Need Advice - 2008 Mac Pro 8 core good deal?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by zepharus, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. zepharus macrumors 6502a

    zepharus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    #1
    Is this a good deal? or if money isnt the issue would I be better served getting the 2009 Quad or Octo?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #2
    Here are some benchmarks of the Mac Pros so you can see some numbers :)
     
  3. Loa macrumors 65816

    Loa

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Location:
    Québec
    #3

    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
     
  4. bigbird macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
    big bucks

    That's a lot of money for outdated technology. Additional RAM for that is not cheap either. DDR3 is much cheaper for the '09 MP's. You'll immediately need much more HD storage as well. Count on another $500 for more RAM and HD's.
     
  5. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #5
    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.
     
  6. hehejames macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #6

    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
     
  7. hehejames macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    That's super deal!!! I heard the same machine was going for $3,800 or $3,900 until last week.
     
  8. ehlfg macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #8
    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.
     
  9. hehejames macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    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.
     
  10. ehlfg macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    Very nice choice IMO. :D

    Much better for RAID installs, and the performance of the '09 Octad's just don't justify getting them (too pricey in comparison).
     
  12. bearcatrp macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    Boon Docks USA
    #12
    Grab a 2.8 refurb for 2399.00. Only a .4 difference in spped. Use the extra cash for ram and hard drives.
     
  13. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #13
    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. :eek: :p
     
  14. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #14
    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.​


    .
     
  15. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #16
    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.
     
  17. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    Like I said, you're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips. Sacrifice .4GHz and save a ton of $.
     
  18. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #18
    0.4 GHz = 400 MHz x 8 = 3.2 Ghz = 3,200 MHz

    <strokes long beard>
     
  19. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #19
    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...
     
  20. zmttoxics macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #20
    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. :)
     
  21. zmttoxics macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #21
    Thats still not how that works.
     
  22. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #22
    ^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...
     
  23. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #23
    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. :p
     
  24. Trev311 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Location:
    Pumpkin Land
    #24
    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
     
  25. Trev311 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Location:
    Pumpkin Land
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page