with 6 of the 2.26 models eight cores. The RAM slot handicap is an issue and is perhaps the biggest problem but 8GB is enough for now. The CS3 test (they really should have used CS4) shows that even with twice the RAM the lower clock speed octo loses to the faster quad.

    When Intel releases future 6-8 core CPU's these can be dropped in to the Quad at a cheaper price then having to by the 2x units for the Octo. To be honest I actually know very few people who upgrade on there machines once they have bought them. Most buy, configure then run into the ground before replacing the whole unit.

    So I'm 90% sure the 2.93 Quad will be my next machine, add 3 1TB drives and an SSD and we'll be good to go... Now if only Apple could sort of the monitor situation :)
     
  5. ekwipt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #5
    Quad 2.93 is a great machine just do some research on what tasks you really need the speed for
     
  6. Outsider macrumors regular

    Outsider

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #6
    Agreed. We need some CS3/4 workstations (Photoshop, InDesign, Flash) and these will fit the bill very well. We'll get them with 6GB of RAM with the expectation of upgrading them to 12 or 16GB next year (to coincide with the CS5 upgrade). We will have need for 2 FCP and After Effects workstations and the 8 core (2.66GHz) will satisfy that need.
     

Share This Page