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 RepliesI had to pull the trigger today at the retail store and could not wait any longer. Can someone tell me what I will really be missing between these two systems:2.26 8-core Nehalem vs 2.4 8-core WestmereBesides the obvious 12MB L3 Cache, 1 TB HD, 1 GB GPU and built-in WI-FI What about the 2.26 to 2.4 GHz bump? Anything there?I am using CS5, FCP, XCode, and performing some data analysis.Do I need to be concerned about this anything at all I am missing out on?
View 16 Replies View Relatedhave to pull the trigger again on a Mac Pro and soon... Besides the video card and hard drive bump is there any other technical advantages (i.e. main-board, memory, internal components, etc...) that would make worth holding out for a 2010 Westmere 8-Core Mac Pro vs the 2009 Nehalem 8-Core?
View 8 Replies View RelatedI'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?
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 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).
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 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 RelatedI bought the the 2010 Mac Pro after much debating on whether to build a hackintosh or not.I bought the low end model from B&H Photo given it was the best price for the low end model and secondly knowing that I would be upgrading it.I bought the W3680 3.33 GHz westmere from an eBay seller for $899 plus shipping. This was cheaper than either the 980x non xeon version or the Newegg w3680 (or most other site prices for the w3680) which seems hard to find. Overall, even if I could not sell the 2.8GHz w3530 xeon which came with the machine I would be out $899 vs $1200 plus tax from Apple (about a $400 outright saving).
View 24 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?
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
So 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?
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)
I have a Dual Core 3.0ghz Xeon 2007 revision (MB052LL/A) with a x1900 GPU
What would be a good upgrade to bring in new tech (do i have open CL?) for snow leopard and an impeding upgrade to aperture 3.0.
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 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?
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.
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
The first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
View 20 Replies View RelatedAs 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??
They're both Intel Xeon Westmere's, but I was planning on buying the 8-core today. However, another commentator mentioned the 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere being a faster/better choice than the 2.4GHz 8-Core Westmere. Is this due to the 1 6-Core processor versus 2 Quad-Core processors and how the system utilizes threading, etc of each?
View 8 Replies View RelatedIf you have the guts and a few thousand dollars, why wait for Apple to release it?
[URL]
I'm considering upgrading my iMac to a Mac Pro using my ADC discount late this summer. I have to have a Mac for my major, as I use a lot of OSX-only programs. However, when looking at all the benchmarks available for the programs I'll use, it seems that half do better with the higher-clocked 2.66 4.core, and half do better with the lower-clocked 2.26 8-core. I'm a pretty big gamer, and so if I'm buying this computer anyway, it'll probably be replacing a PC as my "gaming rig."
And, so, I'm thinking of letting that be my deciding factor. Now, I know that the workstation processors aren't meant for gaming. But, that's not my question. What I'm wondering is, while it seems 99% of games out right now prefer a higher clocks to anything else, would it be wise to purchase the 8-core (thus, even more cores than the currently underutilized 4-cores) model to future proof my system for gaming? Other than GTA IV, will we start to see games in the next year or two that really start pushing 4+ cores?
