MOTUnation.com

I'm about to purchase a new 8 core MacPro. I can buy a refurb 3.2 gHz for $2,800, or a new 2.26 gHz for $3,300.
I won't have high audio track counts nor lots of effects plugs, but I will have many VIs, in particular Kontakt, which will mostly stream old VSL samples & old Roland libraries.

Which machine would be better for me? Would it make a significant difference?

Thx- Robert Watson

"Apparent" clock speed has less to do with it these days. Internal buss speed plays an arguably bigger role in overall performance. It is likely that the new 2.26 will perform better on certain critical tasks than the older 3.2. One thing that makes this possible is that the newer machines are using the newer Nehalem chips as opposed to the older Xeon chips.

Buying a new computer requires a bit of consideration, not the least of which involves cash outlay. At some point, it's important to consider how much you're investing in the recent past rather than to invest in the near (or not-so-near) future. There will be even newer MacPros before the end of the year-- and that doesn't mean that one always needs to stay ahead of the technological curve. It *does* raise the question of how far behind the curve that computer will be a year or two from now. It also raises the question of how far behind the curve the older 3.2 machine would be at the time of purchase as well as a year or two from now.

I think that over the longer term, the Nehalem machines will server you better. The newer machines have other internal considerations where better graphics cards and other architectural updates are concerned which, in turn, translate into better performance.

If you were to opt for a refurb, at least opt for a Nehalem model. If a new machine is to be considered-- and if you are SURE that your projects will remain small over the life of the machine-- then you might consider a Quad instead of an 8-Core. That way you could have the best of both worlds-- the latest chipset and a little extra cash to invest in more RAM and hard drives.

Thanks, Frodo -

Your points are well taken and may sway my purchase.

My client has a 3.2gHz 8 core Xeon. I would need to be at least as fast as his machines, as he pushes them to the limit and then sends me the files.

Would a low end 8 core Nehalim be as fast or faster than an 8 core Xeon? Would a Quad 3.33 be faster than an 8 core 2.26?

Thanks again,

Robert

Anthropy wrote:
Would a low end 8 core Nehalim be as fast or faster than an 8 core Xeon?

I would say yes, although I would need to get my hands on some official benchmarks. However, common sense would dictate that Apple would not release newer 8-Cores that perform "worse" overall than their previous 8-Cores.

Anthropy wrote: Would a Quad 3.33 be faster than an 8 core 2.26?

That's a difficult yes/no question. Some of it depends on what you're doing. I wouldn't worry so much about the 3.33 being "faster". I would be more concerned about whether a comparable model would be "fast enough". If your colleague is using an older Xeon, then I'd suspect that a Nehalem will meet or beat his machine.

The VERY general rule of thumb when buying a new Mac is this: if there are three models with three different CPU speeds, get the middle model. The reasons are that the lowest model tends to be a transitional model to bridge the gap between the newer machines and the top end machines which preceded it. These low-end models are the machines that will be phased out first.

The differences between the low-end new models and the middle model have historically been appreciable enough to consider the middle model. However, the performance boost vs price ratio of the middle machines and top models have rarely justified the oft-marginal performance boost.

My MacPro is a 3Ghz. It was a top-line model at the time I bought it, but I wouldn't have gotten it without the special rebate being offered, which placed the 3G within $100 of the 2.66 model. Otherwise, I would have just gotten the 2.66. The low-end model at the time was a 2.0 Ghz--- but then there was some confusion since the the G5s which preceded these MacPros were clocking in at 2.5 and 2.7 Ghz. It didn't make sense to get a 2.0.

With that said, those I know who bought a 2.66 at the same time I got my 3G are not experiencing "worse" performance at all. From all I've gathered, there might be some hairline advantage with the 3G if video is involved with audio, but the 2.66 and 3G are pretty much neck-and-neck, performance-wise. Even if I had benchmarks, the resulting stats tend to use video games and not DAWs.

Okay-- enough hobbit babble.

Just compare prices on the new 2.66, 2.96, and 3.33 Quads and you will likely see greater price differences than you'll see in performance improvements.

The 2.66 Quad is $2499. The 3.33 Quad is $1500 more. The 2.96 is $2899.

See what I'm saying? Clock speed at some point becomes part placebo. Consider the difference between the 2.96 and 3.33 and this will afford you considerable extra RAM and extra HDs, not to mention Apple Care.

It could be just me, but the 3.33 feels like a waste of money.