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

Mac Pro 3.1 vs I7 4790k

Parsuto

Parsuto

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 15, 2015
50
5
Italy
hi, I place in question, do you think a Mac Pro 8-core 3.1 with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960, could be powerful on par with a I7 4790 k with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960?

or the I7 4790 K and much, much more powerful?

thank you
 
Parsuto said:
hi, I place in question, do you think a Mac Pro 8-core 3.1 with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960, could be powerful on par with a I7 4790 k with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960?

or the I7 4790 K and much, much more powerful?

thank you
Click to expand...

As you mentioned the GTX 960, I'm guessing you mean the 2008 Mac Pro 3,1, that uses 2x Intel Xeon E5462s. Unfortunately even combined, it's nowhere near as powerful as that i7. It's not even as powerful as the CPU in the 15" rMBP! That's how much CPU performance has made leaps and bounds.

If you're looking towards the current gen Mac Pro, (dustbin case) 8 core, 3GHz CPU, then that uses the Intel Xeon E5-1680. That CPU absolutely smokes the i7-4790K; it's about 40% more powerful.

I'm just saying the above to put into perspective that clockspeed/number of cores matter very very little, as the generation of the CPU pretty much makes all the difference.

If you want to find specfic CPUs per model of Mac, you can go to www.everymac.com and compare specific performance at www.cpubenchmark.net. As a rule of thumb, the larger number is more powerful.

Hope this helps, though please do let me know if you have any further queries. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: firewire9000
[Quote = "keysofanxiety, posta: 23285004, membro: 643.934"] Come lei ha ricordato la GTX 960, sto cercando di indovinare si intende 2008 Mac Pro 3,1, che utilizza 2x Intel Xeon E5462s. Purtroppo anche in combinazione, è in nessun posto vicino potente come quella i7. Non è nemmeno potente come la CPU nel "rMBP 15! Questo è quanto le prestazioni della CPU ha fatto passi da gigante.

Se siete alla ricerca verso l'attuale generazione di Mac Pro, (caso pattumiera) 8 core, 3GHz della CPU, quindi, che utilizza il processore Intel Xeon E5-1680. Che CPU assolutamente fuma il i7-4790K; si tratta di circa il 40% più potente.

Sto solo dicendo che la sopra per mettere in prospettiva che clock / numero di core importa molto poco, come la generazione di CPU rende praticamente tutta la differenza.

Se si vuole trovare CPU specfic per il modello di Mac, si può andare a www.everymac.com e confrontare le prestazioni specifiche a www.cpubenchmark.net . Come regola generale, il maggior numero è più potente.

Spero che questo aiuti, anche se per favore fatemi sapere se avete ulteriori domande. :)[/ Quote]



thank you
 
The i7 will be faster in both single core and multi core apps, use less power, have pci 3, faster ram etc
you can still do a hackintosh
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef
thanks to all of the advice I would rather do me a hackintosh I7 4790K 32 gb ram ssd 480 gb sata 1TB + x2 + nvidia 1060 gtx 6 GB-
 
Parsuto said:
hi, I place in question, do you think a Mac Pro 8-core 3.1 with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960, could be powerful on par with a I7 4790 k with ssd 240 gb and 32 gb of ram and gtx 960?

or the I7 4790 K and much, much more powerful?

thank you
Click to expand...

Is your only option a 3,1? There are a couple 2009 Mac Pro models that outperform even the 4790k in multi-core uses. Or you could get a 12 core 2010 for around $1,000 and significantly outperform the 4790.
 
MacStu09 said:
Is your only option a 3,1? There are a couple 2009 Mac Pro models that outperform even the 4790k in multi-core uses. Or you could get a 12 core 2010 for around $1,000 and significantly outperform the 4790.
Click to expand...



good news but excuse what mac pro in 2009 exceeds a I7 4790K?
Link on ebay you would have?
thank you
[doublepost=1472229207][/doublepost][Quote = "pastrychef, posta: 23285652, membro: 83.839"] Al momento, non ci sono i driver per la GTX 1060 [/ QUOTE].


NOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
 
the 4790K is a 4c(8t) the best chip for the mac pro is the about same as the i7 990x 3.46ghz 6c(12T) (X5690) in single core speed the 4790K wins
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/6
but yes if you can use all 6 cores in a single cpu macpro you will be the same speed or faster & the dual cpu will have the potential of being faster if you can use all cores.

but that only matters if you are using apps that use all cores if your using apps that only use 4 cores at most (ie most apps) then the 4790K is faster (just)

for $1,000 you can buy a full set of parts, faster cpu/new gpu/ SSD/ram/mobo etc

ps also the macpro has a slow sata bus
 
Parsuto said:
good news but excuse what mac pro in 2009 exceeds a I7 4790K?
Link on ebay you would have?
thank you
[doublepost=1472229207][/doublepost][Quote = "pastrychef, posta: 23285652, membro: 83.839"] Al momento, non ci sono i driver per la GTX 1060 [/ QUOTE].


NOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
Click to expand...

The 2009 2.93ghz 8 core Mac Pro outperforms the 4790k in multi-core use. The 12 core significantly outperforms it. I just did a quick search and there are tons on ebay and craigslist in the 600-1,100 range.

I'm all for building a Hackintosh, and have done it in the past. But as me and a few of my friends have learned after building our own and comparing them, our genuine Mac Pro's still end up the better all around machine to use. For reference, you can end up with a quad i7 hackintosh that benchmarks lower than a mac pro 3,1. It oddly enough happens sometimes. And my personal build had quite a few issues, including locking up in AE, PR, FCP every single time I rendered out, which should've been simple. Same exact project rendered out on my mac pro fine. After days of troubleshooting, I did eventually fix it on the hackintosh. But if you can get a solid build for a good price, definitely go for it!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-P...624922?hash=item4b02ecddda:g:IJMAAOSwvg9XcVk7
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-P...375321?hash=item3ac2dd2259:g:j3gAAOSwQTVV8x~c
 
Don't forget about the performance of PCI of the Mac Pro xeon motherboard compared to the i7. Doesn't the Mac Pro support more lanes?
 
the bench of a computer will be decided by the parts if you use a faster cpu it will be faster if you use a slower cpu it will be slower etc..

decide on a budget & what you want to do with the computer, if your playing games 4-6c is best for Photoshop 2-4c for lots of video editing 6c+ (depending on the app) & some apps just want a fast GPU like dacinchi resolve.
light use web/email & lifestyle a fast i3 will do fine.

for video editing depending on what you do fast drives matter a lot.

when i use photoshop most the time it's only unseeing 2 cores.

some apps like photoshop are slower on dual cpu systems (i think thats still true)

pugetsystems has some relay good info on cpu & gpu use in pro apps
https://www.pugetsystems.com/all_articles.php

so it relay depend on what you want to do? if you know what apps you want to run i can give advice.

if you dont want to make a hackintosh but have a big budget a macmin or imac are relay worth a look both new and used.

macpro only has pci 2 new cpu's/mobos have pci3, the number of pci lanes depends on the cpu diffrent cpu's have different numbers of lanes.
the number of lanes only matters once you max them out which you wont do untill you have 3 or more pci cards which is past the normal users
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef
MacStu09 said:
The 2009 2.93ghz 8 core Mac Pro outperforms the 4790k in multi-core use. The 12 core significantly outperforms it. I just did a quick search and there are tons on ebay and craigslist in the 600-1,100 range.

I'm all for building a Hackintosh, and have done it in the past. But as me and a few of my friends have learned after building our own and comparing them, our genuine Mac Pro's still end up the better all around machine to use. For reference, you can end up with a quad i7 hackintosh that benchmarks lower than a mac pro 3,1. It oddly enough happens sometimes. And my personal build had quite a few issues, including locking up in AE, PR, FCP every single time I rendered out, which should've been simple. Same exact project rendered out on my mac pro fine. After days of troubleshooting, I did eventually fix it on the hackintosh. But if you can get a solid build for a good price, definitely go for it!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-P...624922?hash=item4b02ecddda:g:IJMAAOSwvg9XcVk7
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-P...375321?hash=item3ac2dd2259:g:j3gAAOSwQTVV8x~c
Click to expand...






I understand, but finding a mac pro 2009-8 core with less than 1300 euro is impossible because they are rare and barely offered for sale are sold instead for a mac pro 2010-12 core the price is very high so we have to make a hackintos I7 4790k spending less than 1000 euro.
 
parsuto what do you want to do with the computer ?

i got my 5.1 for £500 (uk money about 600 euros) spent £40 on ram & £80 on a cpu the 3.33ghz 6c + £20 on bit's to instal the cpu (cpu cleaner/thermal past and alen key)
then used a gtx 660 from my 3.1 + drives from my 3.1 + my two displays.

if you relay do want a 4.1/5.1 the single cpu (and a slower one like the 4c 2.8ghz ones) are fine too.
but do add in the cost of drives/ram/GPU/display/keybored+mouse etc (usb3 pci card if you need usb3)
for most things a fast single cpu is fine
 
Last edited:
that one is a 4.1 not a 5.1 (see the date says 2009) it's a 4.1 with the firmware upgrade which is fine but means it's a tad older, the GPU will need replacing and you may want to buy a SSD for the os and at least 1HD for your video files.

if you look here you can see the cpu upgrades you can do
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/
i got a W3680 from ebay and installed it myself (got it for £80 about 90 euros) but the W3670 3.2ghz 6c is a lot cheaper and not much slower. (there upgrade price is ok i gess)

you will want more than 8gb of ram but unless your doing complex stuff 16GB is ok (i got 32GB for £50 about 60 euros but i tend to at most use 20GB relay)
id buy ram from ebay there upgrade price on ram is to high but thats up to you.

for GPU you will need something faster but you dont need to go crazy as relay in thouse apps it's not used in a huge way you can get a GTX670 fairly cheep (you will need to buy two 6pin to 6 pin power cables for it but a pc card is fine)
i use a pc GTX660 which works fine for me, id advise you not to buy a expensive one at the mo as soon it looks like the RX 470/480 will work in osx which will be far better than any outhere card we can use at the mo at that price.

you can see my macpro 5.1 upgrades in this topic https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/just-got-a-5-1-looking-for-ram-cpu-tips.1968018/ some things are a tad old but things like links to ram still seem to work ok
 
MacStu09 said:
Is your only option a 3,1? There are a couple 2009 Mac Pro models that outperform even the 4790k in multi-core uses. Or you could get a 12 core 2010 for around $1,000 and significantly outperform the 4790.
Click to expand...

Only in synthetic tests, some science usage and 3D rendering. In most other multicore uses a quad core 4790K or 6700K would beat or match the old 12 core Mac Pros simply because the apps don't need to put out so many threads and would benefit more from having more efficient cores.

Adobe Media Encoder is one relevant example here for the OP. Faster on the newer CPUs even with less cores. And at h.264 rendering it's up to 4x faster on Windows. So the platform should be considered too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orph
orph said:
that one is a 4.1 not a 5.1 (see the date says 2009) it's a 4.1 with the firmware upgrade which is fine but means it's a tad older, the GPU will need replacing and you may want to buy a SSD for the os and at least 1HD for your video files.

if you look here you can see the cpu upgrades you can do
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/
i got a W3680 from ebay and installed it myself (got it for £80 about 90 euros) but the W3670 3.2ghz 6c is a lot cheaper and not much slower. (there upgrade price is ok i gess)

you will want more than 8gb of ram but unless your doing complex stuff 16GB is ok (i got 32GB for £50 about 60 euros but i tend to at most use 20GB relay)
id buy ram from ebay there upgrade price on ram is to high but thats up to you.

for GPU you will need something faster but you dont need to go crazy as relay in thouse apps it's not used in a huge way you can get a GTX670 fairly cheep (you will need to buy two 6pin to 6 pin power cables for it but a pc card is fine)
i use a pc GTX660 which works fine for me, id advise you not to buy a expensive one at the mo as soon it looks like the RX 470/480 will work in osx which will be far better than any outhere card we can use at the mo at that price.

you can see my macpro 5.1 upgrades in this topic https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/just-got-a-5-1-looking-for-ram-cpu-tips.1968018/ some things are a tad old but things like links to ram still seem to work ok
Click to expand...



;)



I understand what you say and I thank you.
but the 6-core Mac Pro 5.1 (4.1 -2009-modified) the link on ebay that I put before, once increased the RAM to 32 GB + GTX 960 + 2 gb ssd 250 gb, we can say that it is as powerful as a I7 4790 ?
or maybe more?
thank you
 
im also using adobe CS6 ^^
here's a relay nice post on gpu speed and CS6 https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161/
CS6 is fairly lame on GPU acceleration, the gt120 will be slower than the quadro 450 but once you get to the GTX650 there almost no improvement with the GTX660/670/680

now FCPX dose like a fast GPU but as soon it looks like the RX 470/480 will work in osx it's not worth spending a lot on a fancy gpu so if i was you id pick up a GTX670 (pc card not a 'mac flashed one') on ebay.
the GTX 670 is 90% as fast as the GTX 680 and close to half the price (even the GTX 660 which i use will work fine and is even cheaper)

then later upgrade to the RX 470/480 when there is osx suport, that card will make FCX faster.

for video editing drive speed is relay important, an SSD for boot drive is nice (dose not need to be big) then a 1 drive for scratch use + 1 drive for media files that are in use then 1 drive for storage is useful.

most the time video edting software only uses 2 cores it's only when rendering that you will see all cores being used.

but i do have to say that the macpro is old and slow compared to new computers a hackintoshes will be cheaper and faster.
the mac pros are using i7 9xx equivalent cpus with each jen of cpu there's about a 10% incres in speed clock to clock and use less power.

soycapitan knows his stuff & it's worth asking pastrychef about hackintoshes (look at his post he's using the 6700K)
 
ok thank you you have been very clear, and you helped me, now I'm going to read me your topic that you had listed me before.

thank you
 
a GTX 960 is going to give you problems, there's reports of openCL crashes in pro apps with all GTX9xx cards and the price is to high if your going to spend that much then why not wait till the RX 470/480 is out they will blow the GTX 960 away.
(edit + look at the chart i linked in CS6 you dont need more than a GTX650, tho id get a GTX660/670)


which cpu? the 3.33ghz 6c is the same as a i7 980 which is 3 gen's older than the i7 4790K
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-980-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K

most the time the i7 4790K will be faster,

do add up the total cost of what your going to spend, then compare it to an imac or hackintoshe price
using your ebay link the macpro 4.1 with the 3.33ghz 6c 890 euro
ram about 60 euro (ebay) 32Gb
SSD about 50-60 euro (amazon) 240GB
GPU GTX 960 180 euro (there on sale on amazon at the mo for £150 uk money)
WD black 1TB 80 euro (amazon)
display 100-200 euro depending on what you want if you dont have one.

about 1360 euros (using the cheaper numbers)
(you may want to buy a USB3 card too as the macpro only has USB2)
& you will need speakers or headphones as the macpro speaker is bad
 
Last edited:
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