New MP on May 18

[ValSalva]

You and I both. I ended up getting the 2.26 8-core with 16MB RAM and 4870.

It arrives tomorrow night.

I also found an article from Anandtech where they manually upgrade from e5520 xeons to the x5570s. So, with the 1366 socket there is a possibility of upgrading the cpus a notch (if those 5570 prices drop), if I feel the need. I still think the pinouts of the e5520s and the x5640s are the same. But I can't prove it.

Congrats on your new machine.

p.s. article is here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2800/10

Congrats on your new machines. They are of course still great computers. Hopefully you won't kick yourselves in three weeks if new ones are introduced. A new Mac Pro won't lessen the capability of these current Mac Pros. Maybe it will just slightly decrease their resale value but if you're not planning on selling then who cares? You are valued Apple customers however, the ones that lower stock of their older models

 

[Octobot]

Is the consensus now that June 7th (WWDC) is the *new* May 18th?

June 7th - WWDC is the end and a new beginning.

 

[surferfromuk]

zeff & Whaditis

Congrats to both of you also.

Forgot to mention that I will go with an ssd for boot & apps also.

As with many others I suspect - can't wait to get mine (maybe delivery by Friday), load her up, and start doing real work

Ditto, I pulled the trigger on mine last week. 8-Core 2.26 - It rocks!

 

[VirtualRain]

Ditto, I pulled the trigger on mine last week. 8-Core 2.26 - It rocks!

Wow, you are the third person to post that you recently purchased a 2.26x8 core machine.

With so few multi-threaded apps, what was your guys logic behind this configuration? Wouldn't you be better off with a higher clock quad core?

 

[RebootD]

Wow, you are the third person to post that you recently purchased a 2.26x8 core machine.

With so few multi-threaded apps, what was your guys logic behind this configuration? Wouldn't you be better off with a higher clock quad core?

That is why I went with the 2.66 Quad because most of my work is in Lightroom/Photoshop which barely use multiple cores. Sure I wish I had more room for RAM but so far 8GB + RAID0 have worked just fine.

 

[Icaras]

Wow, you are the third person to post that you recently purchased a 2.26x8 core machine.

With so few multi-threaded apps, what was your guys logic behind this configuration? Wouldn't you be better off with a higher clock quad core?

Right now I think the 2.93 Quad is the best value. The 3.33 quad seems like a rip though at $1200.

Edit: Yes, yes I keep eying the '09 model now too.

 

[surferfromuk]

Wow, you are the third person to post that you recently purchased a 2.26x8 core machine.

With so few multi-threaded apps, what was your guys logic behind this configuration? Wouldn't you be better off with a higher clock quad core?

4 * 2.66 = 10.64 Ghz
8 * 2.26 = 18.08 Ghz

Basic apps don't even sweat a single core these days - so any app that goes multi-core goes ballistic. Final Cut uses all 8 despite what people may say - it renders insanely quickly. In the future more apps will address all cores directly rather than relying on the OS. Most big apps are already using all the cores.

 

[zedsdead]

4 * 2.66 = 10.64 Ghz
8 * 2.26 = 18.08 Ghz

Basic apps don't even sweat a single core these days - so any app that goes multi-core goes ballistic. Final Cut uses all 8 despite what people may say - it renders insanely quickly. In the future more apps will address all cores directly rather than relying on the OS. Most big apps are already using all the cores.

Can you prove this? I have a Quad-Core i7, and when I render in FCP, barely 30% of the processor is being used.

 

[surferfromuk]

Can you prove this? I have a Quad-Core i7, and when I render in FCP, barely 30% of the processor is being used.

Aah now I never said anything about utilisation!

On inspection it does seem to only use a % of each core. (Standard Render with Apple Pro Res)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'll do some testing see if I can max them all out! Certainly expect things to get better over time when the 64-bit version comes.

Of course CS5 is a different story (After Effects Render)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[shabbasuraj]

Why do you keep saying this ?

Unless you have specific proofs then really your not helping the situation (which is already frustrating enough) and without which your commentary is nothing more than unsubstantiated extreme speculation designed to upset working professionals whose livelihoods depend upon the stability and viability of the Mac Pro platform.

I just returned from Cần Thơ I have seen the future, and it looks murky for MacSLOWs.

 

[surferfromuk]

I just returned from Cần Thơ I have seen the future, and it looks murky for MacSLOWs.

I personally think your wilfully spreading malicious disinformation with the sole intent of damaging Apple's commercial prospects in its professional markets.

 

[psingh01]

Wow, you are the third person to post that you recently purchased a 2.26x8 core machine.

With so few multi-threaded apps, what was your guys logic behind this configuration? Wouldn't you be better off with a higher clock quad core?

It depends on your need. You don't need specific apps that take advantage of all the cores. You can get a great benefit by running multiple apps at once. After all, the most important piece of software that takes advantage of all the cores is OS X itself. Many people use VMWare. More cores lets you run more VM's. There are many reasons then just a single app (or video rendering).

 

[VirtualRain]

It depends on your need. You don't need specific apps that take advantage of all the cores. You can get a great benefit by running multiple apps at once. After all, the most important piece of software that takes advantage of all the cores is OS X itself. Many people use VMWare. More cores lets you run more VM's. There are many reasons then just a single app (or video rendering).

I hear ya, I'm just surprised to see so many people (3 out of 4 in the last couple of days) putting cores before MHz. I'm not sure where a good balance would be exactly, but dual processors providing 8 cores with hyperthreading all running at laptop speeds hardly seems like the sweet spot to me. A 2.93GHz quad (that can still handle 8 threads) costs less than the entry level octo and will run most tasks 30% faster. I mean, would you rather have 4x2.93GHz with an SSD or 8x2.26GHz with a HD... because they are about the same price.

 

[deconstruct60]

... I mean, would you rather have 4x2.93GHz with an SSD or 8x2.26GHz with a HD... because they are about the same price.

Different folks have different expected workloads they want/need to run. For instance, running old software faster versus running new (or future) software faster. In a year, what excuse are your heavy data crunching app vendors going to have for not dropping a version that can easily go 8-way when the cores are available?

Similarly, is your daily workload's natural working set size of RAM above 12GB ? It is cheaper to do that with 2GB modules than 4GB ones.

8 cores means have 16 virtual threads. SMT (Hyperthreading) works better with I/O bottlenecks. If there were no I/O bottlenecks it would not be effective. Pragmatically, an 8x2.93GHz machine has more problems than a a 8x2.26GHz one if there are no updates in bandwidth. Even though have 2x the number of memory channels as the single Quad package as you increase the GHz you start to negate that advantage because can't pull data fast enough through the bottleneck. For a 4x2.93GHz vs. 8x2.26GHz, you have a 30% increase in speed, but a 50% decrease in max I/O throughput. For example, it wouldn't make lots of sense for most top of the line 8x2.93GHz users to pick the standard 6GB configuration and not update the RAM. That machines needs more RAM to take pressure off the I/O bottleneck.

Different user workloads have different bottlenecks. For a user who is highly bottlenecked on disk access, it might make sense to get a 2.66GHz quad and two SSDs. That is similar money and perhaps faster throughput if not maxed out on computational work ( i.e., need to stream lots of data in and out but don't relatively need to do high amounts of mutations of that data. ).
If one SSD is better, why not two ? [ may not if one moves the bottleneck somewhere else. ]


That's why there are six different basic models of the Mac Pro. Different users with slightly different problems. It is not one set of users with extremely similar problems.

 

[Whaditis]

The extra ram slots is also another reason among those already mentioned. I am very happy so far with my new 8core 2.26 and tomorrow I am installing CS5. Looking forward to it.

 

[VirtualRain]

Different folks have different expected workloads they want/need to run. For instance, running old software faster versus running new (or future) software faster. In a year, what excuse are your heavy data crunching app vendors going to have for not dropping a version that can easily go 8-way when the cores are available?

Similarly, is your daily workload's natural working set size of RAM above 12GB ? It is cheaper to do that with 2GB modules than 4GB ones.

8 cores means have 16 virtual threads. SMT (Hyperthreading) works better with I/O bottlenecks. If there were no I/O bottlenecks it would not be effective. Pragmatically, an 8x2.93GHz machine has more problems than a a 8x2.26GHz one if there are no updates in bandwidth. Even though have 2x the number of memory channels as the single Quad package as you increase the GHz you start to negate that advantage because can't pull data fast enough through the bottleneck. For a 4x2.93GHz vs. 8x2.26GHz, you have a 30% increase in speed, but a 50% decrease in max I/O throughput. For example, it wouldn't make lots of sense for most top of the line 8x2.93GHz users to pick the standard 6GB configuration and not update the RAM. That machines needs more RAM to take pressure off the I/O bottleneck.

Different user workloads have different bottlenecks. For a user who is highly bottlenecked on disk access, it might make sense to get a 2.66GHz quad and two SSDs. That is similar money and perhaps faster throughput if not maxed out on computational work ( i.e., need to stream lots of data in and out but don't relatively need to do high amounts of mutations of that data. ).
If one SSD is better, why not two ? [ may not if one moves the bottleneck somewhere else. ]


That's why there are six different basic models of the Mac Pro. Different users with slightly different problems. It is not one set of users with extremely similar problems.

Yes I know... I could understand it if people were buying the 8x2.66 - that to me says you've got a massively multi-threaded workload and you're willing to pay to get you're work done faster. I just can't see any good reason to sacrifice clock speed for core count and go with a 8x2.26. There are very very few workloads where that machine is the best bang for the buck and some where the new entry level MacBook will out perform it. Is it just the RAM slots that people are after? If it's just RAM it makes no sense either... you could buy a 4x2.93 with 12GB (from OWC) for the price of a 8x2.26 with 6GB. <confused>

 

[Ravich]

Again, it is an investment for the future. Why cant you acknowledge that?

 

[Tali]

The multicore ability of the 8x 2.26 is quite nice (have a couple at work) but they are painfully slow with programms that don't support at least 4 cores.

If you are only working with CS5 it could be ok. But a 27'IMac blows the current 8x2.26 completely out of the water in FCP.

And I for myself just can't justify buying an outdated machine for that kind of money as an investment in the future.

 

[greenmeanie]

I am not even sure about this but wouldn't it be cool if you could pick the Cores the software would use through the software?

 

[reel2reel]

Congrats on your new machines. They are of course still great computers. Hopefully you won't kick yourselves in three weeks if new ones are introduced. A new Mac Pro won't lessen the capability of these current Mac Pros. Maybe it will just slightly decrease their resale value but if you're not planning on selling then who cares? You are valued Apple customers however, the ones that lower stock of their older models

Who buys computers to sell them? I buy a computer to use the damn thing. Imagine that!

 

[reel2reel]

The multicore ability of the 8x 2.26 is quite nice (have a couple at work) but they are painfully slow with programms that don't support at least 4 cores.

If you are only working with CS5 it could be ok. But a 27'IMac blows the current 8x2.26 completely out of the water in FCP.

And I for myself just can't justify buying an outdated machine for that kind of money as an investment in the future.

But where do I install my Kona3???

How exactly does FCP performance drastically change between the iMac and an 8-core Mac Pro with 16 GB's RAM? Just wondering:

- Does your cursor move faster?

- Is your UI is sharper and more colourful?

- Does your HD look better (well, you wouldn't know 'cause you can't really see it without a broadcast monitor)?

- Does it make you more creative?

- Or do you just mean your dissolves and cube spins render a bit faster?

 

[surferfromuk]

The multicore ability of the 8x 2.26 is quite nice (have a couple at work) but they are painfully slow with programms that don't support at least 4 cores.

If you are only working with CS5 it could be ok. But a 27'IMac blows the current 8x2.26 completely out of the water in FCP.

And I for myself just can't justify buying an outdated machine for that kind of money as an investment in the future.

Putting aside the Pro advantages of a workstation form factor, let's hypothetically say for argument sake say they both use 50% of our CPU's with the current 32-bit FCP. That means;


4 Core iMac - 4x2.8/2 = 5.6 Ghz available for Render
4 Core Mac Pro - 4x2.66/2 = 5.32 Ghz available for Render
4 Core Mac Pro - 4x 2.93/2 = 5.86 Ghz available for Render

8 Core Mac Pro - 8x2.26/2 = 9.04 Ghz available for Render

In any configuration 8 core always wins by a significant margin.

When 64-Bit FCS 4.0 hits in a couple of months let's look at 100% utilisation scenario.

4 Core iMac - 4x2.8 = 11.2 Ghz available for Render
4 Core Mac Pro - 4x2.66 = 10.64 Ghz available for Render
4 Core Mac Pro - 4x 2.93 = 11.72 Ghz available for Render

8 Core Mac Pro - 8x2.26 = 18.08 Ghz available for Render

In any configuration 8 core always wins by a significant margin, and at 100% CPU the margin is twice as significant again!

 

[VirtualRain]

Again, it is an investment for the future. Why cant you acknowledge that?

With 3.3GHz 6-core CPU's around the corner, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that a machine clocked at 2.26GHz is built for the future - even if it has 8 cores.

The future of parallel processing in OSX lies in leveraging OpenCL where orders of magnitude peformance improvements can be realized.

If that comes to fruition, the machine of the future is one with a reasonable number of high-clocked CPU cores for tasks that don't lend themselves well to multi-threading, equipped with a couple of monster GPU's. In fact, if we could offload most threads to the GPU, a 5GHz dual core might become the ideal CPU.

Who knows what's best for the future? My advice is to buy the fastest computer you can afford for the tasks you do today.

 

[Murray M]

Again, it is an investment for the future. Why cant you acknowledge that?

Hardware prices (ram, hd's, etc) always decrease. It never makes sense to buy now for what you need later. Apple and other companies depend on people like you to make their profit, which btw, makes it cheaper for the rest of us, so thanks!

 

[Eidorian]

Hardware prices (ram, hd's, etc) always decrease. It never makes sense to buy now for what you need later. Apple and other companies depend on people like you to make their profit, which btw, makes it cheaper for the rest of us, so thanks!

DDR2 and DDR3 prices have increased.

DD2 was chump change in late 2008 until mid 2009. Now it's up over US$100 along with DDR3. A 5x increase for the Crucial Ballistix I bought in 2008 and a smaller 33% jump for my DDR3 in September.