Which cMP to choose?

[sigmadog]

As some of you may know from my previous comment in another thread, I've decided the nMP isn't the ideal fit for my workflow (at least not without incurring a large expense in Thunderbolt accessories that I don't really need).

My aging 3,1 is still plugging along fine, but I'd like to step up to a faster/more powerful setup. My problem is that I can't decide if it's better to go with newer hardware (2012 5,1) or if the older versions that have been upgraded (2009 4,1 upgraded to 5,1 - and 2010 5,1) will still last the 5-6 years I want to use them.

Whatever model I go with will be upgraded to 12-core X5690's or X5680's, so all things considered the question I have is with the supporting hardware, not the cpus per se.

Obviously, the fact my 2008 3,1 is still working fine tells me that the cMP was built to last, so that inclines me towards the older models and a smaller initial cost.

On the other hand, I still have doubts about "upgrading" to hardware that is almost as old as my current setup and expecting it to last another 5-6 years. This makes me think the newest hardware will have the longer lifespan for my use.

Am I over-thinking this? Anyone have insights on this that can offer an opinion as to which way of thinking is more in line with reality?

 

[IowaLynn]

As some of you may know from my previous comment in another thread, I've decided the nMP isn't the ideal fit for my workflow (at least not without incurring a large expense in Thunderbolt accessories that I don't really need).

My aging 3,1 is still plugging along fine, but I'd like to step up to a faster/more powerful setup. My problem is that I can't decide if it's better to go with newer hardware (2012 5,1) or if the older versions that have been upgraded (2009 4,1 upgraded to 5,1 - and 2010 5,1) will still last the 5-6 years I want to use them.

Whatever model I go with will be upgraded to 12-core X5690's or X5680's, so all things considered the question I have is with the supporting hardware, not the cpus per se.

Obviously, the fact my 2008 3,1 is still working fine tells me that the cMP was built to last, so that inclines me towards the older models and a smaller initial cost.

On the other hand, I still have doubts about "upgrading" to hardware that is almost as old as my current setup and expecting it to last another 5-6 years. This makes me think the newest hardware will have the longer lifespan for my use.

Am I over-thinking this? Anyone have insights on this that can offer an opinion as to which way of thinking is more in line with reality?

The 2008 Penryn and EFI-64 date back to the fall of 2007 and still used front side bus and DDR2.

Barefeats tests - GPU more so - showed small improvements each year os 2012 may have some tweaks. And my understanding was and reason why people are using slots 2 along with 3 or 4 for arrays and not 3&4 has to do with total bandwidth available and here again more bandwidth in 5,1 hardware for PCIe x 2 arrays. Not sure if 4,1 has the same revsion of PCIe specification 2.1 or if 2012 has 2.,2

Xeons are meant to last 'forever' though FBDIMMs less so.

Two dual wide slots for GPUs AND some PCIe 3.0 is about the only thing missing.

I expect Classic Mac Pro runnng 10.10 and even 10.11 so other than security updates that Apple may cut off someday, should be fine.

 

[sigmadog]

Two dual wide slots for GPUs AND some PCIe 3.0 is about the only thing missing.

I expect Classic Mac Pro runnng 10.10 and even 10.11 so other than security updates that Apple may cut off someday, should be fine.

Thanks, IowaLynn. That helps.

The fact you're still rocking the cMP 1,1 in your sig eases my concerns as well.

Anybody else have thoughts on the long-term hardiness of the cMP?

 

[Macsonic]

As some of you may know from my previous comment in another thread, I've decided the nMP isn't the ideal fit for my workflow (at least not without incurring a large expense in Thunderbolt accessories that I don't really need).

My aging 3,1 is still plugging along fine, but I'd like to step up to a faster/more powerful setup. My problem is that I can't decide if it's better to go with newer hardware (2012 5,1) or if the older versions that have been upgraded (2009 4,1 upgraded to 5,1 - and 2010 5,1) will still last the 5-6 years I want to use them.

Whatever model I go with will be upgraded to 12-core X5690's or X5680's, so all things considered the question I have is with the supporting hardware, not the cpus per se.

Obviously, the fact my 2008 3,1 is still working fine tells me that the cMP was built to last, so that inclines me towards the older models and a smaller initial cost.

On the other hand, I still have doubts about "upgrading" to hardware that is almost as old as my current setup and expecting it to last another 5-6 years. This makes me think the newest hardware will have the longer lifespan for my use.

Am I over-thinking this? Anyone have insights on this that can offer an opinion as to which way of thinking is more in line with reality?

Either the 2009 or Mid 2010 classic Mac Pro will be fine and adequate for your tasks and graphic needs. I have both the 2009 Mac Pro and 2010 Mac Pro. I've also had the chance to use the new black Mac Pro from client's offices. I'm sometimes required by clients to do the edits or designs at their offices and I get to use their machines. For graphic apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign the speed gains between different machines, is incremental or not that noticeable. Another consideration is the lower cost to attain the classic Mac Pro. Some design and motion graphic studios I've worked with decided to just retain their classic Mac Pros and just upgrade the cpus, GPUs or add USB 3.0 cards. This enables them to have better financial status having put out little money and they are able to charge competitive rates.

 

[sigmadog]

Either the 2009 or Mid 2010 classic Mac Pro will be fine and adequate for your tasks and graphic needs. I have both the 2009 Mac Pro and 2010 Mac Pro. I've also had the chance to use the new black Mac Pro from client's offices. I'm sometimes required by clients to do the edits or designs at their offices and I get to use their machines. For graphic apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign the speed gains between different machines, is incremental or not that noticeable. Another consideration is the lower cost to attain the classic Mac Pro. Some design and motion graphic studios I've worked with decided to just retain their classic Mac Pros and just upgrade the cpus, GPUs or add USB 3.0 cards. This enables them to have better financial status having put out little money and they are able to charge competitive rates.

Yeah, I'm a small design studio myself (since it's just me, I self-identify as the studio). I like the idea of keeping hardware for long periods and putting the saved money towards beer and dog biscuits (not for me, but for my two enormous sidekicks), and something occasionally for the wife.

If I can get away dropping less than $3,000 every six years or more for a system, that's a pretty good deal. Hell, that's just $500 bucks a year - I can make that in less than a day.

Graphic design for print, which is what I do, is not the leading edge in the industry, and doesn't require the type of hardware needed for audio and video. That said, I like to have the best I can get for a reasonable investment.

Also, I can't imagine what my wife would say if I demanded a new top of the line computer every year. Well, actually, I think I can imagine what she'd say, something like…

"You get rid of the old one and get a new one every year? Hmmm, you've given me an idea!"