[shdwghst457]

Hey all,

With all the shenanigans I'm going through with my two PM G5s and about to invoice my client who's giving me $2000 for my MacBook Pro, I've decided to get a new Mac Pro to replace all 3 machines. Any suggestions on what to get with it? I'm pretty sure a 30-inch (to replace my 20" cinema display) is already in the works. And since the GT 120 in the pro already has mini-DP, i'm going to get the MDP and audio to HDMI adapter since my secondary monitor handles the audio routing to my soundsystem. right now i have to tell the monitor whether the audio is coming from HDMI or from the line in. going for the perfect set up here!

[shdwghst457]

i'll be getting a new mac pro with a 30" cinema before january, along with the APC RS 1500VA UPS. any other accessories you think I should get? It's being paid for by selling my twin Power Macs and my MacBook Pro (just got $2000 for the latter!)

[Simon]

Large backup disk. Better yet, two. Have one off-site and rotate.

[Simon]

If you're planning on keeping the MP for a while, I'd get the octo. Not only is the quad severely overpriced, but its RAM ceiling is too low for a pro machine that's supposed to last more than one or two years.

[OreoCookie]

I've merged the threads, this should give people the chance to give suggestions knowing the whole picture.

I would also suggest the 8-core machine, it's more future proof and future operating systems will (have to) make better use of additional cores. Regarding RAM, I suggest you get additional RAM afterwards from a reputed retailer. I suggest you start with 4~8 GB and see what your requirements are. (Observe the number of page-outs in the Activity Monitor, if you get a more than 100 MB of page-outs, you need more RAM. Free RAM does not tell you whether you need more, OS X will try to use up all of the RAM for caching things. A page-out is when something has to be saved on the swap file on the harddrive. If this happens every once in a while after a few days of work (say up to ~1 MB), you don't necessarily need more RAM.)

Regarding accessories: I strongly suggest you get backup drives! Don't skimp out on this. Storage capacity is pretty cheap these days, you can get external 1.5 TB drives for under $200.

[shdwghst457]

i totally agree that backup is crucial. everything i have (particularly my 500gb g-drive mini) is cloned onto another volume. going to enjoy having 4 internal SATA slots. some high speed network storage might be in the works too. thinking maybe a drobo, or the iomega that was just featured on tuaw. i hadn't thought of the quad core being overpriced, but indeed it is half the computer for only a fraction less cost. something to think about for sure.

in the meantime (i'm buying in december) i hackintoshed my hand crafted core 2 quad system with 10.5.6 and getting much better performance than my macbook pro was doing for me. going to make the 2 months without a G5 or Intel Mac much much easier.

is a blu ray burner affordable yet in a desktop tray loader or should i hold out a little longer? and since everything I have is HDCP, would a blu ray drive be able to play back?

[Simon]

There's no BR playback on OS X. It's data only. Better get a fast disk.

[shdwghst457]

that's interesting. oh well. ps3 is hooked up to the same monitor anyway. no biggie i guess!

[imitchellg5]

What do you do with your Macs? The octo won't be any faster in day to day stuff than the 2.66GHz quad. You have to be a pretty hardcore user to take advantage of all 8 cores. Personally I'd upgrade to the fastest quad instead of the octo.

[bearcatrp]

Wait till the new ones come out. If you can afford the gulftown mac pro, get it. If not, the older ones will drop in price.

[shdwghst457]

eh mostly day to day stuff, but when i'm rendering something i want it done. i left my eMac with a 34 hour render job one time! maybe the 2.93 quad would be best for me. and i totally agree with waiting for the new ones, definitely what i'm doing. i looked up the gulftown stuff, really cool. will like to see how that turns out!

[dcpmark]

If no one minds me piggybacking on, I too have this decision to make. I need a new Mac Pro for amateur video work....converting old DV video, iMovie editing, ripping and burning DVDs, encoding and decoding with MacTheRipper, Visual Hub, etc. I want the fastest machine possible, but my only choices are the 2.66 quad, the 2.26 octo, or waiting for their equivalents in the Gulftowns.

Any thoughts?

[Veltliner]

I'd wait for the next upgrade. The current line-up is user-unfriendly.

The 4-core would be OK - but it has a low RAM ceiling.

The "cheapest" 8-core starts at 3300$.

[Veltliner]

The next Mac Pro generation is said to have a RAM ceiling of 128 Gb. Looks more future proof to me than the current line-up with a max of 32Gb even for the 8-core.

[P]

At this point, nothing but an octo makes any sense. The maxed out 27" iMac outperforms the low-end MP at a lower price, and you get the display included "ofr free". Hopefully the next MP update with Gulftown (early 2010) will adjust the performance upwards and the price downwards.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

At this point, nothing but an octo makes any sense. The maxed out 27" iMac outperforms the low-end MP at a lower price, and you get the display included "ofr free".

That's not wrong, but it applies if you look at price-performance only. If somebody needs some expansion (for example you want to be able to swap the GPU or add eSATA) the iMac is out of the race. A quad MP with screen is more expensive, but it's Apple's only desktop that offers expansion options.

That said, I'm not debating the MP is currently overpriced. Just like the 30" ACD for that matter.

[shdwghst457]

yea the 27" iMac really changed things for me, it's so tempting just to get that fully maxed out and just use that for a while instead of getting a pro, but i'm still going to wait for the refresh of the pro before i make any decisions. the 27" is beautiful.

[NeverTriedApple]

Rather than investing heavily into 8-core today, I would get 4-core now and next-gen-MP in two years time. What software you're using that knows to work with 8-core?

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's not wrong, but it applies if you look at price-performance only. If somebody needs some expansion (for example you want to be able to swap the GPU or add eSATA) the iMac is out of the race. A quad MP with screen is more expensive, but it's Apple's only desktop that offers expansion options.

That's exactly why I went with the Mac Pro. I got sick of waiting for the iMac to go Quad, and also realized that I was over non-expandable machines. I need multiple drives due to an extensive CD and DVD collection, and it's nice to just be able to drop them in. Then when USB 3.0 and Light Peak go live, I can simply add that functionality with PCIe cards.

And don't forget, the quad in the iMac doesn't do Hyperthreading. The Xeon does. As Grand Central and apps mature, that could make a big difference.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

And don't forget, the quad in the iMac doesn't do Hyperthreading. The Xeon does. As Grand Central and apps mature, that could make a big difference.

The Core i7 iMac supports HT, but I doubt it will make much of a performance difference regardless of GCD.

[Arty50]

Ooops. I thought the quads were both Core i5. Sorry about that.

[shdwghst457]

excellent point on the USB3.0/Light Peak/ unmentioned FireWire 3200. would hate to spend all that money and get left behind next week. thanks for reminding me why I own Power Macs in the first place!

[sadpandas]

Originally Posted by shdwghst457 

excellent point on the USB3.0/Light Peak/ unmentioned FireWire 3200. would hate to spend all that money and get left behind next week. thanks for reminding me why I own Power Macs in the first place!

(the following non sensical post is due to lack of sleep, too much coffee and only my opinion and my preferences so please take them as just that, my opinions... and you know the one about opinions and a$$h*les)

I usually go by the mac rumors model cycle page... If it hasn't been refreshed in a while you might want to wait, etc. BUT, as they (we) always say, if you NEED it NOW get it NOW. You can always sell it down the line if you need to. I have an early 08 dual quad and although its not the fastest or the newest I don't think i am SOL or running any slower than other folks doing what i do with my machine. I record and compose music using Logic Studio (the newest upgrade) as well as use the new Final Cut and Snow Leopard etc. With all of the tracks i use my hard drives and memory are eating them up alive. I don't know what you use your machine for but for 20 plus tracks all using live CPU hungry VSTs i am running without a problem. Perhaps you are launching rockets or using your computer to ride the razor's edge or BLEEDING EDGE but i just don't see this mac pro i am on or any of them since their inception being 'left behind in a week'. I mean if you really think about it with snow leopard and it's 64 bit radness we still don't have any pro apps that take advantage or make use of it yet. I love firewire 800 but there are only 2 audio interfaces out of the hundereds of them on the market that actually use firewire 800 so we are stuck using 400 or the ultra old timey usb. I know, usb transfers a 'little bit' faster BUT i (personally) have had great luck with firewire interfaces.

I get it, newer must be better and faster but let's not forget the awesomeness that is 1st gen . For now, my box is bullet proof Knock on my wood) and has made it's money back in less than 1 week of owning it so, for me, ill stick with this until apple get's minority report style. Ok, until they pull of the dual 8 core or dual 6 core all running on ssd.

love,
soft little pandas

p.s. LISTEN TO MOGWAI

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The Core i7 iMac supports HT, but I doubt it will make much of a performance difference regardless of GCD.

Well, Core i7 not only does HT, but it's also 5% faster clocked when all 4 cores are utilized than Core i5. So, at least on the PC side, the difference in performance ranges between roughly 5% and 30%.

For example, Handbrake H.264 is about 20% faster (although that's with 1333 MHz memory).



Furthermore, Core i7 can hit 3.46 GHz in single-threaded mode.



That's 8% faster than the same mode on Core i5. Core i5 is the better value, but I think Core i7 will provide significant improvements in some apps.

Originally Posted by sadpandas 

I usually go by the mac rumors model cycle page... If it hasn't been refreshed in a while you might want to wait, etc. BUT, as they (we) always say, if you NEED it NOW get it NOW. You can always sell it down the line if you need to. I have an early 08 dual quad and although its not the fastest or the newest I don't think i am SOL or running any slower than other folks doing what i do with my machine. I record and compose music using Logic Studio (the newest upgrade) as well as use the new Final Cut and Snow Leopard etc. With all of the tracks i use my hard drives and memory are eating them up alive. I don't know what you use your machine for but for 20 plus tracks all using live CPU hungry VSTs i am running without a problem. Perhaps you are launching rockets or using your computer to ride the razor's edge or BLEEDING EDGE but i just don't see this mac pro i am on or any of them since their inception being 'left behind in a week'. I mean if you really think about it with snow leopard and it's 64 bit radness we still don't have any pro apps that take advantage or make use of it yet. I love firewire 800 but there are only 2 audio interfaces out of the hundereds of them on the market that actually use firewire 800 so we are stuck using 400 or the ultra old timey usb. I know, usb transfers a 'little bit' faster BUT i (personally) have had great luck with firewire interfaces.

Even if I needed one now, there's no way I'd buy a Mac Pro now, at least if I already had a functional computer, even if it was a slow dual. The Mac Pro quad is now extremely overpriced, and the 6-core entry level version should be out in a few months, hopefully at a lower price.

If you're talking about buying a computer for interim usage and then getting another Mac Pro later, I'd just get a Core i5 quad iMac now and get the Mac Pro later. This is the quad Mac Pro configured to at least approach the specs of the 27" Core i5 iMac:

- 2.66 GHz Quad-core Xeon W3520 with Turbo support up to 2.93 GHz
- 3GB (3x1GB) <-- Needs more memory.
- 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
- One 18x SuperDrive
- Apple 24" Cinema HD Display
- Apple Magic Mouse
- Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) and User's Guide
- AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n

Total $3538, with only a 24" monitor. Take away that monitor and it's still $2639, with only 3 GB RAM. Ouch.

As for Firewire 400, it's usually significantly faster than USB 2 in real life usage. And as for FW800, while most audio interfaces are still FW400, you still need storage. I use a FW800 hard drive (and they can really take advantage of the speed boost), as well as a FW800 Compact Flash reader.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, Core i7 not only does HT, but it's also 5% faster clocked when all 4 cores are utilized than Core i5. So, at least on the PC side, the difference in performance ranges between roughly 5% and 30%.

For example, Handbrake H.264 is about 20% faster (although that's with 1333 MHz memory).

A benchmark well known to be sensitive to memory latency is faster with faster memory?
The i7 iMac doesn't have faster memory, so the cited benchmark is not relevant.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

Rather than investing heavily into 8-core today, I would get 4-core now and next-gen-MP in two years time. What software you're using that knows to work with 8-core?

Yep. Plus fast quad core is faster than slower octo-core on any number of tasks, at least until current software gets upgraded to take advantage of Grand Central.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

A benchmark well known to be sensitive to memory latency is faster with faster memory?
The i7 iMac doesn't have faster memory, so the cited benchmark is not relevant.

Here are some DivX/XviD encoding benches, comparing memory speed.

0.9% difference going from 1066 --> 1333:



1.9% difference going from DDR2 --> DDR3:



Anyways IIRC, you might get as much as a 5% boost from memory but often not... and the Core i7 2.8 GHz bench I showed had it being 20% faster than Core i5 2.66 GHz. ie. At worst, Core i7 might "only" be 15% faster than Core i5 in this benchmark with 1066 MHz memory. IMO, 15% is significant.

[Arty50]

I love this thread. It's the perfect example of to each their own and there are some really good points on all sides.

Bottom line is we all use our machines for different purposes and have different needs and desires. Frankly, an iMac is pretty much what I need while a MacPro is slightly overkill. So why did I go MacPro? Because when I got my machine this summer I was about 6 months to a year past needing a new computer and I was disappointed with the dual core processors on the iMac. If I could have waited a little longer, the top end machine would have made my decision very difficult.

That said, I'm very happy with my choice. I love having extra internal drive bays. Plus, I'm a bit gun shy with non-upgradable internals after buying a Rev A iMac. I LOVED that computer; but I really, really lamented the fact I couldn't use Firewire devices with it. Especially since it was only USB 1.0. When I did a drive upgrade, I actually had to take out the CD-Rom drive and had a two headed IDE cable running out of the hole to an HD sitting on my desk.

Yeah, I know the iMac has gotten more future proof over the years; but it's really nice to be able to just pop the side off the machine and drop in another drive. Plus when we start seeing Light Peak and USB 3 devices, I can just buy a cheap PCIe card. I keep my machines for an average of 5 years, and better upgradability is something I've always missed on my last 2 iMacs.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Here are some DivX/XviD encoding benches, comparing memory speed.

0.9% difference going from 1066 --> 1333:

[completely irrelevant xvid benchmark]

1.9% difference going from DDR2 --> DDR3:

[completely irrelevant divx benchmark]

Anyways IIRC, you might get as much as a 5% boost from memory but often not... and the Core i7 2.8 GHz bench I showed had it being 20% faster than Core i5 2.66 GHz. ie. At worst, Core i7 might "only" be 15% faster than Core i5 in this benchmark with 1066 MHz memory. IMO, 15% is significant.

The benchmark you used to compare i5 and i7 was h264, not xvid or divx. Don't muddy the waters.

[reader50]

mduell, perhaps you could show us some benchmarks that are more specific. Eug is putting some nice effort into his analysis.

[Eug]

x264 encoding:



For Phenom II 3 GHz X4 940 with 1.8 GHz HTT and DDR2-1066 vs Phenom II 3 GHz X4 945 with 2.0 GHz HTT and DDR3-1333, the difference is 1.16%.

For Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66 GHz with 1333 MHz DDR2 vs Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66 GHz with 1067 MHz DDR2, the difference is 5.68%. However, Q9450 has a 12 MB cache (2 x 6 MB). Q6700 has an 8 MB cache (2 x 4 MB). I would expect that most of that 5.68% difference were due to the big difference in cache size. Even if we split the difference and said half was due to memory speed and half was due to cache size, that would mean the performance increase from the memory speed boost was all of 2.8%.

If I could have 1333 MHz memory on the iMac, that'd be great, but I don't think that 1066 MHz memory is as much of a hindrance as some are trying to make it out to be. Even if the performance boost going to 1333 MHz memory were 5% (which is optimistic), that would mean that Core i7 is still significantly faster than Core i5 in many situations, due not only to HyperThreading but also to the higher 2.8 GHz (vs. 2.66) clock speed in full quad mode and the higher 3.46 GHz (vs. 3.2) clock speed in single-threaded mode.

BTW, it will be interesting to see if the iMac can actually run 1333 MHz memory. Technically it may be possible, but for most people it will be moot since Apple doesn't supply that with the iMac, and most won't throw away the 4 GB memory that Apple gives us.

However, the bottom line here is that the new quad iMac is blistering fast but most Mac standards, and it's actually very fast by even quad Mac Pro standards. This, and the extremely high cost of the quad Mac Pro, make the quad Mac Pro a terrible value at the moment. In a few months, the Mac Pro will see some serious changes. Not as significant as the iMac, but still very significant, with 6-core Gulftown in the low end entry-level model, hopefully for less money too. In the very least, the refurb quad Mac Pros will be a good price, and that should be by next quarter.