The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Dear Mac Pro Owners???
Old 23rd November 2009
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3altruth View Post
The Nehelam Xeon predates the I7 by about 6 months.... and the 3520 and I7 920 are the same chip... I'm not sure any other way to say that... they are the same chip, are the same chip, are the same chip....
It took a couple months for the consumer chip to roll out... (March for the Xeon vs November for the 920). but that has nothing to do with what is available right now
And by the way... the Mac pro is only 3 years old
Guys,
i dont think you are getting it.

1) Desktop Core i7 was released prior to Xeon i7. (i7 is i7 regardless)
2) when Apple came out with the i7 Mac Pro it was 6 months after the release of i7.
both single and dual mac pro are i7. yes labeled Xeon

3) the i7 Xeon will drop into a desktop board. you do not need a serverl class motherboard to run it.

the only difference is how the box is labeled.......period.

Scott
Old 23rd November 2009
  #32
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

I thought the Nehelam Xeon came out in March of 08 and the I7 940 that summer and the I7 920 came out in november of 08
Old 24th November 2009
  #33
Lives for gear
 

nope 5-6 months after Core i7 desktop came the Xeons.
the 965 was released first (of course)
then a month later 920/940

55xx Xeons (core i7/Nehalem) Q1 09
920 etc Q4 08

Scott
Old 24th November 2009
  #34
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3altruth View Post
The 2.66GHz Mac pro uses the Xeon X5550 Gainestown, correct???
Not bashing... just really wanting to understand... I can understand for the octo that they'd need a Xeon for dual processor support.... But for a single processor why not go I7.... The I7 920 has the same Nehelam architecture and clock speed.... Why not use that for the Mac Pro.... The 920 is under 300 bucks while the X5550 is a cool grand....
Doesn't the idea of a Mac Pro starting at $1779.99 seem more competitive??
The 2.66 has been using the Nehalem all year.
Old 24th November 2009
  #35
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3altruth View Post
No.. no disagreement... Thats what I'm asking though... why not use the I7 920??
And what will it take for Apple to come down in prices? I thought for sure switching to intel processors would do it.... before you couldn't compare a mac and a PC but now you can pretty much spec out your own mac pro (With faster RAM) compared to the entry level MAC pro that is 2500 for a lot less
I'm not affiliated with Scott or ADK at all but for $2129.00 you get a bit more than the 2499.00 Mac Pr plus the warranty on parts for 2 years, labor for 1 and lifetime tech support... on a machine with the same CPU, more HDD's (3x500gb vs 1x640gb) and better RAM for 270 dollars less....
AND... yes.. macs have better resale value but with ADK's core PC (Which comes in an awesome RACK case) If a new CPU comes out that is a must have... I can just throw it in the one I already have so in say 2 years... instead of buying a new computer... I upgrade for well under a grand.....
How many Intel Q6600 owners can just buy an I7920+mobo and DDR3 for about 600 and all of a sudden they have the top of the line PC
Why wont they just cut 10-20% off of their new prices... I don't have to have to get a refurbed or second hand system to get a discount...
If I could get a new 15inch Macbook Pro for 1200 or less I'd do it today.... but I can't see starting at 1700 for a 15" c2d.....
And a 13" notebook hurts my male ego...
Try buying a refurb. $1449 for a 15.4" MBP. Or used. I got a MBP refurb two years ago and it's been rock-solid.

I just got a refurb Mac Pro tower (early 2009, refurb, Nehalem 2.66) and it's a beast. Sadly it's not for me, it's for a friend who's a great artist but something of a luddite.

Macs just work. You don't have to deal with Windows and that alone is worth the price of admission. If I had to deal with Windows every day, I'd probably set the computer on fire.
Old 24th November 2009
  #36
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbradt View Post
Try buying a refurb. $1449 for a 15.4" MBP. Or used. I got a MBP refurb two years ago and it's been rock-solid.

I just got a refurb Mac Pro tower (early 2009, refurb, Nehalem 2.66) and it's a beast. Sadly it's not for me, it's for a friend who's a great artist but something of a luddite.

Macs just work. You don't have to deal with Windows and that alone is worth the price of admission. If I had to deal with Windows every day, I'd probably set the computer on fire.
Thats not fair at all... I turn my PC on and start up my software... no extra steps... no crashes or lockups....
Old 24th November 2009
  #37
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
He's just repeating Rhetoric. I've used both (and more) for years and obviously all computers can suffer hardware & software related issues, conflicts and failures. A lot of it has to do with what one is more comfortable with or application support, no? The hardware is largely identical now anyway making comparisons a lot easier.
Old 24th November 2009
  #38
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
NOPE

1) Mac has only been Xeon for a few yrs since going Intel.
prior they used IBM/Motorala (slower than PC)
Which is what I said. The Mac Pro has always been Xeon-based, and has always been marketed as a premium "server-class" machine, so it's not surprising that Apple haven't rushed to put a "consumer" chip in it... even if it is essentially the same chip as the current Xeon.

If people find the Mac Pro too pricey, I'd suggest getting a second-hand one. The previous model Mac Pros tear along very nicely (I'm still happily using my first-generation dual-dual proc 2.66).

Quote:
2) and i7 imac is NOT faster than either the single or Dual Mac Pro.
(older versions yes)
<Sigh> What is this, contradict Paul day?

MacWorld found that, in most real-world situations a 3.06GHz i7 iMac was faster than both stock configs of Mac Pro (2.66 quad-core AND the 2.26GHz 8-core), and by a useful margin too (e.g. MP3 encoding, video encoding... I mean, who'd have thought it? It was a surprise to me too, but I guess you can't argue with four cores at 3.06GHz.).

If you spring for the higher-clock speed 2.93 Mac Pro, then is has broadly comparable performance to the i7 iMac... except the Mac Pro will hit you in your wallet much harder.

No doubt Apple will redress the balance in the next few months with a new Mac Pro, and now that we have Snow Leopard and GCD, more apps should get better at using 8 cores, if you have 8 cores. So I don't suppose the iMac will be king of the hill for long.

Good article here:

Why go Pro when iMac goes faster? | Business Center | Macworld

and lab tests here:

27-inch Core i5 iMac (with Core i7 option) Review | Business Center | Macworld
iMac Core i7 versus other Macs

Of course, what you can't do with an iMac is shove 4TB of disk into it, plus a Powercore, a UAD and a Duende. (Although personally, I wish it had one more slot)
Old 24th November 2009
  #39
Lives for gear
 

<Sigh> indeed.

the link to bare feats is the only one even worth looking at.
and yet not a single audio test.

lets get some more facts injected here. since the imac is now being brought into this...

the Core i5/i7 lga 1156 is again basicallt the exact same processor as a 9xx series or (in this case 34xx series)

all the silcon (base processor) all come from the same die line

34xx Xeon, 35xx Xeon, 55xx Xeon, 750,860,920, 950, 975

every one is the same.
the 34xx Xeon and 750,860 etc are identical (dual channel memory controller, 1 16x PCIe controller onboard) P55 platform
the 55xx, 35xx Xeons and the 9xx desktop are identical. (tri channel memory) X58 platform.

so a 750, a 920, X5550, 3520, 3450 would all perform (without hyperthreading on) basically the same under a heavy CPU usage.

there are some platform differences and the Xeon is a 6.4QPI vs 4.8 on the rest.
(we ship all our systems @ 6.4QPI regardless)

the memory bandwidth (think samples sets) looks like this

1156 (P55) Apple 14MB/s imac
1156 (P55) PC 19MB/s

1366 (X58) Apple 20MB/s single quad core
1366 (X58) PC 27MB/s single Quad

1366 Xeon Apple 32/MBs Mac Pro Dual (requires 2.66 or higher processors)
1366 Xeon PC 36/MB/s PC.

without getting into too much more tech (which never seems to matter to apple fan bois)

back to the Bare Feats tests.
if you take the same systems, bootcamp them (Vista) the same tests will perform better and showing the MAC Pro is a better light over the imac.
Adobe is pretty bad on OSX compared to Vista.

why? Apples OS does not do a very good job of load balancing the Cores while "Snow" was an improvement it still has a ways to go.

so again its all about marketing with the word "xeon"
and the imac while very powerful is still a fancy toy a very beautiful fancy toy.

i would say lets run some logic benchmarks but its not properly multicore able yet either.

Scott
ADK
Old 24th November 2009
  #40
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
i would say lets run some logic benchmarks but its not properly multicore able yet either.

Scott
ADK
Old 24th November 2009
  #41
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
if you take the same systems, bootcamp them (Vista) the same tests will perform better and showing the MAC Pro is a better light over the imac.
What's the point (apart from general amusement) of comparing one Mac with another under Vista? If someone wants to run Vista, they'll buy a PC surely?

People seem to be complaining that the Mac Pro doesn't have an i7. If having an i7 is so important, buy the iMac and be satisfied that, for now, you have one of the fastest (possibly - depending on what you're doing - THE fastest) Macs around, for way less than you'd pay for a Mac Pro.

If on the other hand you need PCIe slots etc, and you need a machine now, it's probably best to look for a secondhand Mac Pro.

If you need PCIe slots, and can wait until next year... then wait.

If your preference is for Windows... then this thread isn't terribly relevant.

Quote:
i would say lets run some logic benchmarks but its not properly multicore able yet either.
My point exactly. There's theoretical advantages, and then there's the real world. If someone wants Logic, they need a Mac. The question is which one, and unexpectedly it looks like the i7 iMac could be a serious contender for considerably less cash, if you can manage without PCIe etc. Maybe Sound On Sound will do some testing, seeing as they're quite keen on that sort of thing.

What counts for most people is how these machines work right now, with real applications, in real situations... because at some point, you have to pay your money, make your choice, and get on with the job.
Old 24th November 2009
  #42
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX3 View Post
What's the point (apart from general amusement) of comparing one Mac with another under Vista? If someone wants to run Vista, they'll buy a PC surely?

People seem to be complaining that the Mac Pro doesn't have an i7. If having an i7 is so important, buy the iMac and be satisfied that, for now, you have one of the fastest (possibly - depending on what you're doing - THE fastest) Macs around, for way less than you'd pay for a Mac Pro.

If on the other hand you need PCIe slots etc, and you need a machine now, it's probably best to look for a secondhand Mac Pro.

If you need PCIe slots, and can wait until next year... then wait.

If your preference is for Windows... then this thread isn't terribly relevant.



My point exactly. There's theoretical advantages, and then there's the real world. If someone wants Logic, they need a Mac. The question is which one, and unexpectedly it looks like the i7 iMac could be a serious contender for considerably less cash, if you can manage without PCIe etc. Maybe Sound On Sound will do some testing, seeing as they're quite keen on that sort of thing.

What counts for most people is how these machines work right now, with real applications, in real situations... because at some point, you have to pay your money, make your choice, and get on with the job.
Yep. No matter what you buy, it's like investing in an ice cube Might as well have a nice cold drink right now.

TH
Old 24th November 2009
  #43
Lives for gear
 

No one is complaining that the Mac PRO doesn't have an i7 because it does!

i5/i7 iMACs = good performance but not the same memory bandwidth as the Socker 1366 i7 found in the MAC PRO (I know it's a Xeon but it's the same CPU so calling it something else seems to be confusing people)

The Mac PRO socket 1366 i7 is faster then the iMACs.

Testing in Vista or XP is useful because it takes out the limiting factor which is OSX and shows what the hardware is capable of.

Apple users should be more up in arms about the fact that Apple can't get their OS working with their computers, write shout and complain, I know I would. If most of the users spent as much energy in doing this as they do trying to tell PC users that Microsoft is S%^T then maybe it would get fixed.
Old 24th November 2009
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3altruth View Post
PC is still more consumer right now though

PC is the choice for the Light all the way to heavy gamer.... (Like anyone is gonna really be suing Cider)
and Web browsing, email sending, sometimes music streaming, Twitting, Facebooking crowd can't really justify the extra cost for a mac that does the same thing
Then Microsoft has the office crowd on lock... IT guys love the flexibility that PC's offer... You're using 20 PC's in your office and a mobo goes bad... swap that baby out....
Those 3 segments make up the bulk of users...
Plus you answered your own question... why would jackamuffin buy a notebook that starts at 1200 for a 13" when jackamuffin can get a 15.6 inch notebook for under 600... In the end, every industry is driven by price more than anything else...
Our industry is one of the few to really embrace the "expensive is better" mentality... And it's true... My $1150.00 great River mic pre sounds YEARS better than my buddy's Lexicon Omega interface pre's.....
So in our industry... yes... Mac is a viable option... just as PC's are....
And both offer advantages... but in the consumer world... I can't see Mac's being anything more than a niche market
You've re-stated my point, spot on.

Gamers = PC obviously
Office crowd - PC, Of course, and it makes sense.

The only issue is CAN or IS apple interested in making changes to shift their user base ie, lowering the price? Probably not, Apple is happy charging $2000 for a laptop. If they want to, hey, go nuts, I won't buy one (my g/f also has a macbook anyway). But I know how to maintain a PC. I mean, we're dealing with COMPUTERS, my god man. 50 years ago the only people who could understand and use a computer were r&d scientists and designers, maybe a computer SHOULD require the operator to have some knowledge and some understanding.

So many people these days want to be spoon fed, so why is it that the people with the spoon aren't feeding them? Just an interesting concept. The very computers that are geared toward the average person, are NOT geared toward the average person and vice versa.
Old 24th November 2009
  #45
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmer View Post
No one is complaining that the Mac PRO doesn't have an i7 because it does!

i5/i7 iMACs = good performance but not the same memory bandwidth as the Socker 1366 i7 found in the MAC PRO (I know it's a Xeon but it's the same CPU so calling it something else seems to be confusing people)

The Mac PRO socket 1366 i7 is faster then the iMACs.

Testing in Vista or XP is useful because it takes out the limiting factor which is OSX and shows what the hardware is capable of.

Apple users should be more up in arms about the fact that Apple can't get their OS working with their computers, write shout and complain, I know I would. If most of the users spent as much energy in doing this as they do trying to tell PC users that Microsoft is S%^T then maybe it would get fixed.
Gee my Mac works just fine. So did the one before that, and the one before that....and...

TH
Old 24th November 2009
  #46
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmer View Post
No one is complaining that the Mac PRO doesn't have an i7 because it does!
The original question/complaint was "Why can't Apple put an i7 920 in the Mac Pro, because it would make it a bit cheaper..."

Answers include: Marketing. Product positioning. It's not on Apple's roadmap.

Quote:
i5/i7 iMACs = good performance but not the same memory bandwidth as the Socker 1366 i7 found in the MAC PRO (I know it's a Xeon but it's the same CPU so calling it something else seems to be confusing people)

The Mac PRO socket 1366 i7 is faster then the iMACs.

Testing in Vista or XP is useful because it takes out the limiting factor which is OSX and shows what the hardware is capable of.
I understand all this, but I'd argue it's fairly irrelevant, because no-one buys a Mac simply to run Windows. But hey, lets see how OS X develops. In the meantime, if you can get the performance you need out of an iMac, and save a load of cash at the same time, I say go for it. (not an option for me because I need PCIe etc).

Quote:
Apple users should be more up in arms about the fact that Apple can't get their OS working with their computers.
Huh? My Mac works great. 10.5, 10.6, it's all good. I don't need to worry about memory bandwidth or bus speeds or quick path. I get my mixes done with a pile of DSP and native processing, I barely push the processors, and everything tends to "just work"... to wear out an oft-used phrase.

If I was going to spend time complaining about anything, there are a bunch of audio companies way nearer the front of the queue than Apple. Then again, I'm not a Logic user but I don't really think of Logic as an Apple product. Not yet.
Old 24th November 2009
  #47
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX3 View Post
The original question/complaint was "Why can't Apple put an i7 920 in the Mac Pro, because it would make it a bit cheaper..."

Answers include: Marketing. Product positioning. It's not on Apple's roadmap.
Also maybe to deter would-be upgraders????


Quote:
Originally Posted by LX3 View Post
If I was going to spend time complaining about anything, there are a bunch of audio companies way nearer the front of the queue than Apple. Then again, I'm not a Logic user but I don't really think of Logic as an Apple product. Not yet.
Wouldn't Apple have mad a lot more money had they kept logic dual platform????


Quote:
Originally Posted by You_Father_Sky View Post
You've re-stated my point, spot on.

Gamers = PC obviously
Office crowd - PC, Of course, and it makes sense.

The only issue is CAN or IS apple interested in making changes to shift their user base ie, lowering the price? Probably not, Apple is happy charging $2000 for a laptop. If they want to, hey, go nuts, I won't buy one (my g/f also has a macbook anyway). But I know how to maintain a PC. I mean, we're dealing with COMPUTERS, my god man. 50 years ago the only people who could understand and use a computer were r&d scientists and designers, maybe a computer SHOULD require the operator to have some knowledge and some understanding.

So many people these days want to be spoon fed, so why is it that the people with the spoon aren't feeding them? Just an interesting concept. The very computers that are geared toward the average person, are NOT geared toward the average person and vice versa.
You make apple sound more elitist than business minded....
Old 24th November 2009
  #48
They are fairly elitist, are they not? Is it not the culture they propagate? Are not many of the people that use them?
Old 24th November 2009
  #49
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 

Most Mac users (presuming you can pigeon-hole people as one or the other. Some of us do use both you know) seem to be happy with their choice of platform and are getting on with using them rather than thinking about the next upgrade or tweak.

So when they run into each other they go:

"Hey, you've got a Mac... I really like my Mac".

"Yeah, me too. What Mac do you have..."

Is that elitism? Or just unusually-contented computer owners?

Anyway, well done for turning this into another tiresome Mac vs PC debate.
Old 24th November 2009
  #50
It's not a mac vs. pc debate. Period. There is no need to debate the exhausted topic.

It was an observation on a critical failure of each platform to correctly target the particular demographic, that each camp reflects in their design philosophy.

I'm not pigeon holing. I also enjoy and use mac, but not their prices, and their limitations. Thank you for missing my point entirely.
Old 25th November 2009
  #51
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by warmer View Post
No one is complaining that the Mac PRO doesn't have an i7 because it does!

i5/i7 iMACs = good performance but not the same memory bandwidth as the Socker 1366 i7 found in the MAC PRO (I know it's a Xeon but it's the same CPU so calling it something else seems to be confusing people)

The Mac PRO socket 1366 i7 is faster then the iMACs.

Testing in Vista or XP is useful because it takes out the limiting factor which is OSX and shows what the hardware is capable of.

Apple users should be more up in arms about the fact that Apple can't get their OS working with their computers, write shout and complain, I know I would. If most of the users spent as much energy in doing this as they do trying to tell PC users that Microsoft is S%^T then maybe it would get fixed.
What and who the hell are you talking about? My Macs run great. I'm not complaining about the OS, and no Mac user I know is, either. Just more FUD from the gamers.
Old 25th November 2009
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
To be fair, when the current 2009 MacPro Line appeared they were already using old technology and way too expensive, a sad chapter in the MacPro history.
( The Early 2008 MacPro´s were excellent value for money, way cheaper than the similiar Intel 5400 based Skultrail PC which came out around the same time)

But in Jan/feb 2010 everything will turn back to normal when the dual 6 core MacPro´s will be released and Apple will have exclusive rights to the hi end 6 core XEONs for a couple of months. Let´s hope the price is right though.
Old 25th November 2009
  #53
Lives for gear
 

This is not true, there is nothing wrong with the MAC PRO hardware, it was the very fastest cutting edge when it was released and there is still nothing better then the 5500 series Xeons. The new MAC PROs will not be a huge increase in performance unless they disable the C1E halt state and other CPU features on their motherboards.

OSX can't make full use of the power and threads available at the moment why would adding more cores and threads improve performance?

And while the first 5400 MAC PRO was well priced it wasn't the same as a skultrail system more of a standard supermicro/Tyan 5400 system.
Old 25th November 2009
  #54
Lives for gear
 

The lateset MAC PROs and OSX are not working well you aren't getting any were near the performance that you should be finding.

I call that a problem, it's like 5th gear being broken in your car, if you only drive around town it won't affect you but it still isn't working right and you would want it to be fixed wouldn't you?
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump