My 8-core future - 2.26 or 2.66? That is the question.

[rylin]

SO. . . while a 2.8 octo "sounds" like a good deal now, and I'd likely save a thousand or more, I may actually be ahead in getting the 2.26 or 2.66 octo for the future apps I'd be adding in 2009 or 2010.

A 2.8 with a $1000 storage system will smoke the 09 MP for the same money.
Disk IO is by far the biggest bottleneck for most applications.

May be worth keeping in mind

 

[MCHR]

Will the 2.8 run Rhino or Alias faster than a 2009?

I'm not looking for huge storage, rather a relevant platform for Alias, Maya, Rhino AND the Adobe suite.

If the 2.8 is limited by it's architecture, I'll be kicking myself in a year by going that route.

 

[Toronto Mike]

As others have speculated, the next update of the Mac Pro might see the computer you really want now be sold for much less at the time when you are able to judge whether you are moving into these more power hungry applications and what those applications require at the time you purchase them in terms of hardware.

If you can do your work efficiently now with your G5, it might be better in the long run to wait. Picking up a 2.66 8 Core machine for much less might be what you really want to have for 5+ years doing the things you want to do.

I'd wait if you can until you are ready to move into those new areas.

Mike

 

[MCHR]

If you can do your work efficiently now with your G5, it might be better in the long run to wait. Picking up a 2.66 8 Core machine for much less might be what you really want to have for 5+ years doing the things you want to do.

I'm not sure if I can wait that long, as my G5 is running IBM chips, and I need to get into an Intel 'box with the software I'll be running. Yeah, I can get last year's HP workstation as a stopgap, but I'd prefer to get a machine I'll be using for a while.

This new release of MPs is a real aggravation, especially with the complexity of "how" each user works their softwares.

 

[rostasi]

Interesting thread. Came to it 'cause I'm deciding between a 4 or 8 core 2.93.
Last week, I sat down at my G4/867 and it decided to not fully boot
(light blue/dark blue screen alternating every 15 secs...).
I've used this machine for an average of 15 to 18 hours a day
(sometimes narrowcasting for days at a time) for at least 300 days a year since 2001
and this is the first problem I've ever had.
Almost wasn't able to use Leopard tho - so, I'm just deciding if 8 is overkill.
Wondering too what's in store with Snow Leopard when it comes to this 4 vs 8-core business...

decisions, decisions...

carry on folks...

 

[Roy]

8 years ago this was your choice as the top of the line from Apple--PowerPC 7450 "G4" CPU 733. I've used a 466 for my home computer for 8 plus years (Jan. 2001 until now), but I could never see anyone using the 733 in a professional trade for 8 years. My 466 has been the best Mac I've ever owned, but watching vidios on the Internet is getting harder. It's time to replace it with a Mac Pro and then maybe another 8 years for my home computer.

Power Macintosh G4 (Digital Audio)

(bookmark this page / add to del.icio.us)


CPU
CPU: PowerPC 7450 "G4"
CPU Speed: 466/533/667/733
FPU: integrated
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Data Path Width: 64 bit
Address Width: 32 bit
ROM: 1 MB ROM + 3 MB toolbox ROM loaded into RAM
RAM Type: PC133
Minimum RAM Speed: 133 MHz
Onboard RAM: 0 MB
RAM slots: 3
Maximum RAM: 1.5 GB
Level 1 Cache: 32 kB data, 32 kB instruction
Level 2 Cache: 1 MB backside, 1:2
Expansion Slots: 4 64-bit 33 MHz PCI, 1 4x AGP (filled)

Video
Video Card/Chipset: NVidia GeForce2 MX
VRAM: 32 MB
Max Resolution: all resolutions supported
Video Out: VGA/DVI, ADC

Storage
Hard Drive: 30/40/60 GB
ATA Bus: ATA-66
Zip Drive: optional 250 MB
Optical Drive: 32x/8x/4x CD-RW

Input/Output
USB: 2
Firewire: 2
Audio Out: stereo 16 bit mini, Pro Speaker
Speaker: mono

Networking
Modem: 56 kbps
Ethernet: 10/100/1000Base-T
Airport: optional

Miscellaneous
Family: PowerMac G3/G4/G5
Codename: Clockwork
Gestalt ID: 406
Power: 338 Watts
Dimensions: 17" H x 8.9" W x 18.4" D
Weight: 30 lbs.
Minimum OS: 9.1
Maximum OS: 10.4.11
Introduced: January 2001
Terminated: July 2001

 

[sigmadog]

I'm getting one of the new Mac Pros in a couple weeks. I've looked at the merits of backtracking to 2008 models and decided not to go that route. The new Mac Pros are my future. End of debate.

That was me a couple weeks ago.

As the thread starter, I think I should come clean, because, truth be told, I DID in fact end up purchasing a close-out 2008 Mac Pro (2.8 eight-core). I saved a ton of cash doing so, and am completely satisfied with the speed and power of my new machine.

The whole saga of how I went from "2009 or nothing" to "2008 for sure" is presented in a post on my blog. The deciding factor for me was a comparison of desirable features between the old and new models, which put the 2008 Mac Pros in a very positive light.

Of course, everyone has their own requirements, which may or may not align with mine. That's cool. But if you are in the same situation as me, and waffling back and forth, it might be worth a look.

Just sayin'.

 

[rostasi]

8 years ago this was your choice as the top of the line from Apple--PowerPC 7450 "G4" CPU 733. I've used a 466 for my home computer for 8 plus years (Jan. 2001 until now), but I could never see anyone using the 733 in a professional trade for 8 years. My 466 has been the best Mac I've ever owned, but watching vidios on the Internet is getting harder. It's time to replace it with a Mac Pro and then maybe another 8 years for my home computer.

Yup, a sobering bit of history.
I have used my Quicksilver professionally as a composer (audio and video) and archivist since '01 up until a week ago Monday.
Yes, it began to get a bit sluggish these last few months, but mostly during access of a TB+ of iTunes.

I'm beginning to doubt the $1100 "advantage" of an Octo 2.93 over a 2.66 tho...

Rod

 

[Pika]

Get the 2.26GHz 8-core and save the rest of your money for next generation Mac Pro.

 

[davewolfs]

Here is something to think about.

A $1600 PC can run Photoshop tests 100% faster then an 8 core 2.66. So how do you think the 2.26 is going to run?

 

[rostasi]

Get the 2.26GHz 8-core and save the rest of your money for next generation Mac Pro.

That's interesting...your sig mentions the 2.93. Do you have this and don't think that it's worth the money?

 

[rostasi]

OK, so after reading this:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem.html

I'll be having an 8-core future as well with the 2.93.

R~~