Sandy Bridge Changes the Game!!!!!

[lloyd709]

Excuse the pun!!

I'm a 1.1 mac owner and very happy with it for professional purposes (I'm a photographer) with it's 12 Gig of memory, SSD boot drive, 8 cores, 5770 graphics and RAID.

BUT - I have this burn for faster graphics. I'm not a big gamer but love to play the odd game now and then. I'm 42 - earning a bit of cash - and up until the recent reviews of the Sandy Bridge chip - was very tempted to upgrade to a Hex core 3.33 Mac Pro with a 5780 card basically, if I'm honest, just for the graphics improvement.

But, for £1100 (including VAT), I can get a PC that will blow the socks off of Apple's fasted games machine (that costs over £3000). Specifically, a computer with a i5 2500K clocked to 4.2 Ghz, Nvidia 580 GTX graphics card.

Apple have an awesome operating system (especially with the un-paralleled power and versatility of Apple Script) and great design. BUT, I think they may soon be very off of the pace with their hardware cost v performance ratio unless they upgrade their Mac Pros soon (which I don't think they will)!!

Just me thinking out loud!!

 

[neondrgns]

Excuse the pun!!

I'm a 1.1 mac owner and very happy with it for professional purposes (I'm a photographer) with it's 12 Gig of memory, SSD boot drive, 8 cores, 5770 graphics and RAID.

BUT - I have this burn for faster graphics. I'm not a big gamer but love to play the odd game now and then. I'm 42 - earning a bit of cash - and up until the recent reviews of the Sandy Bridge chip - was very tempted to upgrade to a Hex core 3.33 Mac Pro with a 5780 card basically, if I'm honest, just for the graphics improvement.

But, for £1100 (including VAT), I can get a PC that will blow the socks off of Apple's fasted games machine (that costs over £3000). And it's significantly upgradable.

Apple have an awesome operating system (especially with the un-paralleled power and versatility of Apple Script) and great design. BUT, I think they may soon be very off of the pace with their hardware cost v performance ratio.

Just me thinking out loud!!

you're greatly mistaken in thinking that sandy bridge alters anything concerning graphics. Graphics are dependent on the graphics card. Sandy Bridge will make a negligible difference. Also you are in the wrong thread. This is a macbook pro thread not a mac thread.

 

[Looon]

you're greatly mistaken in thinking that sandy bridge alters anything concerning graphics. Graphics are dependent on the graphics card. Sandy Bridge will make a negligible difference. Also you are in the wrong thread. This is a macbook pro thread not a mac thread.

depends on the game

 

[lloyd709]

you're greatly mistaken in thinking that sandy bridge alters anything concerning graphics. Graphics are dependent on the graphics card. Sandy Bridge will make a negligible difference. Also you are in the wrong thread. This is a macbook pro thread not a mac thread.

Applogies for posting to the wrong thread - I've just posted to the correct thread.

Regarding your comment though - current graphics are heavily CPU dependent and an over clocked 4.2 to 4.8 sandy bridge processor (at £145) will at the very, very least equal (I'm saying only equal because I don't want a too heavy a debate) the fastest Mac Processor for games.

Also, a computer built around this chip costs a fraction of a Mac Pro and can take a Nvidia 580 graphics card (to it's full potential and some more).

I know the obvious response is "go buy a PC then". I probably will (in addition to my Mac) but just thought some people might in interested in the latest situation of Mac v PC power v cost situation!!

 

[neondrgns]

Applogies for posting to the wrong thread - I've just posted to the correct thread.

Regarding your comment though - current graphics are heavily CPU dependent and an over clocked 4.2 to 4.8 sandy bridge processor (at £145) will at the very, very least equal (I'm saying only equal because I don't want a too heavy a debate) the fastest Mac Processor for games.

Also, a computer built around this chip costs a fraction of a Mac Pro and can take a Nvidia 580 graphics card (to it's full potential and some more).

I know the obvious response is "go buy a PC then". I probably will (in addition to my Mac) but just thought some people might in interested in the latest situation of Mac v PC power v cost situation!!

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=13454
Graphics are not very CPU dependent once you pass a certain point as this guy demonstrates.
Games may sometimes be CPU dependent, but that is not so much a function of their graphics, as the game having to handle a large amount of objects in the game, not in so much rendering the game itself.

PCs always cost a fraction of a Mac Pro -> that is a function of the apple tax. The Mac does not really correlate with whats inside the mac, their profit margins constantly fluctuate. They just like to keep certain price points.

 

[NickZac]

I am going to guess by the 6 extra cores, 8 extra GB of RAM and a graphics card which is every so slightly larger that you are talking about the Mac Pro.

PCs always cost a fraction of a Mac Pro -> that is a function of the apple tax. The Mac does not really correlate with whats inside the mac, their profit margins constantly fluctuate. They just like to keep certain price points.

Agreed; but they also ensure that the Mac Pro has a high standard of capability which stands above the crowd to help warrant dropping as much as $25,000 into a single computer

 

[mark28]

Excuse the pun!!

I'm a 1.1 mac owner and very happy with it for professional purposes (I'm a photographer) with it's 12 Gig of memory, SSD boot drive, 8 cores, 5770 graphics and RAID.

BUT - I have this burn for faster graphics. I'm not a big gamer but love to play the odd game now and then. I'm 42 - earning a bit of cash - and up until the recent reviews of the Sandy Bridge chip - was very tempted to upgrade to a Hex core 3.33 Mac Pro with a 5780 card basically, if I'm honest, just for the graphics improvement.

But, for £1100 (including VAT), I can get a PC that will blow the socks off of Apple's fasted games machine (that costs over £3000). Specifically, a computer with a i5 2500K clocked to 4.2 Ghz, Nvidia 580 GTX graphics card.

Apple have an awesome operating system (especially with the un-paralleled power and versatility of Apple Script) and great design. BUT, I think they may soon be very off of the pace with their hardware cost v performance ratio unless they upgrade their Mac Pros soon (which I don't think they will)!!

Just me thinking out loud!!

Don't get something like a GTX 580. The 500 series is just a rebranded old tech cards.

The fastest GPU is still the old ATI 5970. Later the ATI 6990 will come which will be the new king of GPU's.

I believe there will be 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU's for the desktops later this year. Will be interesting.

 

[lloyd709]

Don't get something like a GTX 580. The 500 series is just a rebranded old tech cards.

The fastest GPU is still the old ATI 5970. Later the ATI 6990 will come which will be the new king of GPU's.

I've done quite a bit or research on this and I think the 580 is overall the fastest, quietest and coolest card on the market. On some games, the 5970 is slightly faster but the frame rates varies a lot more as the game is played in contrast to the 580 that keeps a more consistent frame rate. And on some games it is slower than the 580.

I want to apologise again for this post being in the wrong thread - I accidentally posted it here!

 

[chaosbunny]

Wow, pcs are cheaper and better (due to a wider range of available configurations) gaming machines than Macs? Really? You must be kidding me! What an amazing discovering!

Honestly - if you want and can afford both, a Mac Pro for your photography needs and your preference for Mac OS as a working environment, and a pc for gaming go for it. I'm sure your current machine can handle your Mac OS needs for a couple more years since it's about photography and not video/3D rendering.