I want a mac pro is for storage space and to play games on. I want to use a GTX285 and I also want to run vmware fusion full time. I'd like to have OS X be my main os with Windows 7 and Ubuntu running in the background. So basically i'm not sure if it's better to have like four cores dedicated to Windows 7/Ubuntu while i have my other set of cores dedicated to OS X?
View 5 Repliesi want the fastest MAC for processing and editing photos for my PHotography business. I use PS and Lightroom at the same time and i need to be able to switch between them quickly and of course go through my photos quickly. So what i think i need is lots of ram and processing power. But my question is do i need extra processors and cores?
according to [URL] it looks like the 2.93 quad has a better overall performance rating but the 2.26 has a better multicore speedup (whatever that is).
Will I see an improvement in the finder and for daily use (I don't play games) if I replace the Geforce GT120 by the new ATI Radeon 5770 or 5870? I do video editing with iMovie and I often use Photoshop.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI just found THIS
http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/in...ategory_id=343
where they state that the max RAM is 16GB. Do they KNOW something? This would throw up in the air all my thinking about which MacPro to buy.
I am an old Mac hand (and before, Apple IIe, IIc, then Mac 128, 512, Plus, Se, IIx.... to a Dual G5 1.8GHz now), but a total newbie as far as Intel is concerned, so please pardon me if my conjectures are completely off whack, and for the large number of questions.
Looking at the ill assorted (in my view, particularly pricewise) lineup of the latest Pros, I have come up with the following ideas:
- Buy a quad 2.66 with up to 8Gb and be happy for the time being (I have 2.5GB now), with better single thread performance than the 2.26 and still 8 thread performance available WHEN there will be apps to use it (none/few of those I use do, as far as I read around, in any case, and even those seem to stop at 2/4 cores anyway).
- IF the 4GB sticks work (I know this is a big if, but given what I just found, there might be hope....), buy them at a later stage when they come down to an acceptable price and get to 16. I see a lot being written around along the lines �Even if they work, they cost more than the computer today.... etc, but RAM prices normally go down fast, so is this really an issue (except if you need 16GB NOW, of course)? And arent 8GB sticks likely to appear later on to get it to 32 if needed?
-Buy a used 2.93 or faster chip in 2-3 years. I have no idea of how cost effective this has historically been. Do prices go down significantly, or am I likely to get in the ballpark of the delta with a used, faster machine, as it often happened in the past with CPU upgrades?
-Are future chips likely to be compatible with the current machine (can someone who understand the Intel roadmap shed some light here?), or would I be limited to the 2.93 which is known to work?
-In case the 4Gb are proven to be unusable and I go for the octo, can changing chips work by replacing the 2.26 at a later stage? Knowing that I would need to buy 2, would the economics still work? It seems more unlikely, or is it?
-I remember reading about using the graphic card chip to reinforce computing power. Is this fact or forecast? Is this true of both Nvidia and ATI or (as I seem to remember) only Nvidia? If so, is it better for the long term to choose the cheaper standard Nvidia or the ATI, which seems better right now?
-Does any of these cards give an advantage over the other NOW in Photoshop, iMovie, Aperture (I have tried it on my G5, but scrolling a large collection of photos is a pain)? I do some video but no #D, nor do I think I will do in the future.
-Last quesstion for those who have a 2009 Pro in their hands, I have had always problems with USB peripherals on my G5. At some point the bus slows down to a crawl, with transfers of 1Mb/s. According to a local vendor the 2008 Pro was similar because he said it was a limitation of USB architecture, is this true? Has there been any improvement with thee better memory architecture of the 2009 Pros?
I'm trying to find the processor in the quad core Nehalem, it says it's a Intel Xeon 3500 series processor
But which of these is it?
im very interesting in buying a mac pro but as you know always money is the big problem , i decide to buy a quad mac pro but there is two option , is there to much diference in power processing between Quad-core 2010 "Nehalem" 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz? i check in geek bench mark and the 2.8 GHZ get a result of 8360 and the 3.2 GHZ get a result of 9968. is that to much diference ? please i need some help me in this dilema
View 8 Replies View RelatedI'll be driving two monitors. One needs dual-link for the 1600x12000 resolution and the other is a 720p television with HDMI connectors.
I know the Mini-Displayport to DVI adapter will be needed along with a DVI to HDMI cable/adapter. Don't need sound (that goes via toslink to my sound system).
Are the incremental steps in processor options worth it? are they significant enough to notice performance increases? especially heavy files in photoshop
Also is the 8800 GT worth getting over the 2600 XT. and can one have two 8800's (or is that too much power draw). I am assuming you can have one of each (1x 8800 + 1x 2600) so you can run 3 spanning 30's. Any drawbacks in have spanning screens with different spec cards?
I have the opportunity to get a brand new (with warranty) quad 2.66ghz 2006 model (stock) for ~1600USD
Or I could go for the octo 2008 2.8ghz for ~2300USD
Is the diff in performance worth the extra ~700?
I use photoshop, aperture as well as video editing soft like FCP.
I need to do it now as they will soon run out of the old 2008 2.8 and I don't want to get stuck with the crappy new upgrade with 4core and max 8gb RAM.
In my quest for a Mac Pro ...I have now found a 2008 8 core 3.2ghz that is in the price range of what you can buy a 2.93ghz quad core for now ....if there is any minus other than the warranty to considering that 2008 8 core 3.2ghx 8 core over the 2.93 Ghz quad?
View 11 Replies View RelatedJust curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI do alot of photography with a canon dslr, I also plan to edit short HD videos as well as some photoshop and flash animation work.
Will I benefit greatly from the Quad Core Imac over the Dual Core Imac?
I have an opportunity to get a single 3.0 GHz quad core Clovertown.
Should I go for it? There's no advantage to having two cores in two sockets versus having four cores in one socket, right?
Just in case Apple surprise us with a Sandybridge Quad core, and even if they don't I was wondering the following.
1 ) During sustained use in 3D gaming does a Quadcore with lower clock speeds beat a dual core with higher clock speeds.
2) Can the quoted turbo speeds be achieved in sustained use (ie 3D gaming where maximal load can be applied for a couple of hours).
[URL]
i7-2630QM
Base Frequency 2.0GHz
Max SC Turbo 2.9GHz
Max DC Turbo 2.8GHz
Max QC Turbo 2.6GHz
i7-2620M
Base Frequency 2.7GHz
Max SC Turbo 3.4GHz
Max DC Turbo 3.2GHz
Max QC Turbo N/A
I'm one of the many many people who are juggling mac pro options in my head.
is the 3.33GHz Westmere worth the extra 640? Probably not, but now much faster will be it? 20%....30%?
I think I'm set on either of these two options, mainly using FCP and photoshop and a bit of motion. maybe a bit of gaming
Also I can max out them four RAM slots and get a 5870 with the extra cash.
As I see the new Speedmark 6.5 test scores come out, I''m taken back somewhat.
I'm buying an iMac for my office which is used for internet, email, heavy excel and word. I like to get 4 to 5 years out of my computer so I'm switching to an iMac. That being said I'm buying a refurbished unit, but am wondering if it's worth the extra 4-500 bucks to upgrade from the 3.06 Core i3 to the 2.66 Quad-core i5??
So I was talking to my friend about the new MPs and that they should have two 6 core processors in it.
I plan on getting one for rendering scenes with Maya and doing stuff on AE, FCP, and the CS5 master collection. We were talking about his computer, which is one quad core processor.
He was saying that render times on Maya wouldn't be very different when comparing a quad core versus two hexa cores. I don't agree with him but would like someone elses opinion on this.
I have been following the discussion of performance for the new Mac Pros. Most of the comments and tests have been related to single applications, such as photoshop performance or video rendering.
I am wondering if anyone can comment on the relative multitasking performance of Octad vs Quad. For example, will the Octad machine be faster than a quad when I have handbrake rendering in the background, while running either photoshop or final cut in the foreground.
im looking at moving up to 16gb of ram in the near future .. originally i was planning on going with 8x2gb sticks .. is this optimal or is there a better way to do and keep triple channel .. currently have 6x1gb sticks
View 8 Replies View RelatedI noticed that this hasnt been asked on any thread as everyone is too busy debating on 3.2GHz vs. the 3.3GHz 6 core models.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm looking for a new monitor to go with my MBP, and I'm stuck trying to choose between the ones listed above.
The 2407WFP is a couple of years old now I guess, but it's the rev A04 version, which supposedly fixed the (few) problems with what was otherwise meant to be a great screen. It's an sPVA screen.
I've heard good reviews of the G2410, with its LED backlighting. It's still a TN panel and I hear so much bad stuff about them.
The 2209WA is an eIPS panel which I like the sound of, but it's smaller and lower resolution.
The F2380 is a cPVA panel, the image quality looks better but I've heard bad things about blacks on this panel.
I'm pretty satisfied with the Marware cover, although it can be a little frustrating when typing quickly..I'm wondering if I should go back, return the Marware cover and pick up the iSkin.
So, for those of you that have any of these in comparing..which do you think is the best?
And yes, I did search and am aware threads like this exist..but I couldn't find any comparing all three, only iSkin vs. Moshi.
I'm trying to decide which product to buy and I was hoping for some advice.
First and foremost I want a device so that I may transfer my VHS tapes to DVD.
Live TV recording is secondary but for the price, I'd like to find the device that suits me best so I can continue to use it after i've transferred all my VHS.
Here are my concerns:
1) I'm going to be moving from the US to Ireland in a couple of months (not sure for how long, could be years+) Obviously there's the whole NTSC vs. PAL, ATSC vs. DVB.
I know with EyeTV 250 it's either or, any ideas if buying some sort of converter is an option (prices, quality)? If I bought just a PAL one, would I still be able to convert VHS or would it be completely unusable in the US?
2) I'd like some sort of HD/Digital abilities. From what I can tell TVMax is analog only and Blackmagic may also be but I can't find more specs on that.
Does this mean they'll be useless once the US undergoes the conversion?
So as of now I'm leaning towards EyeTV 250 but the question are there any forseeable problems with using a PAL to NTSC converter or using a PAL EyeTV in the US just to convert VHS.
So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly work in Adobe CS and do a far amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro compare to the above?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI am planning on purchasing a new display for use (currently) with my imac. I am completely torn between these two models, and cannot make a decision. Any thoughts? I like the Dell because it is LED backlit, thus good blacks and little to no backlight bleed. But I like the Samsung because of the (supposedly better panel and (supposedly) better color reproduction. I like the simplistic look of both of them (though they could look a little better ) so I'm not sure which one to buy.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".
I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845
Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.
Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.
Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.
I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.
The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.
The results are interesting:
We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.
We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.
To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.
Here are the results:
The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.
Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).
For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.
What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.
m having trouble deciding between these two models. Might get the 3.33 Ghz 6c Westmere but leaning towards the 8c models. Why is the 2009 Nehalem faster? The guy at the Apple store was suprised by that also. Are there any changes in the 2010 2.4 8c Westmere from the 2009 Nehalem model?I will be using it for intensive music software (Prottools, Digital Performer, East West, Symphobia, Vienna Symp Inst. All web and graphics software (Photoshop, Flash, InDesign, etc and Astronomy programs)
View 11 Replies View RelatedLooks like the 2.26 is doing better after all. Some users have even gotten Cinebench scores for the new 2.26 like: 3142 (single) and 20,138 (multiple) reported here.
CINEBENCH 10
This free benchmark app uses real world code from Cinema 4D to render a sample project. It stresses all available cores. In the case of the Nehalem, hyperthreading fools the app into thinking there are 16 cores on the 8-core models and 8 cores on the 4-core models. The graph below shows the Cinebench rating for "Multi-CPU" render test.
GEEKBENCH 2
It's not only multi-core aware, but it includes some memory tests which explains why the Nehalem based Mac Pros beat the older Penryn based Power Macs with higher core frequencies. The graph below shows the overall 32-bit score.
There is also a 64-bit version of Geekbench. Fewer results exist for it since, for some unexplained reason, consumers will gladly spend thousands for a new Mac but resist purchasing a $20 serial number in support of a starving Mac developer.
Last night Lloyd Chambers of [URL] tweaked his DigLloydTools app (DLT) that we use to test memory throughput. It's now more accurate. The bad news is that it showed that when we put 8 sticks of memory in the 8-core 2.26GHz Nehalem, our throughput for memory read/write (memmove) dropped by 1/3. It turns a triple channel memory bus into a dual channel memory bus.
Specifically, in our test, the combined read/write throughput dropped from 9261MB/s to 6195MB/s when we went from 6x2GB to 8x2GB configuration.
Now, don't panic. That doesn't necessarily affect real world app performance unless the particular app you are running is saturating the memory bus. Which apps saturate? I don't know yet. I'm running our complete real world test suite including Pro Apps and 3D Games in both the 12G and 16G config. If I find anything that's significantly slowed by the 8x2G config, I'll post it here as well as on Bare Feats.
Can you upgrade the processors in the new Mac Pro's in the future if you choose to?
I have seen a couple people mention to but the 2.6 for now and upgrade them in the future when the price of the processors drops.
I didn't know if I was misinterpreting what they were writing.
