Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

D300 vs m290x?

koyoot said:
P.S.2. Mobile GPUs use the same cores as the desktop ones. M290X and D300 is the same Pitcairn chip. GM107 in GT750M is the same chip that was in GTX650 in desktop.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the same core as outdated low- to mid-level desktop cards (Pitcairn is mainstream stuff from 2012!) with lowered clock. For comparison, a PC Pitcairn GPU (which you could easily put into a classic MacPro) costs about 100$ on ebay...
Mid- to high-level GPUs (=> stuff you'll want for gaming) are missing completely in the mobile world because of the TDP.

@OP: Another try to make you think about what you're up to do: I can totally understand that you want a product that gives you 100% 'Apple experience', but unless you don't mind wasting a big lot of money to replace the machine every few years to keep up with modern gaming you won't be happy with either option Apple has to offer at the moment.

I was in the same situation some years ago and went with a top of the line iMac, which I really regretted short time after buying it. It was a great machine, but just totally wrong for gaming (and I really don't consider myself a hardcore gamer).
 
Fl0r!an said:
Yeah, the same core as outdated low- to mid-level desktop cards (Pitcairn is mainstream stuff from 2012!) with lowered clock. For comparison, a PC Pitcairn GPU (which you could easily put into a classic MacPro) costs about 100$ on ebay...
Mid- to high-level GPUs (=> stuff you'll want for gaming) are missing completely in the mobile world because of the TDP.

@OP: Another try to make you think about what you're up to do: I can totally understand that you want a product that gives you 100% 'Apple experience', but unless you don't mind wasting a big lot of money to replace the machine every few years to keep up with modern gaming you won't be happy with either option Apple has to offer at the moment.

I was in the same situation some years ago and went with a top of the line iMac, which I really regretted short time after buying it. It was a great machine, but just totally wrong for gaming (and I really don't consider myself a hardcore gamer).
Click to expand...

Gaming is very much a secondary use to the experience of OS X. I would be more looking for a machine that lasts several year before being outdated with OS upgrades than games. Would you say that the 5k iMac and Mac Pro are machines that will be powerful for a very long time, because I would (I'm asking btw, want to here your view of that :) ).

I'm guessing with such things as PCIe based SSDs, high end CPUs and nice GPUs that both machines will still be very capable and seen as still powerful in many years to come? It would be silly to expect them to keep up with games of course, but in terms of the OS X side of things and doing any art and graphic work within OS X, they should be amazing for many years to come shouldn't they?


And does anyone know of any refreshes to the Mac Pro or 5k iMac lineup?
 
Sure, for 'normal' work they'll be fine for the next years, but so would the (comparably cheap) classic MacPro.

There's currently no reason to believe that it will be dropped in a future OS X update. If I recall correctly, the only exclusion of older Intel Macs so far happened with the switch to 64bit-only kernel (partly because of 32bit CPUs or EFI32, partly because of outdated GPUs with no 64bit driver available). If Apple doesn't go completely insane, the classic MacPros (3,1 - 5,1) will always be able to run the same OS as current Macs.
 
Fl0r!an said:
Sure, for 'normal' work they'll be fine for the next years, but so would the (comparably cheap) classic MacPro.

There's currently no reason to believe that it will be dropped in a future OS X update. If I recall correctly, the only exclusion of older Intel Macs so far happened with the switch to 64bit-only kernel (partly because of 32bit CPUs or EFI32, partly because of outdated GPUs with no 64bit driver available). If Apple doesn't go completely insane, the classic MacPros (3,1 - 5,1) will always be able to run the same OS as current Macs.
Click to expand...

Apple can´t forever support classic Mac Pro, especially 3.1. It is 8 years old machine and it has vintage status now. There is no reason for OS X 10.12 for expample to have kexts for that machine (chipset, 2600XT, 8800GT, etc.). Its not just kexts, for Apple to certify Mac for OS they must test it for every build, fix and so on.

In 2021 when OS X 10.20 arrives or (OS XI) the same logic will apply for Mac Pro (Late 2013).
 
As long as Apple doesn't make any major changes to the kernel, it won't be any effort to keep the old drivers in the system. Even the MacPro 1,1 is 100% supported in El Capitan, it's just not possible to install & boot it with the standard boot.efi.
Sure, they could easily drop older Macs with the next major OS X, but as long as they can keep them in without any work I don't think they'll kick them out.
 
MartinAppleGuy said:
Would you say that the 5k iMac and Mac Pro are machines that will be powerful for a very long time, because I would (I'm asking btw, want to here your view of that :) ).
Click to expand...

If you're happy with it's current speed, it's not like it's magically going to become slower in the future. If you're concern is how will it rank against future computers, then it's already been beat by a lot of Core i7s on the LGA 2011 socket (which also beat the new trash can Mac Pros but dont cost anywhere near as much). For the LGA 2011, you'd need a hackintosh build. So really, Apple only gives you low end (overpriced) or high end (overpriced). There's no middle ground. That isn't to say the 4790k processor is weak... I have it in my hackintosh and it's fantastic, but I'm not screwed with it being throttled down like the iMac due to its poor air flow.

I'm guessing with such things as PCIe based SSDs, high end CPUs and nice GPUs that both machines will still be very capable and seen as still powerful in many years to come?
Click to expand...

Nope. There's no upgradeability with either choices of the iMac or the Mac Pro. What you get is what you're going to be stuck with pretty much forever. The D300, D500 and D700 were dated when they were released years back, so now they're just old tech still at the same high price Apple charges. There's no way to change them for anything better because it's a proprietary PCIe slot, so don't even say your prayers for 3rd party GPUs, they will NEVER come.

SSDs are rapidly becoming faster and faster, so much so that SATA III is obsolete and PCIe connections are required, but even M.2 is getting saturated and obsolete, lol.

As for the CPU in the iMac, you can't upgrade that either, it's soldered.

It would be silly to expect them to keep up with games of course, but in terms of the OS X side of things and doing any art and graphic work within OS X, they should be amazing for many years to come shouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Photoshop barely uses the GPU for power, so based on the CPU alone, yeah, the iMac will hold up for a while and the Mac Pro for a long time.

And does anyone know of any refreshes to the Mac Pro or 5k iMac lineup?
Click to expand...

A small incremental refresh may happen within a year or two, but don't expect anything big. Apple doesn't care much about prosumers. The Mac Pro has largely been ignored for a very long time.
 
bladerunner2000 said:
If
SSDs are rapidly becoming faster and faster, so much so that SATA III is obsolete and PCIe connections are required, but even M.2 is getting saturated and obsolete, lol.
Click to expand...


Faster than a SATA III SSD makes almost no real difference unless you are ingesting or moving very large files. Even benchmarks between SATA 2 and 3 show such a tiny gain in things like boot time, app loading, game loading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html

Photoshop barely uses the GPU for power, so based on the CPU alone
Click to expand...

Mercury Engine uses a lot of GPU. I tested Photoshop 2015 on a brand new rMBP with Intel graphics and there was no real time interaction with the brushes. Useless. Even Google Maps was very bad.
 
I always get the sense that an overwhelming amount of GPU inquiries on MR are gaming capability questions masquerading as general workflow ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerwin
Actually, the best 'bang for the buck' would be to get an old used Mac Pro 2010 model with two Xeon processors preferably the lowest clocked ones and upgrading both to the 6 core X5690 processors @ 3.47ghz, effectively creating a 12 core machine with hyperthreading. These can be had on ebay for about $250 USD each on eBay. A baseline dual processor 2010 Mac Pro should sell for around $1,500 USD (depends on additional components and RAM of course). Throw out the old processors (sell them on ebay, but I doubt anyone will be buying them unless you ask for a bargain price). With this, you can add any GTX card you want and play games AND do rendering the right way.

You're total will come out to around $2,000 USD for a 3.47ghz, 12-core x5690 Westmere system (minus a new GPU). You're geekbench score will blast any new trashcan Mac Pro with final score of about 32,000.

If you wanted to penny pinch or break it down for VALUE, this means each geekbench point's cost is 6.25 cents.
If you did this for the new Mac Pro quad core, priced at $3,000 with a geekbench score of 14,326, then it's cost per point is 20.9 cents (ripoff). For your iMac configuration the core i7 4790k with the r290x GPU with a geekbench score of 16,545 @ $2,549, you're looking at 15.4 cents per point.

Just for comparison's sake, my Hackintosh cost me $1,300 USD (4790k, GTX 960, 32GB RAM 1866mhz). Geekbench score of 18,041; cost per point is 7.2 cents. Since I can overclock it and get up to around 22,000 points, the value then become 5.9 cents per point. However I am not running it overclocked but to compare it to the Mac Pro, I have some gains;

- I can swap any part I want for something better, newer, etc.
- I'm only using ONE processor, so its more efficient
- I have full SLI compatibility in Windows
- My system runs just as quiet as the new trash can Mac Pro (seriously, I can't hear it at all)
- It produces WAY LESS heat. This is a freaking GODSEND in the summer. My old Mac Pro 2008 and 2006 got pretty
toasty, I can only imagine what the x5690 processors do to a small condo or room. No need to run the AC all the time.
- GPU choices will run circles around any new Mac Pro GPU and especially the r290x.

If you need geekbench scores for proof, click here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

They're not exactly 100% accurate, but geekbench is good enough to gauge a systems performance and value for the money, so its a great standard.

So there you go, neither the new mac pro or the new iMac is worth your money, both are duds for the money and you're best option is either the cheesegrater Mac Pro or a Hackintosh, because what your current two choices for gaming are absolute garbage. But what you do with your money is your decision, but know this;

We're giving you advice based on LOGIC, RATIONALE and OBJECTIVITY.
 
MartinAppleGuy said:
Hi there, looking into either a Mac Pro entry level with the Dual D300 GPUs or a 5k iMac. Wanted to here your opinions on what machine is better with a large workflow (both graphic work, maybe some photo editing, but also gaming). In bootcamp, can games take advantage of both GPUs in the Mac Pro? And how does the dual and/or single D300 setup compare to the m290x GPU?
Click to expand...
Hi Martin, this Mac Pro forum is mostly frequented by Mac Pro users who hate the nMP and have a general distaste for all of Apple's current desktops, so you're not going to get very objective viewpoints from most of the posters here. I also wouldn't pay any attention to the advice on getting a cMP - they try to talk everyone into getting a cMP.

As far as gaming on the D300 or m290x, they're both perfectly fine for a typical user who likes to do a little gaming on the side... obviously hardcore gamers or even gamers looking for a "gaming PC" will be disappointed. But I think you've made it pretty clear that's not what you're looking for. Both those GPUs can handle most modern games at medium settings. They are roughly quite comparable as far as performance, though performance between different GPUs can vary from game to game. And in Boot Camp, the dual D300's can work in Crossfire (for games that can take advantage of it, it should offer a nice performance bump). Obviously it would be neat to find a gaming benchmark for the D300 (and D500 & D700) comparing against some current GTX/Radeon cards, but I haven't seen any comprehensive testing.

I have a friend who's a casual gamer who got the nMP quad core with D300, and he's happy with it. He does have to play some of the newer games on the medium settings to get the smoothness and responsiveness he likes, but that's just a compromise he's willing to make. He also has a PS3.

For general video/photo/graphics work, the nMP was made for that, but the 5K iMac great too (well, at least for the photo/graphics work). Having seen you around the forums and having a sense of your expectations and why you like owning Macs in the first place, I don't think you'll go wrong with either choice for your needs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hojx, filmak and MartinAppleGuy
ixxx69 said:
Hi Martin, this Mac Pro forum is mostly frequented by Mac Pro users who hate the nMP and have a general distaste for all of Apple's current desktops, so you're not going to get very objective viewpoints from most of the posters here. I also wouldn't pay any attention to the advice on getting a cMP - they try to talk everyone into getting a cMP.
Click to expand...

So what exactly isn't objective about showing him the best value for money solution? ;)
Sure, the nMP and 5K iMac are not that bad, but when paying $3000+ I'd expect a little more than not that bad...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
ixxx69 said:
Hi Martin, this Mac Pro forum is mostly frequented by Mac Pro users who hate the nMP and have a general distaste for all of Apple's current desktops, so you're not going to get very objective viewpoints from most of the posters here. I also wouldn't pay any attention to the advice on getting a cMP - they try to talk everyone into getting a cMP.

As far as gaming on the D300 or m290x, they're both perfectly fine for a typical user who likes to do a little gaming on the side... obviously hardcore gamers or even gamers looking for a "gaming PC" will be disappointed. But I think you've made it pretty clear that's not what you're looking for. Both those GPUs can handle most modern games at medium settings. They are roughly quite comparable as far as performance, though performance between different GPUs can vary from game to game. And in Boot Camp, the dual D300's can work in Crossfire (for games that can take advantage of it, it should offer a nice performance bump). Obviously it would be neat to find a gaming benchmark for the D300 (and D500 & D700) comparing against some current GTX/Radeon cards, but I haven't seen any comprehensive testing.

I have a friend who's a casual gamer who got the nMP quad core with D300, and he's happy with it. He does have to play some of the newer games on the medium settings to get the smoothness and responsiveness he likes, but that's just a compromise he's willing to make. He also has a PS3.

For general video/photo/graphics work, the nMP was made for that, but the 5K iMac great too (well, at least for the photo/graphics work). Having seen you around the forums and having a sense of your expectations and why you like owning Macs in the first place, I don't think you'll go wrong with either choice for your needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post!!! At least I know they are both comparable. I'm not looking for a gaming machine, just something an can play games on the side so really it is just a split down the middle between the two. Last question, how would general performance be between the two? I'm guessing the only thing in general responsiveness that would change between the two would be the SSD vs FD?
 
bladerunner2000 said:
So there you go, neither the new mac pro or the new iMac is worth your money, both are duds for the money and you're best option is either the cheesegrater Mac Pro or a Hackintosh, because what your current two choices for gaming are absolute garbage. But what you do with your money is your decision, but know this;

We're giving you advice based on LOGIC, RATIONALE and OBJECTIVITY.
Click to expand...

That was never the question, the question was what one offers the best value for money. Its one or its the other, there is no option C or hidden door on this gameshow lol
 
MartinAppleGuy said:
That was never the question, the question was what one offers the best value for money. Its one or its the other, there is no option C or hidden door on this gameshow lol
Click to expand...
bladerunner2000 said:
Actually, the best 'bang for the buck' would be to get an old used Mac Pro 2010 model with two Xeon processors preferably the lowest clocked ones and upgrading both to the 6 core X5690 processors @ 3.47ghz, effectively creating a 12 core machine with hyperthreading. These can be had on ebay for about $250 USD each on eBay. A baseline dual processor 2010 Mac Pro should sell for around $1,500 USD (depends on additional components and RAM of course). Throw out the old processors (sell them on ebay, but I doubt anyone will be buying them unless you ask for a bargain price). With this, you can add any GTX card you want and play games AND do rendering the right way.

You're total will come out to around $2,000 USD for a 3.47ghz, 12-core x5690 Westmere system (minus a new GPU). You're geekbench score will blast any new trashcan Mac Pro with final score of about 32,000.

If you wanted to penny pinch or break it down for VALUE, this means each geekbench point's cost is 6.25 cents.
If you did this for the new Mac Pro quad core, priced at $3,000 with a geekbench score of 14,326, then it's cost per point is 20.9 cents (ripoff). For your iMac configuration the core i7 4790k with the r290x GPU with a geekbench score of 16,545 @ $2,549, you're looking at 15.4 cents per point.

Just for comparison's sake, my Hackintosh cost me $1,300 USD (4790k, GTX 960, 32GB RAM 1866mhz). Geekbench score of 18,041; cost per point is 7.2 cents. Since I can overclock it and get up to around 22,000 points, the value then become 5.9 cents per point. However I am not running it overclocked but to compare it to the Mac Pro, I have some gains;

- I can swap any part I want for something better, newer, etc.
- I'm only using ONE processor, so its more efficient
- I have full SLI compatibility in Windows
- My system runs just as quiet as the new trash can Mac Pro (seriously, I can't hear it at all)
- It produces WAY LESS heat. This is a freaking GODSEND in the summer. My old Mac Pro 2008 and 2006 got pretty
toasty, I can only imagine what the x5690 processors do to a small condo or room. No need to run the AC all the time.
- GPU choices will run circles around any new Mac Pro GPU and especially the r290x.

If you need geekbench scores for proof, click here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

They're not exactly 100% accurate, but geekbench is good enough to gauge a systems performance and value for the money, so its a great standard.

So there you go, neither the new mac pro or the new iMac is worth your money, both are duds for the money and you're best option is either the cheesegrater Mac Pro or a Hackintosh, because what your current two choices for gaming are absolute garbage. But what you do with your money is your decision, but know this;

We're giving you advice based on LOGIC, RATIONALE and OBJECTIVITY.
Click to expand...

I still very much value your input though, so thank you :) But I do have to say, you are taking a 100% performance view from things here. Yes, performance is easily the top priority, but then look at the second priority; the output, the display. With the 5K iMac, really I'm getting a steal on the price. What I want to know, it is worth giving up the 5K display and spending more, for the Mac Pro.
 
MartinAppleGuy said:
Thanks for the post!!! At least I know they are both comparable. I'm not looking for a gaming machine, just something an can play games on the side so really it is just a split down the middle between the two. Last question, how would general performance be between the two? I'm guessing the only thing in general responsiveness that would change between the two would be the SSD vs FD?
Click to expand...
They're both going to offer similar performance for your needs. Unless you're going to be doing a lot of video editing, I think the 5K iMac offers the best value in this performance/price range. It has a slightly faster CPU, but more importantly, the 5K display which is amazing (as long as you don't mind a slightly glossy/reflective screen). Its only slight limitation is the thermals, which can eventually bog down a bit on sustained tasks that push the CPU/GPU for long periods of time (e.g. encoding video for hours on end, heavy gaming, etc.).

The nMP makes sense for you if you're doing a lot of video editing or you want to use your own displays.

I would recommend getting a "pure" SSD for best performance (and having an external HDD to store large amounts of data as needed), but the FD is acceptable as well.

Best of luck!
 
ixxx69 said:
They're both going to offer similar performance for your needs. Unless you're going to be doing a lot of video editing, I think the 5K iMac offers the best value in this performance/price range. It has a slightly faster CPU, but more importantly, the 5K display which is amazing (as long as you don't mind a slightly glossy/reflective screen). Its only slight limitation is the thermals, which can eventually bog down a bit on sustained tasks that push the CPU/GPU for long periods of time (e.g. encoding video for hours on end, heavy gaming, etc.).

The nMP makes sense for you if you're doing a lot of video editing or you want to use your own displays.

I would recommend getting a "pure" SSD for best performance (and having an external HDD to store large amounts of data as needed), but the FD is acceptable as well.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...


Thanks! Now a question regarding the fusion drive, how will bootcamp work with it? Will it just install windows via the hard drive portion?
 
gman36 said:
PS. I have a D300 Mac Pro, I game here and there. It does the job fine, but you wont be breaking any records. Under load the machine stays really quiet which is nice if you appreciate that sort of thing. The imac sounds like a vacuum under load (exaggeration).
Click to expand...

Thanks! What kind of games are you running? And is this OS X or Windows? And how does crossfire work when gaming, are you seeing a nice increase in perfromace?

Sorry for all the questions haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back