You must be using 6+ Disk RAID's, right? Otherwise it...just...doesn't...matter!
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 vs. HP Workstation Z820
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You must be using 6+ Disk RAID's, right? Otherwise it...just...doesn't...matter!
If my Aunt were male she'd be my Uncle.
Happier people are not what matters. What matters if folks will buy or not. The folks that are going to cling to their 2009 , 2008 , 2007 models are a far bigger factor than whether than they are "happy" or not.
The notion that Apple can't loose any folks switching to Windows/Linux is grossly flawed. Going from 1,000 people switching to 1,600 switching is a non issue. Apple likely snagged more folks coming to the Mac platform with the MBP retina than that.
The Mac platform comes first. The Mac Pro is secondary to that.
Complete hogwash.
The dramatic rise in the number of Mac users has directly lead to a decrease in the OS X upgrade costs per user. At this point $20 covers all the Macs you won (for single individual businesses). Even for larger businesses the $20 per employee with Mac(s) cost is a substantial savings.
The depth and breath of software titles available on OS X now is substantially better than it was even 4-5 years ago. Going back 6-8 years it is no contest.
Has OS X reach software parity with Windows? No. However, it is substantively better now than it was. That is largely because the Mac Platform is healthier now than it was in the past.
Hundreds of thousands of people per day parade into Apple stores (and store-within-a-store) past Macs. In a sizable fraction of those cases, this is also past Mac Pros. Given Apple runs zero large media advertising for Macs without the rest of the products the exposure would be quite small.
Similarly the number of locations/providers that provide services like repairs is going to be more robust with a larger Mac platform.
To me this is the real issue. Sure, an individual user might need something so powerful that a PC is the only alternative. For most of the rest of us it's all about the software.
As an example I'm mainly a Photoshop user so I can boot my MP to either and do exactly the same work. W7 clips along faster than ML in a way that can be felt while doing general computing.
But then there's all that other stuff. I prefer Mac Mail over Outlook. iCloud still looks a lot better than the clunky SkyDrive/Outlook.com. I use CCC for backups. It's so simple and reliable that it's stupid (in a wonderful sense).
Office is way preferable over iWork but Office 2011 is nicer to use and better to look at than Office 2012.
I use makeMKV to convert my BR movies to MKVs with a smaller file size m4v version for the laptop via Handbrake. Those two jobs can be done on either a PC or Mac but I'd rather a movie on a Mac. EyeTV also works on both platforms but the Mac version is far easier to operate than with the WMP addon.
So for me I'd rather stay with a less powerful MP and have my three computers and iPhone communicating with each other via Mac OSX even though an HP Z would scoot along a lot faster.
There's also the looming catastrophe formerly known as Metro, Metro, Metro.
Want a cookie?
And thats the kind of thinking that makes People Jump ship. And its an issue, because it increases the chance that they jump the entire apple eco system.
And, very few people came to the Mac in the past 15 years, they're been going full tilt into it for about 13 years, and they've only managed to eck out a 10% market share.
No, they have no. They are stuck with a big pile of **** workstation. Its literally years out of date, and they charge a big chunk of change for it. 2 year old processors, 3 year old GPU, VERY limited on memory ( it can only do 128gb, and OSX can only read 96gb of those 128gb, for me 256gb is the min )., And no USB 3.0, SATA III, or TB.
Apple ****ed it up.
I'm sorry but Thunderbolt means very little to the Mac Pro. It's nowhere near as fast as PCI-e and by the time it is PCI-e will be even faster. It adds nothing performance-wise but does add clutter and unnecessary complexity to what is quite simply a nearly perfect tower computer form.
There really is no denying that. Apple somehow screwed up. Releasing a minor spec bump and cost decrease with ~2 year old equipment couldn't have been plan A. At the prices Apple charges for the Mac Pro, you can buy a PC with Sandy Bridge and get ~50% better performance from the CPU(s), and as you mention, usually at least 2x the RAM capacity, and far better graphics support, including GPGPU options. Ie. the Z820 with 16 core 2.0GHz and the 20% discount is actually cheaper than the Mac Pro 12 core 2.66 GHz, can be expanded to 512 GBs of RAM, and supports Telsas. And for the 16 core 2.2GHz it would only be about $400 more than that Mac Pro. There are still other vendor options that would allow you to get something with even faster processors, but maybe just 256 GB RAM capabilities instead of 512, for about $5K.
I know its all been said before, but there is just no way the plan would be to sell $5K+ workstations with westmere, SATAII, 96 GB RAM limitations into 2013. Releasing this patch work update, basically admits that. It stinks of something thrown together at the last minute, because someone, somehow made a mistake. And the lack of thunderbolt is not totally irrelevant on the Mac Pro either. Some people have a LOT of data. I have 12 TB in my Mac Pro, and I'm starting to reach that limit. Then I need backups of much of that data, which of corse doesn't need to be a super-fast 6 drive RAID with thunderbolt, but still, data is expanding faster than HD density. Another 2-4 HD bays, or faster built-in expansions, or both would certainly be a value-added feature(s).
Last edited:
What is the RED version? I can't tell the difference between the RED, Energy Efficient and the standard models.
----------
Software that are exclusive to OS X can be handled by my MBP.
Software that are exclusion to Windows require lots of RAM and fast CPU.
That is why I consider a powerful windows based workstation or
a MacPro running windows via bootcamp. After reading advice
from all of you, I better forget about the Mac Pro.
Indeed, I can agree with most of the above.
Also, as I've said before, if you do serious work with your machine, Apple is not a place you want to be, you want to be in Windows or Nix*
The answer is obvious unless you need to be in an OS X environment for your workflow. The HP will put any Mac to shame.
As for the comments that prior Mac users aren't jumping ship that is simply untrue.
I always have at least one Mac machine for iOS/Mac development, but I've already purchased one Dell to replace the Mac Pro and will eventually replace every other with the exception of the Mac dev machine with either Dells or HP.
That is at least 4 lost sales for Apple. Of course that isn't much but there are others doing it as well. I think Apple may be in for a surprise over the next few years.
As for the comments that prior Mac users aren't jumping ship that is simply untrue.
I always have at least one Mac machine for iOS/Mac development, but I've already purchased one Dell to replace the Mac Pro and will eventually replace every other with the exception of the Mac dev machine with either Dells or HP.
That is at least 4 lost sales for Apple. Of course that isn't much but there are others doing it as well. I think Apple may be in for a surprise over the next few years.
I am not thinking about the MacPro anymore. The 32GB RAM on a SP system does not match my requirement. A DP system is too expensive and outdated. What would be the best second choice if my boss does not buy me a dual E5-2678w Z820? I need at least 48GB RAM. It is very important that I have a very quiet/silent fast machine
Riiiggghhhttt. Very important your employer buys your a machine to your spec. Too funny.
Well, like I asked in the other thread, what kind of budget are you being put on? Its hard to give a recommendation without that information. Certainly you must have some sort of ballpark idea, if your boss is asking you to find a computer, right?
There is no specified budget limit. I propose and my boss decides whether or not to approve it.
----------
On the HP homepage, there is a choice of Intel CT PCIe x1 Network Card or Broadcom 5761 Gigabit PCIe Network Card. Which is the recommended one? I don't think the university supports Gigabit yet.
The HP would spank the MP in most things. Just don't tell the people here that.
It ultimately depends on what software you need though. Is your software on Windows or OSX? If your just starting out, I'm not sure if I would lock down myself to OSX with it's dwindling pro support. But like I said, it depends on the software.
It may be true if both were runing windows 7 ultimate. Mac OSX is based off of unix which has always been much better than windows in terms of memory usage.
But if you install Linux on the HP then you can witness it's true speed. Only problem is that Linux does not have commercial apps, only open source side projects by over zelous linux developers. I have tried linux as a replacement for Windows but I always find my self back on Windows. That is untill I switch to Mac. Once you go Mac you don't go back.
Well, you might give your boss 3 options that you think would suite your needs at a variety of price points. So, make your choices about just what kind of max RAM you might eventually want, how many HD bays, and core count/clock speed ratios. It sounds like maybe you think clock speed is fairly important (well it always is, but its especially imporant if you spend a fair bit of time in apps that can't use more than 1 or 2 cores), but you can certainly use extra cores.
So, maybe see if you can pitch to your boss the top configuration with the 2x2687Ws, droning on and on about how an extra $2K will mean more revenue or research done or what ever and that if you have plans for work that needs absurd RAM you can get it with the z820.
If you don't get a bite, fall back to the z620, which still has plenty of RAM capacity for you and maybe 2x2670s.
If that doesn't take, fall again to the z420 with with one 2687W. Alternatively, you could try with the z620 with the 2x2640(30), if you'd rather have 12 lower clocked cores than 8 faster ones. You can still pack 64GB of RAM in the z420 though, so it should work fine for you from the sound of it, other than the fact that you seem to have your heart set on a $10K computer. And honestly, if you only need >48GB of RAM, there is likely no need for the z820. Its main advantage over the z620 is for >96GB of RAM.
Also, gig-ethernet is built in to nearly all workstations you'll find. Meaning its on the motherboard, so no need for a PCI-e card.
Thanks for the advice.
For apps that support multi-core, is there a limit at which the number of cores does not bring in increased performance?
Yes. I have looked at various models before posting here.
I don't know the situation locally but according to the HP US website:
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/familymatrix.asp?ProductLineId=433&BEID=19701&oi=E9CED&SBLID=
The z620 has no 2687w nor liquid cooling option. Don't know if it will be noisy in my office.
As for the z420, it has 2687w SP option. However, the max memory is either 32GB or 64GB. There is no 48GB option. I can choose liquid cooling but it requires: Front Memory Duct as well as Fan and Front Card Guide Kit. Anybody has experience on such cooling configuration? For the z820, there is no need of these two items.
On this website, the default network card is none. I need to choose Broadcom or the Intel one. Do you mean I just opt for none because there is already one on the motherboard? Don't know why there is no wifi version.
What is the difference between the regular, RED and the Energy Star options?
I don't use Blue-ray, shall I choose the HP 8xDVD RW SuperMulti Slot Load Drive or the 16x supermulti dvdrw sata optical drive?
How convenience it is to exchange files between my MBP and the Z820 when it is running Windows or Redhat Linux? Considering whether or not to ask them to install Linux as well.
I was surprised, but it actually does. Even with one disk an external drive connected via TB is faster than over USB 3. Tomshardware recently had some interesting benchmarks.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/my-book-thunderbolt-duo-pegasus-r4-2big,review-32484.html
All programs that are multithreaded do not scale perfectly with core count. Usually in the low core (say from 2 to 4 or 4 to 8) ranges you might increase speed by 80% going when doubling the cores. However, the trail off is often higher in the 12 to 16 range. So, it might be the case that you only gain maybe 20% in speed when making that 12 to 16 core jump (assuming everything has the same clock speed of course). However, if you're price limited, then you'll probably be able to afford a faster clock rate with 12 cores. For example the 6 core 2640 will run all six cores at 2.8 GHz, while the 8 core 2650 (which is about $200 more than the 2640) will run 8 cores at 2.5 GHz. So if everything was scaled perfectly the 2650 would be 14% faster. However, much of that 14% advantage in raw GHz throughput could be eaten up by the overhead your program needs for running the additional cores. Meaning every multithread task needs a certain amount of effort going to organization, splitting up the job for all the cores, piecing it all back together.
However, this all comes with caveats. Some programs are easy to scale, and have little overhead, while other are simply unable to use additional cores at a certain point. I've seen this in my own work flows, where even with 32 cores available, most of the time its only using 16-20, and it will often be using <4. It was only a limited few points in the work flow that could actually efficiently scale to 32 cores. So, it all a balance. You need to just learn the needs of your work flow. How many of the tasks in your work flow are single threaded, how many only scale up slightly, to say 4-8 cores, and how many can really make good use of 12-16 cores? I can't answer that for you, I've never really used the programs you've mentioned.
That appears to be correct. But I honestly don't think you should worry so much about getting the 2687W. The 2690 is practically identical. If given two computers, one with each, I highly doubt you'd notice the difference. The z620's advantage for you is going to be in a mid-budget DP build. You can configure it with 48GB of RAM straight from HP's configure page, it is slightly cheaper in base price than the z820 (thanks to RAM capacity you don't need) and the 2x2650 (or 2640s) would probably be the sweat spot for you, from what I've gathered about your needs so far.
I wouldn't worry about those two $10 requirements. It sounds like HP just needs to reorganize a few things in the case to make the liquid cooling fit. And if you want 48GB of RAM, just buy it yourself from a place like newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7952 600165682&IsNodeId=1&name=48GB (6 x 8GB)). It will be A LOT cheaper than having HP configure it for you. This will save you almost $2K, and you'll get the memory you want.
I wouldn't get an additional card. That would only be needed if you need more than one ethernet connection (i.e. one to the WWW and the other to a local network). If you do want that option, its on $40. Don't sweat it.
Its basically just configurable options. I'd just just configure the standard z820 how I want it. There isn't any real advantage with the RED or Energy Star.
Yes? You tell me. I don't know what you need, other than what you tell me.
Files are files. They will work on your MBP or a Windows/Linux box. Just plug in what ever the fastest connection you have (which will unfortunately be USB2 unless you get a Firewire card for the hp), boot your MBP in target disk mode and just drag and drop. It should be that easy. Or, I guess you could just have them connected via your local network. So just enable file sharing on your MBP, add what ever directories you need to move as accessible in the preferences, connect your your HP to your MBP server how ever you do that in Windows/Linux, then drag and drop.
Thanks for the link. Interesting but negligible. Couple seconds difference. How much more is the TB interface over the USB 3? Not negligible
Must have slightly better burst advantage. Still a very expensive cable.
It's cool tech but pricing is outrageous.
I can't tell the difference between the HP 8xDVD RW SuperMulti Slot Load Drive or the 16x supermulti dvdrw sata optical drive. Basically, I need to:
1. Install programs using the drive
2. Burn files on the DVD
3. I rarely watch DVD on the computer but I might.
Why would it have to be running Ultimate? The only thing different about it and professional is the additional languages and bit locker.
Built-in backup software too, but that's not a big deal either IMHO.
Pro would do just fine, and offers a better price/performance ratio. Better 3rd party solutions exist if those additional functions/features are needed, including TPM hardware encryption module implementation.
No..I'M sorry, but when you're shuttling 2-3TB of data on drives back and forth between home and office...it actually means a lot. I edit off a 12TB Fibre RAID (8x2TB with dual redundancy) from Cal Digit at the office, and sometimes have to take projects with ProRes footage home, and the fastest way to move all that data around so I can work at my home rig is Thunderbolt (stuck using FW800 at the moment...but I'm sure that's so much less complex and cluttered than Thunderbolt
). It also makes for much faster backups to hand drives off to clients using my iMac's Thunderbolt ability (using Seagate GoFlexes for client drives due to dockability options and TB capability). But thanks for your input.
Last edited:
and the fastest way to move all that data around so I can work at my home rig is Thunderbolt (stuck using FW800 at the moment...but I'm sure that's so much less complex and cluttered than Thunderbolt
I agree that for your iMac rig TB will be the fastest standard interface. As for the comparison to FW800 you are absolutely correct that Thunderbolt is just as complex and cluttered as it or any external daisy chaining solution will be.
I'm confused are you making client backups at home on an iMac or is your home rig a Mac Pro? Are you using Thunderbolt at work to transfer the footage for home use? Either way if you're using a GoFlex as you say, with a HDD 7200 rpm you are hitting a peformance wall anyway so TB gains you little vs eSATA. Wouldn't eSATA be a more economical solution in the case of a Mac Pro anyway?