Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Need Advice - 2008 Mac Pro 8 core good deal?
- Thread starter zepharus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends on if you *really* need 8 cores. My bet is that computers with a lot of cores will always be limited by the large numbers of apps/algorithms that just cannot be multi-threaded.
So if you know that you'll be using apps that can handle lots of cores, then go ahead. Otherwise, the Nehalem (2009) quad at 2.93GHz will be less expensive and more powerful.
Loa
That seems too expensive. You're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips.
I'd find a 8x2.8GHz 2008 on eBay and grab it. I picked one up in March 2009 (with 2+ years of AppleCare still left on it) for about $2300.
I'd find a 8x2.8GHz 2008 on eBay and grab it. I picked one up in March 2009 (with 2+ years of AppleCare still left on it) for about $2300.
Dude... What are you smoking?
The 8-core 3.2Ghz used to be a $5,000 machine vs the 2.8Ghz was $2,800 NEW
Is this a good deal? or if money isnt the issue would I be better served getting the 2009 Quad or Octo?
![]()
That's super deal!!! I heard the same machine was going for $3,800 or $3,900 until last week.
It was around $3800 at the Apple Store just two days ago. I know because I was checking around for pricing over the weekend. BH Photo Video appears to have a non-refurbished version of this model (along with 4 GB extra RAM and Parallels OEM) for $3,589.00.
I wound up ordering an open box (last one) for around $2800 from PowerMax. Was trying to decide between it and the 2009 2.66 Quad (a couple of hundred bucks less), but decided to go with the extra cores and RAM slots.
I wound up ordering an open box (last one) for around $2800 from PowerMax. Was trying to decide between it and the 2009 2.66 Quad (a couple of hundred bucks less), but decided to go with the extra cores and RAM slots.
Nice! How do you like your new system so far?
Anyways, it looks like Apple is pushing their final batch of 3.2Ghz inventories out the door - whoever interested on the last year's top of the line model should go grab them now and take advantage of the price.
Hasn't gotten here yet! It should be here tomorrow. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it is OK. PowerMax apparently sold the system to someone else, who then returned it. It's supposed to be under warranty, so hopefully any problems can be fixed.
Very nice choice IMO.
Much better for RAID installs, and the performance of the '09 Octad's just don't justify getting them (too pricey in comparison).
Grab a 2.8 refurb for 2399.00. Only a .4 difference in spped. Use the extra cash for ram and hard drives.
It would depend on specific use. Some tasks will benefit from higher clocks than cores, as they may not be capable of being multi-threaded.
I'm not aware of the OP's intended useage, so it's impossible to say if the 2.8 or 3.2 is a better choice. But the '08 vs. '09 reasoning is another matter.
It would depend on specific use. Some tasks will benefit from higher clocks than cores, as they may not be capable of being multi-threaded.
I'm not aware of the OP's intended useage, so it's impossible to say if the 2.8 or 3.2 is a better choice. But the '08 vs. '09 reasoning is another matter.
Agree. 2009 is a generally better system - it's just silly pricing.
Price|Performance ratio wise, 2008 machines look MUCH better
to me. And the 3.2 is a screamer! The 3.2 right around the $3K
mark is a perfect price point too! Yummy!
To beat it in most things one must select the the 2009 2.93 Octad
which is like $6k And even then the 2008 3.2 will be faster at
some things. The two are actually very close.
Price|Performance ratio wise, 2008 machines look MUCH better
to me. And the 3.2 is a screamer! The 3.2 right around the $3K
mark is a perfect price point too! Yummy!
To beat it in most things one must select the the 2009 2.93 Octad
which is like $6k
And even then the 2008 3.2 will be faster atsome things. The two are actually very close.
.
Perhaps outdated by computer standards, but still more than competent... A comparable 2009 8-core (hmmm...2.93GHz) costs thousands more. And I call shenanigans on memory pricing. I don't know where you're getting that DDR3 ECC DIMMs are much cheaper than DDR2 DCC FB-DIMMs, because really, they're not. 32GB on a 2008 MP is $912.99 versus $1,199.99 for the 2009 MP at OWC.
And just for argument's sake, 16GB (8x2GB) DIMMs: $379.99 (2008) versus $325.99 (2009). Okay, the 2009 memory is cheaper in this case, but not as significantly as you make it seem.
The point is that you're saving considerable money versus something that's only marginally faster SOMETIMES.
2009 models come with bigger hard drives and more memory, but something tells me that a $70 tops hard drive and $130 worth of memory doesn't make up for the fact that the higher-clock Nehalem chips are obscenely overpriced.
Advising against the 3.2 Octo
The 3.2GHz has a huge premium over the 2.8GHz for not the much of a performance advantage...
it's only worth it to people who, at the time, could justify additional thousands in cost in returned revenue from the extra speed. if you're in this catagory, you should go with the new 2.93GHz Mac Pro.
If you're not in that catagory, wait for a 2.8GHz to show up or go with a Nehalem of some sort.
The 3.2GHz has a huge premium over the 2.8GHz for not the much of a performance advantage...
it's only worth it to people who, at the time, could justify additional thousands in cost in returned revenue from the extra speed. if you're in this catagory, you should go with the new 2.93GHz Mac Pro.
If you're not in that catagory, wait for a 2.8GHz to show up or go with a Nehalem of some sort.
Like I said, you're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips. Sacrifice .4GHz and save a ton of $.
Tesselator said:
For the same price he can get a 2.26GHz Nehalem Octad
3.2GHz x 8 = 25.6GHz
2.26GHz x 8 x 2 (hyperthreading) = 36.16GHz
*strokes longer beard*
so if he's doing multi-threaded stuff, he goes for the new Nehalem...if he's doing single threaded stuff, he should go for the older Harpertown. If that is the case, then he's paying ~$800-900 more for 0.4GHz...
Thats not how that works and you know it.
The 3.2 is a good machine, but so is the 2.8. Your decision depends on the size of your wallet IMHO. But really, I would get the 2.26 over it just because its newer.
^yes, hyperthreading is not exactly double (i think it's 1.8 times or something)...but the point made is the same -> for 3d rendering, i would rather a 2.26GHz Nehalem over a 3.2GHz Harpertown
However, for Photoshop, it's the other way round...
However, for Photoshop, it's the other way round...
It is if we're talking about potential.
A kind of "horse power" - you know?HT increase is 0% ~ 20% about. So that would be 1.2x. No way you're getting 1.8.
It might be worth noting that the Mac Pro in question also has 2 superdrives and the 8800gt which would make the price difference from a single superdrive and standard ATI card less. So not quite the huge 800-900 dollar premium
2.93 Octo
If money is no object then clearly the 2009 2.93GHZ Octo would be the clear winner. Most of what is being discussed in this thread revolves around price/performance ratios. The 2009 would be able to match the 2008 3.2 GHZ model on most things and beat it on a few (especially memory intensive tasks!). However as many have stated (myself and others in this thread included) the 2009 Mac Pro pricing is absolutely horrid compared to a year ago.
If money is no object then clearly the 2009 2.93GHZ Octo would be the clear winner. Most of what is being discussed in this thread revolves around price/performance ratios. The 2009 would be able to match the 2008 3.2 GHZ model on most things and beat it on a few (especially memory intensive tasks!). However as many have stated (myself and others in this thread included) the 2009 Mac Pro pricing is absolutely horrid compared to a year ago.