Buying New MacPro. Opinion Wanted!

[rickindies]

Hey guys, I'm planning to buy a new MacPro . The choices are either the 2.66 Quad Core or 2.26 8 Core (these are the 2 that I can afford). I do mostly film composing here. So I use a lot of VI's for sure (LASS, Omnisphere, Trilian, Stylus RMX, EWSC, Ivory, BFD etc). Same of those are very heavy sample wise as you can see. And I heard (correct me If I'm wrong) some of the plug ins out there are not optimized for multicore use yet. Some have say that I better get the 2.66 Quad Core and use the rest of the money to upgrade the RAM to 16GB and buy lots of SSD drive, rather than buying the 2.26 8 core and wont get much benefit since many plug ins aren't optimized for multicore processor yet. If its true that some plug ins are ONLY working in 1 processor and since the 8 core speed processor is slower than the quad core then it would be a waste to buy the 8 core. The 2.66 Quad Core will run faster since the processor's speed is higher. Is this true? I dont really understand how these multiprossecor really works actually. So any suggestions from you guys would be really appreciated. Is it really worth it to spend another $800 to get the 8 core for my purposes & needs as film composer that use lots VI's? Or should I get the 2.66 Quad Core and upgrade to 16GB RAM and buy huge SSD drive? Would the 8 core give me more benefits even with the slower processor speed? Will all the 8 cores "work" for all substances?

Also, Is that true the rumor said the new mac pro is coming out soon (september) ? I thought the 2.26 8 core Nehalem was out this year? How come they release the new one so fast within a year?

[jweisbin]

This seems to bear out what you are saying, although the speed difference they tested is only about 15%:
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/ ... o2009.html

The optimum RAM configuration for the Quad core, by the way, is 12 GB, (3x4GB each), not 16. (there are only 4 RAM slots on the Quad core, BTW, so that is a limitation to think about in the future when everything goes 64 bit), but these motherboards are more efficient with RAM arranged in a triple channel configuration, although there doesn't seem to be any tests around that show a significant difference.

[jloeb]

This seems to bear out what you are saying, although the speed difference they tested is only about 15%:
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/ ... o2009.html

A few things about the OP and the article:

The article shows that in speed tests with applications that are best equipped to take advantage of multicore processing, the 8-core performs significantly better than the quad (See "Pro app testing" section).

DP7 is such an application. I can't speak for every VI ever made, but even when using numerous commonly used VIs in DP7 (AAS, Kontakt4 w/LASS and other NI synths, EastWest, Toontrack, etc.), the CPU load is exceptionally well-distributed among the processors; Activity Monitor looks like a flat EQ.

So this being the case, one would expect to see better performance with the 8-core when using most VIs within DP.

Regarding RAM: If your work will be sample-based VI-intensive, then you're definitely going to want to get the RAM regardless of which computer you buy. CPU speed isn't really a tradeoff for RAM in this case.

Regarding buying a "huge SSD drive" instead of the 8-core: The first problem with this is that there are no huge capacity SSDs on the market at present. The second problem is that SSDs definitely are not a cost-saving option; they are 10 times as expensive per unit storage as eSATA drives. SSDs currently are high-performance, high-priced items.

I would say if you already have eSATA drives that you like, get the 8-core and install the drives you already own in its empty bays. Upgrade the 8-core to 12 or 14Gb in a way that lets you take advantage of the RAM it comes with (so for a 12Gb total you only need an 8Gb upgrade, etc).

[n2mpujack]

I'd go for the single quad-core 2.66 GHz machine - biggest bang for the buck. Add your own aftermarket ram and drives. OWC has some great deals. And the max that will fit in MacPros is 32 gig ram.

[jweisbin]

I'd go for the single quad-core 2.66 GHz machine - biggest bang for the buck. Add your own aftermarket ram and drives. OWC has some great deals. And the max that will fit in MacPros is 32 gig ram.

To my knowledge the single quad core Mac Pro (latest models) only have 4 RAM slots, so 16 GB would be the max for now, unless you can buy 8 GB RAM sticks

[BobK]

Also, Is that true the rumor said the new mac pro is coming out soon (september) ? I thought the 2.26 8 core Nehalem was out this year? How come they release the new one so fast within a year?

No, there have been no Mac Pro releases this year. Last release was March 09. Check out this Buyers' Guide at MacRumors.com for details:

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[newrigel]

For single threaded apps, the quad is quicker. Your doing orchestral composing... get an 8 core and the fastest and the most ram you can afford because you WILL take advantage of every core with DP. Or, just hang on another month or so and get a 6 core that will spank the current 8 core for a LOT less. decisions, decisions...

[n2mpujack]

I'd go for the single quad-core 2.66 GHz machine - biggest bang for the buck. Add your own aftermarket ram and drives. OWC has some great deals. And the max that will fit in MacPros is 32 gig ram.

To my knowledge the single quad core Mac Pro (latest models) only have 4 RAM slots, so 16 GB would be the max for now, unless you can buy 8 GB RAM sticks

True, but that's what OWC is selling. See this page: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/M ... 066-memory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

$1500 for 32 gig. Apple wants $1850 extra for ONLY 16 gig ram. Anybody that'd but ram at Apple's prices has something wrong upstairs.

[rickindies]

Thanks for all the input guys!

For single threaded apps, the quad is quicker. Your doing orchestral composing... get an 8 core and the fastest and the most ram you can afford because you WILL take advantage of every core with DP.

Good to hear this! Good to know that DP takes full advantage of this multicore thing. Can you give any example of single threaded apps? Any music apps/VIs/plug ins? I mean it would be pain in the **s to know that let say omnisphere/spectrasonic only use single or dual core for their machine to run.

...Regarding RAM: If your work will be sample-based VI-intensive, then you're definitely going to want to get the RAM regardless of which computer you buy. CPU speed isn't really a tradeoff for RAM in this case.

I guess you're right about, should get as much RAM as I could regardless of which one I get.

I'd go for the single quad-core 2.66 GHz machine - biggest bang for the buck. Add your own aftermarket ram and drives. OWC has some great deals. And the max that will fit in MacPros is 32 gig ram.

To my knowledge the single quad core Mac Pro (latest models) only have 4 RAM slots, so 16 GB would be the max for now, unless you can buy 8 GB RAM sticks

I dont understand why they did this? I mean, even the G5 PPC Dual Core has 8 memory slot on it, and now they reduced it and make it 4 slots?

[newrigel]

Because you can render VI's to audio. My quad will play back 100 stereo stems easy! Doesn't make sense to try to load 32 GB's of ram if your processors clipping from the polyphony count. There's other places that $$ can go for more benefit IMO. 8 to 12 GB is fine for most uses. It's interesting the K250 didn't need 32 Gigs... they sound great! These VI's IMO have just become resource hogs.

[mikehalloran]

>I dont understand why they did this? I mean, even the G5 PPC Dual Core has 8 memory slot on it, and now they reduced it and make it 4 slots? <

The PCIx G5 dual processors have 8 slots but the PCI DPs have 4 only. All the G5 single cores have 4 and PCI slots. The Mac Pro single processors have 4; dual processors have 8. This is nothing new.

Regarding the biggest bang for the buck: To me, it appears to be the iMac i7. Same quad processor as the Mac Pro Quad plus a 27" monitor for less money than a MP Q by itself. For those of us not using a ton of VIs, that may be the way to go.

Living in the silly con valley as I do, I know a lot of Apple employees. Regarding the hex core, the song that everyone is "not" singing ("I'm not telling you this!") is See you in September... I think it would be too much to hope that the iMac i7 would also get a processor upgrade at that time. In any case, that has become when I will look to dump this ol' creaky heat pump of a G5.

[n2mpujack]

>I dont understand why they did this? I mean, even the G5 PPC Dual Core has 8 memory slot on it, and now they reduced it and make it 4 slots? <

The PCIx G5 dual processors have 8 slots but the PCI DPs have 4 only. All the G5 single cores have 4 and PCI slots. The Mac Pro single processors have 4; dual processors have 8. This is nothing new.

Regarding the biggest bang for the buck: To me, it appears to be the iMac i7. Same quad processor as the Mac Pro Quad plus a 27" monitor for less money than a MP Q by itself. For those of us not using a ton of VIs, that may be the way to go.

Living in the silly con valley as I do, I know a lot of Apple employees. Regarding the hex core, the song that everyone is "not" singing ("I'm not telling you this!") is See you in September... I think it would be too much to hope that the iMac i7 would also get a processor upgrade at that time. In any case, that has become when I will look to dump this ol' creaky heat pump of a G5.

I didn't mention the iMac for a couple of reasons. First - the OP is looking for a MacPro. Beyond ram you can't expand an iMac - no internal drives, no dsp cards. Another - until Apple solves the yellowing display problem in the 27" iMacs you'd be best served putting your money in other places.

[mikehalloran]

>until Apple solves the yellowing display problem in the 27" iMacs you'd be best served putting your money in other places.<

Old news. They did that with firmware upgrades back in February. Took them two tries but they appear to have solved it.

True, you can expand the memory only to 16Gig as opposed to 32G for a MP-Q and there are no expansion slots.

It boils down to whether or not you will be using a large amount of VIs. If you are not, the iMac i7 is a better buy. The second hard drive issue can be solved by a $200 external - essential for Time Machine. For a little more, you can get an external that holds multiple drives.

Although you assume that the OP had full command of facts before asking the question, I do not - else why was the question asked in the first place?

You should be careful of dispensing advice as if it's from on high when you don't know all the facts - or even the latest info on current Apple products.

[n2mpujack]

>until Apple solves the yellowing display problem in the 27" iMacs you'd be best served putting your money in other places.<

Old news. They did that with firmware upgrades back in February. Took them two tries but they appear to have solved it.

True, you can expand the memory only to 16Gig as opposed to 32G for a MP-Q and there are no expansion slots.

It boils down to whether or not you will be using a large amount of VIs. If you are not, the iMac i7 is a better buy. The second hard drive issue can be solved by a $200 external - essential for Time Machine. For a little more, you can get an external that holds multiple drives.

Although you assume that the OP had full command of facts before asking the question, I do not - else why was the question asked in the first place?

You should be careful of dispensing advice as if it's from on high when you don't know all the facts - or even the latest info on current Apple products.

I did not dispense info from on high. I merely stated what I know to be true. There are still iMac 27" units out there being sold with the yellowing problem. Since you seem to be the fountain of 'correct' info - can you provide a cite for the firmware fix for the yellowing?

As to expansion for the iMac - sure you can go external but I still stand on what I said earlier - an iMac is NOT what the OP was asking for - he was asking about a MacPro.

Update for extra info:
Did some checking and here's what I found: the firmware updates fixed the flickering in the display. The yellow fix, if it's indeed fixed, was/is due to Apple changing the display panel used. Apple uses an LG display panel as they don't make their own displays. This is where I got my info from: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread. ... +yellowing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[newrigel]

I wouldn't even think of going external unless it was ESATA. The iMacs are a GREAT machine, if you replace the optical with an SSD and put a 600GB velociraptor in them, they will beat out a MP. But I can't live without my 1073 on my vocals and you need a UAD card for that... no plugin EQ can compare to a 1073 (for what I do)... not even the trident. Plus, streaming off of 11 fast HD's (a MP can hold up to 12 HD's) can't be beat for VI sample libraries so it really depends on what you do. If you use synth VI's only and audio... the iMac i7 is hard to beat for the $$. For the sample streaming monsters, the MP is your only choice.
OTOH, you would choke out the processor before over-saturating the SATA bus on a MP because of polyphony count and the DSP hungry VI's (scripting) that are out there.
The more you get the more you want... I have started back to the beginning and try to play less notes and more meaning. Less is really more in almost every case. I could care less if a box can play back 900 notes of polyphony when it only takes 10 to say it.