I would suggest looking at the Apple refurb previous generation Mac Pros. I do similar things as you do plus some 3D rendering. My 4x3.0GHz Mac Pro is perfectly fine except for the rendering. The last I checked, Apple offered AppleCare for their refurbs, so you can get a good bargain with a three year warranty.
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.
Nehalem Mac Pros Arrive: Unboxing and Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is my first post here, long time lurker
I can't figure out how to send a PM, but here are my Cinebench R10 results from my new 2009 Mac Pro Quad 2.66 (base spec machine, 3Gb RAM GT120, but I do have a 2nd display in the DVI)...
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6
Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 3572 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 14753 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 4.13
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6028 CB-GFX
****************************************************
So far I am quite happy with my purchase, I would have only ever gone for the old Quad anyway, and for what I do at the moment it seems as if the 2.66 Quad can outperform the 2.26 Octo in some areas.
I would be most interested to see some results from an iMac, as this was the other option when buying this new Mac.
Cheers
Cris.
Upgrading older mac pro to Nehalem
Hey everyone!
I have a 2007 Mac Pro with the 2x dual core Xeon's. (667 mhz RAM)
I know I can upgrade my machine to quad core Xeon's, but am wondering if with the platform changes with Nehalem, if I can upgrade my box to said Nehalem?
Or even if it's possible, is the slower system arch of my machine make upgrading overkill?
thanks!
AJ
Hey everyone!
I have a 2007 Mac Pro with the 2x dual core Xeon's. (667 mhz RAM)
I know I can upgrade my machine to quad core Xeon's, but am wondering if with the platform changes with Nehalem, if I can upgrade my box to said Nehalem?
Or even if it's possible, is the slower system arch of my machine make upgrading overkill?
thanks!
AJ
I don't think you'll find a lot of midi-heads here. I have most of the same samples/instruments and more. Ive been making good money on a dual 2GB G5, and using CS3 on the same machine with few problems. Obviously the orchestral scores need a lot of rendering but I get by.
I've found the 2.8 octo at several Apple stores, but for full price, plus I can only get my company discount through the online store which so far doesn't have that model available. By the time I add RAM and HD storage the 2.8 is very close in price to the new octo 2.26 with discount. I'm going with the 2.26 w/12GB RAM in 6 slots and the upgraded video card. With memory intensive soft-sampling the 2.26 should be within a nat's @$$ of the old 2.8 and maybe faster.
I've been burned in the past with last of generation machines and future incompatibilities, so equal performance is fine with me. And the 8-core 2.26 will be light years ahead of my current machine, which has served me well!
My Cinebench results with Octo 2.8 overclocked:
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Tester : iBug
Processor :
MHz : 3185
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.7
Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 3681 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 21549 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6333 CB-GFX
****************************************************
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Tester : iBug
Processor :
MHz : 3185
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.7
Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 3681 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 21549 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6333 CB-GFX
****************************************************
Hey Arn, it's not at the top of the list anymore!!! It's just been beaten by the IBM 3850 M2, scoring 22,357!!!!
Several things to keep in mind:
1. How much multitasking are you doing on the computer. Just having 4-10 apps open doesn't necessarily that you are leveraging an active multiprogram workload.
For example: Flipping between Safari, Mail , Quark probably means that only one of those programs has lots to do. Which ever is frontmost and getting user inputs.
versus A batch job of Photoshop filters going to apply to 100 photos going on in a non-user-interactive session while same time running itunes for listening music, EyeTV digitizing TV shows, the Software RAID 0/1 striping your disk drives , and running Quark in the foreground with no visible slowdowns.
in short one mainly has single user driven workload and is more similar to if multiple users were logging in actively doing different things. Humans primarily just do one thing at a time. That's why there is just one menu bar.
[ We can fake multitasking but that is usually quite limited and no where as good as what microprocessors can do. ] 2. Virtual Memory versus instant gratification.
Related to above. If have applications that are just open and not actively trying to do much work, then they can be paged out by Virtual memory. The Quad s have a limit of 8 GB or real memory. You can page out much more than that. The "cost" is that the application will "wake up" a little slower if don't use it for a long time. (e.g., Firefox needs 3 seconds to page in that page I haven't looked at in 4 hours. ... not really a big deal to me.) If that means money in your pocket for periodic waits for apps use sparingly.... that may be a trade off.
In short, you need enough real memory for the applications that have to actively run concurrently and you need rapid response from.
[ some folks think they need rapid response from everthing and that paging is never an option.... that firefox page from 3 days ago must appear on the screen in subsecond time or the world will end. ]
3. The Quads may eventually take 4GB DIMMs. Right now 4GB DIMMs of the type that the Mac Pros specifically need, cost a significant fraction of whole rest of the Mac Pro (i.e., would push it into the 8 core price range. )
When those prices come down out the the stratosphere ... Apple can change the specs. ;-) Right now it doesn't even make sense to even offer the config now because it would be cheaper to buy the 8 core and get what you want (12GB , etc. ) with 2GB DIMMs.
If you have primarily single user driven workload and a sub 6 GB average working set of data activitly working on with "instant" response times, then the Quads may be good enough. 2 years from now may be able to push past the 8GB limit without a problem.
[ If you primarily use apps just one at a time then the higher single core clock speed will help unless the 2.93 box is affordable. ]
If you have 8 cores of work. (you could do even more now, but don't because don't want to swamp your current machine. Example, hardware RAID now vs. software RAID on new box ). Or 8 cores will earn you more money quicker. ...
If the 3D Rendering software is leveraging floating point operations (seems likely) then probably better to wait until more float benchmarks come in on those new Quad machines.
Okay I'll stop doing it... I'll just let everyone else do it for me.... I'm glad to see my MP is still a contender
There's nothing wrong to see where the previous model stands. I personally have an issue when someone is looking to replace their last gen, bought less than a year ago machine for an updated one.
Also, it is good to see where your machine stands. I was going to make this current Mac Pro my first "NEW" non refurbished Mac purchase, but given the marks I may have to buy a refurbed 2.8 Octo off Apple's site or Craigslist or what have you.
Any recomendations
I am an architect who uses Sketchup on the Mac side and Autocad through Parallels when possible. When our drawing files get to large we open our Autocads through bootcamp. Does anyone knows if the 2.66 will be able handle these and other modeling programs smoothly while running Auto cad through Parallels.
I know the obvious answer is just to use a windows machine.
I am an architect who uses Sketchup on the Mac side and Autocad through Parallels when possible. When our drawing files get to large we open our Autocads through bootcamp. Does anyone knows if the 2.66 will be able handle these and other modeling programs smoothly while running Auto cad through Parallels.
I know the obvious answer is just to use a windows machine.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I know I'm not a real multi-tasker.
I think that's what this is mostly about. Assessing our real needs and then making a decision which MacPro is best suited.
I can certainly not claim, "this faster machine is making more money in less time for me". I don't run a rendering farm, nor do I work on hundred PS files a day.
I know that the biggest bottleneck for my work/moneymaking is me: When I have "writer's block" designing for a new project, when I spend hours a day listening and cataloging music files, watching soccer on TV etc etc. Not the fastest processor could help there.
The fact that I can still get my work done on a G5 with 4GB RAM today obviously shows that I don't NEED the fastest and newest.
But I don't want to buy a refurb last gen Mac now, only to find out in a couple of years that I can't do this or that because I don't have this Nehalem processor.
So do I understand correctly that for someone with my work/entertainment profile the single Quad core 2.66 is the most sensible option?
I agree. I want speed when I'm actually doing my work, exporting a PDF from Quark, or a QuickTime movie from Flash. I'm fine waiting 3 seconds for Firefox to come back. Just when I'm actually in Firefox I don't want to see the beachball ....
Is this pretty much guaranteed? That we can put 4GB or 8GB DIMMs in these slots in the near future? That would certainly make this RAM restriction a non-issue. I don't foresee needing more than 8GB for the next two years or so.
RAID is something I have never thought about. Would it be a good idea to get the RAID card and have two 1TB mirrored HDs? For safety and speed's sake ... ?
Where did you find a refurb MP 2.8 Octo sold by Apple? Does Apple Care transfer on a Craigslist purchase? Thanks.
The Intel processors are not like PowerPC processors with significant feature changes from the G3 to G4 to G5 series. If Apple or its software partners change something to require a Nehalem processor, they'll be cutting out the vast majority of new computers sold in the next year to 18 months. Under that concern, you'll never buy a new computer because Intel will always add minor new features to their next set of processors and it's possible Apple or its software partners might require them and cut off those without it.
If all you want is to mirror a couple of drives, you don't need a RAID card. You can do software RAID mirroring with Apple's Disk Utility. About the only thing a card gives for mirroring is a battery backup on more expensive ones. If you put your machine on a UPS and journal the filesystem (which is now the default I think), you're probably fine for mirroring.
RAID cards really only become useful once you start using the stripe with parity models like RAID 3, 5 or 6. If you wanted to put all four internal drives on a RAID 5 array, you'll need a RAID card. If you use an external RAID box, there are some that handle the RAID 5 or 6 behind the scenes and just present a single volume to the OS. These generally have a single eSATA or FW800 port.
If the original owner has all the paperwork, Apple will transfer the AppleCare to the new owner. I sold my PowerMac G5 with some time still left on the AppleCare and I remember it being pretty easy to transfer. I think I had to send an e-mail with some information about the new owner.
I didn't find one YET.
Apple care does transfer over since it follows the machine's serial number and is non transferrable when it comes to machines. Once Apple Care is locked into a machine's serial number is there until it expires.
The biggest thing to remember about Craigslist/Ebay/online purchases is to trust the buyer. Regarding a Mac Pro and that much money (and weight) it may be best to buy locally (within 3 hours driving distance) and pick it up in person.
my quad 3ghz 8 gig ram 3tb hdd 2007 macpro just died right after I brought it home from being repaired for the 3 rd time, and Apple has been very garceful and is replacing the beast and monitor for a brand new 2.9 ghz macpro. I'm so grateful. It's so wonderful to be treated like a human being by a company. I can't wait for it to come. I do heavy be video editing and have over an hour rendering some time and it'll be great for hand brake. I'm sorry for being so positive but good news at this time in the country is always better than it should be : D
I am currently running a Dual 1GHz G4 Quicksilver PowerMac with 1.5Gigs Ram
will I notice much of an increase if I buy the high-end machine?
j/k
But no joke... I am using the same machine I bought in 2002
j/k
But no joke... I am using the same machine I bought in 2002
There is a big difference between a 1GHz processor and a 2.66GHz processor when it comes to speed. I would buy it while its at the beginning of its cycle if you can afford it.
In 2006 I bought the original stock Mac Pro (dual dual-core 2.66, 7300GT) upgraded to 6GB memory and 3 more 1 TB hard drives.
The same price buys me a quad-core 2.66 today. I know there is a faster bus and memory and a better video card but its still 4 cores at 2.66 which is what I have. Is it really much faster?
Back then I was doing lots of page design work (using Adobe) which I don't do anymore and I use Sibelius (or Finale) for composing (I use Garritan Personal Orchestra.) I also have a huge iTunes library (lossless.) Now an iMac would be fine for that, but I'm so happy I have gotten so much use out of the Mac Pro and I love having the internal storage and software RAID and I could upgrade the video card if I needed to, and I upgraded my monitor twice. The only thing I'd really like is a blu-ray upgrade and playback support, only because I only buy blu-rays now and can't watch them on my current or a new Mac Pro (or iMac.)
The same price buys me a quad-core 2.66 today. I know there is a faster bus and memory and a better video card but its still 4 cores at 2.66 which is what I have. Is it really much faster?
Back then I was doing lots of page design work (using Adobe) which I don't do anymore and I use Sibelius (or Finale) for composing (I use Garritan Personal Orchestra.) I also have a huge iTunes library (lossless.) Now an iMac would be fine for that, but I'm so happy I have gotten so much use out of the Mac Pro and I love having the internal storage and software RAID and I could upgrade the video card if I needed to, and I upgraded my monitor twice. The only thing I'd really like is a blu-ray upgrade and playback support, only because I only buy blu-rays now and can't watch them on my current or a new Mac Pro (or iMac.)
I'd say yes - I have slightly more intensive needs, but still no where near what an octo would offer me in terms of speed vs. $$.
I was torn between refurb old gen and new model as well. The "what can't I do?" question that ultimately threw me over the edge was the minidisplay port. I needed a monitor, willing to get a 24" minidisplay LCD and really didn't like my options for comparable ones. So, I just ordered a quad 2.66 with monitor and I can't wait!
If in 3-5 years I come to find out I need more than what I have in terms of CPU or max RAM then I'd bet I can afford a new machine...
Otherwise I'll be happy for plenty of years to come. Either way a win/win situation. I don't think I could say the same for an octo MP or a fully loaded iMac.The Nehalem is a new platform so you won't be able to upgrade to those. It uses a different socket as well as a built in memory controller with ddr3
I have the same mac with you, and i'm looking for the single 2.66, which according to geekbench is about 10 times faster. Of course that will be mostly true for well threaded, beyond 2 threads, apps. The top of the line should be quite a bit faster even.
Apple and Dell must be from different planets (or different universes even)
Here in Sweden where I live you get *two* of these:
http://www.dustinhome.se/pd_5010223873.aspx?intcmp=Flik_home
For less than the price of the entry Mac Pro:
http://store.apple.com/se/browse/hom...ro?mco=MTE2NjQ
Sorry, the pages are in Swedish, but I think the specs are understandable.
I'm having a hard time understanding how this can be the case. I understand the Mac Pro is a better machine in most (if not all) ways (hmmm... how about the graphics card?) but isn't it crazy that you can get two Dell's for less than one Mac Pro?
Would be interesting to see some Geekbench results from that Dell...
Here in Sweden where I live you get *two* of these:
http://www.dustinhome.se/pd_5010223873.aspx?intcmp=Flik_home
For less than the price of the entry Mac Pro:
http://store.apple.com/se/browse/hom...ro?mco=MTE2NjQ
Sorry, the pages are in Swedish, but I think the specs are understandable.
I'm having a hard time understanding how this can be the case. I understand the Mac Pro is a better machine in most (if not all) ways (hmmm... how about the graphics card?) but isn't it crazy that you can get two Dell's for less than one Mac Pro?
Would be interesting to see some Geekbench results from that Dell...
I couldn't agree more. Honestly..... It is as simple as 1, 2, 3!!!
