Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac pro 2008 competitiveness
- Thread starter iC D
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say the Mac Pro 3,1 or 2008 is just barely holding on in terms of competitiveness, the 4,1 and 5,1 are, although they are getting long in the tooth as well. Its not really fair to compare a current quad core i7 iMac to a 2010 Mac Pro 5,1 with 12 cores, they are not the same machine, not built for the same purposes, although many people simply can't wait anymore and are buying the latest iMac's. This is just my opinion, I am, by no means an expert, however I think if you do HD video editing for a living, or 3D rendering, or use the Adobe suite and deal with large images all day, then an Mac Pro is a better fit for you then an iMac.
+1
I run the Mac lab at my Uni. We have all new 27" iMacs. I do like the screens, though all of our units needed hard drive replacements(they never went down but were recalled) and three of the machines have needed service since Jan. They work well, but for Adobe CS or 3D work I love coming home to my old 3,1 2.8. It just runs the jobs much quicker. (I do have more RAM, but it still never gets into the extra RAM I have most of the time.)
Though, a 2009 or up will give you more expansion possibilities in the future.
I won't be replacing my 2008 for a while yet... frankly, Apple has been pissing me off lately, so what I get in the future is still up in the air.
I run the Mac lab at my Uni. We have all new 27" iMacs. I do like the screens, though all of our units needed hard drive replacements(they never went down but were recalled) and three of the machines have needed service since Jan. They work well, but for Adobe CS or 3D work I love coming home to my old 3,1 2.8. It just runs the jobs much quicker. (I do have more RAM, but it still never gets into the extra RAM I have most of the time.)
Though, a 2009 or up will give you more expansion possibilities in the future.
I won't be replacing my 2008 for a while yet... frankly, Apple has been pissing me off lately, so what I get in the future is still up in the air.
Nop. It's not anymore. Sad because the people who bought the i7 920 in 2008 are still at the top of the game with a slight overclock. Even clocked at a low 2.0ghz, the now venerable i7 920 is still faster than the Xeon E5462 used in the mac pro 2008.
Laptop, get a mac. Workstation, build yourself a real pc.
Laptop, get a mac. Workstation, build yourself a real pc.
Top of the game for sp 2009 pro is w3690 3.46x6 or 990x.
That will push it up to top 4 mac in the list. (behind 12x2.93, 12x2.66, 8x2.93)
And top of dp 2009 is dual x5690 3.46x12
That will blow any macbook, imac atlease next 3 generation.
Last edited:
Depends on what you do. But really not so much. 2009 is. 2008 isn't. 2008 has stoopid memory prices. Avoid.
Not sure there. 32-bit Geek...
iMac i7 3.4 27": 11500
2008 3.2GHz 8-core: 8600
2010 2.8GHz Mac Pro: 8850
2010 3.2GHz Mac Pro: 10000
You must mean in particular apps, no? What apps? Just curious why you state this. It will only win single threaded against the entry Quad at 3.06GHz vs. 3.2GHz. Doesn't look like anything else. And memory slower still.
Last edited:
Really? Oh man.
Nevermind then. At least that Mac Pro is probably cheaper than that iMac.
Other advantage is you can still put in a faster GPU.
(I had to do a double take on that 2010 score, but it looks like that's the score for a 4 core. The 2010 Mac Pro and the 2011 iMac use an extremely similar CPU, so the clock rate difference explains the score.)
Personally I'd rather have the 2008 than the iMac still. GPU is paramount
Numbers obviously are not everything. I think stuff like cinebench favors real cores over hyperthreaded. Bare Feats had 2008 3.2 at 7.5 in Cinebanch and iMac 3.4 at 6.8. So...
Personally I'd rather have the 2008 than the iMac still. GPU is paramount
Numbers obviously are not everything. I think stuff like cinebench favors real cores over hyperthreaded. Bare Feats had 2008 3.2 at 7.5 in Cinebanch and iMac 3.4 at 6.8. So...
For me it was a question of affordability, as I run a studio at home. I got an 8 core Avid Certified system (albeit older) for a real steal. It's 5-6 times better than what I was using before, and was much cheaper than the 2009 Avid Certified machine. If this machine even lasts me 2-3 years (which it should and possibly longer), I've got more than my money's worth, and that includes the upgrades I put into it.
For pro audio, yes... for the drive bays and dual optical alone. inexpensive and reliable, and if someone else already dropped in a bunch of ram back when it was cheap then I would say no contest.
Yes.
My Mac Pro began life as a 2009 4,1 quad. Today, it's a 5,1 6-core. Can't do that with a 2008 3,1.
And my new (to me) 2008 Octo-Core scored 11282 in 64 bit mode yesterday. And for the record, it has only 8GB of ram.
Just reran the test in 32 bit, and scored a 10083... Keep in mind, it is a 2.8Ghz Octo, not a 3.2...
Screens added for reference.
Attachments
Last edited:
=( This is true and makes me wish I had a later one, but in all honesty I got my 3,1 as a replacement for a defective quad 2.66 from Applecare, so I have no complaints! =)
That's really it. Well said.
If you have a negligible price difference, then go for the better one of course, but that's usually not the case. My decision was based on my specific needs, and I bring in work and income
Also 'better one' is subjective, because I needed an 8 core to comply with the software. A 4 or 6 core wouldn't cut it, regardless of speed, and my price to performance ratio is much better.
Never heard of that before. So it required only 8 physical processors? No hyperthreading allowed? Weird. Why, especially regardless of speed?
I've heard of this with badly written software. Because of bugs, it only runs stable with an exact number of cores.
Not saying that's the case, but that's where I usually hear of it. It usually is still unstable, but whatever...