Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac

[macenforcer]

Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop

It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.

 

[gugy]

"Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000" 😱

I want one!

 

[epitaphic]

The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.

Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.

Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.

Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame 😉

 

[gnasher729]

The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.

No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.

 

[erockerboy]

Great post - you said it all.

I think everyone has to remember that Apple took a HUGE PR risk by switching to intel and that it would be foolish to think that they didn't have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing it. As much as RISC is loved here, there really is no compelling reason to think that the G5 architecture stands much of a chance in this comparison. Furthermore, it is foolish to assume that a "up-to-date" G5 would fare any better, firstly because IBM has never stopped developing the G5 (its primary usage was IBM blade servers after all) and secondly because the Core 2 architecture as it stands now isn't being pushed to perform at its maximum levels. In the end, arrogance and pride has never helped anyone, its time to let go.

 

[hadleydb]

I need one... or is it more of a want? Need.😱

 

[Multimedia]

8 Cores Will Seldom Remain Idle If You Do Video Compression Work A Lot

The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.

Not so. I can only run one compression process at a time on the Quad G5 unless I want the speed of that process and others I want to run at the same time to be compromized. Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH.

Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time.

This is the place where you are misunderstanding how LITTLE one can do with only 4 cores.

Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.

Not from where I'm sitting. The opposite is true for me.

Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.

But speed is not our problem. Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.

Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame 😉

That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. 😱

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

Show.. me.. the.. games...

LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records 🙂

And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?

 

[Liske]

Not Quite That Close

I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.

The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.

I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]

My 2 cents!

mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.

 

[Macinposh]

I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.

Have you used cs2s or canon´s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?

2 x 2 drive stripe raids.

So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?


Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.

 

[THX1139]

I don't like Adobe anymore. 😡

They have become the Microsoft of the graphics world. See what having lots of money can do to you? Makes you cocky. That's one big reason I don't want Apple to gain much more market share. I want them to have just enough to keep them working hard... not so much to make them fat and lazy and greedy.

 

[iMikeT]

I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.🙄

 

[wmmk]

And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?

Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.🙄

 

[OSXconvert]

Will Adobe really optimize CS3 better for UB than Windows?

It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.

Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.

The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.

Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.

From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.

 

[Multimedia]

Mac Professionals Will Save Money and Make Money Buying the 3GHz Mac Pro

Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.🙄

Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. 🙂

 

[gugy]

They have become the Microsoft of the graphics world. See what having lots of money can do to you? Makes you cocky. That's one big reason I don't want Apple to gain much more market share. I want them to have just enough to keep them working hard... not so much to make them fat and lazy and greedy.

Wow, interesting.

I think Adobe is actually pretty good upgrading their software. As for Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects they seem to do major upgrades every 18 months. I think is very reasonable. Plus is a normal thing when you are on the top to slow down a little, and frankly I don't think they are doing that.
CS3 will be here next year alongside possibly with After Effects, so what's your problem with Adobe?

As for Microsoft, I agreed that they are very slow when it comes to Office suite for Mac.

 

[THX1139]

Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.🙄

Calm down. The OP was directing his question towards gamers. I agree with him, why salivate over a Macpro and whine for games when it's clear that the Macpro isn't intended for that kind of user. If I were a games enthusiast, I'd build my own custom PC that would be optimized for gaming performance. Apple is ignoring this segment of the market. For those of us who need to get real work done, the Macpro is a great machine. It will play games, but don't try hauling to a Lan party. You'll probably get laughed at.

Do you see now?

 

[Bengt77]

I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.🙄

Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...

 

[milo]

Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.🙄

I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.

To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. 🙂

Ditto.

 

[greenstork]

So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?

Just out of curiosity, is it even possible to configure a RAID 10 or 01 on OS X setup without a dedicated controller card? I was planning to configure a RAID 1 (two 500 GB drives) on my Mac Pro for the sake of redundancy, but with 4 drives bays to play with, a RAID 10 or 01 might be a little faster if I understand the technology correctly. Anyone?

 

[greenstork]

Calm down. The OP was directing his question towards gamers. I agree with him, why salivate over a Macpro and whine for games when it's clear that the Macpro isn't intended for that kind of user. If I were a games enthusiast, I'd build my own custom PC that would be optimized for gaming performance. Apple is ignoring this segment of the market. For those of us who need to get real work done, the Macpro is a great machine. It will play games, but don't try hauling to a Lan party. You'll probably get laughed at.

Do you see now?

With no intention of jumping into the argument in question here, I have a slight issue with your definition of a gamer. I'm an intermediate photoshop user, web designer, and gamer. I don't just use my computer for games or work, there's this huge gray area in the middle. For me, the Mac Pro is the best of all worlds. I wouldn't dare rely on Windows for my workflow, design, and productivity software, OS X is a must for me. However, the ability to duat boot into Windows and play games natively is a bonus, one that I'm willing to pay a premium for, and whether or not it's even a premium is up for debate. Sure, I could build a PC just for games but if I can't run OS X ever then that machine is useless for me.

I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.

 

[63dot]

With no intention of jumping into the argument in question here, I have a slight issue with your definition of a gamer. I'm an intermediate photoshop user, web designer, and gamer. I don't just use my computer for games or work, there's this huge gray area in the middle. For me, the Mac Pro is the best of all worlds. I wouldn't dare rely on Windows for my workflow, design, and productivity software, OS X is a must for me. However, the ability to duat boot into Windows and play games natively is a bonus, one that I'm willing to pay a premium for, and whether or not it's even a premium is up for debate. Sure, I could build a PC just for games but if I can't run OS X ever then that machine is useless for me.

I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.

well said

as for xp vs. os x, i can live with xp if i had to and do the adobe stuff on it, but i would always be looking over my shoulder for viruses and junk filling up my machine every time i went online

i would also have to invest in a virus suite and keep the darn thing updated all the time

all i have ever put on macs has been anti-virus and have never run into any problems and as for even seeing a virus on an unprotected mac, as a tech for 7 years, i haven't

i do love that "mac dude and pc dude" commercial campaign that apple has been putting out and i hope some pc only users see the light

 

[Liske]

Repsonse to camera raw question and raid

Have you used cs2s or canon´s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?

I use CS2 for camera raw. Right now I am shooting with a fuji finepix S2 pro, but probably going to get the D200 soon. The Canon stuff is nice too, but I haven't tried the Canon raw converter. I love adobe camera raw - it just works for me. I have yet to try aperature but might try to get my hands on it. Camera Raw runs well on the Mac Pro, but like I said 10% faster on the Quad. It doesn't impact me much, and I get to boot windoze to cross test and develop items on a PC for web stuff 🙂

So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?

Yes I run one striped two disk raid for OSX ONLY. This disk is also the scratch disk. The other striped two disk raid is for my user data and apps. You can find info on the web about how to do this, there are alot of advantages.

This way I have seperate raid for user data & files, and a seperate raid for OSX / scratch. It seperates the OS and apps also so both have their own disks. Seperating the OS from my user data allows me to only back up the user data raid as the OS raid has base OSX on it only and if lost could just be reinstalled. I backup the main user data disk to the osx disk, as well as a slow NAT storage in a seperate building nightly. As far as RAID Once you go raid you get addicted, I could go nuts and get a 4 or 8 drive raid, which at some point I probably will do, but right now the 2 x 2 striped treat me very fine 🙂. But the speed impovements in a raid, especially in a Mac Pro where it is so easy, is worth it. At this point the sweet spot in terms of dollars is probably going with a 300 or 400 x 4, the 500s are still pretty high, but if you need the space then so be it.

 

[filmguy]

From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS.

I agree with your post and I'm also a PC-TO-MAC CONVERT. 🙂

The difference is going to come down to OS, as well as, the overall design of a machine and how well it's engineered. Apple seem to engineer machines of high quality, from the mere fact that their machines stand the test of time e.g. the other day I was working on a G4, on FCP 5.1, editing and rendering HDV footage in its native format, HDV1080i50 (Australian Sony camera). Although it wasn't the quickest performance, it held its own.

Also, I'm an I.T. guy transitioning to film (pre-prod, shoot, and post-prod) and the whole Mac experience is different from a PC, from a creative workflow point-of-view. I bought MY FIRST MAC this week - Mac Pro, 3 Ghz, 2 Gig RAM, 250 Gig HD, standard video card, and previously owned 2 x 300 Gig Ext Maxtor 7200 RPM. I also bought AE 7, Adobe Web Bundle and FCP Studio 5.1. I shoot with the Sony Z1P and will soon have some sample work on the web.

Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. 😡 I think the OS X was a fresh build.

 

[63dot]

Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. 😡 I think the OS X was a fresh build.

windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE

windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98

and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft