[windows_sucks]

Hey I was just going through the forums just to get acquainted with Macs...I am in the process of switching from a P-iece of C-rap (PC) to the wonderful world of Macs..I am pretty new to Macs so please pardon if my question sounds dumb....

Would it be advisable to buy a Mac Pro right now or wait till the end of the year? I am mainly going to use it for post production and after coming across the news on the forums that Intel will be coming out with the quad core single processor I am confused if I should just wait....For now, I can manage the Piece of Crap (PC) to do my post production work...shoot I have managed it this long so a few months won't hurt

Do you think Apple will come out with 2 processors (8 cores)...If so, how beneficial would that be if I were using Apple's Final Cut Studio to do post production work? I know some of you may say that If my business requires it "now" then I should get it "now" and I have no problem with that but I am making an investement and want the best...I wouldn't mind if I purchased a Mac Pro now and Apple introduces an 8 core mac maybe 6months to a year down the road. Please Help.

[Oversoul]

You already know the standard adage: If you need something now, buy it now; if you're not in a hurry, then wait.

Something to keep in mind: if/when Apple does switch to quad core chips, it won't be the at the "end of the year." More likely, Apple may announce something at the MacWorld Expo in early January. After that, factor in some wait time for Apple to ship en masse. (Of course, all product announcements are up to speculation - for example, MacBook Pro users have been expecting an upgrade announcement for the last 3 Apple events now even with Merom released.)

Another thing to consider: You said you don't mind if you purchased a Mac Pro now and Apple introduces an octo core machine six months to a year from now. Well, there's always going to be something new on the horizon - especially when you're looking at a 6-12 month time frame. And five years from now, Intel promises to hit 80 cores. The waiting game is vicious.

If you don't mind the inevitable fact that there's always going to be something newer, get a Mac Pro now and get a good 6-8 months use out of it. When the octos eventually come out, you can see how they stack up and consider upgrading then or wait for another revision. Though, I doubt going from 4 cores to 8 will mean 2x the performance.

All that said, my quad 3.0Ghz Mac Pro is a dream to work with even on Rosetta apps like Adobe CS. Given that Final Cut is already in Universal, a current Mac Pro should fly.

Good luck on your decision.

[windows_sucks]

what made you go with a 3.0...after reading what Apple has to say about the 2.66 and the 3.0 there really isn't much difference between the 2 of them...looks like you are into buying the top of the line stuff just like moi...hehe...you see if I buy a Mac now...I won't be buying one for another 4 years or so..geez its like buying a freaking car..if i only had the money to buy a new mac every year.

[Oversoul]

WS, I'm into top-of-the-line machines like anybody else but I also have this weird thing for round and half-numbered processors. Yeah, weird. But, I'd like to think the justification was mostly added power for my girlfriend, who's getting her MFA in Art Direction and does a lot of Photoshopping and layout.

Back to your decision, it's ultimately up to you of course and I laid out some relevant considerations. I can totally understand about the Mac Pro being akin to a car - they (at least a used car) cost about the same! So, just to add, if you won't be buying another computer for about another 4 years, at least you have the option for expandability with the Mac Pro: Four bays for HDDs, 4 PCI-E slots, room for an eventual HD burner, and up to a max of 16GB RAM. Further, it appears you can buy two Clovertowns chip and replace the current Woodcrests - just pop them in.

If you do decide to upgrade sooner than 4 years (not uncommon nowadays), Macs tend to hold their value better than PCs, especially if you treat your machine well cosmetically, so you should be able to put that towards an upgrade then.

Others can probably chime in at a more sensible hour.

[windows_sucks]

you're absolutely right...prior to looking into the mac pro's i was looking into some G5's..I primarily switched my decision to buy a new one because the prices for a used G5 were so high...of course switching from a PC, I know they don't hold much value since everybody and their mother has a freaking PC so you pretty much something new comes out very often...

I certainly do appreciate your input in assisting me in making my decision..I am going to get my Viewsonic 22" wide screen monitor today so that would definitely make my fingers itch even more into clicking the checkout button on the apple website..hehe....I am just a click away ...shoot i've been a click away for the past 2 weeks or so..hehe...

1 down..3 more to go (cpu, hard drive, memory)...any ideas on where to go to buy memory for the mac pro...those things from apple along with the apple monitor are way to expensive...whats your experience with hard drives...I know with hard drives there is no specific answer to the question "which is the most reliable hard drive"...just wanted to get your input that also if you don't mind. Thanks once again for all your assistance.

[Oversoul]

One more bit of advice: Avoid buying a big hard drive (or hard drives) and RAM from Apple - it's a ripoff. I would suggest selecting the lowest priced option for hard drive and RAM and then buying third party afterwards. You'll definitely get more for your money that way.

There's a good thread going on about Mac Pro RAM here: Mac Pro RAM: where to buy?. Keep in mind you need to buy FB-DIMMS with the large heatsinks.

For hard drives and RAM, and other parts in general, I've had good experiences with price and service from the following:

OWC: Apple Mac G4 upgrades, Laptop Batteries, Memory, Drives
transintl.com memory, hard drive, processor upgrades for Mac or PC computers.
Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras, and Electronics

Obviously, do some research and price comparisons before buying.

[windows_sucks]

Hey...thanks for the links..quite interesting...all the prices are relatively the same...maybe a difference of a few dollars here and there......unfortunately Kingston doesn't make them yet...I was hoping they would since I've heard good things about them...I also came across Crucial...They are not that expensive compared to the ones that are being sold on "OWC"....How is Crucial when it comes to memories...thanks once again dude.

[Xyrrus]

Originally Posted by windows_sucks

Hey I was just going through the forums just to get acquainted with Macs...I am in the process of switching from a P-iece of C-rap (PC) to the wonderful world of Macs..I am pretty new to Macs so please pardon if my question sounds dumb....

Would it be advisable to buy a Mac Pro right now or wait till the end of the year? I am mainly going to use it for post production and after coming across the news on the forums that Intel will be coming out with the quad core single processor I am confused if I should just wait....For now, I can manage the Piece of Crap (PC) to do my post production work...shoot I have managed it this long so a few months won't hurt

Do you think Apple will come out with 2 processors (8 cores)...If so, how beneficial would that be if I were using Apple's Final Cut Studio to do post production work? I know some of you may say that If my business requires it "now" then I should get it "now" and I have no problem with that but I am making an investement and want the best...I wouldn't mind if I purchased a Mac Pro now and Apple introduces an 8 core mac maybe 6months to a year down the road. Please Help.

Regarding Intel's 4 core chips:

- The first 4 core chips will really be more like 2 dual core chips on one package. Now, this is still going to be a serious contender, but that design means that the chip will be more expensive. I'd expect to see it as a high end or build to order option. I don't think you're gonna see an 8 core machine at the $2499 price point (but hey that's my own meandering speculation)

- *true* 4 core chips will probaly be another 6 months behind that. In January you could be finding yourself in the same position.

- The fastest chips in terms of GHz will probably continue to be dual core due; quad core chips will need to be clocked lower.

Other stuff

- Its actually pretty difficult for me to max out my 2.66 machine. Certianly not impossible, but the machine is way more disk and memory limited than CPU limited. Final Cut is really well MP optimized, but it begs the question, what are you really limited by? Things that will most effected by the 8 core machine will be things that take a large chunk of time, rendering, compressing, etc. Do you currently spend a lot of time waiting for those sorts of things, or do you start an encoding run and go to sleep?

What I'm trying to get at is that 8 cores won't increase "the snappiness" of the machine like a faster clocked processor will. It will decrease the wait time for a lot of "progress bar" type things.

- Again, the subsystems seem to be much more limiting to me. I'd invest in a big RAID and gobs and gobs of ram (and a solid GPU) before I worried about cores and clockspeeds. If you're figuring those into your calculations anyways, that's a different story I suppose.

Production machines are always tricky upgrades. Faster machines mean you get your work done faster and that means more jobs and more profits. But it also means a workflow change, and there's always a desire to maximize value from a machine. In the end you have to look at your setup and say "is this current setup working to my satisfaction." If you're here posting about a new machine and a new platform, your current setup is probably lacking

Anyways, IMHO the sooner you switch the happier you'll be but obviously as a long time Mac user I'm quite biased on that.

-Xy

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Oversoul

Something to keep in mind: if/when Apple does switch to quad core chips, it won't be the at the "end of the year." More likely, Apple may announce something at the MacWorld Expo in early January. After that, factor in some wait time for Apple to ship en masse.

Intel will have the quad core chips shipping in volume this year, and they are a drop-in upgrade from the current Xeon 5100.

Originally Posted by Oversoul

If you don't mind the inevitable fact that there's always going to be something newer, get a Mac Pro now and get a good 6-8 months use out of it. When the octos eventually come out, you can see how they stack up and consider upgrading then or wait for another revision. Though, I doubt going from 4 cores to 8 will mean 2x the performance.

Intel claimed +70% performance for quads over duals at the same clockrate on the same FSB at IDF yesterday.

Originally Posted by Xyrrus

The first 4 core chips will really be more like 2 dual core chips on one package. Now, this is still going to be a serious contender, but that design means that the chip will be more expensive. I'd expect to see it as a high end or build to order option. I don't think you're gonna see an 8 core machine at the $2499 price point (but hey that's my own meandering speculation)

I do.

Current 2.66Ghz dual core 1Ku price: $690
Current 3.0Ghz dual core 1Ku price: $851

Leaked 1.86Ghz quad core 1Ku price: $690
Leaked 2.33Ghz quad core 1Ku price: $851

(There's also a 2.66Ghz quad option for $1172.)

Originally Posted by Xyrrus

What I'm trying to get at is that 8 cores won't increase "the snappiness" of the machine like a faster clocked processor will. It will decrease the wait time for a lot of "progress bar" type things.

Not necessairly. "Snappiness" can be improved by running more threads (a modern OS very rarely has just one thing happening at a time) and "progress bar" thing can be serial computations.

[TimmyDee51]

Originally Posted by mduell

Intel claimed +70% performance for quads over duals at the same clockrate on the same FSB at IDF yesterday.

True, but we all know how chip manufacturers/Apple/anyone selling you a processor can inflate performance claims. I can believe a 70% performance gain, but only in certain high demand situations. Which could be right up your alley.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

I can believe a 70% performance gain, but only in certain high demand situations.

Yes, of course you need enough threads to fill the cores.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

True, but we all know how chip manufacturers/Apple/anyone selling you a processor can inflate performance claims. I can believe a 70% performance gain, but only in certain high demand situations. Which could be right up your alley.

Here are some Kentsfield benchmarks - AnandTech: Quad Cores: Intel Kentsfield Preview

The quad is 8% to 99% faster (on a per-clockrate basis) than the dual. Clovertown should do slightly better thanks to the faster FSB.

[wei]

Only if they put in DDR3 to replace FB-DIMM. Else the current Mac Pro should serve me till the next gen arrive.

Like others mentioned, there's always a newer Mac tmmr. You cant get the latest always. Just makesure it will work for you, that's it. Don't confused yourself by too much of "options"

[Xyrrus]

Originally Posted by mduell

Intel claimed +70% performance for quads over duals at the same clockrate on the same FSB at IDF yesterday.

Current 2.66Ghz dual core 1Ku price: $690
Current 3.0Ghz dual core 1Ku price: $851

Leaked 1.86Ghz quad core 1Ku price: $690
Leaked 2.33Ghz quad core 1Ku price: $851

(There's also a 2.66Ghz quad option for $1172.)

Not necessairly. "Snappiness" can be improved by running more threads (a modern OS very rarely has just one thing happening at a time) and "progress bar" thing can be serial computations.

I hadn't seen the leaked prices; that's cheaper than I would have expected. It still seems like since there's a fairly large drop in clock rate at each price point. On an OS like OS X, I'd rather have the more cores, but I don't think the rev/b Mac Pros are going to be blowing the rev/a models out of the water or anything, so it comes down to immediate need.

As to the snappiness thing, my personal experience with aperture and photoshop is that I rarely see the 4 cores all maxed - the slowdown seems to come from drive access or memory (I'm at 2 gigs and am honestly considering more). For me, when I'm doing things on my pro and thinking "gosh I wish this were faster" seldom is the culprit a lack of raw cpu power. YMMV of course.

-Xy