Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Simon · 06:12 AM

The quad core is actually a worse deal than I thought.

Considering Nehalem's triple memory channels and the 2 GB DIMM limit, if you're looking for best performance you will likely end up with a 6 GB RAM limit rather than 8 GB. A 6GB limit in a 2009 workstation is outright laughable.

weed_ · Mar 7, 2009, 01:14 PM

After following this discussion, I'm currently planning to replace my Dual G5 2.5 (early 2005) with the lowest Midrange version, the 2.26 Dual Quad with the standard 6 GB RAM, upgrading to 12 GB when required (scheduled for 2010). I don't want to limit a machine's lifetime by having only 4 RAM slots (with 3 of them having the highest performance, see above).

CPU is secondary for me, I need the 4 internal HD bays, less noise (hopefully) and some more RAM (currently 3 GB).

_weed

goMac · Mar 7, 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Not really. Nehalem has increased inefficiency far more than just memory latency. Its new SSE for example easily speeds up certain operations by 100%. If you do 264 encoding for example this is huge.

Which again, is not a general speed improvement....

Originally Posted by Simon

The improved FPU, hyperthreading, etc. These things have nothing to do with clock speed or mem latency but they're important to gauge Nehalem's performance.

HyperThreading can make a difference, but I think you won't see much of an effect when you have 8 physical cores already...

Originally Posted by Simon

Obviously you will always be able to find a task that runs slightly better on a previous 3.2 GHz than on the new 2.26. But on average they will be about equal. And that's quite amazing considering there's a %30 clock difference and you're comparing the previous high-end with the new low-end octo MP.

Unless your dependent on clock speed... It's the same problem the PowerPC ran into... They tried to throw in the kitchen sink with the PowerPC and at the end of the day only a few tasks weren't bound by clockspeed.

I don't dispute that these machines will be great for things like video editing, they certainly seem to be built in that direction... But for those of us who do things like Dreamweaver or other kinds of coding, or who was just plain power users, I don't see much of an advancement and I'd be willing to be the old machines are faster.

Camali · Mar 7, 2009, 07:39 PM

My G5 is on the verge of dying (kernel panics, pci slots and memory slots causing all sorts of errors) So I decided to buy one of the new Mac Pros.

Its unfortunate that Apple released a 'low end' Mac Pro with a 8gb ceiling. So instead I'm gonna just buy the 8 memory slot Mac Pro and take it up to 12gb. I use mostly CS4 software and occasionaly use 3D, games, video, etc. I definitely need the additional 3 hard drive bays.

Should I be buying the dual quad core, or just the single quad core Mac Pro?

mduell · Mar 7, 2009, 08:33 PM

This segmentation and pricing appears insane; shame Apple no longer breaks out their desktop sales, I'm very curious to see how they'll sell.

Originally Posted by joshua305

Mac Pro is supposedly using the workstation grade 2.66GHz X5550 as the base which seems to be priced at $958 (1k) see this article http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._march_29.html.

That article is more than a month old; it's speculation, not observation. I'd expect Apple to use the cheaper 3000 series Xeons in a single socket box.

Simon · Mar 8, 2009, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by joshua305

Originally Posted by Simon

Apple really screwed over MP buyers on a budget.

Previously $2299 bought you a 2.8 GHz quad-core system. It's E5462 CPU costed $797 (1k).

Now, the cheapest MP you can buy is $2499. Its W3520 CPU costs $284 (1k).

Way to go Apple. In the middle of an economic crisis you use cheaper parts and charge customers more. That'll work.

Mac Pro is supposedly using the workstation grade 2.66GHz X5550 as the base which seems to be priced at $958 (1k) see this article http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._march_29.html.

I already wrote above what the new MP is using.

Here's the entire line-up:
W3520 for the quad 2.66 GHz, $284
W3540 for the quad 2.93 GHz, $562
E5520 for the octo 2.26 GHz, $373
X5550 for the octo 2.66 GHz, $958
X5570 for the octo 2.93 GHz, $1386

The prices are 1k, obviously Apple gets additional discounts. As you can see only the top two octo CPUs cost roughly what the former Harpertowns cost. The quad-cores and the E octo are far less expensive. Also the RAM in the MP is much cheaper than the former FB DIMMs. It's clear the cost to build a new MP is significantly lower than it used to be. And yet we've just witnessed a price hike.

Simon · Mar 8, 2009, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Camali

Its unfortunate that Apple released a 'low end' Mac Pro with a 8gb ceiling. So instead I'm gonna just buy the 8 memory slot Mac Pro and take it up to 12gb. I use mostly CS4 software and occasionaly use 3D, games, video, etc. I definitely need the additional 3 hard drive bays.

Should I be buying the dual quad core, or just the single quad core Mac Pro?

If you want 12 GB of RAM you have no other choice than getting the octo. That means at least $3299. efurbs form Apple are not an option either because all they offer is an octo 3.2 GHz for $4099.

For best performance I suggest you install 3x2GB in each of the two CPU's mem banks.

Tarkio · Mar 8, 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

If you want 12 GB of RAM you have no other choice than getting the octo. That means at least $3299. efurbs form Apple are not an option either because all they offer is an octo 3.2 GHz for $4099.

For best performance I suggest you install 3x2GB in each of the two CPU's mem banks.

What's the least wasteful initial octo configuration to buy from Apple? The base 6GB uses 6 DIMMS which should offer efficient performance, but it uses up 6 DIMM slots. Is it better to pay the extra $100 and get 8MB installed which only uses 4 DIMM slots, and then buy 2 more DIMMS from OWC so that 6 DIMM slots are filled? Thanks.

Simon · 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tarkio

What's the least wasteful initial octo configuration to buy from Apple? The base 6GB uses 6 DIMMS which should offer efficient performance, but it uses up 6 DIMM slots. Is it better to pay the extra $100 and get 8MB installed which only uses 4 DIMM slots, and then buy 2 more DIMMS from OWC so that 6 DIMM slots are filled? Thanks.

It depends. If you need more than 6 GB now I'd definitely go with 4x2GB and then add 2x2GB from a third-party. Try to install in six slots rather than in four or eight. Try to use same size DIMMs. If 6x1GB are fine now you could also just leave it that way and then upgrade to 6x2GB later. DDR3 RAM (even if it's ECC) prices will only go down. This is not like it used to be with FB DIMM.

Simon · Mar 10, 2009, 10:40 AM

Here are some pics of the new octo 2.93 Ghz Nehalem Mac Pro.

Demonhood · Mar 10, 2009, 12:13 PM

well it certainly disassembles quite nicely.

Simon · Mar 10, 2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Demonhood

well it certainly disassembles quite nicely.

Yeah, it's beautifully engineered.

goMac · Mar 10, 2009, 12:31 PM

The initial benchmarks show the 2008 octo 2.8 ghz edging out the 8 core 2.26 ghz model...

The 2.93 octo meantime is one of the fastest machines ever benched... But this does raise suspicion about the bang per dollar ratio of these machines...

nikstar101 · Mar 10, 2009, 04:00 PM

It will be interesting to see how the Quads fit into that pattern.

Taking a rough estimate the Quad 2.93 will come out with a result around 13,000 for the Multi CPU render, but it should match the Octo on the Single CPU Render.

But then again people seem only to have tested them against Cinebench and GeekBench which leaves a lot of other variables out so i guess until barefeats or someone gets a hold of it we are still in the dark.

But if the Quads do accept more that 8gb RAM (4gb Dimms) then i believe that the Quad 2.93 is a very good machine (apart from high end video).

Big Mac · Mar 10, 2009, 04:26 PM

I'm betting the quads suck specifically because Apple didn't include them in the marketing benchmarks at all.

goMac · Mar 10, 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'm betting the quads suck specifically because Apple didn't include them in the marketing benchmarks at all.

The quads are going to suck simply because they're a four core machine... They just don't have the horsepower to compete with the old stock Mac Pro at the same price point...

nikstar101 · Mar 10, 2009, 05:00 PM

Apple didn't include any machine but the 2.93Ghz 8 Core machine, so i don't think that proves much. Unless it mess the 2.66Ghz 8 core sucks as well??

I think that the Quad will beat the 2.26 8 core at photoshop and things like that but obviously it won't beat it in video. But if you look at the benchmarks (cinebench above) a Quad will equal the octo 2.93s single cpu render result which is 1.76 times faster than the 2.26. And lets say at worst it is half as slow as the octo 2.93Ghz at the multi-cpu render (which it will probably not perform that bad as two cpus doesn't give double the performance), that leaves it 0.71 times slower than the octo 2.26.

Since there are a lot of programmes out there that don't fully take advantage of all cpu cores or are limited by other factors such as hard drive speed, i think that the Quad 2.93 is actually a better buy than the octo 2.26. You will use more of the speed more of the time. Yes the octo may have more cores available but are the programmes using them?? Whereas all the programmes will HAVE to use the raw clock speed of the quad.

So if you are buying a Mac Pro because you don't want a Mac with an integrated screen and are using it for photography i believe that the Quad will be a better buy, plus it is still cheaper (so you get some cash left over). Although i am no doubt going to be proved wrong when the benchmarks come out. LOL

goMac · Mar 10, 2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by nikstar101

Yes the octo may have more cores available but are the programmes using them??

Snow Leopard.

angelmb · Mar 10, 2009, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Yeah, it's beautifully engineered.

A pity the Radeon's looks clouts such a calm scenario.

It is like you have a bunch of these

and suddenly you got this one

Damn you ATI.

nikstar101 · Mar 11, 2009, 02:45 AM

Just got a Quad 2.66 Cinebench score.

Rendering (Single CPU): 3572 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 14753 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 4.13
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6028 CB-GFX

If this is correct it shows that the Quad 2.93 will give the Octo 2.26 a good run for its money. If you use the same Multi speed up value you would get 16825 for the Multi render on the 2.93Ghz. This gives you 93% of the performance of the Octo 2.26 in multi-threading while trashing it in single thread apps (1.76x).

It now makes sense why Apple added the 8Gb RAM limit. If they didn't people would buy these over the bottom range Octo.

BTW Snow Leopard won't suddenly make everything multi-threaded. All it does is, allows easier implementation/use of multi-threading. If your programme runs single threaded now, that won't change under Snow Leopard.

Simon · 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by nikstar101

Since there are a lot of programmes out there that don't fully take advantage of all cpu cores or are limited by other factors such as hard drive speed, i think that the Quad 2.93 is actually a better buy than the octo 2.26.

I disagree with that conclusion. In single-threaded performance the quad may be faster, but what good is that if you are hobbled by the ludicrous RAM ceiling? Somebody who's worried about best performance will install a max of 6GB in his quad. How is that suitable for high-end pro work? Especially if you consider that you might not want to toss this $2999 box in a year from now.

The quad-core to me is simply not a option. It's RAM ceiling means it's not a real pro machine and it's price means it's not a consumer machine either.

Simon · Mar 11, 2009, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by nikstar101

BTW Snow Leopard won't suddenly make everything multi-threaded. All it does is, allows easier implementation/use of multi-threading. If your programme runs single threaded now, that won't change under Snow Leopard.

SL won't magically make things multi-threaded, that's true. But that doesn't mean every app needs a recompile to take advantage of SL/GC either. Apple can use GC to speed up the API. If an app uses such a call it can be accelerated w/o that app ever seeing an update. I think it's too early to gauge what kind of improvements we'll see with SL and what hardware will be most suitable.

What I am certain about however, is that buying a $3k Mac with a 6/8GB RAM ceiling for pro work is no long term investment.

11011001 · Mar 11, 2009, 05:37 AM

I'm so disappointed in Apple over this one. A dual-2.8 beating a dual-2.26, which I could obtain for $1k less? Confounding my displeasure with Apple is my shipment. I ordered an half hour after the announcement. Nothing yet, while others who placed orders after me, have already received their shipments. Stupid Canada. When I wake up tomorrow, I'm leaning towards canceling my order and getting the 2.8 or waiting, and building an hackintosh.

nikstar101 · Mar 11, 2009, 05:43 AM

Simon, i agree hence the reason i said that Apple put the 8Gb limit on the machine. Without that limit i think that it would be a much better buy for most people (not all people)

Which actually annoys me even more. Apple is deliberately is limiting its machines to sell the high priced machines!!!

nikstar101 · Mar 11, 2009, 05:55 AM

Simon, i agree hence the reason i said that Apple put the 8Gb limit on the machine. Without that limit i think that it would be a much better buy for most people (although not all people especially those doing video work)

Which actually annoys me even more. Apple is deliberately is limiting its machines to sell the high priced machines!!!

11011001 · Mar 11, 2009, 06:11 AM

Steve has been gone for 2 months, and already they are pulling this shite? On the other hand, who is to say that Jobs wouldn't do this stuff as well.

Simon · Mar 11, 2009, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by 11011001

Steve has been gone for 2 months, and already they are pulling this shite? On the other hand, who is to say that Jobs wouldn't do this stuff as well.

Actually, this kind of lineup has Steve Jobs written all over it.

delete · Mar 11, 2009, 10:08 AM

I agree. Like that forward thinking idea of dropping Firewire from the Macbooks. Apparently at certain price points user needs are subject to preconceived limitations from the higher ups.

goMac · Mar 11, 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by nikstar101

BTW Snow Leopard won't suddenly make everything multi-threaded. All it does is, allows easier implementation/use of multi-threading. If your programme runs single threaded now, that won't change under Snow Leopard.

This is true, but I'm telling you as a developer things will quickly change. Everyone will recompile their software, and I'm betting Apple will be shipping a lot of stuff recompiled and optimized.

You probably won't be able to get 8 cores usage from on program, but if you're running two or three programs that can each use two to three cores...

moep · Mar 11, 2009, 01:02 PM

Personally, I'll just build a relatively cheap but decent (~$1300) i920 system with a decent amount of RAM, install Mac OS X on that and wait until Apple gets this Mac Pro mess fixed.

Seeing how Bloomfields can be quite easily overclocked to 3.6Ghz or more with Air Cooling, that machine might even end up being faster than the top of the like Mac Pro for most of my (of course singlethreaded) applications.

I love Apple machines and despise Hackintoshes as much as all the other people on this forum but it doesn’t feel like I have much of an option here.

11011001 · Mar 11, 2009, 02:50 PM

Just got off the phone with them. I was going to cancel, but the guy was nice, and quelled my anger. I know I'm getting ripped off, but the macnerd in me wouldn't be satisfied with a hackintosh.

My plan: going to keep the 2x2.26, and buy an upgraded Xeon in a years time. I can't do that with the old generation Mac Pros. Is the upfront $1k premium justified? Probably not.

A perfect world would have Apple drop the prices, and refund its cheated customers. I won't be recommending Apple to anyone I know anymore.

Simon · Mar 12, 2009, 04:03 AM

The new octos are expensive, but they sure are fast.

http://www.barefeats.com/nehal03.html

Because of the RAM ceiling I already considered the new quad MP a bad choice for pros. Looking at these benchmarks just supports that notion.

11011001 · Mar 12, 2009, 04:35 AM

So happy. They just added more than a week onto my delivery date.

P · Mar 12, 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't dispute that these machines will be great for things like video editing, they certainly seem to be built in that direction... But for those of us who do things like Dreamweaver or other kinds of coding, or who was just plain power users, I don't see much of an advancement and I'd be willing to be the old machines are faster.

Apple has a Mac for you, though. It's called "iMac".

Also note that Nehalem includes a a new IOMMU, which improves virtualization performance significantly. VMware is already updating to take advantage of this. Nehalem is going to be another quantum leap for performance, even if it isn't quite as large as Conroe was.

Big Mac · 12:38 PM

Until we can buy a headless iMac (haha), or add an expansion slot card like an eSATA card, or add additional internal hard drives, then the iMac is not the computer power users need.

SierraDragon · Mar 12, 2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by 11011001

Just got off the phone with them. I was going to cancel, but the guy was nice, and quelled my anger. I know I'm getting ripped off, but the macnerd in me wouldn't be satisfied with a hackintosh.

My plan: going to keep the 2x2.26, and buy an upgraded Xeon in a years time. I can't do that with the old generation Mac Pros. Is the upfront $1k premium justified? Probably not.

A perfect world would have Apple drop the prices, and refund its cheated customers. I won't be recommending Apple to anyone I know anymore.

What info or pricing is concealed from you? How are you "cheated?" Just do not buy it if you consider it overpriced. Or send it back, Apple gives you 14 days.

IMO the RAM limitation (if as expected the box literally cannot address more than 8 GB regardless of the size of the DIMMs) makes the 2009 4-core an unacceptable purchase at current prices. Very few of the folks who need that kind of processing horsepower will by 2010 not benefit greatly from more than 8 GB RAM.

But no one should complain when they consciously decide to buy such an expensive RAM-limited box. The info and pricing is right up front, and there are plenty of alternative choices. E.g. 2006, 2007, 2008 MPs that all will address 32 GB RAM and are all excellent boxes. Or the new 8-core if one needs a supercomputer on the desktop

.

-Allen Wicks

goMac · Mar 12, 2009, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by P

Apple has a Mac for you, though. It's called "iMac".

Also note that Nehalem includes a a new IOMMU, which improves virtualization performance significantly. VMware is already updating to take advantage of this. Nehalem is going to be another quantum leap for performance, even if it isn't quite as large as Conroe was.

No hard drive bays (and no ESATA to boot, good luck adding ESATA to an iMac without....)
No card slots.
Poor expandability of RAM.
No support for CPU upgrades.
No GPU upgrades.

Definitely a great Mac for grandma, no so much for the prosumer who used to be able to buy a low end Mac Pro...

Simon · Mar 12, 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

IMO the RAM limitation (if as expected the box literally cannot address more than 8 GB regardless of the size of the DIMMs) makes the 2009 4-core an unacceptable purchase at current prices.

Even if it turns out the quad can use 4GB DIMMs its 4 DIMM slot limitation is unacceptable. Upgrading to 16GB costs ~$2300 vs. the $232 it costs on the octo.

P · Mar 12, 2009, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

No hard drive bays (and no ESATA to boot, good luck adding ESATA to an iMac without....)
No card slots.
Poor expandability of RAM.
No support for CPU upgrades.
No GPU upgrades.

Definitely a great Mac for grandma, no so much for the prosumer who used to be able to buy a low end Mac Pro...

RAM is now up to 8 gigs - respectable, (I know a certain low-end workstation that maxes out at the same level

). For the rest of them: does a Dreamweaver coder need them? You'd like them sure, but need?

Just trying to explain the thinking here.

11011001 · 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

What info or pricing is concealed from you? How are you "cheated?" Just do not buy it if you consider it overpriced. Or send it back, Apple gives you 14 days.

IMO the RAM limitation (if as expected the box literally cannot address more than 8 GB regardless of the size of the DIMMs) makes the 2009 4-core an unacceptable purchase at current prices. Very few of the folks who need that kind of processing horsepower will by 2010 not benefit greatly from more than 8 GB RAM.

But no one should complain when they consciously decide to buy such an expensive RAM-limited box. The info and pricing is right up front, and there are plenty of alternative choices. E.g. 2006, 2007, 2008 MPs that all will address 32 GB RAM and are all excellent boxes. Or the new 8-core if one needs a supercomputer on the desktop

.

-Allen Wicks

If you investigate the cost (and as seen in Simon's post) of the components used in the 2x2.26, the markup on this product is extreme, especially compared to the previous generation, and the other octos in the line. The jump from the 2x2.26 to 2x2.66 is actually acceptable. However, the price of the 2x2.26, especially given the cost of the processors is ridiculous.

$373 Xeon EP 5520 2.26
$958 Xeon EP 5550 2.66
$1386 Xeon EP 5570 2.93

I am almost thinking the 2x2.26 is priced the way it is to sell the quads?

Veltliner · Mar 13, 2009, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by 11011001

Just got off the phone with them. I was going to cancel, but the guy was nice, and quelled my anger. I know I'm getting ripped off, but the macnerd in me wouldn't be satisfied with a hackintosh.

My plan: going to keep the 2x2.26, and buy an upgraded Xeon in a years time. I can't do that with the old generation Mac Pros. Is the upfront $1k premium justified? Probably not.

A perfect world would have Apple drop the prices, and refund its cheated customers. I won't be recommending Apple to anyone I know anymore.

Why do you want to upgrade in a year's time?

Why don't you get an octo now, which will not need an upgrade in a year, can adress 32gb of RAM. It's 800$ more now, instead of 1000$ in a year - and you still have only a 4-core.

If those 1000$ are putting it out of your reach, finance those 1000$. Still more reasonable that buying this half-bottom-end crippled grandma-4-core.

When I read your post, I register the smell of burned dollar bills.

Simon · Mar 13, 2009, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by Veltliner

Why don't you get an octo now...

He is actually:

Originally Posted by 11011001

My plan: going to keep the 2x2.26, and buy an upgraded Xeon in a years time.

A dual 2.26 which means the low-end octo config. As I understand the plan is to then buy new CPUs in a year. That sounds sensible if he can sell his older Xeons. Apple charges $1400 for the upgrade to dual 2.66 GHz when actually the CPU cost is only about $1170 more (it's $2600 vs. $2000 for the 2.93 GHz). In a year from now they'll probably be quite a bit less expensive.

When I read your post, I register the smell of burned dollar bills.

But when you reread the post properly that smell goes away.

P · Mar 13, 2009, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

A dual 2.26 which means the low-end octo config. As I understand the plan is to then buy new CPUs in a year. That sounds sensible if he can sell his older Xeons. Apple charges $1400 for the upgrade to dual 2.66 GHz when actually the CPU cost is only about $1170 more (it's $2600 vs. $2000 for the 2.93 GHz). In a year from now they'll probably be quite a bit less expensive.

And if he's lucky, he'll be able to put a pair of 32nm hexacores in there.

Also note that Intel increased L1 cache latency from 3 to 4. The only reason to do that is to provide overclocking headroom. They probably aimed for Core i7 to be able to scale towards 4 GHz. Whether it will is more than we know, but that seems to be the target at least.

Simon · Mar 16, 2009, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

The quad core is actually a worse deal than I thought.

Considering Nehalem's triple memory channels and the 2 GB DIMM limit, if you're looking for best performance you will likely end up with a 6 GB RAM limit rather than 8 GB.

Unfortunately that has now been confirmed. If you put eight DIMMs in the octo MP instead of six (or 4 instead of three in the quad), the entire memory bus drops from triple channel to dual channel.

The only good news is that some apps rely more on having lots of memory than having fast memory. After Effects seems to be a good example.

http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html

delete · Mar 16, 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Unfortunately that has now been confirmed. If you put eight DIMMs in the octo MP instead of six (or 4 instead of three in the quad), the entire memory bus drops from triple channel to dual channel.

Is this true with the previous version 08's too? I have all 8 filled.
Also does it matter where certain size dimm pairs are placed in the sequence?

SierraDragon · 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by P

RAM is now up to 8 gigs - respectable, (I know a certain low-end workstation that maxes out at the same level

). For the rest of them: does a Dreamweaver coder need them? You'd like them sure, but need? Just trying to explain the thinking here.

Agreed many folks buying new MPs do not today need more than triple-channel 6 GB or dual-channel 8 GB RAM, but a new MP typically should be looked at in a +/- 4-year life cycle. Always-falling RAM prices and existing hardware/software roadmaps clearly show likely future benefits to more and more RAM. In fact (finally) the realization of 64 bit computing combined with cheap future RAM might actually shorten the tower life cycles we are accustomed to when 64-bit really implements.

IMO at 8 GB the new 4-core MP is unacceptably priced, but it may come down to whether or not the new 4-core MPs will be able to address 16 GB RAM using 4-GB-sized DIMMs. The reason being that the cost of 4-GB-size DIMMs will fall, so future RAM evaluating in the life cycle analysis would be comparing 16 GB vs. 32 GB rather than 8 GB vs. 32 GB.

-Allen Wicks

Simon · Mar 16, 2009, 12:45 PM

It would rather be comparing
• 12 GB vs. 24 GB (more expensive)
• 6 GB vs. 12 GB (less expensive)

No matter how cheap DDR3 DIMMs become, 4 GB DIMMs will always remain more expensive than two 2 GB DIMMs. The quad core is crippled by design because Apple removed the DIMM slots along with the second CPU slot. At an entry-level price of $2500 that is unacceptable. And it's definitely not a professional workstation. Expansion options will be limited and hence the lifetime will be much lower than for the octo MPs or previous MP models.

IMHO the quad MP would have been a nice prosumer tower or low-end pro Mac at $1799. But at $2500 entry-level they're simply no serious option. Too bad because it means the minimum price for the real pro workstation MP gets jacked up to $3300. Lots of money considering the current state of the economy.

Veltliner · Mar 16, 2009, 05:20 PM

I'm referring to delete's post, quoting Simon:

Is it true that filling up the Dimms actually slows down the machine?

I can't believe it - so I guess I am misinterpreting something.

mduell · Mar 16, 2009, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

The only good news is that some apps rely more on having lots of memory than having fast memory. After Effects seems to be a good example.

Huh? That chart shows me you can save 25% on memory costs (6GB instead of 8GB) and get the same performance.

Originally Posted by Veltliner

Is it true that filling up the Dimms actually slows down the machine?

It depends what your usage/application is sensitive to. If you're sensitive to capacity, then more modules always helps. If you're sensitive to bandwidth, then 6 modules is better than 8 in the current model. If you're sensitive to latency then 4 modules is better than 8 in the previous model.

Veltliner · Mar 17, 2009, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Huh? That chart shows me you can save 25% on memory costs (6GB instead of 8GB) and get the same performance.

It depends what your usage/application is sensitive to. If you're sensitive to capacity, then more modules always helps. If you're sensitive to bandwidth, then 6 modules is better than 8 in the current model. If you're sensitive to latency then 4 modules is better than 8 in the previous model.

Would sensitivity to LATENCY mean that information has to travel fast across a computer system? What application would be sensitive to that? Monitoring scientific experiments? Video editing?

BANDWIDTH would be the amount of data? Would that be the realms of statistics and number crunching?

And sensitivity to CAPACITY would be bigger chops of data, like big Photoshop files?