Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.Liske said:
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.
Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac
- Thread starter FF_productions
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iMikeT said:
I wonder if they'll even bother to go to 4GHz anytime soon. the roadmap is for more cores. We have on the roadmap DP and MP (>2 chips) capable Quad-core chips starting to come out by the end of this year/early next year. The next step is 8+ core chips. The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on. Its successor, Dunnington, will be a 45nm chip with between 4 and 32 cores depending on who you believe.
Thanks for the tip
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
Silentwave said:
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
filmguy said:
Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.
You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix.
Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).
dante@sisna.com
macrumors 6502a
Quad G5 Still Decent
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
840quadra said:
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
EricNau said:
On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.
Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere 😉
dante@sisna.com
macrumors 6502a
Evangelion said:
Not likely to happen.
I have used liquid cooling setups in my PC's that were not nearly as well built as the AC Delco inpired Quad G5 without any problems for more than 5 years running.
Besides, my $99 a year apple care will more than cover this.
There are minimal to no reports of problems with the Quad G5 cooling system. I've run 3 of these for nearly 9 months with no problems.
DJO
dante@sisna.com said:
Maybe, maybe not. Fact remains that the liquid-cooling in the G5 Quad is very complex beast. And more complex things get, the more likely they are to break.
A whole 9 months? Those systems are supposed to last for years.
epitaphic
macrumors regular
Multimedia said:
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up 🙂
G5vsIntel
I do find it interested how agressive you are all being regarding G5vsIntel. Any serious mac professional would never run out and buy the first of a new machine expecially with a new chip and new software - complete lunacy - if you value your ability to get work done on a trusted set-up. The intel may be fast but for most professional musicians it's pointless until all of the software is compatible - Native instruments have a long way to go yet and most of us use their apps. And to conclude - having the fastest machine and bragging about it whie dissing the old machine don't make you any good at using it.
RIP.
I do find it interested how agressive you are all being regarding G5vsIntel. Any serious mac professional would never run out and buy the first of a new machine expecially with a new chip and new software - complete lunacy - if you value your ability to get work done on a trusted set-up. The intel may be fast but for most professional musicians it's pointless until all of the software is compatible - Native instruments have a long way to go yet and most of us use their apps. And to conclude - having the fastest machine and bragging about it whie dissing the old machine don't make you any good at using it.
RIP.
Multimedia
macrumors 603
This Is An Apples To Oranges Comparison
That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.epitaphic said:
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up 🙂
63dot
macrumors 603
Evangelion said:
i will also chime in on this one and say it's not likely to happen
many years before the G5 was liquid cooled, amd tried liquid cooling with some of their mobile processors and found the idea was not practical for reasons not disclosed and, at that time, dropped the project
later on, amd, like others, simply resorted to better designed, cooler chips and that solved overheating
bokdol
macrumors 6502a
what i dont get sometimes is how people get so excited over how these intel machines are better the the powerpc. and most of these are from recently converted mac users. screaming about how much better intel is. but i hope some people out there realize of couse these machine will be fast. it's called technology. it advances as time goes by. a newer topend machine SHOULD be better.
now the question is really how much better should new technology be compared to 2 3 year old tech? was it a big enough jump. yeah the case design is friken awesome. but sheesh all this pro intel babble is foolish. it's like saying my 486 is better then my comodore 64.
or maybe i am just sad that my 1.8 g5 single just went to the stone age...........
and if you guys have old powermac g5 dualcore sitting around because you got a new mac pro. i'll help you dispose of it no problem. i'll even do it for free. 😉
now the question is really how much better should new technology be compared to 2 3 year old tech? was it a big enough jump. yeah the case design is friken awesome. but sheesh all this pro intel babble is foolish. it's like saying my 486 is better then my comodore 64.
or maybe i am just sad that my 1.8 g5 single just went to the stone age...........
and if you guys have old powermac g5 dualcore sitting around because you got a new mac pro. i'll help you dispose of it no problem. i'll even do it for free. 😉
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?
63dot
macrumors 603
bokdol said:
you take everything east of kansas and i will take the western region of the usa
when we have enough money, i can go raid asia and australia/new zealand for old G5s and you can go after europe and the middle east
when we are done we will be rich and could sit on the same oil board as bin laden, dick cheney, and several of the bush family members
and based on who is taller, one of us could be dr. evil and the other one will be mini me
sound good?
bokdol said:
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
bokdol
macrumors 6502a
mashinhead said:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/woodcrest_servers_are_covertown_servers/
i guess it will be
mashinhead said:
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
epitaphic said:
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up 🙂
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.