thinking of buying a 2008 mac pro

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by firelighter487, May 1, 2016.

  1. firelighter487 macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #1
    hello everyone,

    i'm thinking of buying a 2008 mac pro second hand, and i wanted to know known faults etc. so i know what to watch out for when buying one.

    thanks in advance
     
  2. m4v3r1ck macrumors 68020

    m4v3r1ck

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #2
    Perhaps getting a cMP 4.1/5.1 will give you a much better future upgrade horizon! Do have a search here on MR for the various threads.

    Cheers
     
  3. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #3
    my budget is quite limited. i have about €450, and that is just enough for a 3.1. most 1.1 mac pro's are listed for €300 where i'm from.
     
  4. Ph.D. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    #4
    They are solid machines (I have one). A few thoughts:

    * Eight core is obviously better than 4, but I'd take a 4 core 4,1 over an 8 core 3,1.
    * Make sure the DVD drive works (can read/burn), as these do go bad over time.
    * Make sure all the fans spin at normal speeds (none are revving up all the time) and don't make any unusual noise (should be smooth, no rattling). That includes the graphics card.
    * If you have the time, make sure that the drive can be booted from all 4 bays.
    * Look out for excessive dust ("dust bunnies" clogging anything).
    * Cosmetic deficiencies drastically reduces value. Original packaging tends to increase value a little, but don't pay more for it unless that's important to you.

    Don't pay extra for useless frills. Like with cars, "upgrades" often don't add much value. Personally, a machine with a lot of extra spinning drives (as opposed to SSDs) is not interesting to me, at least if you are asked to pay for them. Used disk drives are basically worthless, and these days most people would want SSD's anyway (don't pay too much for those either!).

    On the other hand, a good upgraded graphics card, especially an official Apple 5770, would be nice and is worth a few extra Euros. Extra memory is good and worth a little money too (but, again, not too much).

    Good luck.

     
  5. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #5
    +1
     
  6. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #6
    why a 4 core 4.1 over an 8 core 3.1? are they faster?
     
  7. Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #7
    Yes.

    8 core 3.2 GHz Mac Pro 3,1 -> Geekbench Multicore 8565
    4 core 3.33 Ghz Mac Pro 4,1 -> Geekbench Multicore 9884

    Mactracker: http://mactracker.ca
     
  8. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #8
    ah ok i will check what those cost second hand
     
  9. scott.n macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    #9
    I don't think those scores are correct. 2008 Mac Pro with dual X5482 should have a 64-bit Multi-Core Score of around 13,000. 2009-10 Mac Pro with single W5590 (?) should have a 64-bit Multi-Core Score of around 10,000.

    That being said, a single-processor 4,1 is still the better option if you plan to keep it for a while and upgrade it.
     
  10. Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #10
    Mactracker uses Geekbench 2 (32 Bit). Do not compare with Geekbench 3 results.
     
  11. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #11
    but why is a 4.1 better? does it use ddr3 ram and sata 3?
     
  12. Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #12
    Yes, it was a big performance leap from Mac Pro 3,1 to 4,1. And yes, 4,1 use DDR3 RAM. But SATA 2 on internal bays, not SATA 3. You can see all information with the MacTracker application.
     
  13. G4DPII macrumors regular

    G4DPII

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    #13
    It wasn't a big jump at all. What tosh. It was the expected 10 - 15% speed increase. You also 'forget' the 2009 machines came with hyperthreading CPU's.
     
  14. nigelbb, May 1, 2016
    Last edited: May 1, 2016

    nigelbb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    #14
    Don't forget that for all practical purposes you cannot upgrade a single CPU 4,1 to dual CPU as the necessary dual CPU tray is either unobtainable or more expensive than buying a dual CPU system in the first place.
    A dual CPU 3,1 is still a very decent system if you are on a limited budget.
     
  15. IowaLynn macrumors 6502a

    IowaLynn

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    #15
    2009: ease of cpu upgrade, 6-core is very nice, popular.
    Besides DDR3 and get past using FB-DIMMs.
    GPU and other PCIe cards run better and better supported, plus 2008 still has two PCIe 1.1 4x slots that can hurt.
    Even EFI 2.0 has downside.

    Would need good reason. Save and go with something else.
    If you were to want wifi or Bluetooth or USB3, or eSATA, the can be added but reason to look for something modern.
     
  16. Ph.D., May 1, 2016
    Last edited: May 1, 2016

    Ph.D. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    #16
    No, they are NOT faster (at least not at everything). In fact, for tasks using all 8 cores (handbrake, etc.), an 8 core 3,1 will destroy a 4 core 4,1. (A faster-clocked 4 core 4,1, if they made them, may be marginally faster than a 3,1 in every-day single-threaded tasks.)

    The real point: A 4 core 4,1 is a better long-term proposition since you can install a fast 6 core processor down the road. There are a few other advantages too, as some have mentioned. My point was mainly the long-term value proposition if the up-front cost differential is minimal.

    If budget is important (as it is to most), then don't overspend. These are all old machines now, and a 3,1 is just as well-built as a 4,1. I've kept mine these last 8 years and it has served me well. That's despite easily having the budget to buy something newer.

     
  17. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #17
    Going by geekbench scores, 4,1 with a single W3580 has pretty much identical scores as a 3,1 with two E5472s.
     
  18. Ph.D., May 1, 2016
    Last edited: May 1, 2016

    Ph.D. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    #18
    Please note that 4 core 4,1's as supplied by Apple were 2.66 GHz, NOT 3.33 GHz (3.6 Turbo) as the W3580 is.

    That said, I would indeed take a 4,1 with a W3580 over a 3,1. But why stop there when you can get a 6 core version at that same base speed? Of course, they will come at a fairly-high premium, probably well past what the OP has budgeted. Let's give him a break, folks, and respond to his actual question. :)
     
  19. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
  20. Ph.D., May 1, 2016
    Last edited: May 1, 2016

    Ph.D. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    #20
    Uh, wait, did Apple produce upgraded 4 cores!? Seems they did after all.

    As I suggested, he might prefer a 4 core 4,1 over an 8 core 3,1. But he's operating under a budget, and that's fair. A 6 or 8 core 4,1 will cost considerably more.
     
  21. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #21
    i just checked. a 3.1 2.8 ghz with 32 gb ram, radeon 2600 and a 640gb hdd was listed for €500, and that's the maximum i can afford. a 4.1 isn't going to do it, those cost around €600.
     
  22. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #22
    I would suggest you save until you can afford the 4,1. It's much better in every way.
     
  23. firelighter487 thread starter macrumors member

    firelighter487

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #23
    i'm a 16-year-old student and i'm very limited on my income, so saving money is impossible
     
  24. skwareman macrumors newbie

    skwareman

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Location:
    Oostvoorne
    #24
    Firelighter487; The 4.1 is the better choice, but also more than twice as expensive in The Netherlands (second hand). But for 250 euro's a 3.1 can be bought, you could expand it with cheap memory (from the 1.1/2.1) and a better GPU. SSD can give you more "speed"! I can not think of a better 2nd hand system to buy!
     
  25. Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #25
    Geekb.png
     

Share This Page