2008 Mac Pro worth it?

[reco2011]

If i had to guess the mobile cpu probably has more strict settings and is getting throttled because of heat or voltage or something like that.

Regardless that isn't going to be an issue when using desktop cores.

It was somewhat of a rhetorical question (as I believe you're right about the thermal throttling). The point is the 64-bit Multi-Core Geekbench score for the rMBP is 12,720 whereas the 2010 Mac Pro score is 8,437. According to Geekbench the rMBP should be 50% faster. In reality, when transcoding with Handbrake, it's approximately 30% slower (if memory serves correctly...it's been a while since I bench marked it). If one were to buy a system to perform Handbrake transcoding work based on Geekbench scores they could be disappointed. This is the problem with Geekbench...it's a simple test which is good for making comparisons on how different systems run Geekbench. It could be used as a starting point but that's about it.

System configurations:

Mid 2012 rMBP quad core @ 2.7GHz, 16GB RAM
Mid 2010 Mac Pro quad core @ 2.8GHZ, 32GB RAM

 

[jsmith823]

Holy cow this blew up!

I haven't visited in a few days, lol. I've read most of the posts and the general consensus that I am seeing is that it's better to get a 2009 model. The problem that I have is that I am a POOR college student. I'd have to save my pennies for a while even to afford a 3,1. I was lucky and my MBP was purchased as a graduation gift right before I entered college, but I am doing a lot more editing now than I speculated I would be back then.

The reason that I am interested in a 3,1 is that they are REALLY cheap. As most of you know, I can pick one up for less than $600 on ebay any day. Right away I have a Diamond radeon HD 7970 3gb that I can drop in out of my PC rig. I have read that they are compatible (correct me if I am wrong). So I'd have a rig that (according to this thread) has as much processor power (if not a little more) than my MBP, as well as a high performance graphics card to handle FCPX.

Will the benefits of having a 4,1 model be worth waiting several more months or longer for?

 

[Gav Mack]

Holy cow this blew up!

I haven't visited in a few days, lol. I've read most of the posts and the general consensus that I am seeing is that it's better to get a 2009 model. The problem that I have is that I am a POOR college student. I'd have to save my pennies for a while even to afford a 3,1. I was lucky and my MBP was purchased as a graduation gift right before I entered college, but I am doing a lot more editing now than I speculated I would be back then.

The reason that I am interested in a 3,1 is that they are REALLY cheap. As most of you know, I can pick one up for less than $600 on ebay any day. Right away I have a Diamond radeon HD 7970 3gb that I can drop in out of my PC rig. I have read that they are compatible (correct me if I am wrong). So I'd have a rig that (according to this thread) has as much processor power (if not a little more) than my MBP, as well as a high performance graphics card to handle FCPX.

Will the benefits of having a 4,1 model be worth waiting several more months or longer for?

If the 8 core has 16Gb or more of ram and you are on a budget then I say go for it - you will be making your first additional purchases as upgrade parts such as the Sintech PCIe SSD Apple Blade adapter plus Apple PCIe blade, USB 3 which will speed your 3,1 up no end with extra connectivity and give you the option at a later date to transplant your parts into a 4 or 5,1 when the horsepower the 3,1 becomes not enough for you.

My two cents for what its worth - what do I know?

 

[Zorn]

Will the benefits of having a 4,1 model be worth waiting several more months or longer for?

I think so. Remember that by doing the 5,1 firmware install you are effectively turning your machine into the same exact thing that Apple was selling in 2012. You'll get a lot more life and OS upgrades out of that machine without having to do any trickery (i.e. the 1,1 and 2,1 and Yosemite) vs. the 2008 model. Also, just keep an eye on sales - all said and done I got my 4,1 for $650ish. That was a deal, but you can more easily find one for $750. It's not too far off from the $600 you are expecting to spend on a 2008.

 

[GameFreak348]

I think so. Remember that by doing the 5,1 firmware install you are effectively turning your machine into the same exact thing that Apple was selling in 2012. You'll get a lot more life and OS upgrades out of that machine without having to do any trickery (i.e. the 1,1 and 2,1 and Yosemite) vs. the 2008 model. Also, just keep an eye on sales - all said and done I got my 4,1 for $650ish. That was a deal, but you can more easily find one for $750. It's not too far off from the $600 you are expecting to spend on a 2008.

Yes you can also upgrade the CPU on a 4.1. And the 5.1 are still pretty powerful. The 3.1 CPUS are not that good these days and get outperformed with like every quad i5

 

[nigelbb]

The base 4-core 4,1 Mac Pro is 25% faster in a single stream job but the 8-core 3,1 will handle 60% more throughput in a multi-stream application like video editing. The 4-core 4,1 is a only worth buying over the 8-core 3,1 if you are prepared to pay the extra for the system in the first place and are prepared to spend the time & money upgrading the CPUs which involves a technical complexity beyond that which most Mac owners are prepared to undertake. Upgrading the CPUs is way more difficult than installing a new graphics card or an SSD. It's also a lot of money to risk that you may screw up by e.g. over-tightening the securing nuts.

Just by way of comparison here are the Average CPU Mark results from http://www.cpubenchmark.net comparing the various flavours of CPU available in the 3,1, 4,1 & 5,1 Mac Pro. The fastest CPU available in the 5,1 is less than 2x the performance of the best 3,1 CPU. The difference between 3,1 & 4,1 is less than 30%. Finally all these results are for single CPUs so the dual CPU 8-core 3,1 is perfectly capable of handling similar workloads to single CPU 4,5 & 5,1. The newer CPUs are faster of course & so they should be but they are not 10x faster or even 5x or 3x faster they are at most 2x the performance.

3,1 2.80GHz E5462 4229 Harpertown
3,1 3.20GHz X5482 4757 Harpertown
4,1 2.66GHz W3520 5070 Bloomfield
4,1 2.93GHz X5570 5630 Bloomfield
5,1 3.33GHz W3680 9268 Gulftown
5,1 3.07GHz X5675 8567 Westmere-EP

 

[jsmith823]

The base 4-core 4,1 Mac Pro is 25% faster in a single stream job but the 8-core 3,1 will handle 60% more throughput in a multi-stream application like video editing. The 4-core 4,1 is a only worth buying over the 8-core 3,1 if you are prepared to pay the extra for the system in the first place and are prepared to spend the time & money upgrading the CPUs which involves a technical complexity beyond that which most Mac owners are prepared to undertake. Upgrading the CPUs is way more difficult than installing a new graphics card or an SSD. It's also a lot of money to risk that you may screw up by e.g. over-tightening the securing nuts.

Just by way of comparison here are the Average CPU Mark results from http://www.cpubenchmark.net comparing the various flavours of CPU available in the 3,1, 4,1 & 5,1 Mac Pro. The fastest CPU available in the 5,1 is less than 2x the performance of the best 3,1 CPU. The difference between 3,1 & 4,1 is less than 30%. Finally all these results are for single CPUs so the dual CPU 8-core 3,1 is perfectly capable of handling similar workloads to single CPU 4,5 & 5,1. The newer CPUs are faster of course & so they should be but they are not 10x faster or even 5x or 3x faster they are at most 2x the performance.

3,1 2.80GHz E5462 4229 Harpertown
3,1 3.20GHz X5482 4757 Harpertown
4,1 2.66GHz W3520 5070 Bloomfield
4,1 2.93GHz X5570 5630 Bloomfield
5,1 3.33GHz W3680 9268 Gulftown
5,1 3.07GHz X5675 8567 Westmere-EP

I can upgrade a processor, I just probably wouldn't. I've seen the prices and it's not worth it. I can buy a new system for the same cost. The only reason that I would really want a 4,1 to 5,1 system is for longevity. I'd hate to buy a 3,1 and then not be able to do any software updates in a year.

 

[J232022]

A 2008 Mac pro is a decent machine today . The only thing is you probably will be using a old version of Mac OS X and support will not last forever for what ever that version of OS X is . I think you are probably better off buying a Windows Desktop you will get more performance for your money and you can upgrade the os if you so choose . I love Mac OS X but apple likes to drop support too quickly . Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 are actually a really decent product and what os you are using is really starting to mean nothing anymore anyways .

 

[nigelbb]

Here are some more benchmark figures that illustrate that the dual-CPU 2008 Mac Pro is still a very decent performer

Geekbench 64-bit multithreaded

2x4-core
3,1 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown 11292
3,1 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown 12809
4,1 2.27GHz E5520 Gainestown 13853
4-core
4,1 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield 8062
5,1 3.20GHz W3565 Bloomfield 9549
6-core
5,1 3.33GHz W3680 Gulftown 15512

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Here are some more benchmark figures that illustrate that the dual-CPU 2008 Mac Pro is still a very decent performer

Geekbench 64-bit multithreaded

2x4-core
3,1 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown 11292
3,1 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown 12809
4,1 2.27GHz E5520 Gainestown 13853
4-core
4,1 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield 8062
5,1 3.20GHz W3565 Bloomfield 9549
6-core
5,1 3.33GHz W3680 Gulftown 15512

That is awful. I am scoring 25,000 with my 5820k and the entire build minus monitor was around 1700.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1163983

 

[nigelbb]

Here are some more benchmark figures that illustrate that the dual-CPU 2008 Mac Pro is still a very decent performer

Geekbench 64-bit multithreaded

2x4-core
3,1 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown 11292
3,1 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown 12809
4,1 2.27GHz E5520 Gainestown 13853
4-core
4,1 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield 8062
5,1 3.20GHz W3565 Bloomfield 9549
6-core
5,1 3.33GHz W3680 Gulftown 15512

That is awful. I am scoring 25,000 with my 5820k and the entire build minus monitor was around 1700.

Personally I don't find it so awful. Your home brew system cost about three times the price of a used six year old Mac Pro 3,1 but is only double the performance.

 

[tripmusic]

I picked up a 3,1 @ 2.8ghz for $150. No Ram/HD/Gpu/wifi, etc, but I had all the parts laying around from my 2,1 and just popped them in. Runs fine and a ALOT cooler than my 1,1 with X5355's. I'm not sure why everyone here is saying it runs hot. My cpu temp diodes are at 30-35C. Uses less Watts than it's predecessor too.

 

[Cancaro]

v

I picked up a 3,1 @ 2.8ghz for $150. No Ram/HD/Gpu/wifi, etc, but I had all the parts laying around from my 2,1 and just popped them in. Runs fine and a ALOT cooler than my 1,1 with X5355's. I'm not sure why everyone here is saying it runs hot. My cpu temp diodes are at 30-35C. Uses less Watts than it's predecessor too.

sorry I do not understand, what say?
the 2008 8-core MacPro 2.80 GHz too hot ??
everyone says it works very well but someone insists that it is a crap compared to a 2009 series but is not it !!!!!

but why ??

 

[lowendlinux]

I would never use a hackentosh for a production machine. Stability trumps performance any day for paying clients.



+1 Billion. Geekbench is good for general CPU testing. Not good for overall system performence, expecially for workstations. I don't think they even test multiple cores effectively. Nor the GPU's.

Ok, looks like they test multicores pretty well.

Have you tried it in Linux it won't max out all the cores if you watch they drop out. My dual 2.66 hex score about 8-10 less than the equivalent MP.

Felt the need to chime in due to the terrible misinformation being spread here. Make no mistake there is not one small thing about hackintosh that is remotely easy. I am an IT professional for a living and I have never had any type of success with getting OS X to work on PC hardware. You will bang your head on the desk when you get cryptic errors in command line code like "ACI Bluetooth device error" which in gibberish actually means there's an error happening with the kext for your GPU - which is causing the system to not boot. You would only know this because the wall of command line text has stopped moving with no meaningful feedback to you.

I tried at least 4 times to make a hackintosh work with all kinds of different hardware and different helpless "guides". It's an awful experience and I wouldn't recommend the frustration to anyone.

Building a hack with compatible parts is about as drop dead simple as you can get. Installing OSX on a random PC is head banging experience.

sorry I do not understand, what say?
the 2008 8-core MacPro 2.80 GHz too hot ??
everyone says it works very well but someone insists that it is a crap compared to a 2009 series but is not it !!!!!

but why ??

They run a bit warmer than the '09 so the exhaust coming out the back is warmer in the end after having a 3,1 and 5,1 sitting under my desk at work I don't notice a difference.

 

[Cancaro]

ok tancks.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Personally I don't find it so awful. Your home brew system cost about three times the price of a used six year old Mac Pro 3,1 but is only double the performance.

That is only looking at CPU/RAM [geekbench].
I am also running a much more powerful GPU.

And if you tried upgrading the Mac Pro you would end up spending a lot of money for less gains.

Building a hack with compatible parts is about as drop dead simple as you can get. Installing OSX on a random PC is head banging experience.

Very true.

 

[Zorn]

Building a hack with compatible parts is about as drop dead simple as you can get. Installing OSX on a random PC is head banging experience.

Sorry, but no. All 3 times I have tried to make hackintosh work, the parts were "compatible". Not one single solitary time did it work. The closest I got was once when it actually allowed me to boot into safe mode with no drivers. Nothing past that. If I wanted to learn operating system programming I'm sure I could have written some kexts and made it work. This isn't really a viable option for most people.

 

[lowendlinux]

Sorry, but no. All 3 times I have tried to make hackintosh work, the parts were "compatible". Not one single solitary time did it work. The closest I got was once when it actually allowed me to boot into safe mode with no drivers. Nothing past that. If I wanted to learn operating system programming I'm sure I could have written some kexts and made it work. This isn't really a viable option for most people.

I never stated it was a viable option for most people I simply said it was drop dead easy whether your experience was bad or not. I've probably built a dozen or so in the last couple years and even without "supported" MoBo's they weren't hard. The hardish ones simply required a bios flash which is not difficult. There are many more difficult things to do in the tech work than building a hackintosh. If you think about it it's nothing more than a installing a boot loader then the OS the reverse of Linux. Again it's not for everyone and I wouldn't bank on one if I needed up time at all cost I don't even personally use one but that doesn't make it hard.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Sorry, but no. All 3 times I have tried to make hackintosh work, the parts were "compatible". Not one single solitary time did it work. The closest I got was once when it actually allowed me to boot into safe mode with no drivers. Nothing past that. If I wanted to learn operating system programming I'm sure I could have written some kexts and made it work. This isn't really a viable option for most people.

I had absolutely no clue what i was doing 2 weeks ago and I was trying to install it on an unsupported X99 chipset, with yosemite that just came out at the time and a brand new shinny gtx 980; yet with the help of the community I got it up and running within 3 days. Mind you they have step 1,2,...n guides for the supported platforms that make it a breeze.

 

[CASLondon]

Holy cow this blew up!

I am doing a lot more editing now than I speculated I would be back then.

The reason that I am interested in a 3,1 is that they are REALLY cheap. As most of you know, I can pick one up for less than $600 on ebay any day. Right away I have a Diamond radeon HD 7970 3gb that I can drop in out of my PC rig. I have read that they are compatible (correct me if I am wrong). So I'd have a rig that (according to this thread) has as much processor power (if not a little more) than my MBP, as well as a high performance graphics card to handle FCPX.

Will the benefits of having a 4,1 model be worth waiting several more months or longer for?

A single processor 2009 is often available for close to your number, MacofAllTrades has a single processor 2.8 ghz 2010 for $799 and a single processor 2009 2.26 available for $699 right now. These can be upgraded later to a fast six core.

Yes, if you are a FCX user, the benefits are worth it as you want to stay current on the Mac OS and you want the gpu options you will have. Both will be easier for longer on a 2009 and newer machine.

 

[weaverra]

I've been doing some research into the 2008 Mac Pros and I want a more recent opinion. I currently have a 2012 Macbook Pro 2.3 i7 with 10gb or ram and the gt650m 512mb card. I do a lot of video editing (I am a broadcast media student as well as a church media employee) and I was wondering if purchasing one of these older mac pros and upgrading the graphics card would be worth it. My MBP is EXTREMELY slow when editing in fcpx since apple updated the software to be gpu heavy. What I am wanting to do is get one of the eight core 2008 mac pros and drop two newer graphics cards into it.

1. Is this even possible? I know it can support newer cards, but will it supports cards like the new gtx 700 series or radeon hd 7000?

2. Will it be worth it? Are the quad core xeons any good in 2014? Will one quad core i7 be better than two quad core xeons?

Sorry about the questions guys! I've been a lurker for a while, but finally decided to ask the question.

Thanks!

Currently there are 2009 Mac Pro's on eBay for under $600+ Shipping in working condition. I bought one the other day for 549 free shipping. It's the 2.66 quad. For what you would pay for a 2008 model you could add another 150 to your cost and have a super fast quad 3.33 GHz. That would blow away the 2008 model 8 core. Unless people are desperate to sell many still believe the Mactosell.com site that says their 6 year old Mac Pro is worth almost $2K!

 

[Badagri]

sorry I do not understand, what say?
the 2008 8-core MacPro 2.80 GHz too hot ??
everyone says it works very well but someone insists that it is a crap compared to a 2009 series but is not it !!!!!

but why ??

I was wondering this myself… Exactly how is the 2008 thermal nuclear?

They run a bit warmer than the '09 so the exhaust coming out the back is warmer in the end after having a 3,1 and 5,1 sitting under my desk at work I don't notice a difference.

The heat is coming from the DDR2. The processors aren't all that hot.

 

[weaverra]

Currently there are 2009 Mac Pro's on eBay for under $600+ Shipping in working condition. I bought one the other day for 549 free shipping. It's the 2.66 quad. For what you would pay for a 2008 model you could add another 150 to your cost and have a super fast quad 3.33 GHz. That would blow away the 2008 model 8 core. Unless people are desperate to sell many still believe the Mactosell.com site that says their 6 year old Mac Pro is worth almost $2K!

Here is another thought. If you are determined on the 2008 then buy the fastest 2008 available.

 

[jsmith823]

Sorry for the bump, but I'm looking at doing this pretty soon.
I can get either the 3,1 or the 4,1 (the 4,1 would take a little longer but it's doable). I've been seeing that the 3,8 8 core performs better for editing applications and the 4,1 is better if I wish to upgrade in the future? Is that correct? I don't plan on upgrading the processor at all, not that I can't (I can, I have built several PC desktops) but to me it doesn't make sense economically. I've seen the prices of the hex core processors, $1500+. At that point I'd just wait and but a new machine.

My plan right now is to get a 3,1 8 core, 16gb of ram (32 in the future), my current Diamond radeon hd7970 3gb card out of my pc, and whatever HDD I have laying around. Will this be faster in FCPX and CC2014 than my Mid 2012 non retina MBP with the 2.3 i7, gt650m 512, and 10gb of ram?

I'm just looking to last about 2 years until I graduate here and get some cash flowing. Not wanting to do 4k (at this point), just 1080 off of a 5dmkii.

And as far as folks talking about using a pc or building a hackintosh, I want to stay Apple. I don't use premiere as my primary editor (I know I'm an idiot, but I got sucked into FCPX), and I like OS X on it's native platform where I know it will run correctly.

 

[Zorn]

Sorry for the bump, but I'm looking at doing this pretty soon.
I can get either the 3,1 or the 4,1 (the 4,1 would take a little longer but it's doable). I've been seeing that the 3,8 8 core performs better for editing applications and the 4,1 is better if I wish to upgrade in the future? Is that correct? I don't plan on upgrading the processor at all, not that I can't (I can, I have built several PC desktops) but to me it doesn't make sense economically. I've seen the prices of the hex core processors, $1500+. At that point I'd just wait and but a new machine.

The difference you are referring to is that an 8 core (dual CPU) machine will perform better for editing apps like FCPX, yes. You're still better off getting a 4,1 machine as it can be flashed essentially into a much more current system.

You could also upgrade a base 4,1 to a hex-core CPU which would provide additional benefits and would be a much much faster CPU than what is used in the 8 core 3,1. I don't personally have any benchmarks comparing a 3.33 hex core CPU to the dual CPUs that were used in the 3,1 but I imagine someone can probably chime in with this.