Is a 2008 model worth buying?

[derbothaus]

I would never pay a premium price for a refurbished machine that is 2 years out of date, also 5770 cards are very pants when compared to a newer Nvidia with CUDA. The 2010 refurb still needs extra RAM too. $2119 becomes $2199 if you put a decent slice of RAM in.
At just over $1600 the 08 with the GFX card upgrade and RAM already in it is 30% cheaper. Significant cost savings for better performance. Both are basically secondhand machines at the end of the day.
The 08 has no history of early part failure to my knowledge and my family of working Macs date right back to 1998. My first Mac SE died 20 years after purchase and only the tube in the 9" b&w CRT went then.

These decisions are all relative to your economic situation and personal preference ofc. Significantly, if Octo '08 Mac Pros are worth $1200 now they have only depreciated $800 (40%) in 4 years. Liking it a lot.

How do you figure better performance? Only the GPU if they upgrade the 2008 to an unsupported PC card as you suggested? But same card can be added to 2010.
32-bit Geekbench:
2.8GHz 8-core 3,1: 7685
2.8GHz Quad 5,1: 8839

2010 has faster memory, more robust PCI allotment, etc.
At the end of the day the "2 year" old 2010 is still warranted AND has not been used actively for 4 years.

I am in no way saying a 2008 8-core is slow or a bad computer. Merely that in 2012 it is not a wise investment when you could get newer, warranted, and faster for only a small bump in price. AND you still have upgrade avenues. Like a W3680/W3690 which embarrasses the 2008's as even the fastest at 3.2GHz can't muster a score over 9000. The hex will net you 14000+ in 32 bit.
Not sure why you are so exited at telling someone to buy such an investment except that you own one. I'm not telling someone to buy a 2010 cuz I have one. Only that it presents a better upgrade path moving forward. And will retain it's value just as the 2008 has. No difference.

 

[wallysb01]

Generally, I agree with derbothaus, and I would not buy a 2008 either, even if spending the extra $500-700 for a 2009/10 + upgrades was somewhat painful. However, others may have different cash limitations and of course it depends on what you do. Sure, faster is always faster, but if you're not hitting bottle necks that cost you money, you do reach a point of "fast enough".

For me though, spending $400+ for 16 GB of RAM would make me barf, no matter how good of a deal the machine itself was.

 

[gpzjock]

64 bit Macs should be measured in 64 bit tests.

How do you figure better performance? Only the GPU if they upgrade the 2008 to an unsupported PC card as you suggested? But same card can be added to 2010.
32-bit Geekbench:
2.8GHz 8-core 3,1: 7685
2.8GHz Quad 5,1: 8839

32-bit tests are not as representative as 64-bit on 64-bit architecture:
2.8 Ghz Quad 2010: 9681 (average)
2.8 Ghz Octo 2008: 10618 (10% faster on average)
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/#64bit
This is my Octo vs. a matching 2010 2.8 Quad on the bench: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/585201/587659 still kicking asses and taking names 4 years on.
This is the same 2010 vs. a modern Sandybridge i5 quad: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/581489/585201 2 years out of date means a lot of potential speed lost already.

Different ball game in 64-bit innit.

I am assuming if you are rendering you need a good GFX card and CUDA is icing on the cake for some apps.
So better Geekbench scores in 64 bit use and a GFX card that hands a 5770 its arse. All for $500 less.
Why insist on buying $400 of ram when $200 worth will do?
As I said, it really depends on if you have the money to spare to go for a refurb that is $500 more. I would always advise to get the best performance within budget but how much do you want/need to spend? Only the OP can evaluate that.
If he has the dosh the 2010 is a better long term investment.
Personally, if my 2008 blew up tomorrow I would buy another for that price in a heartbeat.

 

[derbothaus]

^^^ Hmmm. Smells fishy to me. I'll have to look into it further. All Mac's in my environment scale equally 32-64 bit on testing. A couple hundred more tit for tat. But none of them (over 300 of em) including my work 2008 3.2GHz 8-core jump brackets like that. Just bizarre. Thanks for the info.

 

[wallysb01]

Primate labs has the 2008 2.8 8-core at 9231, and the 2010 2.8 4-core at 8665. That more 6.5% faster. Now that's an average of 32 and 64 bit, so it sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

[gpzjock]

I was as surprised as you Derb.

All Mac's in my environment scale equally 32-64 bit on testing. A couple hundred more tit for tat. But none of them (over 300 of em) including my work 2008 3.2GHz 8-core jump brackets like that. Just bizarre. Thanks for the info.

I understand your surprise at the leap in performance some machines get in 64-bit environments.

I was very surprised to see this difference in that i5 Quad I used for comparison to the 2010 Quad: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/581489/581487 64-bit vs. 32-bit on the same rig minutes apart.
The floating point scalar tests shoot through the roof with 64-bit processing especially on single core working when the turbo cache kicks in.

More food for thought I guess m8.

 

[deconstruct60]

I am wondering what peoples experiences with these models are. Are they worth $1200 in good condition. Main use would be rendering in Carrara Pro 8.

I guess not particularly surprisingly no one mentioned that this machine is machine is extremely likely to go onto Apple's legacy list on the next update. It was replaced by the 2009 Mac Pros on March 3, 2009.

"... Vintage products are those that were discontinued more than five and less than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception:
... "
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752

5 years plus 3/3/2009 is 3/3/2014. Is that enough time to get return on investment?

One of the value criteria here should be whether you are OK with the used/secondary market for replacement parts if something needs to be repaired if you have a longer timeline. Likewise, OS (and other Apple software) support is likely to be dropped for vintage products.

If it is just a dedicated, secondary render box with a fixed software stack then that's one thing. If it needs to move forward in time with an updating software stack and time critical renders (e.g., no time to wait to salvage parts off eBay) that is a significantly different context.

 

[derbothaus]

I understand your surprise at the leap in performance some machines get in 64-bit environments.

I was very surprised to see this difference in that i5 Quad I used for comparison to the 2010 Quad: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/581489/581487 64-bit vs. 32-bit on the same rig minutes apart.
The floating point scalar tests shoot through the roof with 64-bit processing especially on single core working when the turbo cache kicks in.

More food for thought I guess m8.

You bring up a good point. There is no turbo (OC'ing) on the 2008. 80% of your everyday software is single threaded and 32-bit. The 2010 will be faster at that regardless of geekbench theoretical. A 2008 2.8GHz executes at 2.8GHz a 2010 2.8GHz will hit 3.06GHz.

 

[Sharky II]

FWIW i have a 2008 8 x 2.8GHz, 12GB Ram, 8800GT, and a Samsung F1 Boot drive, and i get over 10,000 in 32-bit mode. I can't remember the exact score.

Once i add an SSD i'm set for a while. I was lucky and watched ebay for ram, and managed to go up from 6gb to 12gb for very cheap. Might get it up to 14/16gb soon if i keep looking, but 12 is enough for now

Although i love my machine, I run Logic and a fast 'per core' speed is always going to help.

I think i'll upgrade in 2013, hopefully when a new model comes out... if that ever happens.

I would grab a 2009/2010 and stick a 6 core in it...

 

[crescentmoon52]

Mac pro 2008

I have an 8 core mac pro 2.8 and it is the best mac pro I've owned. On geekbench it scored 11382/9887 with 22gig of ram. I have thrown everything at it and it still performs without a glitch. Previous to that, I had a G5 which had many problems... fan noise, replacement of the motherboard under applecare, etc. The mac pros from 2008 on have been extremely reliable.

 

[gpzjock]

Horses for courses.

You bring up a good point. There is no turbo (OC'ing) on the 2008. 80% of your everyday software is single threaded and 32-bit. The 2010 will be faster at that regardless of geekbench theoretical. A 2008 2.8GHz executes at 2.8GHz a 2010 2.8GHz will hit 3.06GHz.

I agree 80% of the normal software is 32-bit single core using rubbish. We can blame the Microsoft 32-bit OS as default herd for this. Apple started the transition to 64-bit systems with the G5 PowerPC CPU a long time ago.

But the OP states his main use would be rendering in Carrara Pro 8 http://www.daz3d.com/i/products/carrara/pro
This is not a 32-bit single thread cheapo app; it is a $549 multi-thread, multi-core, 64-bit professional 3D rendering package which loves big juicy workstations. In this case the 2008 Octo would have the upper hand.
If the OP uses Octane (a CUDA based renderer) as well then a Nvidia card would speed his work up considerably too.

I still find it kinda strange that we are comparing a similar speed or faster 2008 Mac Pro that would cost $500 less (even after being pimped), with a 2010 quad that is probably slower at 64-bit rendering and comes with a weaker GFX card.

I did notice that Lion users have to use the Terminal to make Carrara Pro work properly. http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=168496

 

[derbothaus]

I agree 80% of the normal software is 32-bit single core using rubbish. We can blame the Microsoft 32-bit OS as default herd for this. Apple started the transition to 64-bit systems with the G5 PowerPC CPU a long time ago.

I would not blame Windows at all. They actually needed 64-bit before OS X as we could access more memory than 32-bit Win and started the transition very long ago. G5 was 64-bit but worthless as the OS was not and still the reason users are like "64-bit? Didn't Apple do that with the G5?" Nope. Snow leopard. When you can't run your G5 anymore. Go figure. It is the 3rd party devs mainly and the fact that 64-bit is useless for the exact same 80% of software. No motivation. 32-bit is faster execution for variety of things. 64-bit SW does not always mean faster. If you need to access more memory you will benefit otherwise placebo other than synthetic benchmarks.

----------

I still find it kinda strange that we are comparing a similar speed or faster 2008 Mac Pro that would cost $500 less (even after being pimped), with a 2010 quad that is probably slower at 64-bit rendering and comes with a weaker GFX card.

Why strange? I prefer to spend money and have some sort of warranty for my new thousand dollar parts. You are suggesting the OP put a 4 year old Mac together with rubber banded unsupported PC parts and get excited over a synthetic benchmark win running in 64-bit that accounts for less than 20% of regular use. I think it is worth comparing. couple thousand geekbench points puts the mac's in a comparable category. It would be foolish to compare a 2008 with a 12-core 2010.

 

[goMac]

I'm running a 2008 8 core 2.8 ghz here. I'm planning on replacing it this year, but only because the warranty is out. Otherwise, it's been a solid machine so far.

Watch out for if it comes with an 8800 GT. That graphics card has been the only weak point on this machine. They are known for dying after a few years. Replaced mine with a 5870 (5770 also works) and have had no further issues.

Carrara runs fine on mine. I'm not a serious 3D modeler, so I wouldn't be able to take apart performance for you. But offhand, I'd say the biggest performance issue has been that you really need SSDs to take advantage of the full processor speed of this machine (which is really a good thing.)

 

[thekev]

I would not blame Windows at all. They actually needed 64-bit before OS X as we could access more memory than 32-bit Win and started the transition very long ago. G5 was 64-bit but worthless as the OS was not and still the reason users are like "64-bit? Didn't Apple do that with the G5?" Nope. Snow leopard. When you can't run your G5 anymore. Go figure. It is the 3rd party devs mainly and the fact that 64-bit is useless for the exact same 80% of software. No motivation. 32-bit is faster execution for variety of things. 64-bit SW does not always mean faster. If you need to access more memory you will benefit otherwise placebo other than synthetic benchmarks.

I have no idea why people blame Windows for such a thing other than irrational hatred. With the G5s, Tiger had a few bugs that caused weird performance issues beyond 4GB of ram. Tiger had a lot of weird bugs, like activity monitor's root process used a ridiculous amount of cpu overhead. Leopard you could get away with a bit more if you wanted to run multiple ram hungry applications. It still didn't make sense to go with much more, then as you mentioned, SL killed the G5s and Apple cancelled the 64 bit Carbon API. It's not like the people who benefit from large amounts of ram couldn't function under 32 bit either. The issue was mostly that it was very restrictive at times in that you had to structure your work around it. Obviously it held back certain developers too, but Windows got many 64 bit application versions before OSX.

Also Apple didn't even pioneer it. It started on earlier RISC workstations. They just kept running the kool-aid marketing on their front page.

 

[goMac]

Huh? Leopard and higher could run full 64 bit apps, not Snow. Tiger could run certain portions of apps as 64 bit and access the full memory space of the G5.

If you're going to rant about 64 bit, at least get it right.

/SomeoneWhoWasDoing64BitOSXDevelopmentOnThoseMachines

 

[monokakata]

Also Apple didn't even pioneer it. It started on earlier RISC workstations. They just kept running the kool-aid marketing on their front page.

So true. I remember laughing at the "first 64 bits on the desktop" advertising when in fact I'd been running a DEC Alphastation (64 bit CPU and 64 bit OS) literally on my desktop (plus an Alphaserver on the floor) since 1995 or 1996. Shoot, maybe it was 1994. It's hard to remember.

Those ads were complete BS.

And I think MIPS 64-bit processors were in workstations before that. Not sure about Sun.

Running them with a nice GUI-based OS? No. But I was running X over OpenVMS, which worked well for me.

 

[derbothaus]

Huh? Leopard and higher could run full 64 bit apps, not Snow. Tiger could run certain portions of apps as 64 bit and access the full memory space of the G5.

If you're going to rant about 64 bit, at least get it right.

/SomeoneWhoWasDoing64BitOSXDevelopmentOnThoseMachines

I was referring to the OS kernel and EFI as the true 64-bit "switchover". The mixed 32/64 environments started after G5 release (10.3 had 64-bit addressing "bridge" of sorts but no 64-bit apps) and didn't finalize until Snow Leopard.
But then I have no idea who you were addressing as rant.

 

[Slow Programmer]

Lots of good points here. I have decided to get a 2010 model if a new machine does not come out in the next three months. I may get a 2010 model even if a new machine comes out depending on what Apple does to the line. I added a SSD to my 2010 iMac and it is running like a new machine. I can't believe how much more responsive it is. Parallels is running Windows 7 so well I don't think I am going to need boot camp. I still want a Mac Pro, but am not in as much of a hurry. However, if I find a good deal on a 2010 Pro I will not wait and will go ahead and get one. Thanks everyone

 

[goMac]

I was referring to the OS kernel and firmware as the true 64-bit "switchover". The mixed 32/64 environments started after G5 release (10.3 had 64-bit addressing "bridge" of sorts but no 64-bit apps) and didn't finalize until Snow Leopard.
But then I have no idea who you were addressing.

Nono, didn't work like that at all. When the G5 was released, Apple did a special G5 only release of OS X Panther. It featured a 36 bit memory addressing (which could address way more memory than the G5 could max out at), and features that allowed an application to take advantage of 64 bit memory and addressing.

When Leopard shipped, it added the ability for an entire application to run under 64 bit addressing, with a 36 bit memory addressing scheme in the kernel (again, more than enough to address all the memory of any workstation at the time.) The full 64 bit app thing was delayed until the release of the Mac Pro. Intel took the Mac back to 32 bit, so the ability to make 64 bit apps without splitting off portions took less priority. But applications could still start and execute 64 bit tasks from the special Panther builds forward.

Any suggestion that Apple released 64 bit machines but not the software to use the capabilities is untrue, especially considering the first G5s had their own special builds of OS X to make the magic happen.

 

[derbothaus]

Nono, didn't work like that at all. When the G5 was released, Apple did a special G5 only release of OS X Panther. It featured a 36 bit memory addressing (which could address way more memory than the G5 could max out at), and features that allowed an application to take advantage of 64 bit memory and addressing.

When Leopard shipped, it added the ability for an entire application to run under 64 bit addressing, with a 36 bit memory addressing scheme in the kernel (again, more than enough to address all the memory of any workstation at the time.) The full 64 bit app thing was delayed until the release of the Mac Pro. Intel took the Mac back to 32 bit, so the ability to make 64 bit apps without splitting off portions took less priority. But applications could still start and execute 64 bit tasks from the special Panther builds forward.

Any suggestion that Apple released 64 bit machines but not the software to use the capabilities is untrue, especially considering the first G5s had their own special builds of OS X to make the magic happen.

You just summed up exactly what I said.
Me:
"The mixed 32/64 environments started after G5 release (10.3 had 64-bit addressing "bridge" of sorts but no 64-bit apps) and didn't finalize until Snow Leopard."

And you:
"When the G5 was released, Apple did a special G5 only release of OS X Panther. It featured a 36 bit memory addressing (which could address way more memory than the G5 could max out at), and features that allowed an application to take advantage of 64 bit memory and addressing."

Saying that it does not work that way "at all" is a little much. Where is the division?

"...and features that allowed an application to take advantage of 64 bit memory and addressing"
This was my "bridge" you called it "features".

 

[Gomff]

I bought a 2008 machine immediately after it came out and it has been a solid machine, which I use extensively for 3D still.

Having said that, I'm not sure I'd buy one now. Aside from the memory cost, I have also found that the memory speed can be an issue with complex 3D scenes. TBH, PC's and Windows are the best choice for 3D graphics these days due to the price / performance ratio as well as the far better GPU options and openGL support (Which is superior to OS X).

However, if 3D is just part of your usage and you also use FCP, Photoshop etc and you love OS X the 2008 machine is still very capable. Last year I bought an i7 system to deal with rendering and heavy scenes that were sluggish on the Mac, but generally speaking it's switched off until I need it since I prefer OS X and the Mac Pro.

If I was the OP I'd wait to see what Apple does this year with the Mac Pro and if they can afford it, go for a new model. Failing that, the i7 iMacs are fast but of course upgrade options are limited / non existent.

The truth is that Professional options are thin on the ground for Mac fans on a budget.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Well, I bought a 2008 8-core 2.8 back in October. Cost me $1500, but came with upgrades like a 1TB HD, an 8800GT video card, and 8 GB of RAM. Also came with a 90 day warranty.

No issues so far, and I haven't looked back at all. I'll (probably) still upgrade to a new machine if/when the new machines come out, but only if the pro audio market (Logic, OS, other software, etc.) looks to have several more years of solid support on the mac platform.

So I don't know if I got a good deal or a bad deal or whatever, but it seemed to be the best option at the time, and at least it keeps me going for now and buys me time to figure out my next step.

What if the new machines don't come at all, or what if they come but aren't what we're expecting/needing in terms of a pro desktop? In my case, a used 2008 purchase relieves some of the pressure of having to get that question answered just right with the full purchase price of a brand new Mac Pro. For a much smaller investment, I'm still good for at least a couple years if need be.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

[gpzjock]

32-bit OS fitted as standard to 2-bit PCs

I would not blame Windows at all. They actually needed 64-bit before OS X as we could access more memory than 32-bit Win and started the transition very long ago. G5 was 64-bit but worthless as the OS was not and still the reason users are like "64-bit? Didn't Apple do that with the G5?" Nope. Snow leopard. When you can't run your G5 anymore. Go figure. It is the 3rd party devs mainly and the fact that 64-bit is useless for the exact same 80% of software. No motivation. 32-bit is faster execution for variety of things. 64-bit SW does not always mean faster. If you need to access more memory you will benefit otherwise placebo other than synthetic benchmarks.


----------


Why strange? I prefer to spend money and have some sort of warranty for my new thousand dollar parts. You are suggesting the OP put a 4 year old Mac together with rubber banded unsupported PC parts and get excited over a synthetic benchmark win running in 64-bit that accounts for less than 20% of regular use. I think it is worth comparing. couple thousand geekbench points puts the mac's in a comparable category. It would be foolish to compare a 2008 with a 12-core 2010.

32-bit CPUs are still common in PCs, even 64-bit CPUs come with 32-bit Windows builds.
Windows did indeed start the 64-bit transition long ago but the vast majority of off the shelf PCs are still often fitted with 32-bit versions of the OS due to third party support issues and cheap components fitted to cheap computers. I have even seen PC sold with 32-bit OS installed and 64-bit reinstall discs bundled instead of supplying both versions.
Windows isn't switchable without reinstalling so it is one or other unlike Mac OS X.
I agree that the G5 was a dead end, Apple changed course accordingly. This doesn't mean it never existed.
As few as 5% of the Windows boxes I encounter today are 64-bit running.
Compared to the vast majority of Macs I meet which can be switched to either in seconds.
32-bit operations are perfectly fine for the majority of computing functions indeed but the OP has a specific task that would benefit from 64-bit instead hence my argument for the improved performance.
I'm amused that you now dismiss the very "synthetic benchmark" you used to originally argue the superiority of the 2010 quad. Now it doesn't say what you want, it isn't relevant?


The OP asked if a 2008 was "worth it" I pointed out that it was $500 cheaper and more powerful than a 2010 quad, for 64-bit use as the OP intended. Therefore it is "worth it" in my opinion. Folks set great store on a GFX card that is "supported" in a 2010 but the 5770 and the 5870 are not supported in a 2008. So adding Lion and using Nvidia's new drivers (Apple approved ones) to use another "unsupported" PC card makes little or no difference to the argument. I have used 2 "unsupported" PC cards (4870 & 5870) in a 2008 since 2009 with no trouble whatsoever. Apple can kiss my arse with their arbitrary obsolescence plans. Oh look it still "just works".

The OP has decided to go for the 2010 already and I think he is sensible to do so if this machine is a serious long term investment and he has the money to expand it over time. I hope he enjoys his purchase and that it serves him well long into the future.
As to the question is a 2008 worth $1200? Yes, I really think it is and I would buy it if I needed to replace this one.

 

[derbothaus]

I'm amused that you now dismiss the very "synthetic benchmark" you used to originally argue the superiority of the 2010 quad. Now it doesn't say what you want, it isn't relevant?

No. It is still relevant 20% or less of the time. I did not use geekbench to prove it's speed. Only it's theoretical. It is an easy thing to post when someone has questions regarding performance. It is so much easier than, "what are you using it for? What apps? How much Memory? Oh, That app is only single threaded so you may not...etc".
I have no opinion on what I want the bench to say only that by and large a 2.8GHz Quad chip that can OC to 3.07GHz will be faster in practice 80% more of the time than the 8-core 2.8GHz regardless of 32/64bit. A highly specialized 64-bit mulithreaded workflow on a 2008 CAN beat the base 2010 under the right circumstances. Is that better? Are we done?

 

[gpzjock]

I'm happy to agree to differ Derb.

Sorry, I thought this thread was a discussion of the OP's question related to his needs. I was answering that question specifically. 20% of your world view of computing may be 80% of his workload. At the end of the day he knows what he wants from it and how much he has to spend. The rest is conjecture.

There are no true black or white choices here; only shades of Mac Pro grey. The 2010 is a good machine but the 2008 is a bargain (I reckon) for the OP's described use, when you can pimp it out for much less. Only you can choose what you want to buy, others have that amount of free will too. I respect that and other opinions, yours included. You generalize the question, I specify; that is really the only difference of opinion here.

As others have pointed out, a modern Sandybridge chipped PC tower would be considerably faster than either and probably cost less than the 2008 too. Provided the OP can put up with Windows instead. I wouldn't, but he might.

This isn't a stick to beat you with m8. Peace.