3 GHz Mac pro vs 2.66 base configuration---your recommendations please

Hello: I'm going to upgrade soon to the Mac Pro and I wish to know whether there is sufficient performance improvement when using the 3 gig machine to run Final Cut Studio that would justify the $800 price difference over the 2.66 GHz machine? Is the application optimized to really utilize the quad processor array in the first place? If you were making the purchase decision, which would you choose? if your answer is no, what other apps would change the answer to "yes"? Thanks for whatever insight you can offer.
Richard

seth22007 wrote:
Hello: I'm going to upgrade soon to the Mac Pro and I wish to know whether there is sufficient performance improvement when using the 3 gig machine to run Final Cut Studio that would justify the $800 price difference over the 2.66 GHz machine?
If the decision is between the 2.66 and 3.0 quads - and the 8-core is not even an option - I'd actually argue that most folks would be better suited to the 2.66 Ghz model. As mentioned by others, use the $800 to buy RAM from a 3rd party (at least 4 GB) and some internal or external storage.
As of now - with Tiger, at least, - FCP does not make use of all 4 cores (when rendering or exporting) but Compressor 3 does (it can make full use of an 8-core box, in fact). So, if your plan is to, at some point in the future (if you aren't already), move into HD production, Compressor's ability to speed along might justify the $800 upgrade. The idea being that, in most HD post-production worflows, there is a awful lot of transcoding going on (SD -> HD, HDV -> DVCProHD, XDCAM -> ProRes422, etc).
My personally philosophy is to buy the baddest box I can afford, mainly because I tend to keep them for a while (had my previous G4 for 4+ years) and, at the rate that our apps are becoming hardware dependent, I might be forced to upgrade earlier than I'd like (if I was a bit more frugal at purchase time). Either that or be stuck with out-of-date tools (and that so ain't my style).
And, yeah, get the x1900 graphics card...

Similar Messages

2008 Quad 3 Ghz Mac Pro freeze after startup

I'm writing this on my MacBook Pro since my tower is no longer functional. I'm not sure what to do with it but I'll do my best to describe what it's doing. It is a 2008 Mac Pro, with two dual core 3 Ghz Xenon processors, 10 GB Ram, 3.75 TB hard drive space, ATI Radeon 1900 XT video card.
Push power to boot up sometimes it boots up normally other times the fan just just excellerates to high and the tower does nothing, and I have to force a shut down. On the next boot up it always does the fan thing again resulting in a second force shut down, then a second attempt to boot back up same result, almost always on the third attempt it will boot up to the desktop. if that's not odd enough it gets weirder.
Whether it takes me three tries to get to the desktop or it goes there the first try it will run for a few min, then the screen gets blocky (like a pattern of squares or artifacts all over the screen and the system is now completely unresponsive except I can see the mouse moving, I've waited to see if it will come out of it, but it doesn't so I force a shut down.
At first I thought, maybe my hard drive is failing so I get the System restore OSX disk. It behaves the same way when booted up with the System disc. The more I think and look around I'm beginning to think the video card is going bad. This kind of behavior was intermittent at times but today I can't use it for more than a few min. I took the door off and after letting it set I booted again but again still same thing. the only place that I feel a lot of heat is from the video card especially around the vent near the ports. I've tried removing the card but it doesn't seem to want to come out. I've removed the bracket with the two screws It feels like it's coming out of the socket but something is holding it into the case and I don't want to force it.
So here are my questions, does this sound like it's a bad video card? And if so is there some trick to getting it out, even if it's just to look at it and perhaps clean any dust out of it in case it's getting clogged.
Thanks,
Mike

it would seem it's in the acceptable range, I'll have to look up Temperature monitor and see if I need to use a SMC Fan Control to up the default.
The inside was only moderately dusty which I went ahead and cleaned out, I make it a habit of cleaning the insides out from time to time. The only exception being the Radeon 1900 XT which after removing the fan and giving it a good shot of air and a large clump of dust coming out the other end (by the heatsink fins) makes me think that that is the likely culprit of my 1900XT's early demise. Cleaning out the card and putting it back in though made no difference, so I think the overheating damage is done. I have thought about giving the oven bake method a shot if the card is crap anyway there's nothing to lose. Also thought about checking the firmware to see if it needs updated.
4SNS is a sensor of some kind which I guess the "ICBC" refers to the specific sensor? A search of Mac Pro sensor ICBC came up with "ICBC Current, CPU-B core current" perhaps that will give me an idea what to look for in monitoring the heat. As long as it's not a fatal warning I'm happy, I was starting to freak out a little thinking the logic board was bad and the unit being out of warranty facing the reality of either taking it to a service center and paying an arm and a leg to fix or to just ebay the mac and use the money towards a new or newer MP. I can't really afford to dump close to a thousand bucks into a board replacement at an apple service center. I'm thankful I bought a laptop last year or I'd have no computer to work on. Hopefully once I get the Radeon 5770 sanity will be restored plus the 5770 is a better card than the 1900xt anyway. Mac Connection sure is taking it's sweet time processing the order though...

How can I tell if my computer (2x2.26 Quad Core Xeon MAC Pro) and my Airport Base station(Airport Extreme 1Tb Time Capsule) are Gigabit compatible?

How can I tell if my computer (2x2.26 Quad Core Xeon
c Pro) and my Airport Base station(Airport Extreme 1Tb Time Capsule) are Gigabit compatible? I want to add a Cisco switch to the network.
Thansk
Tony Breuer

All Mac Pro's ever made have shipped with gigabit ethernet. The last non-gigabit tower desktop Apple made was the very first generation PowerMac G4's back in 1999.
Similarly, all Time Capsules have been gigabit ethernet as well - never been one that was not.

When the new Mac Pro's with E5 Processor coming out? Please help

Hello People.
I am in desperate situation at the moment. I had a late 2008 Mac pro which i recently sold and bought the new 8core 2.4ghz Mac pro from best buy about a week ago. As soon as i bought it, i found out that Apple is coming out with a new Mac Pro loaded with the new xeon E5 processor. My question is that when Apple is coming out with the computer since the rumor said its coming out in the beginning of March. I paid $3400 for the new computer and i really want the one which has all the new stuff in it. I have about 2 weeks left to return the computer to Best Buy and at the moment don't know what do.
Does anyone has answer to my question?
Thanks

Seeing no one, not WSJ or ComputerWorld or CNBC, just speculation. For all we know it will be another mid-Summer too..
I do think the 2.4 8-core is a ''weak' system choice. More apps and more productive to go with a higher clocked 6-core or something.
I'd direct attention to www.macperformanceguide.com that argues, if you need it don't postpone for what might be.
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20120319_1-MacProNowOrWait.html
Even if there was an annoucement it often takes time to sort out, ship, etc.

Does mac pro need an anti virus or not? please advise thanks

hi i'm new mac pro user i would like to ask you if i need to buy anti virus to my computer
thanks

1. This comment applies to malicious software ("malware") that's installed unwittingly by the victim of a network attack. It does not apply to software, such as keystroke loggers, that may be installed deliberately by an intruder who has hands-on access to the victim's computer. That threat is in a different category, and there's no easy way to defend against it. If you have reason to suspect that you're the target of such an attack, you need expert help.
2. All versions of OS X since 10.6.7 have been able to detect known Mac malware in downloaded files, and to block insecure web plugins. This feature is transparent to the user, but internally Apple calls it "XProtect." The malware recognition database is automatically checked for updates once a day; however, you shouldn't rely on it, because the attackers are always at least a day ahead of the defenders.
The following caveats apply to XProtect:
It can be bypassed by some third-party networking software, such as BitTorrent clients and Java applets (see below.)
It only applies to software downloaded from the network. Software installed from a CD or other media is not checked.
3. Starting with OS X 10.7.5, there has been another layer of built-in malware protection, designated "Gatekeeper" by Apple. By default, applications and Installer packages downloaded from the network will only run if they're digitally signed by a developer with a certificate issued by Apple. Software certified in this way hasn't actually been tested by Apple (unless it comes from the Mac App Store), but you can be reasonably sure that it hasn't been modified by anyone other than the developer. His identity is known to Apple, so he could be held legally responsible if he distributed malware. For most practical purposes, applications recognized by Gatekeeper as signed can be considered safe.
Gatekeeper has, however, the same limitations as XProtect, and in addition the following:
It can easily be disabled or overridden by the user.
A malware attacker could get control of a code-signing certificate under false pretenses, or could find some other way to evade Apple's controls.
For more information about Gatekeeper, see this Apple Support article.
4. Beyond XProtect and Gatekeeper, there’s no benefit, in most cases, from any other automated protection against malware. The first and best line of defense is always your own intelligence. All known malware circulating on the Internet that affects a fully-updated installation of OS X 10.6 or later takes the form of so-called "trojan horses," which can only have an effect if the victim is duped into running them. The threat therefore amounts to a battle of wits between you and the malware attacker. If you're smarter than he thinks you are, you'll win.
That means, in practice, that you never use software that comes from an untrustworthy source. How do you know whether a source is trustworthy?
Any website that prompts you to install a “codec,” “plug-in,” "player," "extractor," or “certificate” that comes from that same site, or an unknown one, is untrustworthy.
A web operator who tells you that you have a “virus,” or that anything else is wrong with your computer, or that you have won a prize in a contest you never entered, is trying to commit a crime with you as the victim. (Some reputable websites did legitimately warn visitors who were infected with the "DNSChanger" malware. That exception to this rule no longer applies.)
Pirated copies or "cracks" of commercial software, no matter where they come from, are unsafe.
Software of any kind downloaded from a BitTorrent or from a Usenet binary newsgroup is unsafe.
Software with a corporate brand, such as Adobe Flash Player, must be downloaded directly from the developer’s website. If it comes from any other source, it's unsafe.
5. Java on the Web (not to be confused with JavaScript, to which it's not related, despite the similarity of the names) is a weak point in the security of any system. Java is, among other things, a platform for running complex applications in a web page, on the client. That was never a good idea, and Java's developers have had a lot of trouble implementing it without also creating a portal for malware to enter. Past Java exploits are the closest thing there has ever been to a Windows-style "virus" affecting OS X. Merely loading a page with malicious Java content could be harmful. Fortunately, Java on the Web is mostly extinct. Only a few outmoded sites still use it. Try to hasten the process of extinction by avoiding those sites, if you have a choice.
Java is not included in OS X 10.7 and later. Discrete Java installers are distributed by Apple and by Oracle (the developer of Java.) Don't use either one unless you need it. Most people don't. If Java is installed, disable it — not JavaScript — in your browsers. In Safari, this is done by unchecking the box marked Enable Java in the Security tab of the preferences dialog.
Regardless of version, experience has shown that Java on the Web can't be trusted. If you must use a Java applet for a specific task, enable Java only when needed for the task and disable it immediately when done. Close all other browser windows and tabs, and don't visit any other sites while Java is active. Never enable Java on a public web page that carries third-party advertising. Use it only on well-known, password-protected, secure websites without ads. In Safari 6 or later, you'll see a lock icon in the address bar with the abbreviation "https" when visiting a secure site.
Follow these guidelines, and you’ll be practically as safe from malware as you can be.
6. Never install any commercial "anti-virus" or "Internet security" products for the Mac, as they all do more harm than good, if they do any good at all. If you need to be able to detect Windows malware in your files, use the free software ClamXav — nothing else.
Why shouldn't you use commercial "anti-virus" products?
Their design is predicated on the nonexistent threat that malware may be injected at any time, anywhere in the file system. Malware is downloaded from the network; it doesn't materialize from nowhere.
In order to meet that nonexistent threat, the software modifies or duplicates low-level functions of the operating system, which is a waste of resources and a common cause of instability, bugs, and poor performance.
By modifying the operating system, the software itself may create weaknesses that could be exploited by malware attackers.
7. ClamXav doesn't have these drawbacks. That doesn't mean it's entirely safe. It may report email messages that have "phishing" links in the body, or Windows malware in attachments, as infected files, and offer to delete or move them. Doing so will corrupt the Mail database. The messages should be deleted from within the Mail application.
ClamXav is not needed, and should not be relied upon, for protection against OS X malware. It's useful only for detecting Windows malware. Windows malware can't harm you directly (unless, of course, you use Windows.) Just don't pass it on to anyone else.
A Windows malware attachment in email is usually easy to recognize. The file name will often be targeted at people who aren't very bright; for example:
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥!!!!!!!H0TBABEZ4U!!!!!!!.AVI♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.exe
ClamXav may be able to tell you which particular virus or trojan it is, but do you care? In practice, there's seldom a reason to use ClamXav unless a network administrator requires you to run an anti-virus application.
8. The greatest harm done by anti-virus software, in my opinion, is in its effect on human behavior. It does little or nothing to protect people from emerging threats, but they get a false sense of security from it, and then they may behave in ways that expose them to higher risk. Nothing can lessen the need for safe computing practices.
9. It seems to be a common belief that the built-in Application Firewall acts as a barrier to infection, or prevents malware from functioning. It does neither. It blocks inbound connections to certain network services you're running, such as file sharing. It's disabled by default and you should leave it that way if you're behind a router on a private home or office network. Activate it only when you're on an untrusted network, for instance a public Wi-Fi hotspot, where you don't want to provide services. Disable any services you don't use in the Sharing preference pane. All are disabled by default.

Does Mac Pro come with connecting cables for your add-on SATA drives?

I am buying some Western Digital OEM SATA drives to put in my Mac Pro that I just purchased and is being shipped to me. I realize that OEM drives do not have any connecting cables/hardware. I assume that Mac Pro does have the necessary connecting SATA cables and hardware to attach the drive to the sleds? Or do I have to purchase them separately?
Thanks,
John

Nobody does it better than Apple. For years I was always struggling with cables and hard disk setups and I knew as soon as larger hard drives were available I'd want to replace my 500Gig ones. Once the 750Gig came out I ordered four then found a quick hard drive install video that showed you how to pull out the tray, remove the old drive, insert the new drive and push the tray back in.
It was that easy. Mac machines are so cool.
Tim...
3Ghz Mac Pro w/8GRam, 3TerabytesHD, 2 SupDrives; 13" BlackBook; 80Gig Vid-iPod Mac OS X (10.4.9) 30" Cinema, HPColorLJ Printer, LaCie 600Gig External & LaCie DVDRW/CDRW Drives

Wireless PCIe Adapter on Mac Pro Mid 2012

Hi MP Folks
I would like to know if anyone ever tried adding a wireless adapter into a PCI Express slot in Mac Pro Mid 2012?
I need to have two wireless connections for my Mac Pro. One is for Internet access, the other is for internal RDP access. A PCI Express based solution is expected because no USB socket will be occupied.
Is there any Mac Pro compatible wireless PCIe adapter? Any recommendations please?
Thanks heaps.
B

Thanks for your link, it does list the wireless adapters that I am looking for.
Regarding the devices that require no additional software on OS X, do you know if there is an official link to list all compatible third-party devices of OS X? Something like Windows Compatibility Center?
As for additional security, yes, you are right. I have to choose wireless as wired connections are not feasible, all the client computers on the internal subnet are mobile devices.
Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:
There are several PCIe adapters listed on OWC (Macsales.com). Those guys provide support with their products, so any device that is trouble-prone or takes too much hand-holding will quickly be eliminated from their list:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/?Ntk=Primary&Ns=P_Popularity%7c1&Ne=5000&N=6979 &N2=6979&Ntt=wireless
The Ethernet adapters (like the WET1610) [sometimes referred to as "gaming adapters] are interesting because they require NO additional software in the Mac. They will not go out-of-date and require future software updates.
For additional security, I think you should also consider pulling a Physical Ethernet cable to your RDP system, rather than exposing sensitive data (even in encrypted form) to the airwaves. Wired Ethernet has the potential to be faster than any reasonably-priced WiFi solution.

Mac Pro configuration ?

Hi
Need some comments here:
I plan to get a 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro, with 2 GB Ram and a ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB graphic card plus a 23˜ cinema display HD.
I will use this computer to work with FC Studio and Logic Pro (latest versions). No other software installed.
I will work in FCP with two Sony camcorders: Sopny HDR FX1 and an older and smaller PC1.
There is also a Sony Video deck: GV-D900 PAL and two LaCie external HDs...
Any issues that I must antecipate ? Is this configuration a good one ?
I was waiting for Leopard, but since it won't be released untill October, I must make the move now.
I would apreciate your feedback
Powerbook G4 667Mhz 512 Ram OS 10.3.9 Mac OS X (10.3.9) Power Mac G4 450Mhz 0S 9.2.2 1Gb Ram

The "multiple devices on one FW bus" issue. can arise when you do what you are suggesting... plugging the drive into the mac and the camera to the drive. Problem is the FW bus goes to the speed of the slowest device in the chain... the camera.
Again, this may not become an issue for you. Only way to know is to try. Because I've run into the problem before, I install a FW card into any new computer I buy for this purpose just to avoid the "potential" problem. I'm not sure what they go for now but the last FW card I bought was about $120 Canadian. (sorry, can't remember the brand right now) Seemed like cheap insurance to me, but I did have some budget to work with.
As for the RAM, if you are going to be using Motion, then I'd suggest going with no less than 4 Gb. If not, you can stay with 2 but it's nice to have more for overall performance. Don't forget, it's not just FCP that needs the RAM.
I don't know about you but when I edit, I usually have 3 or 4 apps open... FCP, Live Type, Photoshop, etc. not to mention Mail so that I can keep grabbing last minute files the client forgot to give me. Having more RAM really helps with all that and again, is essential if one of those apps is Motion.
rh

"Best" configuration for new Mac Pro used for Aperture?

I'm getting ready to order a new Mac Pro and would like to configure it to optimize Aperture performance.
On CPUs - I have found no benchmarks which show whether Aperture would benefit from 2 quad core processors versus 1. Does anyone know of any benchmarks or have any experience using a single quad core? I don't want to spend $500 on a 2nd processor if Aperture can't use it.
On Graphics cards - I was sold on the GForce 8800, due to it's supposed blazing speed for gaming and it's larger on board memory. However, after reading the following review http://www.barefeats.com/harper10.html , these guys seem to imply that applications such as Aperture actually run faster with the standard Radeon 2600 video card! If anyone has any experience or opinions on this review, I'd love to hear them!
On memory - I know from experience that Aperture will use all of the physical memory you make available to it. I plan on ordering the standard 2GB from Apple, then adding 8GB from 3rd party for total of 10MB.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I can only say that when faced with the same decision last month, I went with a 2.8 8-core/8800GT/10gb RAM/library stored on 2nd internal drive setup and am completely satisfied with Aperture's speed. Beyond satisfied, really, borderline thrilled to be honest. No beach balls, perfectly responsive adjustment sliders, smooth and quick scrolling through images (even with Quick Preview mode turned off). Aperture 2 definitely takes advantage of all 8 cores - I have MenuMeters installed and can watch its CPU usage across all 8 cores. Exporting, for example, is fast and uses all cores for background processing.
I have seen a couple small anomalies though...when moving photos around in a light table, I get some odd flashing artifacts on the right side of screen that could be graphics card related. Visually annoying but it doesn't affect performance. I'm also seeing some weird behavior with keywords not appearing in Tooltips and in the Viewer, but it's intermittent and is most likely a software bug and not my hardware setup.

How do I get my Mac Pro to see the second monitor through a video splitter and/or switcher?

In a recording studio we have a Mac Pro with two video display monitors in the control room and we want to be able to show the content of the second monitor to the person in the recording room on a big display monitor there. However, when we interpose a switcher or splitter between the computer and the second monitor so that we can (with a switcher) switch the second monitor signal from the control room monitor to the record room monitor or (with a splitter) split the signal to go to both monitors, we have no luck. On startup the computer does not see the monitor through the switcher, so it doesn't recognize its existence. If we start the computer up without the switcher in the signal chain, it sees the second monitor just fine, and (weirdly enough) we can then change the cabling to interpose the switch, which then works to switch back and forth between second monitors (control room and record room), but that cable swapping's a royal PITA. We want a simple solution that will allow us to start up the computer, see the second monitor in the control room, then choose to show it to the person in the record room with a simple flip of the switch (or even better, split the signal so it's available both places). The splitter we've tried most recently is this one: http://tinyurl.com/curen39 I'd appreciate any advice from people who have tried this configuration or something similar with success. We have a full ProTools HD Accel 3 system installed, so there's no room to install a second video card. Thanks.
Mac Pro 8-Core 2.4 GHz, OS 10.6.8

Christopher Dobrian wrote:
Thanks for the response! Yes, it's a 5x70 video card, a 5770 I believe. In any case, it does have the three ports, but (a not-well documented fact) that doesn't mean one can really get three full-resolution signals out of it at one time, as you alluded to in your message. So, yes, we did try hooking all three up directly to the computer, but the computer would only recognize two of those monitors, and the only way to get it to "de-recognize" the second monitor and recognize the third monitor was to physically disconnect the second monitor.
I did say when you want to connect three monitors to 5x70's there are some rules to adhere to. These are covered in the first two apple docs mentioned above, or by title:
Mac Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Pro (Early 2009): Issues with three displays and multiple DVI, HDMI connections
Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac Pro (Mid 2010): Supported display configurations
The general gist of these rules is that to drive three monitor son a 5x70 you need two active adapters. That is why one of your monitors was disabled when you tried to add a third.
Here's a good explanation of what's going in here and why you need two active adapters on these cards:
Active vs. Passive Displayport adapters *the truth*
If you use DVI monitors and any of them have resolutions less than 1920 x 1200 then you can use single link active adapters. The "AMD Eyefinity Validated Dongles" chart shows some active (and passive) adapters that are acceptable. For example of a single link DVI active adapter is the Accell B087B-006B. An example of a dual link DVI active adapter would be the one from monoprice.com if you need to connect monitors with a resolution greater than 1920 x 1200.
I'm doubtful that SwitchResX would be able to convince the computer that there were only two monitors connected and direct the second monitor signal to the correct place, but it certainly seems worth a try, so thanks for the idea! Any other ideas are still welcome in the meantime.
I'm not doubtful. It is a very powerful utility for dealing with all aspects of multiple monitor configurations (they call them "Display Sets") complete with forcing EDID information if necessary. The different configurations can be controlled with a (contextual) menu and/or hot key.
SwitchResX is academic at this point if you want to have all three monitors connected. You would need to get that working first. Then use SwitchResX to vary the configuration combinations. So if you go this route the "name of the game" is figure out the active adapters you need.
I only described in general terms above about the adapters since you never said exactly what kind of connections these monitors require (single link DVI, dual link DVI, hdmi, mini-displayport, vga).

Airport connection probs with Mac Pro and 10.4.8 too.

This prob is not just related to iMacs or MacBooks as published in the knowledge base doc. I have exactly the same prob with my 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. I have to reconnect this beast to my wlan router manually every time.
PLZ Apple fix this asap!

I had a similar problem which I've fixed!
I have four machines here which can connect to my Netgear DG834N via Aiport. (I say can because they normally connect via ethernet.) My MacBook Pro always used to be fine when connected wirelessly but recently, not aware of any changes I've made, it connects for about 10 seconds then disconnects. All other machines are fine and hold the connection.
This is what I tried before finding my solution:
1) Deleted all references to the network in the keychain and remade them.
2) Created another user to try
3) Changed channels on the router even though I can't see any neighbour's networks.
4) Made sure computer and router were up to date with firmware/software.
I'm assuming that it has to be a computer problem as the PowerMac, iMac and iPod Touch have no issues at all. However, the cure was in the router.
I run with SSID broadcast turned off, WPA2 encryption and MAC address filtering. Allowing broadcast of the SSID cures my problem. Turn it off and the computer connects then drops it ten seconds later. Turn broadcast on and it maintains the connection. I've tried it all afternoon, leaving it connected for about 30 minutes at a time before turning SSID broadcast off again. Works every time! Broadcast SSID - fine, no broadcast - drops after ten seconds.
Now, if only I knew why! And why only the laptop?

New Mac Pro 2.8 vs. Refurbished Mac Pro 3.0?

I'm trying to decide between a new Mac Pro 2.8 and a refurbished Mac Pro 3.0. The refurbished 3.0 is roughly $375 less. I'll be using this for a graphic design business, so we'll be routinely using CS3. Help me decide.

I was faced with the same question at the end of 2007. I had even picked up a new Mac Pro 2.66 quad core, but did not open it. I decided to return it, and fortunately the next day, the 2008 Mac Pros came along. I went with the 8 core 2.8. The 3.0 from 2006/2007 is already dated, and there is no way you will make it faster without spending a ton of money. The refurb unit you are looking at is 2 years old in design. It first came out in August 2006. The expansion slots are all PCIe 1.1 if I recall. With the newer machines they have 2 slots that are PCIe 2.0.
You also have to factor in the upgraded graphics card. Barefeats.com did a little comparison of the video cards, and the 2600 XT fared very well against the 1900XT that is what most folks upgraded to with the 2006 3.0 GHz Mac Pro. The 1900 xt is not a bad car, however, there is no guarantee that you will ever be able to put newer cards in that older machine. There is conjecture that the 8800 GT card that was released for the Early 2008 Mac Pros may work in the older units, but that is not a done deal yet. The 2600 XT does fairly well with Motion.
The 3.0 also ships with 1 GB of RAM while the 2.8 8 core ships standard with 2 GB of RAM. Granted, you will want additional RAM, but you still come out ahead with the early 2008 8 core unit. You do not need to overspend on RAM. Otherworld Computing sells great RAM. I have Apple RAM, OWC RAM, and the Techworks RAM (sold by OWC) in my Mac Pro. I cannot tell the difference and I have had no crashes. 4 GB of RAM is about 219 bucks at OWC.
As for any video or graphics work that you may want to do, the 8 core unit is much more robust for crunching the compression. Compressor can take advantage of the multiple cores. Barefeats.com also did some benchmarking of the 2.8 octo core and the 3.0 octo core unit from 2007. The early 2008 unit was just about even because of the improved L2 Cache and the improved front side bus speed. Overall, the early 2008 units are great performers. The 2.8 quad core should be just about even with the 3.0 quad core in terms of speed. The 2.8 octo core is faster yet, and is about even with the older 3.0 octo core MP. The reason for this is that the 2008 Mac Pros have a faster front side bus and a bigger L2 cache.
I think you are wasting your money going with a discontinued unit, that has questionable upgradeability paths in regards to video cards, fewer cores, a slower bus speed, less RAM, slower RAM, and less L2 Cache memory. As an aside, the early 2008 Mac Pro features PCIe 2.0 slots, whereas the 2006 Mac Pro does not.
As for adding a second DVD drive, you can get the drives for about 30 dollars. They are not expensive like they used to be.
In regards to all of the stuff floating around about Leopard, I do a lot of graphics, including Final Cut Studio 1, and Creative Suite 3. I have had few issues. With the latest Leopard upgrade, and the recent updates with the other programs, Leopard runs every bit as good as Tiger did. The only recurring theme I have seen that has not been resolved with the newer systems and hardware has been the drivers for audio gear and recording. Otherwise, the new machines are very stable and speedy.
Other folks have went the refurb way and have been very happy. Some folks went with the newer machine, and they are happy. Only you can decide what makes the deal the best for you. Do not base everything on the higher priced Crucial RAM. Oh, one other thing that you get with the early 2008 Mac Pro is a nifty aluminum keyboard. After using this keyboard you will not want to use anything else.
Good luck with your decision. I know it is difficult.

GarageBand performance on Mac Pro

Yesterday when I was composing a beautiful song I had a couple of instruments playing at the same time. At the bottom of the screen I see the notes of the score I´m composing as they are played. While this is nevertheless surprising, I am actually curious about how this would look on a Mac Pro.
As soon as the song audio produces just a little bit of work for the CPU, the screen refresh goes down from perfect timing to one second chokes on my machine as the same time as CPU load goes beyond 110 %. Activity monitor show there are about 20 threads in GarageBand. The sound is perfect. What happens if, say one buys a 2x2.0 GHz Mac Pro(4 cores totally)? The actual CPU frequency will be lower, but would the display respond better? That is: Is GarageBand a program that handles multiple threads well or does one have to buy a Mac Pro with higher CPU frequency?
(I´m using a 30" Apple Cinema HD Display)

pink_snow wrote:
The hatter wrote:
Can you imagine a Mac Pro not handing it without breaking into a sweat? I can't.
What does this sentence mean? Please simplify!
I'm positive he worded that incorrectly. "What he meant to say is "Can you imagine a Mac Pro that couldn't handle it without breaking a sweat?" Basically a Mac Pro is designed to go the distance with applicaitons like this, given you've configured the machines with enough memory and storage resources.

Support for mac pro

I am told that Apple is not supporting Mac Pro from now on
If this short-sighted abandoning of the professional creative communities is true, what recommendations are there for bullet proof Mac systems from 2012 onwards?
Picture editors, recording and post production studios, design studios, composers all need a top end machine with an open architecture and no 'designed-in' constraints which feature on all other current Macs.
Are we back with the build your own approach of a PC?
Any insights welcome
Ian

there are good reasons for wanting to sustain and renew Mac Pro systems.
And that is exactly what will happen.
Power: Although the iMac is an extremely powerful machine in its own right, the Mac Pro's performance still kicks the iMac's butt all the way up and down the block. Benchmark performance in Geekbench shows the 12-core 2.93 GHz Mac Pro coming in with an astounding score of 21,789. That's nearly twice the 11,581 score earned by the most powerful iMac, a quad-core 3.4 GHz model.
Benchmarks only tell part of the story, however. A Mac Pro that's been maxed-out on Apple's online store with as much RAM and hard disk capacity as you can shove into it is a Godzilla of a machine:
    •    Two 2.93 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon processors (for a total of 12 cores)
    •    8 TB of internal storage
    •    64 GB of RAM
    •    Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1 GB of video RAM -- each.
The best you can do with an iMac via Apple's configuration options?
    •    3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
    •    2 TB HDD + 256 GB SSD
    •    16 GB RAM
    •    AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 2 GB of video RAM
The top-end iMac is an incredibly powerful machine by consumer and even professional standards, but a fully-upgraded Mac Pro is practically ostentatious in the amount of raw processing power it can wield. Professional consumers in areas like 3D rendering, video editing, and other extremely processor-intensive applications surely appreciate the much greater power the Mac Pro can afford them.
Customization:
The Mac Pro stomps the iMac in the customization department. Folding down the Mac Pro's side door gives you easy and almost instant access to its innards, and virtually every component is simple to swap out. Hard drives in particular are extraordinarily easy to swap in the Mac Pro.
Contrast that with the iMac, where the RAM is essentially the only user-serviceable component. Swapping out the hard drive on an iMac is a harrowing procedure that requires removing the entire front display -- not something you're going to want to do more than once, if ever. You could argue that the iMac's Thunderbolt capability vastly expands its customization options (and I will, later on), but it still doesn't quite measure up to the amount of customization available to a Mac Pro.

Mac Pro Quad core power and cooling concerns

My current MDD 867 is getting a bit long in the tooth. I am looking at getting a quad mac pro this fall. Waiting till MacWorld is a verrrrry long wait option. Did I mention that the MDD cooked off one of my drives recently?
What I plan on building is the following :
Mac Pro Quad 3 GHz
4 Gb ram
Ati X1900 (extra cooling fan?)
250 GB boot drive
500 GB Barracuda mirror raid
16X SuperDrive
Knowing the power and cooling issues that the MDD has intimately, this new machine configuration gives me pause. Can anyone attest to the power and cooling capabilities of the Mac Pro? Will the above configuration be ok? How about possible fan speed noise? The MDD, with new power supply is a noise beast!
TIA
Poirot

Thanks for the reply.
To be a a little more clear, when I referred to quad, I meant 2x dual-core processors.
The raid was for storage of my images. I have an external firewire drive for backups of the system drive, and other important files. Photography is my hobby, and need to build a new workstation to store and edit the images.
The UPS was a good idea. That was in the back of my mind. I could try and bring an APC SU2200XL from work
I was hoping that Apple would announce the new Mac Pro this fall. I know that the raw processor speed difference is not that much, but the FSB speed difference could make a nice improvement. I just didn't want to get one now, and then 10 days later, there is a new one. I would be really mad at myself. I was looking at the refurb models. The price difference between the 4 and 8 core models is $100, when available. The downside is that the 8-core model does not come with the Ati card.
The allure of Leopard is not that strong to me. We are running the beta at work, and while nice, it is still too buggy.
The main intent of the thread was to make sure that the specs'd out model would not generate too much heat, and suck up too much power from the power supply. I know that the MDD compared tot he Mac Pro is night and day, but a little reassurance is always helpful.
Thanks
Mack

3 GHz Mac pro vs 2.66 base configuration---your recommendations please

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for