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

MacPro Quad now or wait?

R

Rics

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 11, 2011
29
0
Hello macrumorsfolks!

My 4 years old 15" macbook pro 2.16ghz got his Ati gpu broke, so to repair it i've to replace the logic board.
(not available at ifixit and really expensive at apple support)
As replacement, for now, i'm working (graphic and web stuff) with my girlfriend 13" macbook pro 2.2Ghz, i'm used to have a lot of softwares and browser pages opened at the same time each in his spaces desktop.
I don't want to stress too much this machine as i got problems with my old 15" macbook pro because i've stressed it a lot in 4 years: travels, 16-20h per day powered up, 3d modelling and rendering, music composing and a lot of other intensive tasks.

So i'm thinking to go for a Mac Pro, i went to an Apple retailer to see also the iMac 27 but after touching the rear case of it, and noting the heat at 0 cpu use i decided to go for the apple tower model.

Choosing this model i had also to think about quad, exa, eight etc...
I've tought about my use that will be mainly 2D graphics and music production, rarely something in 3D and video compositing/post-prodution.
I've tought also that with music production i use a lot of AU plugins, that are almost all single-thread useable.
Unless if i'm wrong in calculations what is best for me is an "higher CPU clock" solution than a "more cores with slower clock CPU" solution.

In my opinion, always unless if i'm wrong, the best would be the 6-core 3,33Ghz Quad core machine.
At almost the same price i could get the Eight cores model, but with 2.4Ghz slower cpu clock.
I could afford one of these two machines only after a work that i'm doing at the moment, this means that now i can only afford the Quad 3.2Ghz model.

Now intel released the new Xeons E7 cpus, that will have, in their top gamma, a max clock of 2.4Ghz

I wonder if Apple updates the MP (end cycle on buyer's guide) will use these new cpu with more cores but slower cpu.

Assuming that now i can also wait before buy, i'm not really in a hurry, What's your advices?

-Wait to see the next MP update with the risk of a more-cores but slower clock machines offers.

-Go and buy the Nehalem Quad 3.2Ghz

-Wait 1-2 month (with the risk of an imminent update) to save money and go for the Westemere Exa 3.33Ghz.

-Don't care about single threads softwares/plugins and buy now the Eight 2.4Ghz

Thank you for your time!
 
If it was me, I would stick it out and wait for the refresh...

Sandy, Thunder and the probability of more powerful base configs in the store, is worth waiting for imo. Especially since you can't upgrade to thunderbolt by adding cards etc... you simply HAVE TO have thunderbolt build in to utilize it...
 
Unless you need it right now, it would be better to wait. Even if you do need it right now, it might be better to buy an older refurbished one and then sell it when the new one comes out.

I'm in the same situation. I have a 2 x 3GHz which is getting a bit long in the tooth. Fortunately, Snow Leopard revived it with the 64 bit processing (I get far fewer beach-balls with Snow Leopard than I did with Leopard).

Don't worry about the GHz of the processor, GHz is pretty meaningless unless you are talking vast differences (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc.). The internals of the processor and the number of cores are far more important, although this, particularly the number of cores, depends on what you are doing. Generally speaking, the more things you are doing simultaneously, the more multiple cores will help you. For some reason the reviewers only seem to talk about running one application, but I've never found this to be true in practice.

ps -ef |wc -l
156
ps -efM |wc -l
492

For sure, if you're spending ~12K on a new Mac Pro (and that's what the Apple site shows for a Mac Pro configured the way that I would like it), you'll want Thunderbolt as future proofing.
 
It's very unlikely that Mac Pro will use those new E7 Xeons. See this thread, I'm lazy to repeat the same things again :p We are looking at Q4 2011 or early 2012 Mac Pro update. Sandy Bridge CPUs suitable for Mac Pro are due in Q4, thus the long wait.

If the software you use can take advantage of all eight cores in the 8-core Mac Pro, then it's most likely the most future proof machine for your needs. In raw CPU power, it's about as fast as the 3.33GHz 6-core (assuming the software can take advantage of all cores). That leaves you with the option of upgrading the CPUs to 6-core versions and turning your Mac Pro into a 12-core. In general, CPUs from eBay are a lot cheaper and in couple of years, they will be even cheaper.

Of course, depending on what's your budget, you might be able to do the upgrade right away. Or get the 2.66GHz 12-core refurb for 4249$. Seriously, that is a great deal IMO. Even better than the DYI CPU upgrade.

List the software you use so people can help you more. I think most 3D modeling suites should be able to utilize all eight cores though.

I asked this thread to be moved to the Mac Pro forum. You didn't do anything wrong with posting it to the Buying Advice forum but to be honest, most people in this forum have no clue about Mac Pro and can only make general recommendations (not directed at the posts above, just in general). There are lots of very knowledgeable people in the MP forum (such as nanofrog) who can really help you to get the best machine for your needs. In the end, it's not just the CPUs you need to pick. You will need more HDs (possibly RAID), RAM, maybe even an SSD.
 
Wait a month and get Sandy Bridge iMac. If you rarely do 3d, IMO, your money is better spent on a speedy 4 core CPU.

I just got a sandy bridge core i7 and overclocked that sucker to hell and back. The disadvantage is less cores in rendering. The advantage is that my cores are clock for clock faster (in single threaded tasks) than the current Xeons in the mac pro, even at stock speed.

Depending on what program you use, it could mean a variety of things. In C4d, not much is multi-threaded beyond rendering so clock speed is king. In Maya, some things are multi-threaded, others only mildly so (2-4 cores), but if you're not doing a ton of 3d, I think a faster clocked lower core (and thus lower cost) system will be a better invenstment.
 
Thank you for the tips Hellhammer!
I've already read that thread about sandy bridge, but no one can say that in the meantime MP could gain a speedbump.
I wrote this thread mainly for comparing Quad and Eight considering the different clock speeds and then to be adviced on the better price/performance ratio for my use.
Obviusly, having read about these new cpus, i can think about a MP update...and if will not be an update, i'll have anyway to choose always between these models: Quad, Exa or Eight.

If you think that's better to move to MacPro forum i agree with you, i'm new here and you know surely better than me!

BTW here it is what i'll probably do with my computer:

At the moment i'm not doing so much 3D modelling and renderings.
And it's not something that i'm planning to do in the near future.
If i will use 3D softwares i will use them for simple and not really intensive tasks.

The softwares that i'm using often now are:

Ableton Live
Native Instruments Maschine
Native Instruments Kore 2
A lot of AU software synthesizer instrument plugins
Traktor Pro
(All my audio tasks are based more on virtual synthesizng than using sample files)
Photoshop CS5
Illustrator CS5
Panic Coda
Safari&Firefox&Chrome with a lot of Tabs for web development
Canon Digital Photo Professional

Sometimes, but really rarely, i use also:
Luxology Modo
Rhinoceros beta
Eagle Layout Editor
Adobe After Effects
Final cut express
XCode

Everyday 24h opened apps:
iTunes
Skype
Firefox with a lot of tabs
Textedit
Preview

Let me know your advices, thank you!
 
PeterQVenkman said:
Wait a month and get Sandy Bridge iMac. If you rarely do 3d, IMO, your money is better spent on a speedy 4 core CPU.

I just got a sandy bridge core i7 and overclocked that sucker to hell and back. The disadvantage is less cores in rendering. The advantage is that my cores are clock for clock faster (in single threaded tasks) than the current Xeons in the mac pro, even at stock speed.

Depending on what program you use, it could mean a variety of things. In C4d, not much is multi-threaded beyond rendering so clock speed is king. In Maya, some things are multi-threaded, others only mildly so (2-4 cores), but if you're not doing a ton of 3d, I think a faster clocked lower core (and thus lower cost) system will be a better invenstment.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your advice!
Considering that i'll not never buy an all in one system, except a laptop for obvious portability reasons, you are directing me to the MP Quad.
About the iMac (and also Macmini as all in one) there are some things that i've considered to not buy it:
-Overheat, i will use my pc for at least 16h per day for 300 days per year, if it will have the videocard fried i will be in the same situation like with my old MBP. Then i went to an apple retailer and with my hand i've felt how much was hot the rear of the 27" imac...not for me after what happened to my MBP!
-The display is glossy, not the best for graphics, if something goes wrong with the display i'll have to stop working because i'll have to bring all the machine to repair. With a MP i can use any display that i have apart for emergency.
-Expandability, if i want to use some DSP express cards, use some CUDA software with nvidia GPU i can configure the MP, with an imac i've to get stuck with the initial configuration. The only thing over that we can think about is a future TB port for disk storage, but we are in the same situation of the MP, wait and see for an update!

Then yeah, if i'll have to do renderings i'll think about CUDA and GPU render capable software like Arion or Octane and i will swap the ATI with an nvidia.
I'll have so a lot more horse-power than using the cpus for renderings.
If ever i'll need to do intensive renderings!
 
Hmmm, I think quad core is fine for you then. You can upgrade it to 6-core from aftermarket later on if you wish. It's actually much cheaper than what Apple offers.

8-core is more "future-proof" but it is quite a lot slower in tasks that cannot use all eight cores.

Be sure to get lots of RAM as it sounds like you use fairly a lot. IMO no less than 2x8GB. 8GB modules offer space for future expansions, otherwise you can only get 4x4GB. 8GB modules have the downside that they cannot be mixed with other modules so if you go with 4x4GB, then you must get 3x8GB to get more RAM and that is starting to be expensive, unless you sell your old RAM for good price.

I would get an SSD at least for OS X and apps and then e.g. 2x1TB RAID 0 for data, or more if you need. Also, DO NOT forget to backup your data. If you have a certain budget, then you must make your purchases so that a solid backup solution fits in the budget.

These are just my thoughts. I'm not that familiar with the apps you listed so I recommend you to wait. Like I said, there is lots of wisdom in this forum and some members make me look like a noob. Wait for their inputs and you will get the best service you can :)
 
I think it's possible for an intermediate speed bump using the current chips IF the rumors about a new FCP next week come true. I'm basing my hunch on that idea that the new version will be a showcase for "Thunderbolt," and that Apple has already announced a PCI card will not be available for current models. So seems 1+1 = new Mac Pro even if it's not Sandy Bridge.

At any rate I'm getting ready to sell my MP on this suspicion. I think Apple intends to sell only Macs w/ Thunderbolt by the time 10.7 ships at WWDC in early June.
 
Hellhammer said:
These are just my thoughts. I'm not that familiar with the apps you listed so I recommend you to wait. Like I said, there is lots of wisdom in this forum and some members make me look like a noob. Wait for their inputs and you will get the best service you can :)
Click to expand...

Thank you a lot, i'm really happy when i find people available to give advices!
:)
 
Chupa Chupa said:
I think it's possible for an intermediate speed bump using the current chips IF the rumors about a new FCP next week come true. I'm basing my hunch on that idea that the new version will be a showcase for "Thunderbolt," and that Apple has already announced a PCI card will not be available for current models. So seems 1+1 = new Mac Pro even if it's not Sandy Bridge.

At any rate I'm getting ready to sell my MP on this suspicion. I think Apple intends to sell only Macs w/ Thunderbolt by the time 10.7 ships at WWDC in early June.
Click to expand...

Yep, considering the new iMac TB updates rumors, i really doubt that apple will leave their top line computers (MacPro) without features present in the "lower" machines (imac, macmini and macbooks) up to the Q4.
Then hey, all is possible!!:D
 
So many complainers on here... be happy with a 6-core or 8-core or 12-core Westmere... and yes, I am sure there will be PCIe thunderbolt cards.. 3rd parties have a tendency to not allow stuff to fall by the waste side.
 
Joshuarocks said:
So many complainers on here... be happy with a 6-core or 8-core or 12-core Westmere... and yes, I am sure there will be PCIe thunderbolt cards.. 3rd parties have a tendency to not allow stuff to fall by the waste side.
Click to expand...

The main discussion it's about the choice of a quad or an eight cores machine for my needs. (listed above)
We are going a bit aside from the main goal of the thread, probably also myself with my last post! so back to the thread!
 
Rics said:
The main discussion it's about the choice of a quad or an eight cores machine for my needs. (listed above)
We are going a bit aside from the main goal of the thread, probably also myself with my last post! so back to the thread!
Click to expand...

Agreed!

It really boils down to what you want to use the machine for.. As far as thunderbolt.. if you are thinking it will speed up carbon copy cloner for cloning your hard drives, or using time machine to speed up your backups, you are GRAVELY mistaken. Thunderbolt is used to transmit and or copy simultaneously Hi-def content from one computer to another at amazing fast speeds.. It will NOT speed up carbon copy cloner or time machine. With that out of the way...

Again, what do you plan to use the computer for? If you are going to get into serious video editing, 3d animation, or anything to do with video.. your needs might be better off with 8-core.. but consider this: The 2.4 is slow at single-threaded tasks while at multi-threaded it is fast.. but the sweet spot would be the 6-core 3.33 of which I have.

For everyday basics, you won't notice much of a difference between 8-core or 6-core, but audio pro level apps and video pro level apps - the 8-core and even 12-core will outgun the 6-core.

SO, what do you plan on using the system for?
 
As wrote before i'll not do so much video editing/post-production and 3d modelling/render (considering also that if i'll do 3d rendering i'll consider cuda systems to gain render horsepower).

The other tasks are music composing with AU virtual instruments and 2D graphics & web development.

It's all wrote in the upper post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12354742/

Then if i need to be more specific let me know! Thank you!
 
Joshuarocks said:
It really boils down to what you want to use the machine for.. As far as thunderbolt.. if you are thinking it will speed up carbon copy cloner for cloning your hard drives, or using time machine to speed up your backups, you are GRAVELY mistaken. Thunderbolt is used to transmit and or copy simultaneously Hi-def content from one computer to another at amazing fast speeds.. It will NOT speed up carbon copy cloner or time machine. With that out of the way...
Click to expand...

Depends on your setup and what you compare it to. Is TB faster than USB 2.0? Yes, tens of times! Even for CCC and TM. Faster than FW800? Yes, still a lot faster. Faster than eSATA 6Gb/s? Theoretically yes but in most cases they are the same because of your equipment.

To take advantage of TB's full potential, you need a source and a target which are both capable of extremely high bandwidth. A single mechanical HD isn't, it tops out at 150MB/s which is something that eSATA 3Gb/s and USB 3.0 can both provide just fine. You are going to need a some level of RAID setup in both ends of the TB cable to really use it at its top speeds.

The reason why TB isn't that big of a deal for Mac Pro users is that they already have the possibility of high-speed external storage. All you need is an eSATA PCIe card. That is available today and eSATA externals aren't that expensive either. For other Macs, TB is a great addition because before that, almost all other Macs were limited to FW800 and USB 2.0.

TB can speed up CCC and TM as long as you have the right equipment. Whether it is worth it or not is a whole new question. Anyway, TB can transfer any data at 10Gb/s, not just HD videos.

SO, what do you plan on using the system for?
Click to expand...

I think OP has answered this pretty well in the earlier posts already...
 
look at my base quad core 2.8 cpu upgrade


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1122551/

cost is about 650 usd
plus a 2010 quad 2.8 see below;


http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC560LL/A?mco=MTkyMTM1OTY



quad is 2119 before tax so 2119 plus 650 is 2769 and a spare quad 2.8 cpu

for a hex that is about 95 to 97% as good as the 3699 hex at the online store.


or buy the dual cpu:


http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC561LL/A?mco=MTkyMTM1ODQ


cost is 2949 before tax and it is about 2900 for two of the better hex cores total of 5800 with a pair of quad cpus left over but this would give you a machine that is better then any mac pro there is a thread on this build maybe some one can find it the machine would be close to this machine


http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-Precision-...esktop_PCs&hash=item56437dad2e#ht_3067wt_1141

but for under 7k and a mac of course.

this seller has a cpu for 1350

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Xeon-X568...6398?pt=CPUs&hash=item415855b5fe#ht_979wt_907
 
Last edited:
Hellhammer said:
The reason why TB isn't that big of a deal for Mac Pro users is that they already have the possibility of high-speed external storage. All you need is an eSATA PCIe card. That is available today and eSATA externals aren't that expensive either. For other Macs, TB is a great addition because before that, almost all other Macs were limited to FW800 and USB 2.0.
Click to expand...

That's a good point!
 
Hellhammer said:
Depends on your setup and what you compare it to. Is TB faster than USB 2.0? Yes, tens of times! Even for CCC and TM. Faster than FW800? Yes, still a lot faster. Faster than eSATA 6Gb/s? Theoretically yes but in most cases they are the same because of your equipment.

To take advantage of TB's full potential, you need a source and a target which are both capable of extremely high bandwidth. A single mechanical HD isn't, it tops out at 150MB/s which is something that eSATA 3Gb/s and USB 3.0 can both provide just fine. You are going to need a some level of RAID setup in both ends of the TB cable to really use it at its top speeds.

The reason why TB isn't that big of a deal for Mac Pro users is that they already have the possibility of high-speed external storage. All you need is an eSATA PCIe card. That is available today and eSATA externals aren't that expensive either. For other Macs, TB is a great addition because before that, almost all other Macs were limited to FW800 and USB 2.0.

TB can speed up CCC and TM as long as you have the right equipment. Whether it is worth it or not is a whole new question. Anyway, TB can transfer any data at 10Gb/s, not just HD videos.



I think OP has answered this pretty well in the earlier posts already...
Click to expand...

TB can speed up CCC and TM as long as you have the right equipment. - Apple themselves told me for what I use my machine for it would be a waste of time, since Thunderbolt is much more involved.. and backing up using CCC or time machine I wouldn't notice a thing.. is Apple wrong?

Do I really have a need for Thunderbolt? Not really, it is a waste of time for doing everyday backups like what I do with CCC or time machine.. if however, I were to transfer two HI-DEF movies or programs at once, that would be a different story.. Again, is Apple wrong or right when they told me that CCC usage with thunderbolt is a waste?
 
superduper would fly with t-bolt in raid0 and if it boots t-bolt would be a great backup. you could put a daisychain of 3
t-bolt externals all raid0 first 2 alternate backups every other day and the last is a tm
 
Joshuarocks said:
TB can speed up CCC and TM as long as you have the right equipment. - Apple themselves told me for what I use my machine for it would be a waste of time, since Thunderbolt is much more involved.. and backing up using CCC or time machine I wouldn't notice a thing.. is Apple wrong?

Do I really have a need for Thunderbolt? Not really, it is a waste of time for doing everyday backups like what I do with CCC or time machine.. if however, I were to transfer two HI-DEF movies or programs at once, that would be a different story.. Again, is Apple wrong or right when they told me that CCC usage with thunderbolt is a waste?
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is that it doesn't really matter is your backup completed in 10 minutes or in 40 minutes. They are something that can run in the background. That's probably the reason why Apple told you that it's waste of time/money, which is correct.

Like I mentioned in my post above, you will need some serious hardware to transfer data at high speeds. If you buy a single 2TB external HD with TB, it's not going to be any faster than eSATA because the hard drive is the bottleneck. You can't transfer data any faster than your drives can read and write.

If you have a 8x2TB RAID 0 setup and you are transferring data to your MBP which has a 500GB 5400rpm HD, you won't be able to transfer data at 900MB/s because the HD in your MBP can barely write at 80MB/s.

This is the biggest issue. Most people don't have equipment that is capable of such high bandwidths. TB isn't any better than eSATA unless you have some serious hardware that can really read and write data at nearly 1GB/s.
 
Hellhammer said:
Depends on your setup and what you compare it to. Is TB faster than USB 2.0? Yes, tens of times! Even for CCC and TM. Faster than FW800? Yes, still a lot faster. Faster than eSATA 6Gb/s? Theoretically yes but in most cases they are the same because of your equipment.

To take advantage of TB's full potential, you need a source and a target which are both capable of extremely high bandwidth. A single mechanical HD isn't, it tops out at 150MB/s which is something that eSATA 3Gb/s and USB 3.0 can both provide just fine. You are going to need a some level of RAID setup in both ends of the TB cable to really use it at its top speeds.

The reason why TB isn't that big of a deal for Mac Pro users is that they already have the possibility of high-speed external storage. All you need is an eSATA PCIe card. That is available today and eSATA externals aren't that expensive either. For other Macs, TB is a great addition because before that, almost all other Macs were limited to FW800 and USB 2.0.

TB can speed up CCC and TM as long as you have the right equipment. Whether it is worth it or not is a whole new question. Anyway, TB can transfer any data at 10Gb/s, not just HD videos.



I think OP has answered this pretty well in the earlier posts already...
Click to expand...

Hellhammer said:
Well, the thing is that it doesn't really matter is your backup completed in 10 minutes or in 40 minutes. They are something that can run in the background. That's probably the reason why Apple told you that it's waste of time/money, which is correct.

Like I mentioned in my post above, you will need some serious hardware to transfer data at high speeds. If you buy a single 2TB external HD with TB, it's not going to be any faster than eSATA because the hard drive is the bottleneck. You can't transfer data any faster than your drives can read and write.

If you have a 8x2TB RAID 0 setup and you are transferring data to your MBP which has a 500GB 5400rpm HD, you won't be able to transfer data at 900MB/s because the HD in your MBP can barely write at 80MB/s.

This is the biggest issue. Most people don't have equipment that is capable of such high bandwidths. TB isn't any better than eSATA unless you have some serious hardware that can really read and write data at nearly 1GB/s.
Click to expand...


"TB isn't any better than eSATA unless you have some serious hardware that can really read and write data at nearly 1GB/s."

Of which at this moment I don't nor do I foresee any such needs for anything which could remotely write and read data over 1GB/s+
 
Ok, i'm tempted to wait june, not for eventual TB, but just for a speed bump for the base model, maybe for the same price i can pick a little speedy machine.

But i've read that at next june event apple will only talk about software, no hardware.
I don't remember if at the past events they annunced hardware before or they did a silent update/speed bump in the meantime/some days after the event.
 
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