I have been offered a 2008 3.2GHz 8 Core with 10GB RAM, ATI 4870, 320HD, no warranty/applecare left.
Or, I can buy a new 2009 2.93GHz 4 Core, 3GB RAM, 640HD, GT120
Both about the same price: $2850.00 USD
Which would you choose, and why?
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 RelatedI'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.
I have recently purchased the new Mac Pro 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro (2008 Version). I decided to upgrade all the parts myself. I have upgraded the hard drive from 320GB to 2x 2TB. The memory from 2GB Fully Buffered to 8GB Fully Buffered. Now I am having issue with the graphics cards.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm just going to order a new Mac Pro and noticed that it was slightly cheaper to order the base dual processor model and buy the 2.93GHz hex cores myself. A couple of questions arise:
Will my AppleCare still be valid or will I have to keep the 2.4GHz Xeons if I need to return it to Apple for any reason?
Is there market for the 2.4GHz processors?
Can I upgrade to the 3.33GHz processors or will this not work?
Just 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 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?
As title, can it be done ? officially it says no, but iv read around some forums where people are saying it has been done in a 2x 2gb config, I ask as architecturally core duo can support 4gb and does on old IBM laptops of the same t2500 processor (2ghz), so im asking if there is anyone that can confirm this for me ?
View 3 Replies View RelatedWanting to upgrade my RAM and need to know how much it can handle. HOpefully someone can answer this for me
Info:
MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011), Mac OS X (10.6.8)
Anyone know if I can upgrade my Nvidia GeforceGT120 with the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 per Mac on my MacPro 3,1????? I have a 30inch cinema display and a Wacon Cintiq 21". Could I connect both of them on this card?
View 4 Replies View Relatedhey my friend is having a problem with his imac when he turns it on he gets a grey screen and stops there. there is also a grinding noise near the back maybe the hd or disc drive? it grinds 10 times then stops then continues for a couple minutes and then he gets a question mark on the screen.
View 1 Replies View RelatedUnder Tech specs for new 2009 Mac Pro:
"Turbo Boost dynamic performance (up to 3.33GHz on 8-core 2.93GHz system)"
As this is a feature of the chip I'm assuming this is true for the new Quad core as well. Is it? How can I find out? Any online reviews/overviews/etc. that looks at the new chips?
I see the numbers of everything from Core 2 Duo, to the slightly faster and cooler Core i3, to the supposedly faster core i5s and i7s. The benchmarks go up accordingly, but I found this does not always equate in a faster experience on most tasks.
Here's my experience so far on processor upgrade:
In one computer trade school re-certification class I am in, we are working with Windows Server 2003 on a Quad Xeon platform and it's incredibly slow.
But in a previous class we had the previous generation server edition on older Xeons, and while not fast, it was much better. On paper the newer multi-core Xeons should have made a difference, but could 2003 server software be that much more bloated than the previous Windows server edition that it would stall like that and make us wish we had the older setup?
I am going to try out the Adobe CS lab and put the new high end Dells to the test there and see if they work better than when we had an older CS version on older Xeon equipped Dells.
I don't know if this is something to do with Dell, or if Apple's increasing processor bumps/generations are going to similarly not make a difference in the speed things appear to go at, whether it's Adobe stuff, server stuff, or anything else that needs power.
I know somebody who plans on a Core 2 Duo, i5 or i7 MBP and I was wondering if the higher end processor is worth it in that case (iMovie being the main program of use).
I remember hearing the phrase "whisper quiet" when describing earlier Mac Pro noise levels. Is this still true of the newest 8 core iteration?
View 12 Replies View RelatedSo my question is -- do you know if this would be an issue swapping drives from a 2009 Mac Pro to a 2010 running 10.6.5 on the drive? Is there an OS performance hit running the 10.6.5 from the 2009's drive on the 2010 Mac Pro?
The reason I ask is because I am upgrading to a 3.33GHz 6-core, it's ordered and on the way. When it comes, I would just like to swap my SSD from my 2009 to the 2010 (running 10.6.5) and hope that everything runs OK. I don't want to have to re-install the new OS X build from the system disks and then update it, I would like it just to work correctly on the new Mac Pro.
I 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?
Has anyone that know if it's possible to upgrade MacPro Nehalem 2.26 to 2.66 Ghz Westmare with the following processors : Intel Hexa Core Xeon? Processor X5650 12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel? QPI part #:BX80614X5650 ? Could you help me telling if it?s possible to upgrading MacPro Nehalem octa core 2.26 Ghz to Mac Pro Westmare hexa core 2.66 Ghz ?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI 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?
is it even possible to upgrade an old dual core powermac g5 to a quad core or even an 8 core.
I have a dual core one and i really need to upgrade to a quad or even 8 but it is so expensive to buy a whole brand new one and i was wondering if there was a way to just get a new processor and more ram or what not.
[URL]
What you say guys?
I know the same article is on main page
There's a lot of people wondering if the 13" MBPs would have been a lot better with a Core i3 processor, but everything has been just hangups over perceived old vs. new technology, and really the only thing the Core i3 adds is Hyper-Threading, but it doesn't have Turbo Boost, which helps the Core i5/i7s tremendously. Let's compare using Geekbench since it is cross-platform and one of the few available sources of info...
Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz (~3362)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 330m 2.13GHz (~3472)
[URL]
Core 2 Duo P8800 2.66GHz (~3700)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 350m 2.26GHz (~3680)
[URL]
As you can see in both cases, the difference is pretty minimal indeed, and in single threaded applications, the C2D will easily outdo the Core i3 which lacks Turbo Boost and runs at lower clock rates.
And you get a 320M instead of Intel HD graphics with the new 13".
The Geekbench results from the old 15/17" to the new 15/17" are quite an order of magnitude better.
So unless people are expecting Core i5 processors in the 13", sticking to the C2D was actually a good decision, and given the differences between 2.4 and 2.53 isn't so large, one is far better buying the base 13" and then putting the money saved towards a good 7.2k HDD or SSD.
Note - I took averages of the 32-bit numbers and added them.
Note 2 - The C2D Pxxxx are 25W TDP processors, which are more efficient than the Core i3 which are 35W TDP processors. Less heat, better battery life from C2Ds.
I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 3 year old 15" Macbook Pro that has a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) to the new 13" 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro. FYI... My current system also has 4GB of RAM. Since both systems are Core 2 Duo, what kind of speed bump am I going to see? Would this be a substantial upgrade?
View 15 Replies View RelatedI'm buying a new MacBookPro but can't decide, due to lack of knowledge, wich one to choose and if there's a noticeble difference between, 15.4" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 Quad-Core4GB of DDR3 RAM500GB 5400rpm Hard DriveAMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB Graphics15.4" LED-Backlit Glossy Display1400 x 900 Native ResolutionSlot-Loading SuperDrive802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRFaceTime HD Camera, Built-in MicrophoneMac OS X 10.7 Lion (64-bit)
and the 13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 Dual-Core8GB of DDR3 RAM (2x4GB)750GB 5400rpm Hard DriveIntel HD 3000 Graphics13.3" Glossy Widescreen Display1280 x 800 Native ResolutionSuperDrive, Secure Digital Card SlotFaceTime HD Camera, Omnidirectional Mic802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRMac OS X 10.7 Lion
Besides the screen size, one would be considerable faster?
I use Photoshop and beeing a photographer I deal with large files.
Info:
MacBookPro 2.66GHz 4GB 1067MHz DDR3, Mac OS X (10.6.2)
The ivy bridge processors are coming out soon (or may already be out). I have heard that macbook pro 13" models might be able to use the new processers due to their lower energy useage. I presume that I will be able to take my mac to an apple store and have it installed. Is this information true?
Info:
MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4)
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 know other threads exist, but they don't have responses specific to me so what's the harm in one more?
So, I am going to be selling my late 2008 15" MacBook Pro this week to get a new 27" iMac and I just need some legitimate advice from those "in the know" on processors.
I plan on having this iMac for about 3 years to do the following tasks:
1.) Record and edit HD cable (1080i) from an Elgato EyeTV HD - will include some encoding of 2+ hour sports game recordings
2.) Some light editing of 720p iPhone 4 clips in iMovie
3.) Surf the web, iTunes, iPhoto, Mail, and all the other standard stuff
Assuming budget is an issue, would you recommend me spending the extra money for a Quad Core i5 iMac or would I be ok based on the info above just going with the base Dual Core i3 model?
Like, will there be a considerable difference in the two machines (factoring in processor and graphics card) that will really be worth the extra $300 - $400 for 3 years of use?
I've upgraded my iMac 4,1 to a core 2 duo processor in order to install Lion although I still get a message from App Store saying that Lion cant be installed on my computer - I have all the basic system requirments - RAM - free space - latest version of Snow Leopard and processor ...
Info:
iMac
Just installed my Vertex 250 using the MaxUpgrades 3.5 to 2.5" sled that arrived today (works perfect): Here are the XBench results. 560% score increase over previous stock 320GB HDD. Massive increase overall. So far so good:
Disk Test51.02
Sequential120.11
Uncached Write125.7077.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write121.1968.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read97.9428.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read145.2472.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random32.39
Uncached Write10.881.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write76.3824.45 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read89.160.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read137.8825.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
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'm using the early 2009 2.66ghz quad-core and i'm having some strange line-in/microphone issues. i'm trying to connect a microphone and record some stuff in garage band. in system preferences>sound>input, line in is selected. when i speak into the microphone it indicates it is picking up sound because the input-level meter lights up, but i do not hear it through the speakers nor when i try to record in garage band. i can use the same microphone on my friend's early 2009 2.93ghz 24" imac and record and hear the sound, so i am doubtful it is the microphone. i'm not too sure what else to try at this point.
View 1 Replies View Related
