MacPro Options

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:23 am

Looking to get a MacPro and have the following questions. This will be an audio only unit. Running DP, Reason, Komplete 4, few other VI's. I'm not currently tracking or creating big orchestra stuff so... And I know that RAM always makes a big difference, so I want to know, outside of RAM:

1. 2.66 or 3.0 ? What is the effective difference? Does it translate into higher track count? By much?

2. Is it worth waiting for the new versions?

3. What size monitor are you using, and how many? 2 23"s would be nice, but would one 30 be better?

Andy

Dwetmaster · Post by **Dwetmaster** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:46 am

3. What size monitor are you using, and how many? 2 23"s would be nice, but would one 30 be better?

I prefer two separate screens as they can used independentely.

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:00 am

Thats what I'm leaning towards. I run an external monitor now and its great to stick a mixer or something like that over there.

Dwetmaster · Post by **Dwetmaster** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:12 am

I still have to admit that the first time tried the 30 inch. I felt like I could swim in it!!! That thing is so big you have space you don't know what to do with it...

twistedtom · Post by **twistedtom** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:18 am

I see Apple has different video card options, it looks like on some of them you can run more than 2 monitors up to 4 is this right?

Dwetmaster · Post by **Dwetmaster** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:20 am

So you put 5000$ ouit and get 4 30inches screen then you put all around your head and you're living in a virtual 3D DP Space...

Cool hey!!!

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:53 pm

Another question...what is the benefit of an Apple Cinema Display over another, less spendy option.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:08 pm

JadeLatrell wrote:Another question...what is the benefit of an Apple Cinema Display over another, less spendy option.

When something goes wrong you only have to complain to one company instead of two!

Actually, Apple's refurb monitors ave been going for half or less. There's a 23" up now for $749.

I have a Neovo flat panel as my second monitor now, but I'd like to get a seccond 23" Cinema. They are great monitors. The net workspace is greater with 46" diagonal. I could also go with getting a pair of Viewsonics-- Circuit City is blowing out 22" cinema models for $349 each. Someone else was talking about CostCo as a great source of non-Apple monitors at killer prices.

JadeLatrell wrote: 1. 2.66 or 3.0 ? What is the effective difference? Does it translate into higher track count? By much?

2. Is it worth waiting for the new versions?

Interesting pair of questions for March 2007. How urgent is your need for a new computer at this point? If you are not in a hurry, I'd say wait until new computers are announced. The benefits are that you will see where CPUs are going, and the prices of current models will come down.

If you needed to get a computer right away, I'd say go with the 2.66. There are 3Gs new for under $3100 on maconnection.com, and the 2.66 is even less. For that price, I would spring for the 3G, but I'm not convinced of any reports of substantial performance improvements with a CPU difference of .34 Ghz. When one considers CDW's 3G price of $3700+, then the 2.66 makes more sense.

For the computer I have, it makes more sense for me to wait for the new models with an eye out for a potential 8-Core.

stephen1212b · Post by **stephen1212b** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:07 am

I have a new Dell 24" wide screen 1920*1200. At this resolution it can display HD with 1 to 1 digital mapping. Go with wide a screen format as it really streamlines DP operations. Two wide screens would be better, but one wide screen is probably better than two square monitors. The only drawback to big monitors is that there can be a substantial amount of mousing around all that screen estate. I have a track ball and set the scaling to fast which helps to get around but can be a little tricky making fine moves.

twistedtom · Post by **twistedtom** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:06 am

I looked at a number of monitors side by side and the apples responded better, where sharper, the colors were more true and blended better. If you are doing graphics and video it may be worth the difference in cost but if you are using it for DP only why not go Dell. I use Dell at work and they are not bad. Oh I am not saying Dell would not be fine for graphics and video.

twistedtom · Post by **twistedtom** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 am

Dwetmaster that would be cool. More practical use would be 2 monitors for the program running, one monitor for video and one monitor for the performers.

charlesmoman · Post by **charlesmoman** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:50 am

On my ancient G4 450 DP I am running a Dell 19" 1907 FP and a Dell 22" widescreen E228 WFP via two video cards via VGA.

I love them - I bought a monitor riser (black metal - very nice) from Staples and it makes both of them sit very nearly the same height.

When I get my MacPro this spring or whenever the new models come out - then I will run them DVI and they will look even better. I am going to get the higher quality ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI) card - it alone can run 2 30" Apple Cinema screens.

Very looking forward to the speed and power of the MacPro - will get 8 GB of RAM or more to run Aperture, DP 5, Finale and EWQL Platinum that I just ordered last week.

I have an articulating wall mount for one of the screens but have not installed it yet. Probably will have both on the wall to free up desk space.

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:28 pm

I like that the Dells accept s-Video and composite video in. That is certainly a plus. And for audio, they should be more than sufficient. And the 3 year warranty is a plus.

So the question of the day is...when on the new towers? My guess would be coinciding with Adobe Photoshop CS3. Adobe seems to be saying Spring, but that could be as late as June as far as yearly quarters go...

How much extra power will we get from a set of dual 2.66 quad cores vs two 3.0 dual cores?

I mean, we are already talking some serious firepower.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:36 pm

JadeLatrell wrote: How much extra power will we get from a set of dual 2.66 quad cores vs two 3.0 dual cores?

I mean, we are already talking some serious firepower.

everymac.com wrote: In a "First Look" the always reliable MacWorld compared the "upgraded" 3.0 GHz model and the "downgraded" 2.0 GHz Mac Pro to the stock Mac Pro Quad 2.66, as well as the Power Macintosh G5 Quad 2.5, Power Macintosh G5/2.7 DP and iMac "Core Duo"/2.0 20". All systems were configured with 1 GB of RAM.

The entire piece should be read for the full perspective provided by the author, but regarding the faster system, MacWorld noted that "the 3 GHz machine posted a score of 313, setting a new standard for our system performance test suite" and concluded that "the 3 GHz machine posted an improvement over the 2.66 GHz Mac Pro of about 5 to 6 percent on most tests" and "beat the 2.66 GHz model in all tests, but usually just by a few seconds." Regarding the 2.0 GHz Mac Pro compared to the 2.66 GHz model, MacWorld concluded that the "downgraded" model was roughly "15 percent" slower.

For more:
CLICK HERE

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:14 pm

Sorry Frodo,

What I meant was, how much increase will we get when the new quad core chips come out. Speculation is that they will only be clocked up to 2.66 but that with quad cores of course there is an improvement, even over the current dual core 3.0s.

Im just wondering how much, practically. I doubt there will be TOO much, since the 3.0 duals seem to scream and have great track counts, especially maxed out with RAM.