Which 2010 configuration for my needs?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by hisXLNC, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. hisXLNC macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #1
    Hi guys,

    Sorry to make a stupid thread, but you are all probably 100000000 x smarter than me when it comes to this.

    Im planning to switch to a Mac from a PC running windows 7 and I do not know which Mac Pro to pick. This is my first Mac computer.

    I may need 2 or more monitors and a bluray drive.

    I also plan on running parrallels or another software to run windows 7 at the same time, as there is software I need that is only available on windows.

    Here are my questions:

    1. 2.4 ghz 8 core or 3.33 ghz 6 core?
    2. 8 or 16GB RAM?
    3. Im leaning towards 16, but do i go for 2x8GB or 4x4GB?
    4. ATI 5870 from apple or external supplier online?
    5. I plan on purchasing HDD and RAM from an external supplier, and I heard OWC is the best.. is this true?
    6. Also, we use 240v in my country of residence. I know the power supply is universal and allows you to switch, however, the power cord is not. In the UK which does have the right power cord, they have VAT which makes everything more expensive.

    If I order from the US where would i be able to get a different power cord/supply (UK type) for these new models?

    Your help will be appreciated and thanks to everyone who will help in advance.
     
  2. mulo macrumors 68020

    mulo

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Behind you
    #2
    you'd be fine with a MBP with 8GB RAM, a MP is way overkill.
    and i'm only mentioning 8GB ram couse of paralells
     
  3. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #3
    I would rather strongly suggest against a Mac Pro. That kind of power is 100% unnecessary for what you want to do. I'd go with a quad core iMac (and even that will be overkill), 8GB RAM, and you should be set. The only reason you would need that much RAM even, is just because VMs like to suck up memory. Between that and the Mac Pro, you would not see any real difference in performance for your tasks.

    If you must have a Pro, however, I would say go with the base model, maybe the 3.2 quad, and you really don't need more than 8GB RAM. However, none of the tasks you listed are particularly processor-intensive, so you would be spending a lot more than you needed to
     
  4. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #4
    hey thanks for the input.

    However, I do not want a laptop. this is replacing my current desktop.
     
  5. Techhie macrumors 65816

    Techhie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Location:
    The hub of stupidity
    #5
    Unless you are trying to buy "the best you can get" just because you can, choosing the Mac Pro over the 27" iMac for your needs would be a waste of money.

    If you were hooking up more than 2 displays or rendering, then the Mac Pro wouldn't be overkill. We're not saying you aren't "pro enough" to buy it, just that your needs listed don't exude "high-end workstation."
     
  6. mulo macrumors 68020

    mulo

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Behind you
    #6
    run it in clam shell mode and tug it behind your current screen and you'd have your desktop, except you can uproot and go about as you please.
    there really is no reason not to by a MBP,even if your just going to use it at a desk. and as said above, you can still get that desktop look and feel.

    400th post!
     
  7. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #7
    Some of the charting, and having 600,000+ rows & 26+ columns in some spreadsheets i find can be very intense on the system. Also, the large databases. I looked at the imacs but im not a fan. So i was planning on getting the new 27 ACD and a mac pro. I actually was thinking of getting 2-3 monitors on my current setup, so i need the screen space. I need something capable of dealing with all this so I prefer the Mac pro.

    I understand the westmere are the new ones so I prefer that.

    I also wanted mroe RAM due to running both Mac OS X and Windows 7 at the same time + the other intensive activities.

    Windows 7 must always be on on the background when need be, which will be frequent.
     
  8. Yukon Joe macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #8
    I hate to say it, but Parallels/Fusion will certainly run Windows 7, but they are nowhere near as fast as running it natively. If the programs you have to run in Windows is hard on your system, you're better off sticking with Windows.

    Or, if you can get away with it, dual booting is a good solution (but obviously there's a delay between OS X and Windows).
     
  9. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #9
    Ok. Well, the westmere processors may be newer, but spending that extra $1200 (the 8 core would be far slower than any of the others for your tasks, so $1200 for the 6-core), will not get you anything more, as all the tasks you listed are single threaded, and really won't take advantage of a lot of cores.

    As for RAM, yes more is better, especially for VMs, but I can't imagine that you would need 8GB for each system. That is a lot of memory.

    Just my thoughts though, you can buy what you please.
     
  10. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #10
    I might add, that I might need 2 or more displays and a blue ray drive. This is why I do not want an iMac, that plus i find them ugly.

    I see your point. so if you were getting 8 or 16 Gb of Ram

    2x4? or 4x4 or 1x8? or what exactly?
     
  11. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #11
    I would either go 2x4 for 8GB or 3x4 for 12GB. Having 3 DIMMs enables triple channel mode, which provides a bit better performance. If you want 16, I think 4x4 would be the best option there. If you do feel you need more than 8GB, I think 12 would be your best option.
     
  12. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #12
    Thanks for your help. I think I will in fact go for 3x4GB for 12GB.

    i also forgot to mention that i need a lot of hdd space which is why i also chose to go for the mac pro. I need 4 - 8 TB , which is not available now for the iMac and i really dont want to have to buy an external hdd as i need to avoid desk clutter aswell.

    is there a way to get a UK power cord for it if I order from apple USA?
     
  13. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #13
    Ah, the disk space is a problem with the iMac. Assuming that the power connector on the back of the Pro is a standard thing (which I believe it is), you could pick up a generic one at an electronic store where you live. Should be pretty cheap
     
  14. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #14
    since you gave your reasons on the imacs :)

    and you want the new westmere ? I would tell you this wont matter ? if you make enough then go for it :)

    otherwise the base model or the $400 for the update to the 3.2 I think is worth it !

    Macsales.com or OWC as its called is a good place to get ram
    newegg ? not sure how they ship to where you live ? but all my other parts usually come from them or BHPhoto these days is doing some insane good pricing on monitors and such !

    memory as said 8-12 gigs ? on the new ones I would throw in 12 gigs meaning qty 3 4 gig sticks ! good speed plenty to do what you need and you can always throw in more if you want later ?

    unless you have a specific reason to get the 5870 ? skip it

    HDD ? OK world of options not sure what you need ? want a fun performance boost get a 120 gig SSD from OWC make that the boot
    your mac will come with a 1TB WD black HDD very nice drive ! so use it for data and get another one say 2TB and make that a Time Machine BU !
    I might say get a nice external bu ? not sure what you have around already ?
     
  15. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #15
    whats the performance difference between the 3.3 ghz westmere and the 3.2ghz nehalem..

    considering ill be loading windows 7 and mac os x and i wish to run them both at the same time
     
  16. w00tini macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #16
    It's not necessarily that you'll be running Parallels, it's what you'll be running in the virtual space. What kinds of programs will you be running in both OS X and in Win7 simultaneously?
     
  17. hisXLNC thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    #17
    Financial..charting browsing..maybe some media.. Spreadsheets. I have no idea about more than this since I've never used a Mac and therefore never looked much into alternative programs. I do know the above will be used in windows 7 as I haven't found a Mac alternative yet.

    So what would be the difference between the basic model, 3.2 nahlem and 3.3 westmere?

    Is it also possible to run windows and Mac os x on a monitor each?

    Does the apple 27" display also come with a standard power cord or would I have to order from the UK?
     
  18. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #18
    There is VERY little difference in real world performance between the 3.2 Quad and 3.33 Hex for the apps you mentioned. JMO, but the 3.2 Quad offers the best bang/buck in the MP lineup.

    You'll get the correct power cord if you order from an authorized dealer in the UK.

    cheers and good luck.......................... Also, since you have never used a Mac, I'd recommend starting with a "cheap" MBP. Get your feet wet with that and then jump into the deep end of the pool.
    JohnG
     
  19. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #19

    hard to say depends on what you are doing ? sometimes wont matter sometimes might be as much as %10 ? maybe more at times with programs that properly support 6 CPUs but it wont be half again as much either ?
    the chip is quicker more do to cache on chip than raw power ;)

    really for most things I dont think you will notice much of a difference

    I dont know how spreadsheet stuff uses multiple cores ? might be something to look into
     

Share This Page