New mac pro purchase advice ASAP

[DeeEss]

Have you had any regrets about that decision?

None what so ever. Infact, my research shows (and I spent a couple months researching) that generally, for a lot of tasks, it's the better option unless you are doing 3D rendering or hard core motion editing which has software written for the dual processors. From a lot of different accounts it seems the way forward is to give the 8 core a miss and go for 12 if you 3D render or Motion Export. In many cases though, depending on what you are doing, 12 and 8 cores can actually be slower. There's a lot of info around on the net. Of corse for some prurposes the 8 core might be the better option but for me this wasn't the case.

I could have bought the 12 core or the 8 core but chose the 6 core after reasearching. Sure buying a 12 core may better for 3 years time when all the software I'm using can take advantage of the set up but I'm only concerned about making things better for my business and workflow NOW. 3 years time i'll be upgrading anyway and I would have worked a tonne at most effective optimised for now.

My uses are admittedly different to yours but I work on very large Photoshop files anything between 1GB - 30GB+. It handles it well. I also use Final Cut, it handles it beautifully. It throws around 60MP Camera RAW's effortlessly, while shooting it is backing up as it goes and it just smokes. It's a very demanding workflow and has alot of impatient clients with stupidly tight turn deadlines to please. It has no problem managing it. Could it be faster? Apparently for what I use it for, not really and in some cases 8 and 12 cores slows things down. I got what was right for me and it delivers well beyond my needs.

I have 24GB of RAM, while working fine I could use 32. This is where the limits of a single processor come in as I could use more but do already have the option to drop in 16GB sticks which will be great. RAM really does make a seriously big difference. For now I don't feel the need for more but I'm sure if I had more then I would feel the difference. Hope you know what I mean there....


You must also seriously consider what you are using your with your processor. In many cases it can pay to spend less on the machine and more on RAM and SSD's, RAID arrays. As a single drive and 3GB ram stock 6 core won't do the machine an ounce of justice and quite frankly pointless. In some cases a Quad refurb with MAX ram and a 3 SSD RAID 0 is enough to smoke your biggest task.

I have, and recommend as it really works well.
2x OWC Mercury Pro RE's in RAID 0 for boot/app/scratch/cache/working project drive.
4x3tb Hitachi in RAID 0 for Data.
These two drive setups complement each other very well.
All my backups are out side of the machine as this is just what I believe works best.

Next step for me will be to replace 8GB RAM sticks with 16GB sticks and move to a 3 SSD RAID 0 array. I really have no need for this just now.

I bought it refurb and it is in perfect, indistinguishable from new condition. Saved the best part of £500 which helped to push the RAM and storage. Condition is that good that I don't think I'd ever buy a "new" one again as it really does look and feel no different from new.

research the right system for your needs. It can save you alot of money and frustration at a later date.

Spend some time reading this site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-CoresSlower.html

 

[gpzjock]

If the Mac Pro ain't broke don't fix it.

I hope you got a good price for your 2008 model because they are capable of some serious performance even by today's standards:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349922 This is my 2.8 overclocked to 3.08 Ghz.

Here is a recent 2010 2.4 Ghz 4 core: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/357087

And a 6 core 3.33 Ghz: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/357915

And a 2009 2.26 Ghz: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/357166

Not much in it unless you go for the 3.33 Hex core.
I assume the improved bus management, 6 GB/s data transfers and higher memory speeds all help but in raw CPU performance it's not a lot of difference for a huge amount of wedge.

 

[jb502]

Well I got 2300 for my 08. Refurb hexa is about 3100

 

[derbothaus]

I see only 1 problem from the whole "buy for the future" argument. We have had multiple procs for how long now? 10 years if you count G4/ G5. Developers have not figured it out so far. Too lazy, too difficult. Grand Central Dispatch has shown minor gains but nothing I would have hoped for. Most users keep machines for 3-? years and then you want the latest greatest. I don't see the thread optimization really doing much in the next 5 years. I hope I'm wrong but gains in software are moving so slowly. I can't be that optimistic with my $6000.00.

 

[derbothaus]

Yes. However, in the chart you linked your machine is at parity with an X5570 machine as well.

I couldn't help that. Honestly didn't notice till I re-read.

Because of the score your machine was able to pull in R10, I deeply suspect that it is not properly parallelized. Clock seems to play a much larger role than it should.

I just installed it and ran it. Same version has been used for benches everywhere so as a control it still functions, parallelization aside. But I see your point.

I just ran my machine through R11 as a comparison. It came around roughly where I'd have expected it to.

Multi-CPU: 9.87
Single-CPU: 1.01

Somewhat ahead in multithreaded performance and somewhat behind in single threaded. There may be a small amount of additional performance on the table here, I only closed the major programs to run Cinebench.

Do you see higher numbers on r10 as well? Or only r11? Score is what I would expect.

I'm not seeing those numbers at all in Geekbench. My 32-bit score is 15,063. Ran it twice for confirmation and it's reporting basically the same.

My score on 32-bit is roughly 14348. 16147 on 64-bit. The numbers I posted were Mactracker's "averaged" scores which tend to be conservative.

Regardless, I agree with where you're going.

Same here Spoonman. Thanks for swapping numbers.

 

[goMac]

I see only 1 problem from the whole "buy for the future" argument. We have had multiple procs for how long now? 10 years if you count G4/ G5. Developers have not figured it out so far. Too lazy, too difficult. Grand Central Dispatch has shown minor gains but nothing I would have hoped for. Most users keep machines for 3-? years and then you want the latest greatest. I don't see the thread optimization really doing much in the next 5 years. I hope I'm wrong but gains in software are moving so slowly. I can't be that optimistic with my $6000.00.

For my academic research for my CS degree I worked in multicore (and GPU) computing, and I'd dispute this. We know perfectly well what to do with multicore.

Grand Central Dispatch is also not what most people think it is (most people confuse GCD with something that will make your code multicore compatible, but really it's a controller that will sync threads across multiple applications, hence the train station metaphor. It's also not automatic, you have to write specifically against it.) Grand Central Dispatch is a great great improvement, but it's specifically not what you imply it is. GCD is meant to keep two applications from trying to use all your cores at once (which would cause them to fight each other, not pretty.) It's basically like a referee for your cores.

Why you don't see multicore everywhere is that not every problem can be solved by multicore. But any sort of rendering is something that is easily solved by multicore computing.

Motion is poorly written software, I'd avoid using it for any serious benchmark. Motion has tons of known issues (which is sad, because I really like the concept.) Something like Maya is a more reasonable benchmark. Pretty much any video software from Apple deals extremely poorly with multiple cores, which makes little sense considering how well everyone else in the industry has adopted multi core rendering.

Multiple core machines have been around for 20-30 years. We've been coding for them for years, and there is tons of experience out there. The difference is that multiple core machines are just hitting consumers in a big way.

 

[derbothaus]

Thanks for the informative post goMac.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Do you see higher numbers on r10 as well? Or only r11? Score is what I would expect.

I just ran R10 (had to go dig it up with Google, Maxon doesn't host it anymore), got 24,013. At the beginning and the end of the render my machine spends a substantial amount of time not pegged out. R10 is simply not as good at using a lot of cores.

My score on 32-bit is roughly 14348. 16147 on 64-bit. The numbers I posted were Mactracker's "averaged" scores which tend to be conservative.

I do not have 64-bit Geekbench, and no real reason to buy it. So I cannot report my 64-bit score, unfortunately. It strikes me that Geekbench isn't a very good comparison tool.

For my academic research for my CS degree I worked in multicore (and GPU) computing, and I'd dispute this. We know perfectly well what to do with multicore.

Grand Central Dispatch is also not what most people think it is (most people confuse GCD with something that will make your code multicore compatible, but really it's a controller that will sync threads across multiple applications, hence the train station metaphor. It's also not automatic, you have to write specifically against it.) Grand Central Dispatch is a great great improvement, but it's specifically not what you imply it is. GCD is meant to keep two applications from trying to use all your cores at once (which would cause them to fight each other, not pretty.) It's basically like a referee for your cores.

Why you don't see multicore everywhere is that not every problem can be solved by multicore. But any sort of rendering is something that is easily solved by multicore computing.

Motion is poorly written software, I'd avoid using it for any serious benchmark. Motion has tons of known issues (which is sad, because I really like the concept.) Something like Maya is a more reasonable benchmark. Pretty much any video software from Apple deals extremely poorly with multiple cores, which makes little sense considering how well everyone else in the industry has adopted multi core rendering.

Multiple core machines have been around for 20-30 years. We've been coding for them for years, and there is tons of experience out there. The difference is that multiple core machines are just hitting consumers in a big way.

This is all essentially correct. The explanation of GCD is a bit inaccurate, but I think that is due to oversimplification. GCD is a very, very cool and pragmatic service. Apple doesn't get enough credit for their excellent APIs.

 

[gpzjock]

Well I got 2300 for my 08. Refurb hexa is about 3100

26% faster CPU score for 34% more Benjamins , seems like a fair trade m8.

 

[jb502]

well, i waited and waited for the hex to show up in the refurb store, and it did a few time, but someone else always beat me to it.

So i started looking on ebay, and ended up winning this auction:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...sspagename=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123#ht_23372wt_1141


2009 2.93 8 core
16 gigs of ram
2 x nvidia GT 120's
Wireless Airport card
1 tb hard drive
apple care until feb 28 2013

supposedly in like new condition with no scratches or anything.

I got this for 3260.54

I think I got a great deal, and this is most definitely an upgrade to my 2008 2.8 8 core.

I'm pretty happy about it. Hopefully I don't regret not getting the hex 3.33, but somehow I think this is the better buy. Only giving up a little clock speed, but gaining 2 cores. Plus it comes with 16 gigs of ram. It has 4x4gb sticks.

Am I correct in assuming for best performance I need to slap in 2 more 4 gb sticks???

Did I make a good choice in going with the 09 2.93 8 core?

 

[jb502]

any opinions? Also need to no about the ram question. will 6 sticks be better than 4? that way i can order them now so they should arrive with or before the mac pro.

Thanks.

 

[MattDSLR]

Congrats this is the best buy you could find
both 2009 2x2.66 and and 2x2.93 will be faster in multithreading than 3.33
plus extra memory slots is a bonus

and running 48 gig will make this a screamer machine on multithreads for next 2 to 3 years

Yes 8 core will outlast 6 core specially when the new programs will start to roll out towards the end of this year


Enjoy your new toy

 

[derbothaus]

I don't agree Matt. Better stated that the 2 socket board may outlive the single socket board. The procs (even heavy multithreaded) are too close in performance to care about. But still better for me to have a machine that beats everything 90% of the time than one that needs it's hand held to get to the 10% faster realm. (ie. more than 32GB Memory and perfectly multithreaded apps) Only then the 2.93 is faster.

 

[MattDSLR]

I don't agree Matt. Better stated that the 2 socket board may outlive the single socket board. The procs (even heavy multithreaded) are too close in performance to care about. But still better for me to have a machine that beats everything 90% of the time than one that needs it's hand held to get to the 10% faster realm. (ie. more than 32GB Memory and perfectly multithreaded apps) Only then the 2.93 is faster.

I'm glad you have the fastest Mac Pro Ever
Congrats
I'm very happy with my 8 core and option of going to 64 gig in ram

BTW

Did you know that 4 core 3.46 beats 3.33 6 core on single thread aps both Westmere chips

will you be upgrading soon?

or will you stick with 6 core because it has 2 extra cores

enjoy your 6 core and until you will understand how multithreading actually work you should not recommend someone a computer that you have and start to recommend something that is better for the future for new ram hungry programs to be announced soon

 

[derbothaus]

Matt, we have been through this many times and I have refrained from saying things like "When you understand...etc." I get it. Because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't understand "how it works". How old are you anyway?
My point is that you are overstating the impact of having the cores and leaving out key reasons you say these things. Like you should mention you are a special case. That is if they need less than 32GB of memory the 8-cores generally do not beat the 6. Only the 2.93 8-core gets better multithreaded results. We have already proven "together" that multithreaded apps score similarly on the machine you have vs. the stock 6-core. And yes. $1000.00 for 133MHz sounds sweet, sign me up. /s
I have an eversion to dual sockets yes, the return is not worth the money as you can cut off 30% immediately for overhead. I dislike Crossfire and SLI for the same reasons.

 

[jb502]

Matt, we have been through this many times and I have refrained from saying things like "When you understand...etc." I get it. Because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't understand "how it works". How old are you anyway?
My point is that you are overstating the impact of having the cores and leaving out key reasons you say these things. Like you should mention you are a special case. That is if they need less than 32GB of memory the 8-cores generally do not beat the 6. Only the 2.93 8-core gets better multithreaded results. We have already proven "together" that multithreaded apps score similarly on the machine you have vs. the stock 6-core. And yes. $1000.00 for 133MHz sounds sweet, sign me up. /s
I have an eversion to dual sockets yes, the return is not worth the money as you can cut off 30% immediately for overhead. I dislike Crossfire and SLI for the same reasons.

But, for the price that I paid for my 2.93, it was a no brainer (i think). You could not get a 3.33 6 core with 16 gigs of ram for even close to this the price i paid. To remind you, I got:

8 core 2.93
16 gigs ram
2 gt 120's
built in wireless card
original box, keyboard, and mouse
applecare until feb. of 2013.

All of this for 3,260 dollars.

The refurb 3.33 6 core with 3 gigs of ram is going for 3149, when its there, which seems to be never.

The 3.33 is only 400mhz faster, but I would have lost 2 cores, and 13 gigs of ram. And with tax, the 6 core would have more than likely been more expensive than what I got, plus only a one year warranty vs. 2yr.

I think I made the right choice.

Can't wait till friday when it will arrive at my doorstep. I plan on getting a gtx 285 off ebay so can take advantage of CUDA in adobe premeire pro.

I have never experienced CUDA, so I can't wait till I get the Nvidia card. Haven't bought one yet, Plan on selling the 2 gt 120's to help pay for the gtx 285. Also probably going to get 2 more 4 gig sticks of ram so I can have 6 sticks running triple channel.

 

[derbothaus]

You're good. You got a great deal. I was advising against blanket assertions of performance. If you run mutithreaded apps primarily you will be very pleased. If you need Photoshop to run faster, you still have a great machine but the 3.33 is faster still. We are going back and forth over what amounts to a couple of seconds better or worse in performance. I see too many Mac Pro's cores sitting idle as heavy tasks are distributed to 1-4 cores and the rest just waits. Those 90% of apps out there see no benefit from throwing cores at them. Clock speed wins in these cases. That is why most users look to the 6-core, very good balance. Slightly slower 10% of the time, faster 90% of the time. In some cases the 3.6GHz iMac hangs just fine on those single and double threaded apps. It is all determined by what you are primarily going to need the Mac to run.

 

[MattDSLR]

Yes only if they use single aps
did you try to do the entire back up of large folders, work in lightroom, photoshop and burn DVD's while listening to music.

Tell you tight now cores do matter

but if you are working on photoshop 3.33 will be faster or even 4 core 3.46 will be faster than 6 core 3.33

Yes you compare 2.4 8 core with 3.33 6 core six will be much faster in single aps work through that do not require large amount of ram

Either way 4.1 and 5.1 rev of Mac its a very fast computer and will last anybody for at least 2 years
especially if you max out some ram

Enjoy your computer
All of them are fast

 

[DocNo]

Don't get me wrong, the Nehalems have a lot of cool tech (I actually got to talk with some Intel engineers extensively about it), but it doesn't necessarily translate to an across the board speed boost, and the machines are much more expensive.

And that cost difference is easily justified by not having to deal with fully buffered DIMMs! 2009 is as early as I would go for a Mac Pro these days. DDR3 RAM FTW!

 

[DocNo]

Did I make a good choice in going with the 09 2.93 8 core?

Yup - excellent machine! Congratulations!

 

[nanofrog]

And that cost difference is easily justified by not having to deal with fully buffered DIMMs! 2009 is as early as I would go for a Mac Pro these days. DDR3 RAM FTW!

User's are no longer stuck using ECC memory exclusively with Nehalem or newer Xeons. So it's now possible standard DDR3 if you don't need ECC for your usage (Unbuffered or Registered if you do need ECC, but it's not mandatory to get these processors to function).

 

[DocNo]

User's are no longer stuck using ECC memory exclusively with Nehalem or newer Xeons.

Exactly. I wouldn't buy anything older than a Nehalem Mac Pro because of the memory. I probably could have just said that to begin with and avoided your confusion

 

[jb502]

Icing on the cake. Ordered a gtx 285 from applemecanix on eBay. $335 including overnight shipping. Paid yesterday. It's here already. Mac pro will be here tomorrow. This thing should fly with adobe premiere.

Anyone have experience with adobe premiere and cuda?

 

[jb502]

well, everything is here. I'm having some problems. I cannot get cuda to work. The mercury playback setting is grayed out in premiere. I have installed the 3.0 cuda tool kit. The mac pro came with a copy of Lion one it. You think this might be the problem. I have tried everything. I'm gonna just install retail copy of snow leopard and see if it works then. I hope so.

 

[derbothaus]

The mac pro came with a copy of Lion one it. You think this might be the problem.

Ya think? Did you get the restore discs? Get up to 10.6.6. At least then you can draw a line in the sand. Who puts 10.7b on a Mac they are selling? Nothing is finished on it.