Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacWorld review of 2009 MP quad and octo

They tested standard configs as usual, so no mention of performance with more RAM, nor of potential limitations thereof... Just think of how the 2.93 quad would look like.

OTOH it confirms my thinking that as of today, only professional who KNOW that they are gonna saturate the 8 cores are sure customers for the octos. For the rest of us, it's just buying bragging rights or future-proofing (for things which in the past sometimes did not materialise, I remember several instances of buying stuff with some additional feature just in case, and never using it, or never been put in the condition to use it for lack of support).

For instance the Sigma compression coprocessor, which worked for a few years and then Disk Doubler support was discontinued.

If SW-houses were announcing release dates for MP updates with performance figures, then that might change. And possibly that's what Apple will announce tomorrow.
 
mggm59 said:
Just think of how the 2.93 quad would look like.

OTOH it confirms my thinking that as of today, only professional who KNOW that they are gonna saturate the 8 cores are sure customers for the octos.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

One interesting fact... Compressor test:

In our ProRes encode test to Compressor’s H.264 iPod/iPhone 640 by 480 preset, the new 2.66GHz Mac Pro took 9 minutes and 38 seconds to convert our 6 minute and 41 second clip, about 6.6 percent longer than the older eight-core 2.8GHz system did. The new 2.26GHz Mac Pro was about 8.9 percent faster than last year’s model.
Click to expand...

By my calculations:
2009 Quad: 9.6 minutes
2008 Octo: 9 minutes
2009 Octo: 8.2 minutes

That's a 17% difference between the Quad 2.66 and the Octo 2.26 or in real terms... just over a minute. Your time has to be at a real premium to want to save a minute here or there on tasks like this... further supporting the argument that only pro's should be considering the octo.

What's very interesting is the prospect that a Quad 2.93 could likely beat the Octo 2.26 in this test.
 
Were they too quick to recommend the Quad knowing it's only expandable to 8 Gigs of RAM?

Even a moderate user of pro or pro-sumer software will eat that up.

I can see people not utilizing the full 32 gigs of the Octo but it seems 8 gig is too low a ceiling...
 
Well, it depends what you're doing. If you're doing dippy five minute YouTube videos, then probably not the best use of your money. If you're doing stuff more in the 30-120 minute range plus exporting to multiple formats, those "minutes" start to add up. I compressed a project today that took over 90 minutes. That'd give me 20 minutes back, not to mention if I cluster my current machine.

PS - the drives won't matter. Think about it... if it mattered you wouldn't be able to watch the video.
 
mingus51 said:
Were they too quick to recommend the Quad knowing it's only expandable to 8 Gigs of RAM?

Even a moderate user of pro or pro-sumer software will eat that up.

I can see people not utilizing the full 32 gigs of the Octo but it seems 8 gig is too low a ceiling...
Click to expand...

It was enough to dissuade me. A single quad-core CPU is ample for what I need in this sort of machine. Being maxed out on memory on day one with no further officially sanctioned memory upgrades available to me is not what I had in mind.
 
Cliff3 said:
It was enough to dissuade me. A single quad-core CPU is ample for what I need in this sort of machine. Being maxed out on memory on day one with no further officially sanctioned memory upgrades available to me is not what I had in mind.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

I have the money right here, right now for a Quad.

I can't justify it until I have confirmation that the 'cap' is only there because of the high price of 4GB modules.
 
MIDI_EVIL said:
Seconded.

I have the money right here, right now for a Quad.

I can't justify it until I have confirmation that the 'cap' is only there because of the high price of 4GB modules.
Click to expand...

Does the 3500 XEON support Registered ECC DIMMS? If so, 4GB modules of that are MUCH cheaper than 4GB modules of unbuffered ECC DIMMS.

I think this has been said time and time again... a single quad with 8GB of RAM is more than enough for someone who doesn't rely on their machine to run a business or earn a living. If your time is money, then your business can probably justify the octo and 12-16GB of RAM.

The problem around this forum is that the pros who need an Octo and 16GB need to understand that NOT EVERYONE has the same needs as them and a Quad with 8GB fills the gap nicely between Apple's other desktop offerings and the Octo workstations.

There's almost a mentality here that if you don't buy an Octo with 12-16GB of RAM you are a fool. That's completely rediculous. Not everyone here works for Pixar or Disney.
 
VirtualRain said:
Does the 3500 XEON support Registered ECC DIMMS? If so, 4GB modules of that are MUCH cheaper than 4GB modules of unbuffered ECC DIMMS.

I think this has been said time and time again... a single quad with 8GB of RAM is more than enough for someone who doesn't rely on their machine to run a business or earn a living. If your time is money, then your business can probably justify the octo and 12-16GB of RAM.

The problem around this forum is that the pros who need an Octo and 16GB need to understand that NOT EVERYONE has the same needs as them and a Quad with 8GB fills the gap nicely between Apple's other desktop offerings and the Octo workstations.

There's almost a mentality here that if you don't buy an Octo with 12-16GB of RAM you are a fool. That's completely rediculous. Not everyone here works for Pixar or Disney.
Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense, but needs grow.

I am currently editing HDV video and I plan to get more seriously into colour correction / grading.

I do freelance work, and although time isn't as crucial to me, I'd like to have a bit more room to cope with what's to come in terms of software advancements.

Saying all of that, you're probably right, and you've given me a bit more confidence again. Ha!
 
VirtualRain said:
Does the 3500 XEON support Registered ECC DIMMS? If so, 4GB modules of that are MUCH cheaper than 4GB modules of unbuffered ECC DIMMS.
Click to expand...
YES, the W35xx parts will run Registered ECC. :) But where did you get the idea of Registered 4GB DIMM's being less expensive than the Unbuffered variety?

Registered is more expensive. Check out Crucial (use the 1 or 2GB versions, as Unbuffered tops out at 2GB sticks). To give you an idea, the 2GB Unbuffered stick goes for $49.99, while the Registered version goes for $83.99. (Both are CL = 7, and 1066MHz).

They also have an 8GB Registered DIMM that goes for a whopping $1379.99! :eek:
 
nanofrog said:
YES, the W35xx parts will run Registered ECC. :) But where did you get the idea of Registered 4GB DIMM's being less expensive than the Unbuffered variety?
Click to expand...

I think he just means currently as 4GB Registered DIMMs are $187 from crucial, but unbuffered are $500 from OWC. And as unbuffered ECC is usually cheaper than registered ECC it makes sense to wait before buying 4GB DIMMs right now.
 
Umbongo said:
I think he just means currently as 4GB Registered DIMMs are $187 from crucial, but unbuffered are $500 from OWC. And as unbuffered ECC is usually cheaper than registered ECC it makes sense to wait before buying 4GB DIMMs right now.
Click to expand...
OWC's gone nutz then. ;) :p
 
Will this stuff work?

3 (Three 4GB modules, totaling 12GB)
12GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC Reg w/Par CL7 DIMM (Kit of 3) DR, x4 w/Therm Sen
$585.00

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...t=us&LinkBack=&ktcpartno=KVR1066D3D4R7SK3/12G

3 (Three 4GB modules, totaling 12GB)
12GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC Reg w/Par CL7 DIMM (Kit of 3) QR, x8 w/Therm Sen
$405.00

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...t=us&LinkBack=&ktcpartno=KVR1066D3Q8R7SK3/12G

If so, it's much cheaper than this...

3 (Three 4GB modules, totaling 12GB)
12GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC CL7 DIMM (Kit of 3) with Thermal Sensor
$1,605.00

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...oot=us&LinkBack=&ktcpartno=KVR1066D3E7SK3/12G

I don't understand the difference other than registered DIMMs use an actual register for the ECC and therefore consume an extra clock cycle of latency for memory operations... but if it's supported, then for that kind of savings, I can live with an extra cycle of latency.
 
MIDI_EVIL said:
This makes a lot of sense, but needs grow.

I am currently editing HDV video and I plan to get more seriously into colour correction / grading.

I do freelance work, and although time isn't as crucial to me, I'd like to have a bit more room to cope with what's to come in terms of software advancements.

Saying all of that, you're probably right, and you've given me a bit more confidence again. Ha!
Click to expand...

Damn, that is my situation as well. I will be working on a DVD project, HDV, a commercial project. My income depends on the sales of the product. So time is not off the escense for me, but quality is. So I like to have everything open: FCP, Motion, Logic Pro, Photoshop, ... to work on the project simultaniously. I wonder if a quad will give me the headroom to work comfortably without the hangs that I sometimes had in my 2007 quad 2.0?

I could go for a 2008 octo but I'm a bit scared off yestertech.

What do you guys think?
 
natteaap said:
Damn, that is my situation as well. I will be working on a DVD project, HDV, a commercial project. My income depends on the sales of the product. So time is not off the escense for me, but quality is. So I like to have everything open: FCP, Motion, Logic Pro, Photoshop, ... to work on the project simultaniously. I wonder if a quad will give me the headroom to work comfortably without the hangs that I sometimes had in my 2007 quad 2.0?

I could go for a 2008 octo but I'm a bit scared off yestertech.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

If you are using it for your income, I would not skimp.
 
mingus51 said:
Were they too quick to recommend the Quad knowing it's only expandable to 8 Gigs of RAM?

Even a moderate user of pro or pro-sumer software will eat that up.

I can see people not utilizing the full 32 gigs of the Octo but it seems 8 gig is too low a ceiling...
Click to expand...

Rubbish. I use Aperture and CS4 all the time with 4GB and I don't find my Mac Pro crawling to a halt.
 
VirtualRain said:
There's almost a mentality here that if you don't buy an Octo with 12-16GB of RAM you are a fool. That's completely rediculous. Not everyone here works for Pixar or Disney.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, anyone who is doing fine with 3-6 GB of RAM, has no business discussing Mac Pro performance in the first place, and performance is what most of these discussions are about.

No offence to anyone, but as long as you don't really push your computer with the most demanding tasks, don't talk performance, talk needs.

Everyone's needs are different, but performance really counts when you push things to the limit, and you can't test and judge that with an out-of-the-box configuration.
 
Horst said:
Trouble is, anyone who is doing fine with 3-6 GB of RAM, has no business discussing Mac Pro performance in the first place, and performance is what most of these discussions are about.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.
 
Horst said:
Trouble is, anyone who is doing fine with 3-6 GB of RAM, has no business discussing Mac Pro performance in the first place, and performance is what most of these discussions are about.
Click to expand...

"Trouble is", you're wrong. Not all high performance computing is memory bound. There are lots of tasks that are wholly dependant on very fast serial execution and run with very low memory footprint. For examples, look at the sorts of machines that get put into clusters - their configuration depends on the task set.
 
NoNameBrand said:
"Trouble is", you're wrong. Not all high performance computing is memory bound. There are lots of tasks that are wholly dependent on very fast serial execution and run with very low memory footprint. For examples, look at the sorts of machines that get put into clusters - their configuration depends on the task set.
Click to expand...
Exactly. :)

Nice explanation BTW. ;)
 
mingus51 said:
Were they too quick to recommend the Quad knowing it's only expandable to 8 Gigs of RAM?

Even a moderate user of pro or pro-sumer software will eat that up.

I can see people not utilizing the full 32 gigs of the Octo but it seems 8 gig is too low a ceiling...
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on this. I have my Harpertown duals and I can expand my RAM way above 8. In fact I am using 8 currently. If I was to get a new QUAD, (A.K.A. not dump $5K) I would be maxed out for RAM, and the 8 is just about to become a little less then needed.
 
NoNameBrand said:
"Trouble is", you're wrong. Not all high performance computing is memory bound. There are lots of tasks that are wholly dependant on very fast serial execution and run with very low memory footprint. For examples, look at the sorts of machines that get put into clusters - their configuration depends on the task set.
Click to expand...

Give me some examples, will you ?

I'm basically claiming recreational users wouldn't know performance if it sat on their face. ;)

So what applications and tasks are there which are both pushing a Mac Pro and do not benefit from memory greater than 3-6 GB, and/or a proper HDD setup ?

High-def. Video, Audio, Photo, 3D do, is there anything else ?

And please , no VI - Tech clusters or such, that's not relevant .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back