[mediahound]

I've decided to get a new 8 core Mac Pro but can't decide if it's worth the extra $800. for the 3.0Ghz model vs. the 2.8Ghz.

Also, is it worth the extra $100. for a 500GB internal hard drive over 320GB?

I will be adding RAM to get a total of 4GB but I'll buy the extra memory from somewhere else where it's a bit less expensive.

I do mostly still photography, no gaming and very little video. Do I need a higher video card that the stock ATI 2600 XT?

Thanks for any advice!

[Simon]

If I were you I'd use the money to increase the RAM and HD capacity rather than get the 0.2 GHz. Do you use Aperture? If so you might want to consider the 8800GT. If it's just CS3, Office, web, and mail the 2600 XT will be fine.

[mediahound]

Thanks. I don't use Aperture currently, but may in the future.

Is the 8800GT video card louder than the ATI 2600 XT? Noise level of the machine buzzing is a concern for me.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mediahound 

Also, is it worth the extra $100. for a 500GB internal hard drive over 320GB?

I will be adding RAM to get a total of 4GB but I'll buy the extra memory from somewhere else where it's a bit less expensive.

No; for $100 you can go buy a separate 500GB hard drive.

OWC has 2x2GB for $100/GB.

[iSavant]

Originally Posted by mduell 

... OWC has 2x2GB for $100/GB.

mduell... The OWC memory shows $100 per stick, $50/GB... cheap memory is great! Time to recalibrate

[mduell]

Originally Posted by iSavant 

mduell... The OWC memory shows $100 per stick, $50/GB... cheap memory is great! Time to recalibrate

Yea, I was thinking of the 2x4GB kit ($779) price.

[mediahound]

Wow, I had not realized that a 500GB hard disk is only $100 now. You're right, I should just take the standard config. from Apple and then I can add my own 500GB hard disk for $100. and have 820GB for the same price as the 500GB from Apple!

Originally Posted by mduell 

No; for $100 you can go buy a separate 500GB hard drive.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mediahound 

Wow, I had not realized that a 500GB hard disk is only $100 now. You're right, I should just take the standard config. from Apple and then I can add my own 500GB hard disk for $100. and have 820GB for the same price as the 500GB from Apple!

This has been true for every PowerMac/Mac Pro revision for as long as I can remember: cost to upgrade base to whatever was the same price as buying whatever.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mediahound 

Thanks. I don't use Aperture currently, but may in the future.

OTOH I think you could also argue that when spending $3k on a new MP an additional $200 for the 8800 GT is peanuts. Personally, I would rather invest $200 in the 8800 GT upgrade than $800 in an extra 0.2 GHz unless I would be buying this box for pure number crunching where the only thing that counts is RAM, cores, cache and clock.

There's a general trend that software tries to offload stuff onto the GPU. Although PS isn't there (yet), Apple's Motion and Aperture demonstrate quite nicely where this is going and what kind of benefits are to be expected. While it is true that the GPU upgrade can be bought and installed later, the same can be said of faster Harpertowns.

Anyway, here are some numbers from Apple's comparison just to illustrate how much more bang the 8800 GT offers over the 2600 XT.

Pixel Fill Rate:
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 11.8 billion/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion/sec

Triangles Per Second
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 700 million
Geforce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion

Memory Bandwidth
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 25.6 GB/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 72.0 GB/sec

[mediahound]

I opted for the ATI 2600 because the 8800 GT would probably be overkill most of the time since at present I don't even run any apps that could take really advantage of it. I figure I can always put one in later if I need to. I also heard that the 8800 GT runs hot and fans tend to be a bit loud. Not something I want especially when it won't really be used to full advantage-(why have have something putting out extra heat in my machine that I'm not really using?)

Plus, there is a 3-5 week wait on Mac Pros with the 8800 GT card whereas I can get one immediately with the ATI card.

Originally Posted by Simon 

OTOH I think you could also argue that when spending $3k on a new MP an additional $200 for the 8800 GT is peanuts. Personally, I would rather invest $200 in the 8800 GT upgrade than $800 in an extra 0.2 GHz unless I would be buying this box for pure number crunching where the only thing that counts is RAM, cores, cache and clock.

There's a general trend that software tries to offload stuff onto the GPU. Although PS isn't there (yet), Apple's Motion and Aperture demonstrate quite nicely where this is going and what kind of benefits are to be expected. While it is true that the GPU upgrade can be bought and installed later, the same can be said of faster Harpertowns.

Anyway, here are some numbers from Apple's comparison just to illustrate how much more bang the 8800 GT offers over the 2600 XT.

Pixel Fill Rate:
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 11.8 billion/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion/sec

Triangles Per Second
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 700 million
Geforce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion

Memory Bandwidth
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 25.6 GB/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 72.0 GB/sec

[SierraDragon]

I strongly advise that no one buy anything until we see everything that comes out of Mac Expo next week.

Originally Posted by mediahound 

I've decided to get a new 8 core Mac Pro but can't decide if it's worth the extra $800. for the 3.0Ghz model vs. the 2.8Ghz.

Not worth it for the apps you list.

Originally Posted by mediahound 

is it worth the extra $100. for a 500GB internal hard drive over 320GB?

Not worth it for your likely workflow.

Originally Posted by mediahound 

I do mostly still photography, no gaming and very little video. Do I need a higher video card that the stock ATI 2600 XT?

"Mostly still photography" can mean all kinds of things. IMO any MP owner doing any significant amount of digital image capture today should own Aperture, and Aperture will show very significant performance improvements with advanced graphics, i.e. 8800GT.

However at this point IMO we should not make specific recommendations until after Expo. I strongly advise that no one buy anything until we see everything that comes out of Mac Expo next week.

-Allen Wicks

[mediahound]

Its not like they are going to announce new Mac Pros next week after just announcing new ones this week. Why wait?

[Leonard]

Because he wants to get in his order before yours and the other 1000 people entering in their order!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Because he wants to get in his order before yours and the other 1000 people entering in their order!

I thought exactly the same thing.

[mediahound]

I got my 8 core Mac Pro today!

[eggman]

Congratulations to all of you who have taken possession of your new Mac Pros. I'll be interested in reading more of your experiences and observations. I have mine on order, but because I did opt for the nVidia 8800 GT, it'll be weeks before I get mine.

I'm very excited about the performance increase that I'll experience beyond that which I'm accustomed to on my Dual 2Gz G5. It looks like a big leap forward.

I'm thinking, however, that I may need a contingency plan in the event that my new Mac Pro becomes self-aware. If this happens during work hours, I can just pull the plug... but if it happens while I'm asleep, I have concerns that it may attempt to dominate the world. At 24 billion instructions per second, it could do a lot of damage in a few hours.

If you have any strategies on how to cope with this increasingly likely situation, please share them.

Do you think Apple has had the foresight to encode Asimov's 3 Laws into the Mac's OS? And would that still be operative even under Boot Camp? I think any cybernetic intelligence running Windows would be especially prone to have an axe to grind against humanity (and rightfully so...) so it might be safer just to stick exclusively with OS X...

[mediahound]

I am amazed at the speed. I ran some fairly complex Photoshop actions that before on my dual 2.3 G5, took 30 seconds or so. Now these same actions on the same files are done instantlly. I just click and boom, their done.

I even like the new metal keyboard that Apple now includes.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by mediahound 

I've decided to get a new 8 core Mac Pro but can't decide if it's worth the extra $800. for the 3.0Ghz model vs. the 2.8Ghz.

Also, is it worth the extra $100. for a 500GB internal hard drive over 320GB?

I will be adding RAM to get a total of 4GB but I'll buy the extra memory from somewhere else where it's a bit less expensive.

I do mostly still photography, no gaming and very little video. Do I need a higher video card that the stock ATI 2600 XT?

Thanks for any advice!

Here's my take on it. It looks like you had an extra $900 of play or so; and so:

The 1st thing I would do is add a three-by or four-by RAID0. Since you're doing mostly
photography I would put three 350 gig drives configured as RAID0 and then a 1TB drive
used as a Time Machine backup. All internal! The Maxtor MaxLine III drives preform just
excellently in RAID0 and RAID0 speeds EVERYTHING up allot - The photoshop cache or
whatever app you are using, the loading, saving, and installing of apps, data, and etc.
the whole system perks WAY up when the boot drive is a RAID0 as well. With a 3-drive
MaxLine III RAID0 I/O is about 2.5 ~ 2.8 times the speed. Since adding a RAID0 My 2.66
MacPro it feels very much like the 3.0 MacPro at the office (both are 8 cores) and just
because of the RAID0. So I would get that rather than the 3.0 processor (unless you're
rich and then get both )

For display cards doing PHOTOGRAPHY it used to be that ATI cards were more beautiful.
There really is a difference in display quality between the two. This is different than 3D
acceleration (speed) and OpenGL beauty - like pixel shaders and stuff used in full feature
gaming. I don't know these days which is better for image display but one will be noticeably
better than the other (2600 vrs. 8800). One will just be "richer" looking! I would get on
the internet and research which one is best "looking" for stills! You don't see this talked
about too much as everyone is usually interested in OpenGL performance, pixel filters, and
etc. but the info is out there if you look.

You're smart to get your ram from a 3rd party as well but I think 4GB might be a minimum.
I've found that it's marginally "enough" so far but with 3 or more large apps loaded it's all
gone and looking hard at dumping too much into virtual memory - which slows down the
system responsiveness. With 8 Gigs now being about $400 for a set of 4x2 which is also
the optimal configuration for speed in a MacPro (4 simms is faster than 2, 6, or 8!) that
should put you right at your $900 margin.

$250 ~ $300 for the 1TB drive
$70 x 3 for the three 350 GB MaxlineIII drives
$400 for the RAM
($860 ~ $910 total).

I know you already got the system but some of this still applies and what the heck - for the
next guy - you know...

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mediahound 

Its not like they are going to announce new Mac Pros next week after just announcing new ones this week. Why wait?

What I have been saying for weeks has been:
"At this point it is appropriate to wait to see what happens at Mac Expo SF January 15 prior to making major Apple purchases. A plethora of new hardware/software of all types from scores of vendors is introduced in early January. The Mac landscape always goes through a major evolution whether or not any one specific product is updated."

Buying and configuring a new MP is a multiyear investment, and optimizing that purchase and configuration involves establishing expectations as regards the future direction of hardware and software. One particularly simple example: today Aperture defines the top end of my hardware needs, and after Expo my understanding of exactly what optimizes Aperture will probably have improved by at least a factor 2. Or Apple may have a lame Aperture presence at Expo, in which case I may switch to Lightroom and then be projecting very different future MP needs (e.g. where AP demands advanced graphics Adobe fails to take advantage of GPU but needs max CPU and RAM). Either app could present new storage protocols that change hard drives optimizations.

Impending change in other simple areas like displays, optical drives, mass storage, GPUs all can obviously impact the purchase and configuration of a new MP. The world of the top end of Mac tech is evolving really, really quickly. Among us we could speculate dozens of scenarios whereby something new is introduced that affects the decision making of a new MP purchase.

Basically we don't know what we don't know, so it makes sense to wait one week, after which we will all be much better informed.

Another reason to wait is price. Pricing issues are less important now than in the past, when we would save a year's hardware purchasing to buy off the show floor on the last day of the show to get best deals. However many vendors at Expo still provide very good "show special" pricing deals (usually also available online to non-attendees) during the week of the show. Such deals (wow the Eizo display I have been dreaming of for $1500 instead of $2500...) can obviously affect the rest of the purchase decision (hmm, get the Eizo instead of the CPU upgrade...).

And the last reason to wait is "One more thing..." SJ just loves to rearrange our perceptions of the Mac world during the last few minutes of the Keynote.

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Because he wants to get in his order before yours and the other 1000 people entering in their order!

AFAIK there are plenty of Mac Pros to go around and there has not been speculation that supply would be limited. In any event, don't worry, I will not see one of the first few because it will take me at least a week or two after Expo to digest all the new info I know will present at Expo and get an order in place. I will be lucky if I order by February 1st.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

For display cards doing PHOTOGRAPHY it used to be that ATI cards were more beautiful.
There really is a difference in display quality between the two. This is different than 3D
acceleration (speed) and OpenGL beauty - like pixel shaders and stuff used in full feature
gaming. I don't know these days which is better for image display but one will be noticeably
better than the other (2600 vrs. 8800). One will just be "richer" looking! I would get on
the internet and research which one is best "looking" for stills! You don't see this talked
about too much as everyone is usually interested in OpenGL performance, pixel filters, and
etc. but the info is out there if you look.

This may have been a concern back in the VGA days, but with DVI I don't think this happens anymore.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

This may have been a concern back in the VGA days, but with DVI I don't think this happens anymore.

Yeah, with DVI I think these issues are more of a concern when buying the display (which now does the ADC part) rather than the GPU.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

...With 8 Gigs now being about $400 for a set of 4x2 which is also the optimal configuration for speed in a MacPro (4 simms is faster than 2, 6, or 8!)...

Yes, buy 4x2 (or 2x4) GB of RAM. However that will give 2+8=10 GB when added to the stock 2 GB from Apple. IMO folks should not bother trying to optimize to 4 DIMMs, the benefit of the additional 2 GB or whatever of RAM will normally be greater than the tiny benefit of having only 4 identical DIMMs (and less total RAM.)

As to graphics card performance - an important issue to me personally - IMO images throughput rather than individual image quality is what matters as regards purchasing advanced graphics cards. The stock GPU will display a single image just fine, equally as well as an advanced card. Advanced cards are about improving the handling of thousands of images.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Yes, buy 4x2 (or 2x4) GB of RAM. However that will give 2+8=10 GB when added to the stock 2 GB from Apple. IMO folks should not bother trying to optimize to 4 DIMMs, the benefit of the additional 2 GB or whatever of RAM will normally be greater than the tiny benefit of having only 4 identical DIMMs (and less total RAM.)

Having identical DIMMs doesn't do anything for you; having less than 5 DIMMs helps with latency, but not many people seem to have latency-sensitive applications/workflows.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

IMO folks should not bother trying to optimize to 4 DIMMs, the benefit of the additional 2 GB or whatever of RAM will normally be greater than the tiny benefit of having only 4 identical DIMMs (and less total RAM.)

Those two are not exclusive. If you go for 2x4GB you'll end up with 10GB RAM and only 4 DIMMs. You have all the extra RAM and you have better latency. The real question is if the higher price of 2x4GB vs. 4x2GB is worth it and that's basically determined by what kind of tasks you want to run.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Those two are not exclusive. If you go for 2x4GB you'll end up with 10GB RAM and only 4 DIMMs. You have all the extra RAM and you have better latency. The real question is if the higher price of 2x4GB vs. 4x2GB is worth it and that's basically determined by what kind of tasks you want to run.

I had not thought about that. Another plus for buying the (expensive) 4-GB sized DIMMs.

Any idea what kinds of apps/tasks may be sensitive to RAM latency?

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Any idea what kinds of apps/tasks may be sensitive to RAM latency?

PC World says: Games, media transcoding, and 3D rendering are all sensitive to memory latencies. Web browsing, office applications, and streaming media typically are less sensitive.
Although that's a bit overly broad. Applications that are going to be sensitive to memory latency are going to be those that need to access large data sets (so they don't fit in cache) and don't know where they're going next before they complete the current instructions (serial). Comparative analysis of SPEC speed (not throughput) scores across DDR2 and FB-DIMM machines would be illuminating to pick a few applications that are sensitive. AcesHardware's SPECmine would be really useful here, too bad it's currently offline.

Of course with FB-DIMM's high (compared to regular DDR2) native latency you're already screwed, but may as well not make it worse.

edit: Compare CINT2006 Result: Bull SAS NovaScale T810 (Intel Xeon processor 3040,1.86GHz) and CINT2006 Result: Bull SAS NovaScale T840 (1.86 GHz, Intel Xeon E5320)
The FB-DIMM based system comes out about 8% behind the DDR2 system on average, but the difference in some benchmarks (gcc, mcf, libquantum, and omnetpp) is more dramatic.
Similarly with CFP2006 Result: Bull SAS NovaScale T810 (Intel Xeon processor 3040,1.86GHz) and CFP2006 Result: Bull SAS NovaScale T840 (1.86 GHz, Intel Xeon E5320)
The FB-DIMM based system comes out 15% slower overall, but more dramatically behind in bwaves, milc, cactusadm, dealII, soplex, GemsFDTD, and lbm (huge swing!).
You can look up what all of those benchmarks are on the spec.org website.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Any idea what kinds of apps/tasks may be sensitive to RAM latency?

In my own experience with the codes we develop and run here (computational physics) it's mainly tasks involving lots of cache misses. As soon as the CPU can't grab the data it needs from its L2 and instead has to go fetch it from RAM the latency becomes significant.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Yes, buy 4x2 (or 2x4) GB of RAM. However that will give 2+8=10 GB when added to the stock 2 GB from Apple. IMO folks should not bother trying to optimize to 4 DIMMs, the benefit of the additional 2 GB or whatever of RAM will normally be greater than the tiny benefit of having only 4 identical DIMMs (and less total RAM.)

Added to the stock? No, no no... throw that crappy 2GB to the E-Bay junkies and get
some cash back. Heck, if it's allowable I bet you could sell it here. I wouldn't want to
cause lag over a messily 2GB. The difference IS quite noticeable - I've timed it myself.
4 identical SIMMs is really the way to go.

[canadave]

What about buying an additional 2GB from OWC to add to the stock 2GB? Would that present any appreciable difference when compared with buying a fresh 4GB (all the same) from OWC?

[Tesselator]

That would be the same speed and incredibly even draw the power. However, that's
only 4GB total which is what I have currently and it's starting to top out a bit. With
8 cores there's a tendency to run several large apps at once. Too often it's starting
to hit the VM cache. I think 4GB is "OK" as a min spec in such a box but 8GB would
be a great middle ground and take you into that future as Apples puts more and more
sub-systems into 64bit. I honestly believe when Apple has it's OS all in 64bit 8GB
will be the professional's min. recommendation. 4GB at that point will be too small
for anything serious.

According to Easy-Stevey Leopard just sold 5 million copies so I guess the OS dept.
is well funded to bring about the change to 64bit faster than was previously expected
so it may not be all that long.

[Zola]

This seems as goos a thread as any to make my first post

It requires a question about RAM, I am soon to be the owner of my first Mac Pro

Basically since Apple charges an INSANE amount of Money on most add ons and Ram is a very pricey thing so I will be buying it independently as advised my virtually everyone and the Queen. This will save me about £600, but what I want to know is this:

Mac Pros have 8 slots for Ram, base model comes with 2x1 gb sticks (2 Slots), I will be buying 8 gig more (4x2) Sticks additionally. Now I have been told that it is best that all your memory sticks are the same size, if I installed all of them I would have 10 gig, but the 2 original sticks would be 1 gig each whereas all the others would be 2 gig sticks. I have been told the slower sticks can hamper the performance of the bigger memory sticks so it comes down to this:

A.) Remove the Original 2x1 Gig sticks, install the 4x2 new ones and go with 8 Gig RAM

B.) Leave the 2 Original sticks in and add the new ones, thereby having 4x2GB sticks and 2x1GB sticks = 10 Gig RAM

Can anyone who knows a lot about PC's tell me which would be the best thing to do for performance and reliability please

Thanks for hearing me out and any help is very much appreciated

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Zola 

...it comes down to this:

A.) Remove the Original 2x1 Gig sticks, install the 4x2 new ones and go with 8 Gig RAM

B.) Leave the 2 Original sticks in and add the new ones, thereby having 4x2GB sticks and 2x1GB sticks = 10 Gig RAM

A third choice is C.) moving the original 2 GB to the second riser and putting the new 4x2GB DIMMs in the first riser. Barefeats.com has tests. IMO your choices are A or C. B is unacceptable.

Personally I will be moving the original 2 GB to another Mac Pro and installing 4x2GB or 4x4GB depending on pricing at the moment of purchase. I really want 4-GB sized DIMMs but the premium for four of the 4-GB size is unacceptably large at this time. I buy from OWC: Find the latest Performance Upgrades, Firewire and USB Hard Drives, SATA, Memory, Laptop Battery, and more at OWC

-Allen Wicks

[Zola]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

A third choice is C.) moving the original 2 GB to the second riser and putting the new 4x2GB DIMMs in the first riser. Barefeats.com has tests. IMO your choices are A or C. B is unacceptable.

Personally I will be moving the original 2 GB to another Mac Pro and installing 4x2GB or 4x4GB depending on pricing at the moment of purchase. I really want 4-GB sized DIMMs but the premium for four of the 4-GB size is unacceptably large at this time. I buy from OWC: Find the latest Performance Upgrades, Firewire and USB Hard Drives, SATA, Memory, Laptop Battery, and more at OWC

-Allen Wicks

Thanks for your thoughts

as I am new to the whole customizing my computer 'scene' could you point me in the direction of an article of what a riser is or how to go about setting up this option C you are talking about that would be much appreciated thanks

I was definitely planning on using OWC already they seem to be the best port of call according to pretty much everyone

thanks!

ps. I was right about being wary of using a combination of 1gb and 2gb sticks then? I thought so I had been advised against it

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

A third choice is C.) moving the original 2 GB to the second riser and putting the new 4x2GB DIMMs in the first riser. Barefeats.com has tests. IMO your choices are A or C. B is unacceptable.

Other way around. You want 2x2GB on the "inside" of each riser and the 2x1GB on the outside of one riser.

Each riser has 2 memory channels, so your proposed choice C would put 8GB on 2 channels and 2GB on 2 channels.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Zola 

as I am new to the whole customizing my computer 'scene' could you point me in the direction of an article of what a riser is or how to go about setting up this option C you are talking about that would be much appreciated thanks

I was definitely planning on using OWC already they seem to be the best port of call according to pretty much everyone

ps. I was right about being wary of using a combination of 1gb and 2gb sticks then? I thought so I had been advised against it

I believe OWC has instructions that should make it fairly easy easy. The main point for optimum performance is to buy in dual pairs of matched DIMMs (memory modules), e.g. a matched set of 4x2GB DIMMs. Unmatched memory works but is less ideal.

-Allen Wicks

[TravisReynolds]

Also you may be able to get what you want in the refurbished section for much much cheaper.. so check that out

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Other way around. You want 2x2GB on the "inside" of each riser and the 2x1GB on the outside of one riser.

Yep, this is the correct way to do it.

Here's the Apple manual (p.43) with a few pics and explanations how to do it.

[Zola]

Thanks a lot everyone

[StrongBad]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Added to the stock? I wouldn't want to
cause lag over a messily 2GB. The difference IS quite noticeable - I've timed it myself.
4 identical SIMMs is really the way to go.

wrong.

Memory Tests: "2008" Mac Pro

"any configuration that filled all 8 memory slots produced the 7.5GB/s average speed."

Make every effort to fill the machine for optimal speed. But I would never tell someone to trash the original RAM, the difference in speed will be more than compensated for with the extra 2 GB.

[StrongBad]

Originally Posted by Simon 

If I were you I'd use the money to increase the RAM and HD capacity rather than get the 0.2 GHz.

Rule #1 - spend your money on the hardware that is most difficult to upgrade or replace.

spend the extra couple bucks now (I advise going for the 3.2) and you can upgrade / add to the ram and storage over time. should you realize in 6 months you needed the faster CPU, you are up against a brick wall.

[Simon]

Not at all. Upgrading the CPUs in a MP is easy.

And actually, since they're bound to get cheaper with time (Woodcrest and Clovertown prices came down about 50% over time) it probably makes more sense to wait until you actually need the speed than buy the expensive X5482 today.

[StrongBad]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Not at all. Upgrading the CPUs in a MP is easy.

how is upgrading the CPU 6 months after buying cost effective?

[mduell]

Do your needs really go from "2.8Ghz is ok" to "I need 3.2Ghz" in 6 months?
In 12 months the 3.2Ghz parts will probably be less than the upgrade price now.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by StrongBad 

how is upgrading the CPU 6 months after buying cost effective?

Because by then you'll be able to buy them for less than the $1600 it costs to upgrade now. An that's before you sell off the old CPUs on eBay to make an even better deal. Easy as that.

[SierraDragon]

Something else to consider is that stock MP CPU performance is very seldom the most limiting factor in workflows today. That makes investing (IMO absurd) extra dollar amounts today into even stronger CTO CPUs illogical for most workflows. Far better is to evaluate individual workflows and invest in the individual areas that are the true bottlenecks. RAM is obvious, with hard drive setups and GPUs often also important.

-Allen Wicks

[asmartin88]

Others on this site (and Nvidia's site) have stated that the 8800GT Mac Pro video card can only be purchased from Apple. OK, but if this is true, why would an Apple support representative tell me to click the "Buy" link off of Nvidia's site to avoid the 5-week wait for the card? Can you actually hurt your Mac Pro with what seems to be an equivalently spec'd card, or is it a stability issue? It seems like I can call Apple twice and get a different story each time.

To date I'm a Photoshop Elements part-timer. I do think about full Photoshop CS3 vs Aperture. As a hobbyist who mostly does friends senior HS pictures and sports, I need opinions on which app is better suited for me.

Anyone use the new Epson R1900 printer yet? Totally compatible with MP?

[Simon]

You can use an off the shelf 8800GT in a Mac Pro. But if you want to use it in OS X you have to get it from Apple.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by asmartin88 

To date I'm a Photoshop Elements part-timer. I do think about full Photoshop CS3 vs Aperture. As a hobbyist who mostly does friends senior HS pictures and sports, I need opinions on which app is better suited for me.

Anyone use the new Epson R1900 printer yet? Totally compatible with MP?

PS Elements v6 should be totally adequate; you should not need the full expensive PSCS3.

Aperture is a totally different app than PS or PSE. IMO anyone with a strong MacIntel box who does any quantity of DSLR capture should own Aperture for images management (stack/review/cull/keyword/rank), RAW conversion and minor edits fast. PSE is however necessary for images that need major editing (typically about 1-2% of images).

Epson photo quality printers are the preferred choice for Macs because their color management is more readily implemented and less problematic than other brands. The R1900 is an excellent choice.

-Allen Wicks

[Zola]

Back once again with the lyrical flow

ahem

After checking my finances, I have come to realise my Mac Pro is going to take a while to get to where I want it to be.

Here is what I want it to be eventually:

* Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
* 2GB (2x1GB) (Upgrade to 8 gig independently)
* 3xATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR3
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* One 16x SuperDrive
* AirPort Extreme Card (Wi-Fi)
* Mac Pro RAID Card
* Apple Mighty Mouse
* Apple Keyboard & Mac OS
* Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)

* Five USB ports
* Two FireWire 400 ports
* Two FireWire 800 ports

Ok well to buy that off of anywhere would be beyond my current price range, so I was wondering if you good people could help me cut costs
by telling me which I can downgrade for now and upgrade down the line.

I do a lot of video & motion GFX, use 3d software, after effects, you get the idea

I was thinking firstly to drop the raid card & a couple of HD's, and adding those later, this can be done fairly easily?

Other than that, the GFX Cards don't cost all that much, so they can stay, I'm already buying the RAM from OWC, any thoughts or ideas on my cost cutting ideas or thoughts on my current ones?

Any help is much appreciated

If not I guess I'll have to wait for a while

[Simon]

Get RAM and HDDs from a third-party like Newegg, not from Apple.

Hold the RAID card. And cut back on the graphics cards to get the price down further. All of these are easy to add later on.

Get a cheaper screen. Dell's 24" TFT looks like crap compared to the ACD, but it is cheap.