The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Dear Mac Pro Owners???
Old 19th November 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Dear Mac Pro Owners???

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??
Old 19th November 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 

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??
I agree Apple could make a more competetive base machine but they always seem to opt for the expenses server based components.
Old 19th November 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 

They don't use the X5550 do they? in the single I though it was the W3520 which is the same cost as the i920
Old 19th November 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 

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??
its the 3500 series as Warmer said
Old 19th November 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

I didn't think they used LGA 1156 like that in the Mac Pro....
So the 2.93 upgrade is the W3470???
Thats kind of crappy that you pay 500 extra dollars for a 350 dollar upgrade
So Scott.... Why did they choose the 3450 over the 920???
And I didn't even think 1156 could do 4 GPU's.... It just seems like it would be easier to use the 1366 boards
Old 19th November 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 

1)its not 1156 that would be the 3400 series
3500 series is 1366.

2)the single quad cant be upgraded to a dual quad, but both are 1366.

3)"""So Scott.... Why did they choose the 3550 over the 920???"""

marketing my man marketing... like some how saying Xeon makes it better.

they are the exact same processors.
Old 19th November 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

That makes a lot sense....
Do any of them use the x5550????
Old 19th November 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 

My understanding is that Apple picks components for reliability, so they typically go server-class. That's also why they make it very difficult to roll your own, or mod / hotrod / overclock an existing Mac.

A Mac desktop is supposed to be a rock-solid, dependable tool for professionals. Moreso than a PC. As much as the Windows camp loves to poo poo that, it is still true, although the differences are much smaller than in the past.

It's not marketing.
Old 19th November 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

It's not the hardware that causes instability... well.. I mean it is... but its more from the variety of hardware... I think Apple cuts down on instability issues by using the same hardware for all models of a line so they can guarantee the drivers and compatibility of all components... which is actually a good idea... imparting a standard is a good thing...
But in this case... I can't for the life of me see a difference between the Xeon 3520 and the I7 920... same architecture, fab process.. even the same codename... same clock speed... Cache capacities...
Old 19th November 2009
  #10
Gear Nut
 
newrigel's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3altruth View Post
It's not the hardware that causes instability... well.. I mean it is... but its more from the variety of hardware... I think Apple cuts down on instability issues by using the same hardware for all models of a line so they can guarantee the drivers and compatibility of all components... which is actually a good idea... imparting a standard is a good thing...
But in this case... I can't for the life of me see a difference between the Xeon 3520 and the I7 920... same architecture, fab process.. even the same codename... same clock speed... Cache capacities...
Well you sound convinced to me...
Your only alternative is a hackintosh... Good luck with your endeavors. Macs aren't expensive... people just don't care to spend the money because they feel the grass is always greener on the other side.
It all depends on what you think your worth.
I just did a test and posted this Mac Pro on Craigslist. I bought it refurbished @ $2200.00 and I used it now for about a half a year and asked 2K and have had about 9 calls within the hour. Try that with a home built PC! Plus, I have Apple care on it and they get the extra 2 years of protection! Now for example, when the new MP's come out I'll wait for a refurb and jump on one of the newest MP's for an extra $300...
This my friend is why I put out the money for an expensive Mac.
It's called return on investment.
Processors will always be faster and cheaper... who cares that you have a processor that gets done crunching 1/2 second faster. I'm getting my music finished and selling it... isn't that the end result? And like I said... my upgrade path is painlessly cheap to the next model and I have no headaches.
Hey, it all depends on what you feel your music is worth. I don't skimp on my music or the tools to create it. Others might and do and that's their choice so in the end it's all based on choice.
My choice was to buy a Mac Pro in the configuration I have and I have yet to bring it down. I have 1 UAD1 1 UAD2 Duo with an SSL Duende on this Quad 2.66 MP and I did a test and it ran 1000 tracks of audio with a 4 band (native) parametric EQ on each track. Now I'd never need that many tracks but these machines are plenty fast enough for huge sessions... I never have to render my VI's to audio ever. Really, how many plugins does one need? These things are plenty fast enough. Maybe people run out of headroom because of buffer settings and super high sample rates that 9/10's of the people out there can't even hear but @ 24 48K (for doing music videos) seems like plenty of power here... I haven't even seen the halfway mark on the processor!
Oh well... Apple is ripping me off! I don't know, I just sold independently through my label 85 units @ $12.99 a pop this month so It pays for itself. If you don't make money then you definitely better have some $$ to splurge in this hobby.
Old 19th November 2009
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by speerchucker View Post
My understanding is that Apple picks components for reliability, so they typically go server-class. That's also why they make it very difficult to roll your own, or mod / hotrod / overclock an existing Mac.

A Mac desktop is supposed to be a rock-solid, dependable tool for professionals. Moreso than a PC. As much as the Windows camp loves to poo poo that, it is still true, although the differences are much smaller than in the past.

It's not marketing.
Just NOT true in any way. The Xeon does have a better option on the i5 level but Apple didn't go with that, don't know why? But the chips are the same for the i7 and 3500 series xeons.

Mac myths I'm afraid
Old 19th November 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 

And I know plenty of people who work in film/TV composition who make PLENTY of money who want to go with the PC options, more choice, more power and more RAM

Don't put people down for using a different computer, it doesn't paint you in a very professional light.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #13
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 

I think the current Mac Pro architecture predates the i7, doesn't it?

The Mac Pro has always been Xeon-based. Although it's a good bet that there'll be a new Mac Pro fairly soon... especially since the new i7-based quad-core iMac appears to be as fast, if not faster than a quad-core Mac Pro.

Personally, I choose computers based on what I want to do with them, more than the specifics of the processor inside. If you want a Mac, you buy a Mac. If you need a Mac with PCIe, you buy a Mac Pro.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmer View Post
And I know plenty of people who work in film/TV composition who make PLENTY of money who want to go with the PC options, more choice, more power and more RAM

Don't put people down for using a different computer, it doesn't paint you in a very professional light.
I just find that people who use PCs are often much more hands on than Mac users. They like to BUILD their own computers, for heaven's sake. More power to 'em. And if they can't perceive a difference or any advantage in using a Mac, then again, even more power to them.

Mac users tend to want to buy a Mac and get to work, I know I do. I don't want some software company asking me "Well, what video card did you put in that?" (This happened). If you are hands on and the look and feel don't bother you, the PC has always been cheaper and in the end it's all about getting work done anyway.

TH
Old 23rd November 2009
  #15
Bottom line;

Mac is designed for people who want to get in there and work. Which is why the average consumer should be using mac, not pc.

PC is more complicated, it requires a knowledge base to operate and maintain effectively. I use pc, because I understand computers and as you said, it's cheaper, and I have control over what goes into my system.

Then you have Linux, for those who can design an operating system. The complete 180 to mac.

People should stick to what is most practical for their user group. I love mac as an operating system but I'd rather save the bundles of money and have complete control over my system for maintenance and upgrading. If I could use osx and have my pc advantages, I'd be using osx.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
Mac users tend to want to buy a Mac and get to work, I know I do. I don't want some software company asking me "Well, what video card did you put in that?"
TH
Exactly, because that's not your roll, and you shouldn't have to know. Now please just convince all the jackamuffins using PC who don't know a damn to switch and stop giving us a bad name.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX3 View Post
I think the current Mac Pro architecture predates the i7, doesn't it?
NOPE
Quote:
The Mac Pro has always been Xeon-based. Although it's a good bet that there'll be a new Mac Pro fairly soon... especially since the new i7-based quad-core iMac appears to be as fast, if not faster than a quad-core Mac Pro.
1) Mac has only been Xeon for a few yrs since going Intel.
prior they used IBM/Motorala (slower than PC)

2) and i7 imac is NOT faster than either the single or Dual Mac Pro.
(older versions yes)

Scott
ADK
Old 23rd November 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by You_Father_Sky View Post
Exactly, because that's not your roll, and you shouldn't have to know. Now please just convince all the jackamuffins using PC who don't know a damn to switch and stop giving us a bad name.
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
Old 23rd November 2009
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by speerchucker View Post
My understanding is that Apple picks components for reliability, so they typically go server-class.
as mentioned the 920 and 3520 are the EXACT same processor.
1 comes in a box labeled Xeon the other a 920.

Quote:
That's also why they make it very difficult to roll your own, or mod / hotrod / overclock an existing Mac.
very easy to make a ...intosh
Quote:

A Mac desktop is supposed to be a rock-solid, dependable tool for professionals. Moreso than a PC. As much as the Windows camp loves to poo poo that, it is still true, although the differences are much smaller than in the past.

It's not marketing.
dont make me laugh. right now an Apple bootcamped works better than with OSX for most software thats dual platform.

and yes it is marketing
Scott
ADK
Old 23rd November 2009
  #20
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

the mac pro's have always been xeon/server class chips and almost definitely always will be. the i7 is still considered a 'consumer' chip, eve if it's just packaging. that's all there is to it. there'll be a new xeon/server level chip that blows the i7 away, and that'll go into the mac pro, simple.

the i7 only JUST doesn't predate the xeon in the CURRENT mac pro (there was no i7 when i bought my early 2008 mac pro octo 2.8ghz), but as apple would never put a 'non server class' chip in a mac pro, it was never going to be an option. there will be a new chip, soon - obviously
Old 23rd November 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth'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)

2) and i7 imac is NOT faster than either the single or Dual Mac Pro.
(older versions yes)

Scott
ADK
Scott.. how are the Imacs on heat? they seem like they would have serious airflow issues
I'm guessing thats why the the new Imac went lynnfield and never did Bloomfield... less power and heat... but also less performance than the Nehelam Xeons
Old 23rd November 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

they do get quite hot, but i am sure they are well within limits/thresholds. they are extremely quiet, as are the mac pro's. but the imacs are really at a 'near silent' level. that includes the new ones.

the imacs are so powerful now, that the main issues is pretty much simply no. of internal HD's, pci-e, and the monitor 'situation'.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beatsmith View Post
the mac pro's have always been xeon/server class chips and almost definitely always will be. the i7 is still considered a 'consumer' chip, eve if it's just packaging. that's all there is to it. there'll be a new xeon/server level chip that blows the i7 away, and that'll go into the mac pro, simple.

the i7 only JUST doesn't predate the xeon in the CURRENT mac pro (there was no i7 when i bought my early 2008 mac pro octo 2.8ghz), but as apple would never put a 'non server class' chip in a mac pro, it was never going to be an option. there will be a new chip, soon - obviously
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
Old 23rd November 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

yeah... i don't get where we're disagreeing?

i uh... realise the mac pro is only 3 years old?

the are pretty much the same chip - the only thing that makes it 'server class' is that the quad core xeon/3250 can run ECC memory. and so, that has to be the one in the mac pro.
Old 23rd November 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beatsmith View Post
yeah... i don't get where we're disagreeing?

i uh... realise the mac pro is only 3 years old?

the are pretty much the same chip - the only thing that makes it 'server class' is that the quad core xeon/3250 can run ECC memory. and so, that has to be the one in the mac pro.
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...
Old 23rd November 2009
  #26
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

i assume it'll be the ability to use ECC memory, man. for whatever that is worth to you.

i urge you not to buy that one anyway, get an octo with the 5500
Old 23rd November 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

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
The Mac may do the same thing, but it doesn't do it the same way from an interface standpoint, and some people can appreciate that and some could care less.

My daughter is 18 and she and all of her friends are Mac, for the whole web browsing Facebook thing. Easy, gorgeous, and friendly is a good thing to them and they talk their parents into spending the extra.

The office crowd has always been cheap. They keep CPUs for five years and have grungey clunky mice from a decade ago and wonder why the employees eyes are glazing over

TH
Old 23rd November 2009
  #28
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beatsmith View Post
i assume it'll be the ability to use ECC memory, man. for whatever that is worth to you.

i urge you not to buy that one anyway, get an octo with the 5500
Now that.. I would say... is worth it
The Octo mac Pro uses dual X55xx's????
Now I can understand that... thats like 2 grand in just CPU's edit: (for the X5550)....
I can see that costing more but actually having a better performance
Even dual 5520's would be awesome.....
Old 23rd November 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
The Mac may do the same thing, but it doesn't do it the same way from an interface standpoint, and some people can appreciate that and some could care less.

My daughter is 18 and she and all of her friends are Mac, for the whole web browsing Facebook thing. Easy, gorgeous, and friendly is a good thing to them and they talk their parents into spending the extra.

The office crowd has always been cheap. They keep CPUs for five years and have grungey clunky mice from a decade ago and wonder why the employees eyes are glazing over

TH
No... I agree... Its not a question of what's better or worse... its about which markets apple needs to penetrate to really get some market share....
Old 23rd November 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
R3altruth's Avatar
 

I want to make it clear that I WANT apple to be more successful...
Competition brings about progress and competitive pricing...
Without AMD, Intel would have never reached the 45nm mark by now and wouldn't even be up to the I7's...
AMD Athlon and Athlon 64 (the first 64-bit consumer chip) killing the pentium 4 is what led Intel to the Core duo and Core 2 duo lines...
The Lynnfield CPU's were made (Especially the I5 750) to combat AMD's lower midrange dominance over the last 11 months with their Phenom II's
See... competition... one- ups-manship (I know thats not a real word.. but it still bothers me that I can't decide if it should be hyphenated) thats where new technology comes from... (Except in congress where 2 contrasting parties effectively guarantees nothing will ever get done)
Intel Vs AMD
ATI vs Nvidia....
Playstation vs Xbox...
I need apple to step into the midrange consumer market... I need that competition to fuel progress... change... Why not???
πŸ“ 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…
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear