Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2.8 octo vs 2.66 quad?
500$ more, but you have more ram, better graphic card and more hd space in a new interior design. And it is BETTER, slightly but yes, better.
500$ more, but you have more ram, better graphic card and more hd space in a new interior design. And it is BETTER, slightly but yes, better.
I'm not surprised about the benchmark results, and yes I said that it would be fast, but wait for you to see the 3.2GHz results (4500/28500).
Looks like the Quad 2.93 Wins!
I am leaning heavily toward the Quad 2.93.
I don't do a lot of heavy multi-thread work, just InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator.
Any video work I do is on the personal, consumer level.
For single thread applications, the Quad gives you the best bang for the buck. The 2.93 Quad is 26% faster than the Octo 2.26 and 12% faster than the Octo 2.66.
I understand there are other considerations for Multi-Thread processing, but I don't think that applies to me.
I am leaning heavily toward the Quad 2.93.
I don't do a lot of heavy multi-thread work, just InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator.
Any video work I do is on the personal, consumer level.
For single thread applications, the Quad gives you the best bang for the buck. The 2.93 Quad is 26% faster than the Octo 2.26 and 12% faster than the Octo 2.66.
I understand there are other considerations for Multi-Thread processing, but I don't think that applies to me.
Er ... that's what *everyone* is saying. The 2.26 has performance roughly equal to the previous gen 2.8, but it costs a hell of a lot *more*. Sure, the higher-end machines put out some great specs, but the pricing is like something out of the Quadra days. The 2008 3.2 also looks like a real bargain now too -- for £2400 you can get something that is beaten in performance only by machines costing £3400 or £4700!
You can get two 2.8 2008 Mac Pros for less than the cost of one 2.66 Octo!
How do they justify that? Oh wait, right, Snow Leopard is coming, and it has Grand PixieDust X that will make these machines seem so fast they'll be worth the cost of two of the previous generation. It mysteriously won't give the 2008 models any comparable boost, and don't forget that 40% faster memory (that phrase has to be accompanied by a
by law, btw) which will also help to compensate for the pitifully low clock speed. In short: There is *plenty* of room for negative comments. I'm surprised that so few outlets are making them. To offer roughly the same power for more money is ballsy of Apple. It really does remind me of the Quadra days. It's as if as soon as Jobs went on leave the company promptly pretended the past 9 years had never happened. What's next, OpenDoc X?
There's some buzz about that but the CPUs are about the same wattage. The memory in the new ones run a little cheaper. I'm going to guess that there's VERY little difference all total depending on a host of extenuating circumstances.
I think the new Mac Pros are great. The quad core performance makes me feel better about my year and a half old quad core machine using two year old hardware that I paid $1400 for at the time; including the retail cost of two OSs.
Isn't this how Judgement Day starts? The Mac Pro's become self aware?
hahahahaha
Yes, they become self aware, supplant Steve Jobs as CEO, and force the human race to buy new iPods EVERY WEEK! ARRGHGHHH!!!!!
Well the change is hardly going to happen overnight, but as I understand it Grand Central basically lets your app supply it with work-units, which it will then schedule appropriately according to the type of tasks and hardware available, and possibly hints you give it. Most applications could easily be broken up into the concept of tasks, e.g - by event (button-clicks), giving us more responsive GUIs. Web-browsers can allocate downloading and decompressing of images to their own tasks (so processing one image won't interfere with another), image processing apps can sub-dive the image into distinct tasks and so-on. While there are some apps which will be better off ignoring Grand Central because they only ever really need a single-thread for working and one for GUI maybe, there are a great many that could benefit greatly. For some it may even be as simple as just wrapping-up existing chunks of code into the constructs required by Snow Leopard.
The main issue is that there isn't really an easy way to enable Grand Central for those with Snow Leopard, and do something else for those without, unless your programming already implements some kind of threading model that could use Grand Central instead whenever it's available. So either developers will have to make a conscious decision to abandon support for Leopard, and re-write/adjust their app for Snow Leopard. Or have two-versions for a while before eventually dropping one.
Apple - delusion everywhere
In my opinion all apple systems are slowly going the wrong way.
MacBook, MacBook pro, Mini and iMac: more expensive - no real highlights technically. (nobody will get the "8 hour" battery to last 8 hours at home actually doing something), only glossy screens, no blue ray, imac 24 entry model 1500 bucks, no graphics card, no possibility of upgrading. Upgrade the mini and it's 1100 bucks without a keyboard!
And now the mac pro: Crippled 4-core, super expensive 8-cores and even if the 2.26 is a little faster than the octo 2.8. It should be much faster because it is much more expensive.
Everybody who says "oh, it's got more ram, better graphics" is wrong. All the parts get cheaper in one years time, so the price should not have gone up!
Apple just wants to make money.
The pity is, I have to buy a mac for reasons like software that I already own and apple knows that.
In my opinion all apple systems are slowly going the wrong way.
MacBook, MacBook pro, Mini and iMac: more expensive - no real highlights technically. (nobody will get the "8 hour" battery to last 8 hours at home actually doing something), only glossy screens, no blue ray, imac 24 entry model 1500 bucks, no graphics card, no possibility of upgrading. Upgrade the mini and it's 1100 bucks without a keyboard!
And now the mac pro: Crippled 4-core, super expensive 8-cores and even if the 2.26 is a little faster than the octo 2.8. It should be much faster because it is much more expensive.
Everybody who says "oh, it's got more ram, better graphics" is wrong. All the parts get cheaper in one years time, so the price should not have gone up!
Apple just wants to make money.
The pity is, I have to buy a mac for reasons like software that I already own and apple knows that.
No it's not. Only 4 GB DIMM's are very expensive for DDR3. 2 GB's are cheaper than DDR2.
Buzzzz!
The 5400-series Mac Pro used FB-DIMMs, which is more expensive than DDR3 in the 5500-series and 3500-series for up to 16 GiB in the 5500.
The 5400-series Mac Pro used FB-DIMMs, which is more expensive than DDR3 in the 5500-series and 3500-series for up to 16 GiB in the 5500.
ARE FB-DIMMs still more expensive?!
My mistake, then, I guess.
Crucial shows $65 for a 2 GiB FB-DIMM for a 5400, and $50 for a 2 GiB DDR3 for a 5500.
Not as bad as they once were, but still not as mainstream as DDR3.
This is only one data point, folks.
Please note that this report describes only one set of tests using one program.
Unless you are running Cinebench, and using scripts similar to those in the bench, this information may be very misleading.
It would be foolish to make purchasing decisions based on this limited report.
Look at more benchmarks, like the ones at BareFeats http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html.
Please note that this report describes only one set of tests using one program.
Unless you are running Cinebench, and using scripts similar to those in the bench, this information may be very misleading.
It would be foolish to make purchasing decisions based on this limited report.
Look at more benchmarks, like the ones at BareFeats http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html.