Mac Pro 8 core 2.4 or 6 core 3.33?

Looking for a refurb or used Mac Pro and wondering which 2010 model will be best bang for buck. Immediate needs are for Windows emulation, Photoshop||Lightroom||Aperture (correction and light editing for product image batch production), scanning and OCR, page layout. Down the line a bit I'll be getting into video creation, 3D modeling and printing. Gaming also. Would two extra cores in the 8 core model at 2.4 GHz be better than .93 extra GHz in the 6 core model? Insights apppreciated.

I am using Log and Transfer and bring the footage in as Apple ProRes 22 and files are really huge, I don't have an option to change that for some reason anyway. I own a Sony XR500 HD cam. But for example adding a simple effect like Bloom to a 3 minute clip takes 22 minutes approx. Just imagine what editing hours of footage is like. When I look at the Activity Monitor I see that there are 16 cores but only 5-10% being used, and out out 12gb of ram, only 2gb being used. What the heck is going on? This feels like editing on my 17 MacBook Pro 2.53 4gb of ram. I could have kept that instead of spending $4000 on a Mac Pro that has similar performance. Is there anyone else experiencing this? Will Snow Leopard do anything for me for FCP 6?

Similar Messages

Apple Mac Pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core

Hey guys,
Ive got a real brain teaser. I have a apple mac pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core that wont boot.
The leds on the memory test good its all tested in another mac and working well.
The 9 leds are reading as follows 2nd led lit yellow. Led 9,8,7 Green- which from my research is good.
Ive also reset the cmos battery and vram, nothing.
Pulled the memory and video card and re-seated them also nothing.
The last thing i tryed was shut the computer down sit for 30 seconds then held alt and got the install mac os screen not a hard drive option.
Which leads me to think its not seeing the hard drive?
Any suggestions?

Starts up with fans
Makes the apple chime
The chime is generated in software when the first portion of the power-on self test has passed.Your Mac is working and has enough working RAM memory to start up.
You still may have problems with drives, the software on those drives, or your graphics card.
apple logo comes up
The dark gray Apple is loaded by the ROM boot loader in the first blob of software (before the file system is initialized). Its presence indicates your Mac can get some stuff off a Hard Drive, and seeing it indicates your graphic card can display something in a primitive way.
with spinning gear and just sits there for hours
It is stuck booting up something. Verbose Mode (hold Command-V at startup) will show you the parade of messages. The last five will tell you what happened.

How do i engage my 8 core mac pro to use all it's cores when using final cut pro and other applications that need processing power? at the moment they seem to be idle...

how do i engage my 8 core mac pro to use all it's cores when using final cut pro and other applications that need processing power? at the moment they seem to be idle...

First, did you use Setup or Migration Assistant? That can happen when coming from a PowerMac or sometimes even from another (Intel) Mac.
Second, wait for the next version of Final Cut due very soon to ship (may have to wait for the ".1" of course to clean up any early issues.
Final Cut Pro - Wikipedia
There are a few apps that are better. I think you can run multiple instances of Handbrake for one.
I've read about and wanted to try PowerDirector 9 (Windows)
PowerDirector 9 video software
video editing software Wiki

Kann man auf einem Mac Pro 1.1 mit 2 quard core 3ghz intel Xeon 5355 OS X Maverics Installieren ?

Kann man auf einem Mac Pro 1.1 mit 2 quard core 3ghz intel Xeon 5355 (64 Bit) Os X Mavericks instalisieren ?

No. The processors do not decide.
Only Mac Pro with firmware 2008-model or later.
Too-old firmware is the failure.

Can I install a Barracuda 7200.12 500 GB hard drive in a Mac Pro 2.26. GHz Quad Core Intel Xeon machine?

Will it work?

2.26 was an 8-core 2009
2.66 was used in 2009 but more often found in 2006 model.
Any you never taken out or installed or upgraded your Mac Pro's hard drive(s) and sled?
http://www.apple.com/support/macpro
Mac Pro 2006 Specifications
Mac Pro 2009 Tech Specs
Mac Pro 2009 User Guide
They are 100% DIY with any standard 3.5" SATA drive, or a drive using an adapter that fits the drive sled - such as an SSD or 2.5" drive even.

Why is the boot time on my mac pro 2010 slower than my 2010 core 2 duo 13 mbp?

Why is the boot time on my mac pro with clean install of lion around 34 sec on my mac pro 2010 2.8 quad core, when it is only around 17 sec on my 13 mbp 2.67 core 2 duo?
The mac pro uses around 13 seconds from i hit the power button til i hear the chime and see the grey screen.
Is it because it uses time to find the wireless keyboard, trackpad and cinema display?
Mac pro has 16 gb ram and 240 gb ocz agility 3 ssd, macbook pro has a intel 120 gb ssd (320 i think) and 8 gb of ram, so the mac pro has more umpf....

Well it might take a little longer since POST (power-on self test) needs to check more memory.
But try doing a smc and pram reset and see if that helps.

Which Mac Pro to purchase - 4 or 6 core for Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop CC

Hey There, I am new to this forum and wanted to ask a question on the current Mac Pro's.
I am thinking of purchasing a new Mac Pro but i honestly can't work out if it's worth going for the 4 or 6 core version. I don't think Illustrator CC takes advantage of multicore but i think possibly Indesign CC and definitely photoshop CC does. I could be completely wrong though things may have changed.
I am a graphic designer and mostly work in print. I create posters, brochures and occasionally large format event work. Recently I have been working with files around the 500mb - 1GB mark, in photoshop, indesign and Illustrator, thats about as big as they ever get size wise.
I am not rendering things or doing anything too crazy, mostly throwing around 100mb+ files with all of these 3 apps open with multiple layers all at once, possibly office apps too in the background word, powerpoint etc.
I have heard conflicting opinions on this and I hope to come to some kind of conclusion. This question has been asked before in the past but without much of a definitive resolution. Whenever I have seen an Adobe mod join the conversation its usually a copy and pasted minimum spec link or something like that. Not a clear jump off the fence, 'I would advise this configuration, it's best for your workflow' comment.
I realise more ram would be good.. larger SSD etc... but its more the actual base machine I am interested in some help picking, are the extra cores worth it? the bells and whistles can be added later and i have a good idea what to chose there.

Thanks so much for the advice I realise they would both be perfectly fine for what I need to do, but my main issue is working out how much I would gain by going with the 6 core. Would it be worth the extra cost to push it to the 6 core version and would I see the difference to such an extent that the cost is worth it. Not being 100% sure how these apps and the OS in general take advantage of 4 compared to 6 core and the levels of benefit involved. If the gain is relatively small then I should just go for the 4 core, but if there are actual real world speed differences and enough future proof reasons to go for the 6 I would do. Basically would I notice it if i went for the 6 core. I spoke to an authorised Apple reseller recently who advised the 6 core but was unable to explain why it was better than the 4 and by how much.
Thanks again for the help ,
Jamie

Here is a 2 for one, On a Mac Pro 5,1 2.66ghz 6 core Xeon.

My mac pro is developing some strangeness, now when I go to start up the machine in morning it doesnt turn on until I have hit the power button 3 times, sometimes even this doesnt do the trick so I unplug it wait a couple sec and plug back in. So far its always actually started and I am happy for that as I am busy on 2 jobs right now and cannot afford this. Any ideas on what could be happening? This behaviour started probably 2 weeks ago. I have apple care and machine is only about 7 months old...
Second part I recently purchased a memory upgrade kit from Ramjet taking th e system from 12 to 24 gigs, the ram are 6 matched pairs of 4gb and according to the info I have found should be exactly what is needed. 1033mhz ddr3, anyway I istalled it last week during a short lull. after a week I have removed it and replaced my original 12 gigs as the computer was behaving very slowly and when I checked the activity monitor the drive was doing crazy read write activity like i was rendering something or moving big geometry in 3D. This is with nothing but AM skype and safari running. anyway it gets better when I re install my oem ram the computer kept telling me 3 times in a row that I had not put the ram in correctly so I just moved teh chips around until it was happy.
Now when I check activity monitor with original ram I am back to disc activity around 1.4 gig read and 670mb write while its just sitting as oposed to 20+ gb with the ramjet memory.
It seems to be runnning fine now but I am really concerned that there is something fundamentally wrong with this machine now.
Any thoughts or assist greatly appreciated.

Ask Ramjet to take them back, test, and send a new set to test.
When you get new RAM, I actually recommend a quick test with Apple Hardware test at the least. There are also some memory test and performance uttilities worth running. Some run Geekbench (has memory bandwidth) as well as PRIME for OS X.
But you should contact Ramjet. Maybe have them take it back and get Crucial or Kingston (they really do make a difference).
Watch your system more closely, monitor temps as well as use AM.
Maybe your power cord is bad or the wall outlet, or if using a UPS maybe that is not adequate (900W unit?).

Can the newer logic boards still read the mac pro 1.1 2.66ghz duo core proc

i just bought a G5 and i am looking to upgrade it. I just bought the 2.66 ghz processors, and I am looking to buy a new logic board and was wondering if i bought a 2009 logic board would it still be compatible with the 2006 processors?

Unlike PCs (that stayed with one Hardware manufacturer year after year, and therefore did not change much of anything for decades) Mac hardware has been allowed to evolve over time. Macs have gone through several different processors from different manufacturers over the years.
It is a tribute to the superior engineering of the Mac Operating System that Apple has been able to extend and migrate Mac OS to accommodate wildly different hardware. Enormous incompatibilities tend not to appear all-at-once.
But change must eventually come. If you fancy running Mac OS X 10.6, it runs only on Intel Processors. The G5 is the last of the Motorola/IBM PowerPC processor series. The first was released about 1994 (PowerPC 601 in the 6100 series) and the last G5 was discontinued about 2006. There are a great number of people still running G4 and G5 Macs, generally using Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5. There are still a number of fairly vibrant forums on this Hardware and Software.
But if you want to end up with a working Mac Pro, you need to start with a Mac Pro chassis, not a G5 chassis. As Kappy points out the Processors, drives, peripheral interfaces, chassis cut-outs, Power Supply and most importantly Airflow/Cooling (with processor-controlled fans) are completely different, and there is no sensible way to adapt a G5 chassis to intel processors.
Starting with a Mac Pro chassis, the upgrades will only be difficult instead of impossible.

ATI HD 4870 vs 5770 vs 5870 on Mac Pro (3,1) 2.8 Octo Core

Im sorry if I'm asking a noob question but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out which Video Card I should get. To me it appears the higher the Model number the better the card.
What throws me off is the face that the 4870 cost more than the 5770 which appears to have better specs. I don't think I can afford the 5870 at this time so depending on the replies I might not even consider the 5870.
I want a Video Card to run in Windows 7 under BootCamp for gaming. I also want to just plug in the New 27" Apple LED with no issues - unlike my current ATI HD 2600 card.
These are the questions I have...
(1) Is there a HUGE gaming performance difference between the 5870 and the 5770?
(2) Why does the older 4870 cost more than the 5770?
(3) Why do some recommend using a DVI to Mini Display Port adapter ($200) when you can get a New Video Card for $249.00?
I would also appreciate any links to read up on if you have any.
I plan to sell my 30" Apple Cinema Display to pay for a New 27" Apple LED and a New Video Card.
PS - Any other alternatives to the 27" Apple LED? Any of the competition have a similar product?
Thanks for your time.

The 4870 is a better card than the 5770; more bandwidth.
It just saves a test cycle when one card is already known to be slower than another.
More results:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40254
The only way a 5770 comes close to or beats a 5870 is in a crossfire vs single card situation:
http://www.overclock.net/ati/644665-radeon-5770-cf-vs-5870-vs.html
The 3 cards are on this page:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14
Get the 5870.

Obsolete new "Mac Pro" vs Windows 6 Core 3930K PC - What should I expect?

OK, I ordered a pretty fast PC from Amazon, kind of a no-name gaming PC but it had great specs, i7 3930 Six Core at 3.2 ghz.
Installed a Nvidia GTX 670, did the supported cards text file hack, and Premiere Pro 5.5 on it, along with Quicktime Pro, and fonts I needed. I also installed a nifty program called X-Mouse which allowed me to customize my logitech scrolling mouse to use Premiere Pro as I also using USB Overdrive on my Mac - indispensable software.
Got a KVM so I could use my 2 large displays currently hooked up to my Mac on the PC without totally disabling my Mac Pro 2008 8 core - it is my workhorse and I use it all the time.
Finally got the PC somewhat functional on with Premiere Pro and even got it working with projects and media via a fast network connection. It seemed like butter vs my old Mac Pro. My lack of being a Windows power user I'm sure was responsible for my ultimate failure at getting my Windows system, but there could be hardware issues with this particular PC as well. Ultimately it was a total pain to share projects and media that resided on my Mac. Using Premiere Pro on the PC was identical in many ways to the Mac, just faster.
However the PC started going downhill pretty much as I got it working. It wouldn't properly reboot, always spinning in the 'Shutting Down' screen. I had to hard restart it all the time.
Then things started to go south, probably due to system corruption from having to hard reset it. I installed a fresh OS on the other internal drive in hopes it would fix the problems, a whole new set of software to get Premiere Pro working well. Again, shutdown hangs, without any diagnostics other than windows coming up at the hard restart saying there was a problem with the previous shutdown, and wiping out a lot of stuff each time. Then in hopes of curing the ills, a reformat of the drives, reinstallation of Windows 7 Pro, and then the ability to actually install the OS. 2 reformatted drives that cannot b installed with OS. Epic failure. The replacement is on the way.
But this being said, the amount of time in order to make this environment 'cross platform' as well as the indiocyncracies of Windows (to me, I'm not bashing Windows - it seems to be a fine OS!) makes me rethinking the PC for Premiere Pro switch.
I realize the current Mac Pros are basically obsolete, however, MY Mac Pro really is, it's from 2008 and not the fastest model from that era (2.8ghz 8 core, non threading Xeon.)
Investigating "new" Mac Pros, I can get a 6 Core 3.3 ghz threading Mac Pro plus 32GB of RAM for about $3,500. I can get a 12 Core 3.09 ghz for $6,700 and a refurb 2.93ghz with 32GB for about $5,700. The Windows PC with everything I need is in the $4K range. I don't need any new peripherals to make it a direct replacement for my current Mac Pro, all PCI, peripherals will just work. I'm familiar with the OS, and all my apps and plugins will work, no KVM necessary, no cross platform issues. Just not as cost effective as the PC and perhaps slower.
However...
Disregarding the cost, my time is valuable and I probably spend a good 3 solid days getting something non functional to work. There will be continual inefficiencies because I'm not a Windows shop, and I don't foresee this.
Will any 'new' Mac Pro, regardless of the cost, get me to the speed using Premiere Pro of this 6 core 3.2ghz i7 3930K? If I get the answer that the Mac 12 core will get me there, it may be a viable option. If the 6 core will get me 80% there, it might be the 'best buy' option.
Thanks for any advice, really!
-Keith

Thanks Eric and Harm for the helpful answers. I was hoping that Windows 7 had evolved to the point where knowning and using some of the troubleshooting techniques that Harm mentioned would not have to be necessary. I do have the ability / skill, etc, but not necessarily the desire to troubleshoot, but was kind of hoping that I wouldn't need to get to this level on such a simple installation, really it was just CS 5.5 and Video drivers. It is very possible the KVM was blocking on the USB request. This occasionally will happen with a hung device on Mac OS X and firewire, but usually it times out after a while. However there have been those odd times where I needed to unplug everything and even do a NVRAM reset on the Mac to get it back. This is pretty rare though. I even have my Mac set to 'verbose mode' which leaves the unix console up on boot and shutdown so I can track offending things like this. Maybe there is a Windows equivalent to this, which would have been helpful. Knowing that there might be some request that wasn't returning, I left Windows in this state for hours, it never got back. I had no choice but to hard restart it. I didn't examine logs and such, though I could have. I just want it to work or to fail gracefully, and not fail in such a way that makes it unusable and unrecoverable without in depth troubleshooting. I also have to use the KVM, without it I can't possibly use the system. So if the KVM makes the PC hang, then I can't use the PC. It doesn't make my Mac hang.
I am also quite positive that ADK's systems would have been a lot more robust and their emergency DVD's would have actually been able to help me as well as their expert tech support. I also appreciate that though Eric and ADK are a business, that the advice you have provided to me is just helpful and agnostic. This goes a long way to pushing my next PC purchase in the ADK direction!
Getting back to my original question, which was not one of troubleshooting Windows PC's though that advice is helpful...
Seems like a 12-Core Mac would allow me to edit well. I can edit right now with my 2008 Mac Pro 8 Core with 24GB RAM and 240GB SSD and Quadro 4000 and numerous internal and external RAIDs, but just scrubbing AVCHD I see all 8 processors go to nearly 100 % utilization and it's laggy. Not the best editing experience. If I have a few AVCHDs overlaid, which I do, it's almost unusable. As the Premiere Pro project gets bigger and more complex, it seems that everything gets slower. I have no scientific basis for this but I think it's true. It doesn't have to be just the sequence I'm working on, it seems to be even navigating simple sequences will be laggier if in a larger complex Premiere Pro project file.
On the Windows PC i7, for the few hours it was functioning, I was able to scrub AVCHD 1080P footage over a gigabit ethernet like butter. I was pleased with this. It was a very simple 1 track sequence, however. I didn't have a chance to try it with more complex projects before it was unusable.
Would I get smooth performance from a Mac Pro 6 Core, which is $2,500 less than the 12 core? From the basic Mac benchmarking I see, I see a 'rating' of 14000 for the Mac Pro 6 Core, and around 9000 for my current Mac Pro 8 core. This is about 50% more. I don't think 50% is going to get me to 'butter.'
Thanks again for all the helpful advice, Harm and Eric.
-Keith

Mac Pro 5.1 6 core vs. 2013 iMac

This is probably an odd question, I know.
I'm a medical student currently working on a 2010 Macbook Air. I have ~$1800 to spend on a machine that I want to last me for another 4 years at least.
No, I don't do any video editing or anything like that. My primary usage is research with multitasking (i.e. I want a couple dozen browser tabs open, MS Word, Powerpoint, and Endnote open without noticing much lag as I do currently).
I have a local seller with a 2010 Mac Pro 6 core 3.33 + 16GB ram for $1800.
My other option is a 27" iMac i5.
I'll put an SSD into both of them.
The raw power of the Mac Pro attracts me to it, which makes me think it will last me longer despite being a few years old already. Also, I don't want the 21.5" iMac because I need a large screen so that I can have Word and a browser open side by side, so the i7 model is out.

Hey, dudes, i don't want to start any trouble. Your machines are very nice.
But you're missing the point. Most software does not take advantage of multiple cores, or can only do so in a limited fashion. Geekbench single-core scores are not analogous to a one-cylinder engine test. The difference in the test is that the multi-core version is written specifically to use as many cores as possible, and include special CPU instructions that do parallel processing. The CPU is not "limited" to using a single core, and if you monitor your machine, you'll see it doesn't just use one core. The benchmark measures performance WITH SOFTWARE THAT CAN/DOES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MULTIPLE CORES, vs SOFTWARE THAT CAN'T/DOESN'T. Look for explanations at, say, http://macperformanceguide.com/ or http://www.macworld.com/article/1162105/macworlds_new_speedmark_7_benchmark_suit e.html . The vast majority of software does not make good use of multiple cores, and will benefit more from higher clock speeds (and Turbo-Boost) than from more cores.
The vast majority of software does not take good advantage of multiple cores, and nothing the OP listed does. Even with multi-core specific software like Photoshop, etc., it may be able to take great advantage of 4 cores but not much beyond that... so even pro video oriented reviews talk about (in comparing Mac Pros to each other) the 6-core as the "sweet spot", because its higher clock frequency trumps the number of cores (6-core at 3.33 vs 12-core at 2.93 GHz, etc). Look at the inverse ratio between "ordinary task" performance and "core-friendly" task speed nicely laid out in the CPU discussion at http://macperformanceguide.com/ . Look at barefeats.com comparisons of iMacs vs. Mac Pros over the last few years.
So, as a rule, a faster 4-core machine will outperform a slower 6, 8, or 12-core machine of the same processor architecture on most tasks. The high core counts are there for very specific applications where the parallelism vs. clock-speed tradeoff is carefully engineered to take advantage of more cores. This is actually a very hard (often impossible) thing to do; taking advantage of higher levels of parallelism has been a Holy Grail of Computer Science for decades with only small, specific improvements in limited tasks. Single-core vs dual-core or quad-core performance often makes a significant difference because there is some "naive parallelism" in the OS overhead, the running of different programs simultaneously, etc., but testing has shown that beyond4 cores there is not much benefit for such "naive parallelism".
So, for our OPs intended use, the iMac will likely be faster and more responsive. If he had said we was going to be doing a lot of complex rendering or video editing, I would certainly suggest the mac pro instead.

New Mac Pro for FCP - should I do 8 cores or faster clock?

I'm setting up a FCP station to replace a 2.3 GHz dial G5 and I'm wondering which would be better - an 8-core 2.26 GHz or a 4-core 2.93 GHz Mac Pro.
Right now the G5 is most likely to choke up when rendering/auto rendering within FCP.
Based on price and the trends in parallel processing, I'm guessing I should go with the 8-core, but that old-school MHz addict in me keeps second guessing. I'd appreciate any advice/insights!

American Flannel wrote:
I heard the new four core mac pro dusts my 2.8ghz 8 core in benchmarking
That's not exactly true. I've been doing some research in the past 24 hours and it seems that the benchmarks (like Geekbench) in which the new 4-core "dusts" the previous 8-core are those which include memory tests. Memory tests will run much faster on the new Nehelems because they use faster RAM.
But the early 2008 8-cores are scoring higher on some benchmarks which score single and multi threaded tasks and don't get hung up in cumbersome RAM tests.
As for the current 4-cores versus the current 8-cores, it seems that the 2.96 GHz 4-cores are beating the more expensive 2.26 8-core procs in single-threaded operations. In FCP, only Compressor is optimized for multithreading, so I'm guessing the real benefits of the extra cores won't be visible until both snow leopard and a new version of FCP.
Why a new version of FCP? Because from what I've gleaned, Grand Central will not make single-threaded operations run better, but will give developers tools to more easily utilize parallel processing. So it would seem FCP will need a significant upgrade to take advantage of what 10.6 has to offer. Don't know if it'll be a .5 or a full version upgrade, but I'm betting on one of them.
Please don't take this as gospel... if I'm wrong about any of this, I'd love to hear a contrary opinion.
Message was edited by: Rey Mo

Opinions, Mac pro 12 core or 6 core for video editing?

Hello everyone,
I know that this a most likely a rhetorical question but i currently have a mac pro 12 core 2.4ghz 12 gigs of ram (plan on upgrading to 32 gigs) and a 6 core 3.33ghz 12 gigs of ram. I do a lot of video editing (starting to use Final cut pro X) and i do a lot of visual effects work in Adobe after effects and 3D animaton work in cinema 4d. I am only keeping one of the computers.. what are your guys thoughts? Should i keep the 12 core even tough it has a lower clock speed, or should i keep the 6 core since it has a higher clock speed? I dont mean to ask such a dumb question but i want to hear what your guys thoughts are.
Thanks in advance!

After Effects: http://www.barefeats.com/aecs6.html
If you rely on cpu alone, it may look like it is working, or lagging, or wating, but with the combined power of GPGPU can make all the difference.
Communicating over Quick-Path is okay but Intel knows that they need to up the GT and L3 cache to improve it more. ie, there are times when two 6-core Mac Pros are faster than one 12-core, given the same GHz.
the real reason people bought dual with lower clock was hoping it would do more work, but when you have 3.33GHz a lot of work that cann't be dispatched and is not multi-thread or multicore all benefit.
W3680s are relatively cheap @ $600, you will not find X5600 sets unless you can make your system pay for whatever you throw at it and do so in a year to write it off and pay for doing more projects and more income.
This guy goes kind of crazy with custom setup 12-core 3.33s, 960GB SSD PCIe and 96GB RAM.
More RAM helps some areas but not rendering. So find the bottlenecks or throw everything at the problem and hope.
$1660 a piece X5680 - $1470 on Amazon
http://ark.intel.com/products/47916/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5680-(12M-Cache-3_33-G Hz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI)
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-X5680-Processor-Socket-LGA1366/dp/B003ELYSJQ/
Only if you shop ebay for used parts, and by then whatever Intel and Apple agree on next go round new is a better system solution most of the time than to throw $3000 into an older system. $3k would be another 6-core 3.33 if that helps.

Mac Pro Upgradable from one core to two cores?

If I were to buy a Mac Pro with One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” would I be able to get a second One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” and put it in later?

From what I could grasp at this forum and general googling, you can totally upgrade the Mac Pro with another processor later. People have done it to 2006, 2008 and 2009 models. Take a look at AnandTech and also www.o0o.it.
It doesn't seem to be an easy procedure, but if you had some experience with computer parts before it would not be a too much of a trouble.
There are two main issues you can face:
1. You need to make sure that your Mac Pro will have two processor slots on the motherboard. I wasn't able to find an exact confirmation of that on the net.
2. You will most definitely have only one heatsink installed, so you will need to buy a second one. Apparently, they are not identical, as in Apple's parts list they are listed as "A" and "B", but I'm not sure about that. Check the www.welovemacs.com they seem to have one on sale. Btw, it also looks like the 2010 model and 2009 models have the identical heatsinks, so you should be able to find it on eBay.
I'm looking at the Mac Pro myself at the moment, and it seems that there is literally no reason to buy more dual-CPU models. Xeons will not cost peanuts in the future, but they will definitely be cheaper than now.

Is the new Core i7 MacBook Pro as fast as my quad core Mac Pro?

Hello,
I'm wondering if someone could advise me about the relative power of my current Mac Pro (2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 8GB RAM), and the new 17" MacBook Pro (2.66GHz Core i7 8GB RAM). Is there a website that details such comparisons?
The reason being that I'm thinking of exchanging my Mac Pro for a MacBook Pro, so that I would be able to have a more mobile system. If the processing speed, on tasks such as video encoding, was similar between these machines, then I am tempted.
Other than processing speed, I'm wondering if there would be any disadvantages to going ahead with this swap. One thing that comes to mind is that I would need to unplug a number of cables when taking the MacBook Pro on the road, but as I wouldn't be doing so a lot I don't see this as a particular issue. In terms of storage, I would be getting external enclosures to house the SATA drives currently in my Mac Pro and connecting them to the Macbook Pro through FireWire 800, which presumably means slower transfers between the drives, but again, this isn't a particular concern as transfer speeds would still be pretty fast.
My Mac Pro is connected to an Apple Cinema Display so obviously I would keep hold of that as a display for the MacBook Pro, and use my Apple keyboard/mouse as well.
Are there any other disadvantages that I haven't considered?
Thanks
Nick

OK. Here's some test results. The most intense process I use on my Macs is using Handbrake to encode either DVDs or mkv files to mp4 files which generally pushes all cores to the max. I am using the latest 64bit version of Handbrake on both Macs.
So I took a sample mkv file of 65 seconds length and ran it using the same settings on both the Mac Pro (2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 8GB RAM) and the Macbook Pro (2.66 GHz Intel Core i7 4GB RAM), straight after starting up both Macs so that there was plenty of RAM to spare on both. I ran the test two times on each Mac and got similar results both times, with the best results on each machine being as follows:
Mac Pro: max RAM used: 380MB, Time for encode: 102 seconds
Macbook Pro: max RAM used: 495MB, Time for encode: 84 seconds
This was for a 2-pass encoding with Turbo first pass to 2200kbps MP4 file from 720p mkv file.
So the Macbook Pro is coming in considerably quicker for this particular task. I'm not sure why the Mac Pro used less RAM, and whether this is the main factor in the time difference. Like I said, there was plenty of unused RAM on both Macs when I ran the test. I am no expert on the inner workings of Macs!
Needless to say though, I am happy with the results and very happy with the new Macbook Pro.
Nick

Mac Pro 8 core 2.4 or 6 core 3.33?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for