I'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).
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.
I decided to run a few geekbench tests on my Early 2008 Octo 2.8ghz Mac Pro w/ 16gb of RAM against my daughter's Core i7 920 DIY Hackintosh with 6gb of DDR3 RAM. Both are running Leopard 10.5.6 with nothing else running.
View 24 Replies View RelatedSo the older Mac Pro's from 2008 have 2 2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon processors, without hyperthreading, for a total of 8 cores, and the top of the line iMac has a Quar Core i7 2,8ghz with hyperthreading for a total of 8 (virtual) cores.
With the ghz being the same but less "real" cores, but probably newer CPU architecture, which CPU will actually be faster?
If you have the guts and a few thousand dollars, why wait for Apple to release it?
[URL]
i 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).
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 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 Replies View RelatedIn 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 RelatedWill 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 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.
what are the differences between the 1st generation 3.0Ghz octo Mac Pro and the 2nd generation 3.0Ghz octo Mac Pro?
How would the 1st gen octo Mac Pro compare to a dual 2.66Ghz Mac Pro of the same era & how does it compare speedwise to the current 2.8Ghz octo?
There is a repected dealer in Germany selling the 1st gen octos as refurb units for a tempting price but unless they are equal to the current 2.8 then I'll pass.
Mac Pro 2008 2.8 Octo is getting kernel panics.
The only common threads I can find at this point is Get Info is up, and I tend to be looking at / updating names in Faces.
It has happened five times now and doesn't happen when I am not running iPhoto.
I have just got a refurbished 2.8 Octo from Apple. I was glad at the first minute as it comes with an expected 16M-cache 500G HD (instead of 8M-cache 320G), as well as airport extreme card installed without additional charge. But at the same time I find out that both hard drive bays 3 and 4 are not working when I connect another three 3rd-party HDs to the machine internally. While at the same time, the original HD in bay 1 and bay 2 (which is hosting one of the three 3rd-party HDs) are working properly. Is there anything I have ignored and I should perform now to enable bay 3 and 4. Or, should I call Apple now to claim a DOA and request a replacement?
View 3 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.
Two short questions on which I really need an answer. This academic year, I'll be writing a lot of papers, but most specifically, I am forced to use SPSS (statistical software package for social sciences).
Will I really need the 2.93 over the 2.66 and notice the improvement?
Same goes for the gfx. I like full-hd 1080, I'll be in InDesign, and use Logic Pro. Will I need "slash" notice the 4850 over the gt130?
Also, are the "hang-ups" with the 4850 truly fixed and does it indeed run a lot hotter (inc. really that more noise) than the gt130?
I like eMacs but the G5 looks sooo nice. I know I probably won't be able to use any for very long but whatever. What is the best?
View 24 Replies View RelatedIf i purchase an MacPro system with single quad-core processor, can a second quad-core be added after the fact? If not, why?
View 11 Replies View Related