New Mac Pro

[Sam]

I have been looking at the Mac Pro, and low and behold Apple comes out with updated models, and new pricing.

While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.

The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.

Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?

Thanks for any info you have.

Sam

[kini62]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have been looking at the Mac Pro, and low and behold Apple comes out with updated models, and new pricing.

While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.

The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.

Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?

Thanks for any info you have.

Sam

I've never heard of the 2.26ghz model of the i7 architecture. Must be a low end server only chip. All the non server versions currently available start at 2.66ghz.

Based on how the comparsion you mentioned is, I don't think there's going to be much performance difference at least with the software that's available now. 2.26 to 2.8 is a lot of speed to make up for even with hyperthreading and better design, plus it's also like $500 more?

I'm pretty disappointed in Apple's latest offerings. Only 2 choices. One, an obscenely overpriced single CPU, memory neutered model and an overpriced dual cpu version that still isn't configured to use DDR3 effeciently.

And no quad core iMacs

And still too high priced Mac Minis.

Looks like no Apple for me this year, not when I can get Windows 7 and better performance in a tower for over $1000 less.

Apple really needs to reconsider their pricing. They completey ignore the average consumer that wants performance and does not want the limitations of an all in one.

Gene

[norcalshooter]

Originally Posted by kini62

dual cpu version that still isn't configured to use DDR3 effeciently.

Can you comment a little more on this?

Links?

[kini62]

Originally Posted by norcalshooter

Can you comment a little more on this?

Links?

DDR3 memory works best in groups of three, much like DDR2 worked best in matched pairs. So having 8 memory slots is inefficient, either using 6 for fastest performance limits total amount of using 8 for maximum amount but less memory performance.

I'm also not sure what the affect of have an even number of memory slots with an odd number of chips is.

For example AFAIK the single processor i7 MB either have 3 or 6 memory slots, at least the high performance ones do.

Gene

[pathfinder]

Can you still find the previous version of the 2.8 Ghz quad core Mac Pros from any of the non-Apple vendors? Adorama, B&H, OWC and others? Maybe at a discount?

My dual 2.8 Ghz Mac PRo is a delight and certainly fast enough even yet.

[DavidTO]

Originally Posted by kini62

I've never heard of the 2.26ghz model of the i7 architecture. Must be a low end server only chip. All the non server versions currently available start at 2.66ghz.

Based on how the comparsion you mentioned is, I don't think there's going to be much performance difference at least with the software that's available now. 2.26 to 2.8 is a lot of speed to make up for even with hyperthreading and better design, plus it's also like $500 more?

I'm pretty disappointed in Apple's latest offerings. Only 2 choices. One, an obscenely overpriced single CPU, memory neutered model and an overpriced dual cpu version that still isn't configured to use DDR3 effeciently.

And no quad core iMacs

And still too high priced Mac Minis.

Looks like no Apple for me this year, not when I can get Windows 7 and better performance in a tower for over $1000 less.

Apple really needs to reconsider their pricing. They completey ignore the average consumer that wants performance and does not want the limitations of an all in one.

Gene

Let's keep it on topic for Sam's question.

[DavidTO]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have been looking at the Mac Pro, and low and behold Apple comes out with updated models, and new pricing.

While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.

The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.

Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?

Thanks for any info you have.

Sam

Sam, I don't have the benchmarks you need, I don't think anyone's put them up yet. At least, I haven't seen any yet. The chips in the new MPs are brand-spanking new, they hadn't even been announced by Intel yet.

Any of them would serve your purposes just fine, I believe. I would go with your budget and stop sweating the small stuff.

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by kini62

DDR3 memory works best in groups of three, much like DDR2 worked best in matched pairs. So having 8 memory slots is inefficient, either using 6 for fastest performance limits total amount of using 8 for maximum amount but less memory performance.

I'm also not sure what the affect of have an even number of memory slots with an odd number of chips is.

For example AFAIK the single processor i7 MB either have 3 or 6 memory slots, at least the high performance ones do.

Gene

FYI, to clarify this, the Mac Pro gets best performance when you have 3 sticks of DDR per processor (so 3 or 6 sticks of RAM). There are 4 or 8 sets, respectively, so why use 8? Well, to get more RAM. In the architecture, slots 1 and 2 have their own channel, and slots 3 and 4 share a channel. So it's possible that 4 slots could be no faster (or perhaps slower?) than 3, but this is theoretical. And if you need the RAM, get the RAM. But going with 12 GB or 24 GB of RAM would be a guaranteed fastest configuration.

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by kini62

I've never heard of the 2.26ghz model of the i7 architecture. Must be a low end server only chip. All the non server versions currently available start at 2.66ghz.
Gene

This is the Xeon version of the Nehalem server processor. Apple is the only vendor on the planet current shipping systems with this processor. It hasn't even been launched by Intel yet officially; that comes later this month.

It is by no means a low-end processor. You cannot buy this chip via any other means right now. Well, unless you buy it from a guy wearing an overcoat outside an Intel lab somewhere ;-)

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have been looking at the Mac Pro, and low and behold Apple comes out with updated models, and new pricing.

While they tout better performance, all I can find is a comparison of the old 3.2 ghz Quad core processor versus the new 2.93 ghz quad core Nehalem. The base quad core model however comes with a 2.26 ghz version of the chip.

The 2.93 ghz upgrade is almost a 50% increase, $1400.00 premium over an already pricey $3299.00. Not an option for me.

Does anyone have any real info with regard to what the performance will be like with the standard 2.26 ghz chip set? Does anyone know how the new Mac Pro with this chip set compares with the old Mac Pro and the 2.8 ghz chip set?

Thanks for any info you have.

Sam

BTW, Sam, while the results aren't published, using simple math should get you pretty close here -- take the results from the 2.93 and multiply by 2.26/2.93 and you should be +/- a couple percent. It should still be faster than the old 3.2, though it depends on the benchmarks (and note synthetic memory benchmarks are unlikely to approximate real-world use). The new machines look to be barn burners. But, with the high-end CPUs they are quite expensive.

Oh, and I wouldn't go with the quad-core as you're really limited (it only has 4 RAM slots).