So the difference is between Mac OS 10.5.6 and Windows 7.
Not necessarily.Isn't D0 just a change on labelling on the processor?
I know the small slight revisions and errata fixes that stepping normally incurs but I remember specific mention that D0 was limited to just some silly labeling on the processor itself they wanted to correct.Not necessarily.
Parts are refined as they continue to be manufactured, and as it's a new part, changes are more likely to occur. A change from a stepping of 4 to 5 is quite possible to make the parts more stable. It may also be a result of enabling the ECC function (again, stability).
Which BTW, some steppings have been noted in the past to be OC friendly for the otherwise same part.
I hadn't spent much time looking at the D0 parts. I already have a C0 part, and it's working fine. OC'd it to 3.93GHz, and it's stable. Temps hit 77C, so not too hot.I know the small slight revisions and errata fixes that stepping normally incurs but I remember specific mention that D0 was limited to just some silly labeling on the processor itself they wanted to correct.
As for the Xeon 5500/3500 stepping differece between Core i7 parts, ECC support would by far make the most sense to me.![]()
The 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC turned on.
Gainestown is markedly different.
We were referring to the stepping differences only.That and the QPI thing.
The E5520 (2.26GHz)l runs at 80W TDP, while the X5550 (2.66GHz) and X5570 (2.93GHz) run at 95W. The yet unseen W5580 (3.2GHz) runs at 130TDP. (The L55xx parts run at 60W TDP).Also, it should be noted that the 5500s are 80 watt TDP units. While the 3500s are 130 watt units.
Except that Bloomfield and Gainestown have 4 cores and Beckton has 8.Bloomfield, Gainstown, and Beckton are pretty much the same.
From a Systems POV, it is.Except that Bloomfield and Gainestown have 4 cores and Beckton has 8.
Very basic, but yes.i dont think there is any major differences between the two, but if i remember correctly isnt the i7 for desktops and the Xeon for servers?
Just for fun I thought it would be a good exercise to do a "real" comparison between a 2.66ghz Intel i7 rig and the Mac Pro 2.66ghz.
The reason being, it seems as though when quoting the cost of the Intel rig people intentionally quote what it would cost to build the machine with low end parts and no operating system.
The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.
While this might not matter to the gamer that rebuilds their gaming rig every 12 months it is a big deal to someone who will invest in a high end machine and keep it running for 3-5 years.
So, without further ado, here's a more "realistic" comparison between the Mac Pro and a gaming i7 setup if the gaming setup used similar quality components, priced from Newegg;
Intel i7 2.66ghz Nehalem $288
OCZ Gold 3GB DDR3 RAM $120
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo $300
1100 Watt 80+ Bronze PSU $200
Lian Li Aluminum Case $400
Slim Burner (combo drive) $50
Video Card $100
Aluminim Kb + mouse $50
Vista Premium 64 bit Ultim $180
640GB WD Black HD $80
So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.
It then comes down to whether the ability to run OSX is worth the price difference.
And yes, you can build a far lower end PC by shaving corners on things like the case, PSU, and pirating the OS, but don't fool yourself that it's the same caliber box at that point.
Just for fun I thought it would be a good exercise to do a "real" comparison between a 2.66ghz Intel i7 rig and the Mac Pro 2.66ghz.
The reason being, it seems as though when quoting the cost of the Intel rig people intentionally quote what it would cost to build the machine with low end parts and no operating system.
The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.
While this might not matter to the gamer that rebuilds their gaming rig every 12 months it is a big deal to someone who will invest in a high end machine and keep it running for 3-5 years.
So, without further ado, here's a more "realistic" comparison between the Mac Pro and a gaming i7 setup if the gaming setup used similar quality components, priced from Newegg;
Intel i7 2.66ghz Nehalem $288
OCZ Gold 3GB DDR3 RAM $120
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo $300
1100 Watt 80+ Bronze PSU $200
Lian Li Aluminum Case $400
Slim Burner (combo drive) $50
Video Card $100
Aluminim Kb + mouse $50
Vista Premium 64 bit Ultim $180
640GB WD Black HD $80
So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.
It then comes down to whether the ability to run OSX is worth the price difference.
And yes, you can build a far lower end PC by shaving corners on things like the case, PSU, and pirating the OS, but don't fool yourself that it's the same caliber box at that point.
Plus firewire controller, wifi, bluetooth, and a sound card that supports TOSLINK input.
The fact that the Mac has a top notch case, power supply, ECC RAM, etc, shouldn't be dismissed.
So, if you build a PC that has similar quality components, etc, to the Mac Pro then you are looking at about ~$1800.
Yes it should for the person that's trying to get identical or better PERFORMANCE! I'm seriously about to claw my eyes out that people cannot understand this. When a lot of people build hacks (myself included) they're not interested in using the same parts at all. What they're interested in is getting the same or better performance for less money. So, they buy cheaper CPUs, spend $100 on cooling, and OC the things. The fact that they aren't using a Xeon CPU or even a CPU that's natively clocked the same is completely irrelevant to their purposes. They simply want to encode as fast or faster for less money. Or, render a bunch of photoshop effects faster for less money. Or whatever.
When I built my quad core hack the quad core Mac Pro with less RAM, less HD space, weaker video card, less ports, and lower performance in every application cost at least twice as much. Did I cheat by OCing my system? Maybe. But guess what? I don't care! It's been running perfectly stable. And by the way, the cost of my system included the retail costs of two OSs; Vista Ultimate and OSX, and it was still less than half the cost of a lesser spec'd Mac Pro. I don't doubt that for some people the case, warranty, and avoidance of "hacking" make an authentic Mac Pro worth the extra cost. They're fine machines. But for other people the savings of building their own system is significant and the performance gained at less cost is even more significant.
Something that guys like yourself don't understand that makes some of us laugh is that some people just want a stable, reliable workstation that's built like a brick **** house and won't give them any trouble.
Something that guys like yourself don't understand that makes some of us laugh is that some people just want a stable, reliable workstation that's built like a brick **** house and won't give them any trouble.
Like you said, there is great value in having a stable, reliable, decent-performing rig. That's where the rubber meets the road for most of the computer-consuming public.
And something that guys like yourself don't understand is that some people can make those sorts of systems themselves. I've not had a single issue with any of my Hacks. Hell, I haven't even touched my wife's since I built it over a year ago. It just...works. I'm still using the A64 system I built at the end of 2003 and I haven't changed a single part inside the thing. I've never had to sacrifice stability for performance. Not once.
Look, there are perfectly good reasons to get a Mac. You even listed them. Not everyone wants to put in whatever time is necessary to build their own machine. To service it. Some people don't want the risk. Some people like a certain look; an aesthetic. All that costs money. But, at the end of the day, when we're each working on Photoshop projects or Final Cut renders, the fact remains that a person with a well built system is getting the job done just as fast or faster than the guy with the authentic system. And, he did it for less money.
Let me repeat. I'm not at all suggesting Macs are crappy. They're not. They're good looking and great performing machines. I love the OS. But for a capable subset of consumers, building can get them the same stability and better performance for hundreds and, in some cases, thousands less than the manufacturers.
Also as someone has previously pointed out, they've yet to see the benchmarks from a real OS X application in which a Hack beat a Mac Pro.