New Mac Pro
Sam
Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
I have been looking at the Mac Pro, and low and behold Apple comes out with updated models, and new pricing.
While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.
The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.
Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?
Thanks for any info you have.
Sam
While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.
The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.
Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?
Thanks for any info you have.
Sam
0
Comments
I've never heard of the 2.26ghz model of the i7 architecture. Must be a low end server only chip. All the non server versions currently available start at 2.66ghz.
Based on how the comparsion you mentioned is, I don't think there's going to be much performance difference at least with the software that's available now. 2.26 to 2.8 is a lot of speed to make up for even with hyperthreading and better design, plus it's also like $500 more?
I'm pretty disappointed in Apple's latest offerings. Only 2 choices. One, an obscenely overpriced single CPU, memory neutered model and an overpriced dual cpu version that still isn't configured to use DDR3 effeciently.
And no quad core iMacs
And still too high priced Mac Minis.
Looks like no Apple for me this year, not when I can get Windows 7 and better performance in a tower for over $1000 less.
Apple really needs to reconsider their pricing. They completey ignore the average consumer that wants performance and does not want the limitations of an all in one.
Gene
Can you comment a little more on this?
Links?
Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. - Old Honda Manual
--
If you wish to travel far and fast, travel light. Take off all your envies,
jealousies, unforgiveness, selfishness, and fears. -- Glenn Clark
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT]
DDR3 memory works best in groups of three, much like DDR2 worked best in matched pairs. So having 8 memory slots is inefficient, either using 6 for fastest performance limits total amount of using 8 for maximum amount but less memory performance.
I'm also not sure what the affect of have an even number of memory slots with an odd number of chips is.
For example AFAIK the single processor i7 MB either have 3 or 6 memory slots, at least the high performance ones do.
Gene
My dual 2.8 Ghz Mac PRo is a delight and certainly fast enough even yet.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Let's keep it on topic for Sam's question.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Sam, I don't have the benchmarks you need, I don't think anyone's put them up yet. At least, I haven't seen any yet. The chips in the new MPs are brand-spanking new, they hadn't even been announced by Intel yet.
Any of them would serve your purposes just fine, I believe. I would go with your budget and stop sweating the small stuff.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
FYI, to clarify this, the Mac Pro gets best performance when you have 3 sticks of DDR per processor (so 3 or 6 sticks of RAM). There are 4 or 8 sets, respectively, so why use 8? Well, to get more RAM. In the architecture, slots 1 and 2 have their own channel, and slots 3 and 4 share a channel. So it's possible that 4 slots could be no faster (or perhaps slower?) than 3, but this is theoretical. And if you need the RAM, get the RAM. But going with 12 GB or 24 GB of RAM would be a guaranteed fastest configuration.
This is the Xeon version of the Nehalem server processor. Apple is the only vendor on the planet current shipping systems with this processor. It hasn't even been launched by Intel yet officially; that comes later this month.
It is by no means a low-end processor. You cannot buy this chip via any other means right now. Well, unless you buy it from a guy wearing an overcoat outside an Intel lab somewhere ;-)
BTW, Sam, while the results aren't published, using simple math should get you pretty close here -- take the results from the 2.93 and multiply by 2.26/2.93 and you should be +/- a couple percent. It should still be faster than the old 3.2, though it depends on the benchmarks (and note synthetic memory benchmarks are unlikely to approximate real-world use). The new machines look to be barn burners. But, with the high-end CPUs they are quite expensive.
Oh, and I wouldn't go with the quad-core as you're really limited (it only has 4 RAM slots).
If the new base 2.26 ghz quad core system is faster than the old high end 3.2 ghz then that sorta gives me an idea of bang for the buck. While bang for the buck might not be great with a Mac, I'm thinking / hoping the bang will be big.
I probably won't be buying it for 45 to 60 days so I can wait and see if more info is available shortly.
Pathfinder, I have been using my current computer for over 6 years, so with the big increase in file sizes, stitching, and multiple layers I would rather spend a little more upfront, and have a system that will handle more unknown future demands. While I can't aford the higest speed I can swing the new base unit.
Sam
The bang for the buck with the new Mac Pros is pretty good. It's just that it's a LOT of bang, and a LOT of buck ;-) The comments that you can get Windows systems with the same chips for much cheaper are simply false. There are very few Windows systems that are equivalent, because it's very rare that you'll buy a dual-Xeon 8-core workstation. These aren't the same as the Core i7 chips that most people will buy -- those are desktop chips. HP and Dell do (or likely will) offer systems with these chips with a similar architecture, but the typical price they have is in the $6K+ range. These are truly power systems, but that doesn't mean they'll be the fastest for Windows gaming (heck, there's no SLI with a pair of NVIDIA 280's, and you can't get the ATI 4870x2, both of which are a huge piece of the puzzle for that). The new Nehalem chips do have some real advantages over the older ones in terms of architecture (read Apple's marketing page on the chip for all the hyperbole you want to read ;-).
Mac OS X 10.6 which is coming out later this year is supposed to take better advantage of multiple CPUs and leverage the GPU for more tasks... but until there are numbers published, it's anyone's guess just how much better it will be.
I have the original 8-core Mac Pro at 3 GHz so while I really want this machine, it's not cheap and it'd probably take the 2.93 GHz machine to be 2x as fast as mine. Given the price, I'll probably hold off for now. My general rule is I like to hold off on upgrading until the new machine is AT LEAST twice as fast as the old one. This would be on the edge, and the economy being what it is... I'll have to be content with my older 8x3 GHz with 8 GB of RAM and 4 TB of disk. It's a rough life :-)
If in reference to any comment I made. I did not say that you can the same thing with Windows as no one is offering the Xeon i7 chips yet and when they do they'll likely be more expensive than Apple anyway.
I'm mainly commenting on the single CPU Mac Pro. The Xeon "server" chips are not going to be any faster than the "desktop" versions clock for clock. In fact most "server" CPUs and related hardware are slower because of data integrity processes added.
If you want a general idea of how the new i7 architecture fairs vs the old quad cores, check out Anandtech or Tom's Hardware. The chip to chip results will pretty much carrry straight over to the server versions.
For some tasks (multi-threaded, mulit-media applications) the new i7s are much faster with the extra 4 synthetic cores (hyper threading). For other tasks that aren't so efficient at utilizing the "extra" CPUs it comes down more to clock speed.
Gene
Correct. I don't think I'd buy the 4-core version of the new Mac Pro as it comes with some real limitations (practically, the most RAM you can get with maximum performance is 6 GB... if you go with 8 GB of RAM then channels 3 and 4 share the bandwidth... the Nehalems want memory in banks of 3).
So you'd want to go with the 8-core. Thing is, of course, going above the base CPU speed starts to get very expensive, very fast.
Regarding clock speed, note also that there is a feature called "Turbo" on these chips (sadly, no 286-style big red button accompanies this), where if you have an app which has few threads that are very "hot," the CPU can shut down some cores and overclock the others... because there is some thermal overhead it can shuffle around. If you can shut down 2 cores, say, the others can be OC'd by a few hundred MHz. I don't the exact specs and certainly haven't run any benchmarks (I don't have a machine in my grubby paws, and don't know if I will for this generation ;-), but that's the way Intel's claiming it works. So by every measure the 8-core 2.26 *should* be faster than the 4-core 2.6 I'd think... for 4-core operations the 8-core could shut down 2 cores and OC the others up to match the 4 core.
I say should because I don't know if this works in practice like it does in theory. I mean in theory Obama said no earmarks in this latest budget, and in practice some do in fact remain
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My biggest question though is graphics card and monitor. I don't play games on the machine. It will be pretty much a photo editing workstation, some use for ripping, trans-coding and playing video and as an Eye-TV PVR. Which card is likely to be a better starting point, the NVidia or ATI?
If you are thinking of a 5 year replacement cycle, you should probably get the beefiest graphics card possible within your budget. Systems and software are evolving so that the awesome power of graphics cards can be used for general computation. So the idea that graphics cards only matter to gamers and video editors is becoming outdated. It will certainly be incorrect within your time frame.
I have a new windows machine. Works just fine.
Fair enough. I've never built my own machines as a hobby, but I'd be comfortable upgrading a video card in two years time if there is a significant leap in capability. A bit over simplified in terms of my needs, but is the ATI 4870 a significant leap over the NVidia 120 for Aperture and Adobe PSE and CS?
I guess I've got a feeling that the new Mac Pro's base architecture and processor will remain state-of-the-art for a while and viable for a while longer. Thus getting it now will outlast the other possibility of two iMac purchases over the next 6 years or so as well as giving me more creative outlets today than I'd have otherwise.
If I weren't in the middle of possibly relocating to China, none of this would be entering my mind. My current iMac is a happy, if ~2 year old machine. But considering a constrained amount available for transporting personal belongings to China with at least a two year stay, says I'd be upgrading anyway. Hong Kong (where I'd be buying, not living) is definitely cheaper than Melbourne.
Keep in mind that even a photo editing workstation may now need a gamer's video card now that the current versions of Aperture, Photoshop, and Bridge all accelerate some processes using the GPU on the video card.
I can't speak authoritatively since I have not used the new cards, so I don't know how much better the ATI is for photo work. Both cards have 512MB RAM on board, so they're the same that way (in the past the top end card had more video RAM). Until some photo app benchmarks can be found on the web, my impression is that either card would be sufficient for a photo workstation.
Expecting five years out of a computer is unrealistic for photographers, in my mind. The common thought is 18 months (just like PSCS releases). If you're settled on a Mac Pro, can the graphics card be upgraded? The CPU? The PSU? The MB? If everything needs upgrading, can you get a new case and canibalize the old box?
I'm not framing this as a Mac vs. PC debate. I just know that my latest camera is a 21 MP and now my current system (2.4 GHz, 4 MB RAM, 256 graphics card) is a little slow in terms of processing. And you know what? Five years ago there was no way I imagined owning, shooting (and loving) a 21 MB camera (that also shoots HD video). Technology is an amazing thing.
Sooooo... what I'm trying to say is don't count on getting five years of speedy performance out of any computer, PC or Mac. And take a look at what components can be upgraded as necessary when making your decision. If the OS is crucial and you like the Mac OS (as Andy does), just realize you're probably going to have a more expensive time in the long run upgrading individual components. If you can afford that, cool. If not, consider a system you can afford 'cause five years is a LONG time in terms of technology.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
The Mac Pro is a "Workstation"-class machine. It's certainly overkill for my immediate needs, but I take your point that needs always increase and usually in unexpected ways. As far as upgradeability is concerned, the Mac Pro is the one product line from Apple that is fully customisable and upgradeable after the sale and on your own. Check out the recent Engadget post on it.
No Mac or PC debate from me either. I made a decision some time ago that I didn't want to have to worry or think about my personal computers. I just wanted them to work. At the time I made the move to Apple for personal use, my Windows 95 machine had gone into permanent sleep-mode. Up until last year I regularly used both PCs (IBM ThinkPads for over 12 years) and Macs.
Intel with the i7 is so far ahead of AMD though I can't see why you'd even look at AMD at all if you're actually looking for performance. Maybe if you're looking at price/performance, but the Phenoms are really just turds on silicon, and are equivalent to the Intel processors of about 18 months ago.
What was sad was that AMD was touting the "we're _true_ four core where Intel is just 2 dual cores on the same chip!" That was true, AMD had the better architecture 2 years ago. But the Intel chips were STILL faster. And now with the i7 chips which are TRUE quad core (with L3 cache shared on die between all 4 cores, and on-CPU memory controllers), it's an even bigger lead. When you OC that 2.6 GHz AMD to 3 GHz you're talking about a ~15% performance gain, when the Intel chips will give you a 50% to 70% bump.
Something else to consider, Snow Leopard (OSX 10.6) reportedly will make use of unused GPU cycles in general processing. So far, the only benchmarks that I have seen put the new 2.26 GHz Mac Pro roughly equal to the previous generation MacPros for about $500. I have not yet seen real world (Photoshop CS4, FCP, etc) comparisons. But I think my now "old" Mac Pro will last me close to 5 years.
Fortunately, the OP understood my point. Which was basically to use whatever machine could be easily upgraded over time.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
Mostly it makes me happy with my original Mac Pro, which still has plenty of room left for expansion and upgrades after I added RAM, drives, and an eSATA card for my external backup drives.
No, I don't work for Intel. And I don't make stuff up.
Every single benchmark I've read shows it's not even close w.r.t. performance. Here's one:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/103107,amd-vs-intel--heres-the-hammer-blow.aspx
Go ahead and Google. Most of what I see rationalizes the AMD Phenom 2 as "competing with Intel's budget line," i.e. AMD can't really price a CPU over $300 because every high-end Intel CPU thoroughly trounces it. I'd welcome some benchmark data that shows AMD is at all competitive in any way with a Core i7 Extreme.