Which Mac Pro for Bootcamp / Aperture 2

Im planning on buying a Mac Pro from apple's refurb store. Was wondering if it is worth it to pay $400 more for the eight core 2.8 vs the quad core 2.8? I'll mainly use the computer for Aperture 2.0 to work with 10-14mb RAW files, Windows Vista on bootcamp and the usual office 2008 / safari / itunes. Will I have an advantage in terms of speed by buying the 8 core model?
In both cases I plan to have 8GB Ram and a WD 640GB Caviar Blue drive and the ATI 3870 gradually.

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro3.html - 8 vs 4-core
http://www.barefeats.com/harper10.html - Motion 3 RAM Preview graphics
If you wanted to upgrade to 8-core later, it would cost more, not supported, and you might have to buy a pair of cpus, I'd spend the $400.

Similar Messages

  • Can I use a NTFS HD in Mac Pro for Bootcamp/Parallels?

    Hi,
    I'm a long time PC user who has just recently bought a Mac Pro.
    I have a HD in my old PC (74GB WD Raptor) that I would like to install in my Mac Pro, with the intention of using this drive as a Bootcamp partition. The HD is formatted but in NTFS.
    If I install this HD in my Mac Pro will it recognise it? Will I be able to install Bootcamp & Windows XP on it? Or will I have to convert the HD to FAT32 (where I think the max partition size is 32GB)?
    Also, If using Parrallels, is there any advantage in using a Bootcamp installation of Windows, or should I just forget about Bootcamp?
    Cheers,
    Simon

    Once you create the partition using Boot camp you can then Follow the steps to get to the Windows partition and format the partition either way.
    From page 12 of the Boot Camp Installation Guide:
    "NFTS provides better reliability and security, but you will not be able to save files to the Windows volume from OS X.
    FAT provides better compatibility allowing you to read and write files on the Windows volume from OS X. This option is available only if the Windows partition you created is 32GB or smaller."

  • Which Mac Pro for print and which for web

    My department is going to be purchasing new computers in the next month. I want to make an informed decision on which ones to buy.
    We have both print and web designers. All will be getting new computers. However, I think that print and web probably have different technical needs.
    So, of the three available: Quad-Core, 8-Core and 12-Core...which is best for which medium?

    You could get along fine with an iMac.
    You could wait and be forced to use Lion compliant apps
    Do you need heavy grapic cabability you probably want 24GB RAM, not 8-12 cores  but fastest single cpu available. Or even stock 4-core 2.8 (you don't want more and slower though like 2.4 or 2.6 or even 2.93GHz models).
    Mac Performance Guide Reviews

  • Which Mac Pro for FCP?

    I'm considering purchase of a new Mac Pro, hoping that it would allow more real-time playback of our DVPro 50 edits and faster rendering and compression. I'm also considering purchase of a video card for export to DVCAM and Beta SP. Can anyone help us with advice on what kind of configuration would be best? Thanks in advance.

    Hi Gerret,
    I would opt for the base Mac Pro model over the higher clocked BTO models and put the saved money into adding more memory and- storage.
    The card choice absolutely depends on your (input/output connection) needs.
    Some DVCAM decks have Firewire in/outs so this would require no card at all.
    If you really only need SD i/o then Blackmagic is the only remaining vendor to offer SD-only cards.
    http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/sd/
    Depending on the video i/o interfaces on your deck(s) there are two cards available for PCIe machines (like the Mac Pro):
    $595 DeckLink SP (analog only)
    $895 DeckLink Extreme (analog + SDI)
    AJA has the external Io / Io LA / Io LD boxes available.
    I can only talk about the Io though. It has great quality, a plethora of in/outputs but sets you back quite a bit, moneywise.
    http://www.aja.com/html/productsIoIo.html
    http://www.aja.com/html/productsIoIoLAD.html
    Maybe you should consider getting a HD capable card, though.
    Blackmagic's HD cards start at only $100 more than the SD-only DeckLink Extreme and you would be 'future-proof' then (if that's possible at all
    Best regards, Oliver

  • Which  current Mac Pro for Aperture/Photoshop

    After much research and what seems to be chasing my tail, I though I'd ask the forum for some advice on which machine will best suit my needs. I am currently running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and looking for a fast machine for the job. I sort through around 2500-3000 raw files per week and hope the new Intel Xeons will speed up my workflow. It's the question of "How many cores are better?" that's confusing me as I am unclear on how many Aperture and Photoshop can actually make use of.
    I'm looking to upgrade from my 3.06 iMac to a Mac Pro but having trouble choosing between a new 2.66 quad or a refurbished 2.26 8-core. I understand the drop in processor speed might be noticeable in some instances but the from what I have gathered an upgrade to the ATI HD 4870 is a must as is 6GB ram on the 2.66 and 8GB ram on the 2.26. It's not so much the price difference of the two machines (£2200 for the upgraded 2.66 and roughly £2700 for a refurbished 2.26 plus upgrades) it's will my workflow see any great benefits from the 8-core over the quad. The program I use most is Aperture, followed by Photoshop then FotoMagico, iDVD and Toast Titanium. Does Snow Leopard affect the use of cores in these programs?
    Any feedback is much appreciated or pointing in the direction of some real world tests as all the bench tests of the 8-core are so impressive but I'll not be using it for 3D/Video at all.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    According to the Adobe blog the delay in offering a 64-bit suite for Mac is because the entire suite has to be rewritten in Cocoa (both previous and current offerings are written in Carbon) CS5 will be written in Cocoa and will utilise the full functionality of the Snow Leopard OS (OpenGL, GCD etc) so memory addressing will be a huge step forward on Photoshop (which I use).
    I used Photoshop CS4 on a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8GHz 8 core (dual Xeon 5400 series Quad core CPUs) and just recently switched to a 2009 Mac Pro 2 x 2.26GHz 8 core (Xeon 5500 series Quad core CPUs). I used CS3 on the original Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz (Dual Xeon Dual Core CPUs = 4 cores total). It's not a fair reflection as CS3 ran under Rosetta on the original Mac Pro and CS4 has better integration on the Intel based Macs, but in general, I noticed a much better rate of workflow on the 8 core machines over the 4 core machine.
    More importantly, I would point out that running batch process of RAW files in CaptureOne Pro was significantly performing the batch process on the 8 core machines than on the 4 core machine. (250 RAW files {with no corrections] from a Canon EOS 1D MKII into 16-bitt TIFF files). I can't remember the exact figures but the 8 core machines were @ 23 - 25 minutes quicker than the 4 core machine.
    I know it's not scientific and software versions were different which could add to the different results in part, but the 8 core machines both out performed the 4 core machine substantially.
    However, the 2009 Mac Pro Quad Core is capable of running 2 threads per core (in effect a virtual 8 core machine and as many reviewers have pointed out, perform faster than the 8 core Mac Pro in certain applications (which have not been written to utilise the full multi-CPU-multi-core environment.
    The Memory limitation on the Quad Core is 16GB RAM (Apple state 8GB but reviewers have installed 4 x 4GB DIMMs into the Quad Core without issue). Unless you are doing 3D or HD rendering etc you probably won't really need over 16GBs of RAM, however the cost of 4GB memory sticks is expensive. Crucial only offer a 12GB kit for the Quad Core Mac Pro 2009 to make full use of the triple channel memory speeds (DDR3 best performance in multiples of 3) and 12GBs from Crucial is @£771.00 (prices correct at time of writing this. This equates to @ £257 per 4GB.
    Total for Quad Mac Pro with 12GB (3 x 4GB RAM) = £2670
    Total for Octo Core Mac Pro with 12GB (6 x 2GB RAM) =£2731 (New price not refurb)
    Graphics card upgrade etc will be the same on both machines. Memory based on Crucial Memory prices.
    So, for a 2009 Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, it is £61 dearer for an 8 core (virtual 16 cores) machine over the Quad Core Mac Pro. The 8 core system will give you further memory expansion once prices of the 4GB memory sticks come down significantly. The Quad Core will only be able to be upgraded with 8GB RAM sticks over the 4GB sticks available now and will cost a huge amount at time of launch.
    Buying a refurbishment 2.26 GHz with similar memory upgrade would in my opinion be the way to go. I know the CPU clock speed is lower, but in real time non memory intensive applications the difference will be hardly noticeable.
    I went through the same dilemma as you. I opted for the 8 core system with 12GB RAM and the ATI HD4870 graphics (bought as an upgrade kit so was dearer than the build to order option). I am very happy with my purchase.
    The other option is to check out eBay there may be a very well spec'd 2008 Mac Pro for sale with warranty, 16GB RAM and the 8800GT graphics card for less than either of the new systems.
    Over the long term, the 8 core offers more affordable customisation options over the Quad Core, but it depends on how long you plan to use the machine

  • Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.

    Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.
    The above is what the bar says. It's been a while and wondered, maybe Apple changed the format for forums. Then got this nice big blank canvas to air my concerns. Went to school for Computer Science, BSEE, even worked at Analog Devices in Newton Massachusetts, where they make something for apple. 
    The bottom line is fast CPU = more FPU = more headroom and still can't figure out why the more cores= the slower it gets unless it's to get us in to a 6 core then come out with faster cores down the road or a newer Mac that uses the GPU. Also. Few. I'm the guy who said a few years ago Mac has an FCP that looks like iMovie on Steroids. Having said that I called the campus one day to ask them something and while I used to work for Apple, I think she thought I still did as she asked me, "HOW ARE THE 32 CORES/1DYE COMING ALONG? Not wanting to embarrass her I said fine, fine and then hung up.  Makes the most sense as I never quite got the 2,6,12 cores when for years everything from memory to CPU's have been, in sets of 2 to the 2nd power.  2,4,8,16,32,64,120,256,512, 1024, 2048,4196,8192, 72,768.  Wow. W-O-W and will be using whatever I get with Apollo Quad. 
    Peace to all and hope someone can point us in THE RIGHT DIRECTION.  THANK YOU

    Thanks for your reply via email/msg. He wrote:
    If you are interested in the actual design data for the Xeon processor, go to the Intel site and the actual CPU part numbers are:
    Xeon 4 core - E5.1620v2
    Xeon 6 core - E5.1650v2
    Xeon 8 core - E5.1680v2
    Xeon 12 core - E5.2697v2
    I read that the CPU is easy to swap out but am sure something goes wrong at a certain point - even if solderedon they make material to absorb the solder, making your work area VERY clean.
    My Question now is this, get an 8 core, then replace with 2 3.7 QUAD CHIPS, what would happen?
    I also noticed that the 8 core Mac Pro is 3.0 when in fact they do have a 3.4 8 core chip, so 2 =16? Or if correct, wouldn't you be able to replace a QUAD CHIP WITH THAT?  I;M SURE THEY ARE UO TO SOMETHING AS 1) WE HAVE SEEN NO AUDIO FPU OR PERHAPS I SHOULD CHECK OUT PC MAKERS WINDOWS machines for Sisoft Sandra "B-E-N-C-H-M-A-R-K-S" -
    SOMETHINGS UP AND AM SURE WE'LL ALL BE PLEASED, AS the mac pro      was announced Last year, barely made the December mark, then pushed to January, then February and now April.
    Would rather wait and have it done correct than released to early only to have it benchmarked in audio and found to be slower in a few areas- - - the logical part of my brain is wondering what else I would have to swap out as I am sure it would run, and fine for a while, then, poof....
    PEACE===AM SURE APPLE WILL BLOW US AWAY - they have to figure out how to increase the power for 150 watts or make the GPU work which in regard to FPU, I thought was NVIDIA?

  • Which Mac Pro to buy for Studio 3

    Guys, I'm in the process of upgrading my trusted Power Mac G5 Quad to a Mac Pro.
    I will also upgrade to FCS 3.
    My question is, which Mac Pro to buy? Quad 2.93 OR Octo 2.26?
    Will FCS 3 along with Snow Leopard utilise ALL the Octo's processors? Or am I better off saving the money and sticking with a Quad?

    If your income depends on this work, then buy the biggest, baddest, most RAM-filled Mac Pro you can.
    At least get the octo 2.66. Put 12GB RAM in it, if you can, but put a minimum of 6GB in there. The concept is that as a professional editor, editing for clients, you must be as time efficient as you can afford to be.
    Compressor will use that RAM to compress your stuff a lot faster. Also, Motion can make use of as much RAM as you throw in there. Final Cut Pro itself, not yet.

  • Which Mac Pro to buy for Music Production

    Hi All
    Hope you can help.
    Currently I have a macbook pro ( 2.66Ghz + 4GB ).
    Im planning to buy a mac pro for music production, which is better
    4 Core 2.66Ghz Nehalem CPU + 3x2GB or
    8 Core 2.26 Ghz Nehalem CPU + 6x2GB
    Im heavy on VST/AU's, use a fair bit of audio samples and also will be using a load of ROMpler style sampler instruments.
    Im also looking to future proof the system but if the 8 core system is unnecssary for using logic studio id rather get the 4 core option as its easier on my budget.
    Im also planning to run 3 x 1tb HDD's ( 1 x OS / 1 x Samples / 1 x Music )
    Hope you can advise as itching to buy one with my commission money
    Cheers
    Andrew

    JG99 wrote:
    I've heard from a few Logic users and read on other forums that there is currently little difference in performance between the 8-core and 4-core Mac Pro's when running Logic 8. This may change in the future...?
    Really? The benchmarks seem to indicate that the 8 x 2.26 is 30-40 % more powerful than the 4 x 2.66, a significant difference...
    Personally, I'd get a quad core and spend the difference on ram (from crucial.com) as this will make more of a difference when running power hungry plug-ins.
    JG
    But the 4 core has a max RAM of 8 GB where the 8 core maxes to 32 GB. Might be worth considering.

  • Which Mac Pro to buy for Logic?

    Hi, I am a Logic Pro user, I use lots of tracks with automation, lots of virtual instruments and other plugins.
    I've finally settled on getting a Mac Pro, since I want to use a UAD card, as well as for expandability. So now... Which one? For a given budget, do I want to:
    1) max RAM
    vs
    2) max clock speed
    vs
    3) max number of cores/procs
    Eventually I'll get lots of RAM, so #2 and #3 are my main questions, which will get me the the biggest bang for my buck specifically for use with Logic Pro?
    Thanks!
    Message was edited by: smeet

    Things to consider:
    At the moment, the single processor Mac Pros arent that great in terms of value. 4 memory slots is just kind of crappy for a machine that costs so much.
    That being said, logic wont support more than 8 cores, meaning nothing above the quad core is going to be worth your money for strict use with logic. We have no idea when logic will support more cores.
    Now is not the greatest time to be buying a Mac Pro for various reasons. What kind of budget are you on? Your best bet might be a refurbished 2009 quad core or a 2008 octocore.

  • Which Mac Pro to buy for Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro X?

    Hi, I'm considering to buy a Mac Pro for my personal studio. I have 2 choices in my mind: 1st one is the "Quad-core (one 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon) with 6GB RAM", and the 2nd one is "12-core (Two 2.4GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon) with 12GB RAM". I'll be mainly using Logic Pro 9 and hardcore video editing in Final Cut Pro X. I know the fact that having higher GHz than more cores may benefit you at some point, and only those software applications that are well-written for using multiple cores will be able to utilize the power of 12-core. So, I need to know that are Logic and FCPX are such apps? Are they able to utilize the power of 12-cores or a Quad-core with more GHz will be better? I'm looking for fast operation and smoother workflow, and I'll also be using this computer for a very long time (so, its a major investment!).
    So, the ultimate verdict is to whether to go for more clockspeed or more cores? Money is not the problem here, and I will add more RAMs, SSD according to the need later after couple of months, but considering nothing else I need you to compare between these two machines! If the 12-core machine is even 1% faster I'll go for it, but I don't want to end up spending more money on the machine with will have less power and utility.
    Regards.

    6 core 3.33 1st choice
    8 core 2.93 or higher

  • Random rebooting. Mac Pro. Bootcamp.  Why?

    Hi
    I have an early 2008 Mac Pro running bootcamp and last night it started randomly rebooting. Sometimes it occurs a couple minutes after it has booted. Sometimes it takes longer.
    As I am pretty Mac-illiterate I would greatly value any help in this matter because I do not know what to do.
    Here is some background info:
    Early 2008 Mac Pro. Dual quad core intel Xeon processors, 2.8 Ghz (8 cores total). 20GB RAM. Video card is Nvidia 2GB Quadro 4000.
    It got a new main board installed under warranty in about 2009.
    Less than a year ago it got new Hard Drives (4X SATA), OS, Graphics card, Matrox MX02 mini max card with external rack.  It boots to Mac OS 10.7 Lion but I almost always boot it and use Windows 7 Pro 64 bit using bootcamp because most of my work is done with windows software.
    Since the new drives, graphics card, Matrox Mini Max, Mac OS, Windows 7 SP1, and fresh install of all software and plugins it has worked excellent (until last night and today).
    The newest system drive is divided between Windows 6 and Lion. 2 of the other drives are for windows media and the 4th is for Mac media.
    The version of bootcamp is whatever came with Lion 10.7.
    The computer was only connected to the internet when I did the os download, install and all the software activations. It has not been connected since then.
    What seems to happen is approx 2 minutes after booting to windows it will just reboot and I hear the chime and it goes to a windows black error screen asking to start normally, etc..  It usually will then reboot another 1-3 times before it finally loads windows and then appears to work normally.
    At that point it may work for several minutes or longer until it reboots again.
    The rebooting occurs just sitting on the desktop and not running any particular program.
    This morning after several reboots I held down "option" and instead booted to Mac OS to see if it would reboot. It sat on the desktop screen for several minutes with no problem. However then I had to shut it down and leave so I certainly cannot conclude whether or not the reboot problem occurs in both Windows and Mac OS or not....yet.
    I don't know if it's a power supply (hardware), Operating system problem or what.  I'm lost and I really need this computer to work.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.

    I booted to Lion and let it sit on the desktop. Went to eat and came back in the room about 10 minutes or so later and the screen was black but the tower white light was on.
    I pressed the "up arrow" key and it came alive, fans and all. The screen light to the mac desktop very briefly and then it rebooted and rebooted again before finally starting windows.
    Btw, I have preferences set to start windows unless I hold down option on the Mac keyboard and select the Mac OS for boot.
    So Mac OS is not spared from the problem. What is going on.
    Now I've been working over half an hour in windows and it's working fine....for now. ?!

  • Which mac pro configuration - how many can be effectively used

    Hi all
    Well, this question has been asked many times before - and I've read the macperformanceguide.com articles - but I can't find any info relating to 2010 Mac Pros or my typical usage. So any advice/links greatly appreciated.
    I'll be investing in a Mac Pro soon and really need some solid advice on whether the Quad Core 2.8 Ghz (12Gb ram), Quad Core 3.2Ghz (12 Gb ram) or 8 core 2.4 Ghz (6Gb ram, upgrading later) will be best for my needs.
    Typical usage for web design on my Macbook Pro is currently the following running/open at the same time: Wacom tablet driver, time machine, billings, mamp, 2/3 browsers for testing, vmware fusion running windows xp, emails, dreamweaver, smultron/textwrangler, fireworks, photoshop, fontexplorer pro, terminal and gitx, Skype - they all end up open while I'm messing about with files, talking to sub contractors, etc. Any I may well end up with Numbers, Pages, etc open as well. My Macbook Pro (4Gb ram) is ageing and just can't handle everything quickly.
    I'm looking for the best system for now and 3 years down the line. I know a lot of software still doesn't make use of multiple cores so the quad cores would seem to be initially a better bet with their faster clock speeds. But I don't know if OS X will automatically allocate threads from different software to different cores - in which case 8 cores would help with the amount of software I'm using at the same time.
    Thinking about 3 years from now the 8 core allows me to add more memory but - will the extra investment in the 8 core now provide a real benefit in 2-3 years or will the extra ram potential advantage be negated by heavier, hungrier software requiring faster speeds from other parts of the system.
    Which ever system I get, I'll be adding extra hard drives over time, maybe upgrading the graphics card if that becomes necessary. It really comes down to the number of cpus, those extra cores and the extra ram possibilities.
    Thanks in advance for any help!

    Taking Applications that are inherently single-threaded and running them on multiple processors is a Classic unsolved problem in Computer Science. This means that Applications will only speed up when they are Hand-coded to run speedily on multiple processors. Although the latest version of Photoshop is Finally seeing this treatment, many more mundane Applications will never be done this way.
    As long as it remains so (which is likely to be permanently) MegaHertz (processor speed) matters, and once you have a handful of processors MegaHertz matters a lot more than number of processors.
    Your list of prospective Mac Pros does not include the Mac you should be considering first, the 6-core 3.33 GHz Westmere, available as a build-to-order option of the four-core mac Pros. It gives you the fastest clock speed of any, and its Hyper-Threading give you 12 effective processing units.
    The premium price of an eight-core or 12-core is so large that you could buy another complete Mac Pro for the same price, and use them separately or as a compute-farm.
    If you are handy, larger DIMMs (8GB each) are available from reputable third party memory suppliers, and they stand by their correct operation in your Mac with one caveat: They do not play nice with other sizes mixed in. So if you are contemplating large memory size, choose 8GB DIMMs from the start.
    Three DIMMs is optimum, but studies are showing that the penalty for running with two DIMMs or four DIMMs is under 5 percent in real-world Applications. So starting with two 8GB DIMMS seems like a good way to go.
    With this kind of large compute power, the remaining bottleneck quickly becomes Disk I/O. You should set aside a Boot Drive: a small, very fast Drive that holds only System. Library. Applications, and hidden Unix files including Paging. Users files should be moved to another drive to reduce competition for the Boot Drive. A small VelociRaptor works well for this. A small SSD is even faster.

  • Bought my mac pro for 1099.  to repair it cost 754, is it worth repairng?, bought my mac pro for 1099.  to repair it cost 754, is it worth repairng?

    bought my mac pro for 1099.  to repair it cost 754, is it worth repairng?, bought my mac pro for 1099.  to repair it cost 754, is it worth repairng

    It all depends - if you can put that $754 towards a new unit, an you can afford to add a little something to it, then I would go for a new computer. How old is your machine? Only you can make the decision. If your machine is older, you might want to ask the Apple Store or AASP about their 'flat rate pricing' - a scheme by which you pay a little over $300 and they repair everything on the machine. They may stick to their guns and only offer you the $754, but it's worth asking about.
    See this concerning the flat rate repair option.
    Good luck,
    Clinton

  • Upgrading Mac Pro for wireless laptop use

    I purchased a Mac Pro 6 months ago and passed on the bluetooth b/c honestly I never saw myself needing wireless capabilities. Low and behold I was just given a new Macbook Pro as a gift from a client (my favorite client). So now I am going to be in need of having wireless capabilities I thought I would never need. My question is what am I going to need to have my laptop go wireless for the internet? I have a new lynksys router I never used but it is wired.

    I wouldn't upgrade your Mac Pro for Internet Sharing because the Mac Pro will always have to be on in order for the wireless connection to remain active. I would take back the Linksys wired router and get yourself a router with wireless capabilities. Which router you choose is up to you and most work quite well, but I recently purchased Newer Technology's MAXPower 802.11n/g/b Wireless Router, which is fully OSX supported and works great on my network.
    http://newertech.com/products/router.php

  • Ideal Mac Pro for After Effects

    I'm planning on buying a new Mac Pro for use with After Effects CS5.
    Between the single 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor model or the two 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (8 cores) processor model, which would be faster for working in After Effects CS5?
    Also how much RAM would be ideal? Would more than 16GB be worth it? Would the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB upgrade make a considerable difference?
    Thanks.

    Hate to say it but "it depends." But one thing is clear: 2.4GHz is slow and more cores don't make up or help.
    Maybe your work is with huge files or would benefit from a Quadro.
    3 x 8GB of RAM on 3.33GHz is general advice.
    And there are dozens of topics on the subject in
    http://www.macperformanceguide.com - be sure to click on Topics

Maybe you are looking for