Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Thoughts on purchasing a new MacPro

N

nüb

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2007
58
0
Y'ello there!

I'm looking at biting the bullet and replacing my G5 PowerMac (2.13Ghz, if I remember off the top of my head) in the next few weeks. I am looking at primarily doing architectural rendering (Cinema 4D) and am a "power user" with Logic Pro. So, I am here asking you all for a bit of advice:

Do I go with a Quad-Core 2.26Ghz machine?
Or do I spend $1200 more and get a Quad 2.66Ghz machine?

Any thoughts or 2¢ are appreciated.
(I'll need a lot of cents to purchase this puppy, so the more the better!!!):D
 
There is no such thing of a 2.26GHz quad core Nehalem 2009 Mac Pro... Do you mean the 2.26GHz octo core ?
 
Check the benchmarks on barefeats.com. You will find comparative benchmarks for Cinema 4D which you may find useful.
 
Get the 8-core system (not just 4-core). Although multiple cores remain underutilized, more and more programs are exploiting 8 cores in the 2009/2010 timeframe. In particular, several RAW-file conversion programs now max-out a 4-core system.
 
I dunno how concerned you are with bang-4-buck economics but one of the 2008 octad machines would be better than any of the 2009 quads.

Have a look: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7270035/

For your music/audio editing you likely won't notice the difference between any of the machines '08 or '09 from 2.66 on up. Below that and you might though. Also some audio applications and utilities are broken by hyper threading processors. True for many years now and since the new '09 Macs have HT this is something to consider and is already showing up in forums and stuff.


.
 
as the Tessalator says: the 2008 octocore is really the "bang for your buck" mac. It's a beast of a machine i guarantee you that. i own one and takes whatever I throw at it no problem.
 
Pika said:
There is no such thing of a 2.26GHz quad core Nehalem 2009 Mac Pro... Do you mean the 2.26GHz octo core ?
Click to expand...


I'm an idiot. :cool: Yes, I meant the 2.26 versus the 2.66 octo.
 
Tesselator said:
I dunno how concerned you are with bang-4-buck economics but one of the 2008 octad machines would be better than any of the 2009 quads.

Have a look: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7270035/

For your music/audio editing you likely won't notice the difference between any of the machines '08 or '09 from 2.66 on up. Below that and you might though. Also some audio applications and utilities are broken by hyper threading processors. True for many years now and since the new '09 Macs have HT this is something to consider and is already showing up in forums and stuff.


.
Click to expand...

& zer0tails:

Thanks for your reply. I'm really not familiar with the "2008 Octad." The only place I've seen them is on eBay, and I'm a bit hesitant to purchase from there. Thoughts?

If I go new, then it seems a 2.66 Octad is the way to go? It smokes my 2.16Ghz MBP, which seems to have about the same performance as my G5 (just in terms of rendering times or looking at Logic Pro's CPU meter when running two of the same tracks on different machines)

Also, for this new machine, would it makes sense to set it up in a RAID config? I'm totally unfamiliar with RAID, but i've heard that you get some added performance (mainly in the video and audio realms)??
 
RemarkabLee said:
Check the benchmarks on barefeats.com. You will find comparative benchmarks for Cinema 4D which you may find useful.
Click to expand...

I searched for C4D benchmarks there and didn't find any. :confused: I'll take another peek!
 
nüb said:
& zer0tails:

Thanks for your reply. I'm really not familiar with the "2008 Octad." The only place I've seen them is on eBay, and I'm a bit hesitant to purchase from there. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FA970LL/A?afid=p210|frgl&cid=AOS-US-SHOP-Froogle
http://www.smalldog.com/product/73586/atfgc
http://www.google.com/products/cata...8&cid=9617483713806226900&sa=title#ps-sellers
etc.

Octad is just the technically correct term for an 8-core machine. Dual, Quad, Octad... Some people say Octo or other weird non-word variants but it's Octad. 2008 is of course the year. :) So it just means any 8-core machine from 2008. :)

If I go new, then it seems a 2.66 Octad is the way to go?
Click to expand...

Probably, yes. It would probably be what I would select given your stated purposes. I mean if I couldn't get a 2008 2.8GHz Mac Pro that is...


Also, for this new machine, would it makes sense to set it up in a RAID config? I'm totally unfamiliar with RAID, but i've heard that you get some added performance (mainly in the video and audio realms)??
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so - I like RAID, it's faster - I like fast. :)

To me the perfect set-up is a 3 drive RAID 0, a one drive boot HDD and an extern 2TB drive for TimeMachine or periodic back-ups. But I do lots of different things - Video, music & sound, and 3D CG, and I maintain massive libraries of e-books, iTunes, Photos, 3D objects & scenes, sound banks & instruments, etc.


nüb said:
I searched for C4D benchmarks there and didn't find any. :confused: I'll take another peek!
Click to expand...

Yeah and that link I provided above in post #5 is my graph of compiled times. They got theirs from me (and I got those numbers from the good folks here at MacRumors). :) The other benchmarks there are from here too. So none of them are verified by a single proprietor or actual test lab.


.
 
Tesselator said:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FA970LL/A?afid=p210|frgl&cid=AOS-US-SHOP-Froogle
http://www.smalldog.com/product/73586/atfgc
http://www.google.com/products/cata...8&cid=9617483713806226900&sa=title#ps-sellers
etc.

Octad is just the technically correct term for an 8-core machine. Dual, Quad, Octad... Some people say Octo or other weird non-word variants but it's Octad. 2008 is of course the year. :) So it just means any 8-core machine from 2008. :)

Probably, yes. It would probably be what I would select given your stated purposes. I mean if I couldn't get a 2008 2.8GHz Mac Pro that is...

Yeah, I think so - I like RAID, it's faster - I like fast. :)

To me the perfect set-up is a 3 drive RAID 0, a one drive boot HDD and an extern 2TB drive for TimeMachine or periodic back-ups. But I do lots of different things - Video, music & sound, and 3D CG, and I maintain massive libraries of e-books, iTunes, Photos, 3D objects & scenes, sound banks & instruments, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful response!
I'm always a little hesitant purchasing refurb, though the price seems nice. This is my last "education bought" Mac, so I'm considering going all out. The benchmarks seem like it's a pretty wicked machine. Will I see any noticeable performance increases using RAID? So one HD as the bootable drive (all OS and programs go on this drive?), another that stores files etc and number 3 that is a backup? Is there an HD size that will decrease performance? So, I'm developing image banks (for image mapping), sample banks etc. and have a lot of AAC's (debating going to lossless, but i'm not too sure yet). Do you think 2 internals and then the external will be okay? Do all HD's need to be the same capacity? Lots of questions, sorry. :eek:

Out of curiosity, what 3D modeling programs do you use? Music?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back