MOTUnation.com

For thanks to all the responses and info about my upcoming purchase.

So I've narrowed down my choices to the following:

1) New iMac 2.9Ghz i5

2) Used 2.66Ghz quad-core Mac Pro (4,1 - late 2009)

Before I talk about the costs, a few of my concerns.

The Mac Pro doesn't have Thunderbolt or USB3 ports - is that a problem?

The Mac Pro is used, but is from a reseller that has good reviews on this site and has a 90 day guarantee.

Looking at the benchmark processor speed results, the iMac is faster - 9128 vs. 8257. But the iMac doesn't support hyper-threading. So which is better, or is it a wash?

Now for the cost. I could get the Mac Pro, and upgrade the RAM to 20GB, upgrade my PCIX-424 card to a PCIe-424, and add a SSD for the system drive all for less than the price of a refurbished iMac 2.9Ghz. Not to mention all the things I would then need to upgrade - add 828 to replace 2408s, add more RAM, add external hard drive, etc.

WHat would you do? If this was 2 years ago, the Mac Pro would be the obvious choice, but today with PCI gone in the next Mac Pro, would it be a mistake to go that direction?

Thanks again!

USB3 / Thunderbolt doesn't mean crap for audio. In fact, many "USB2" devices are actually USB1.2 in disguise. If you actually do the math, data transfer rates for audio are really minimal. Now, it does mean that you won't have a super fast external drive system, but since you have extra bays for SSD, that doesn't mean much.

What I would be concerned about is upgrading. I have a dual core 2,1 Mac Pro and I got stuck because 4,1 on up uses different architecture, and I couldn't upgrade my processor if I wanted to. Look into the reports on upgrading the processor/motherboard of the 4,1 and see whether the future looks bright (I believe it does), but they may have changed it again at some point.

Dunno much about hyper threading, but benchmarks usually are benchmarks. Audio processing is a very rudimentary process, it doesn't use a GPU, it doesn't do a lot of fancy stuff, it's brute force CPU calculations, so my guess is that your standard benchmark is going to get you in the ballpark.

That said, I've always had a thing against getting old computers. Computers become obsolete fast, and even if you think they're powerful enough now, they may be incompatible with software 3 years down the line. Today's computers seem to hold compatibility longer than they did a decade ago. Back in the late 90s, early 00s, I ended up getting left behind every few years, but that really isn't the case anymore. So now, a computer can be a good mid-term investment. I would just save a little longer and get something that you'll really want to use for a while. These days, a good computer can go 5-8 years and still be relevant.

USB3 / Thunderbolt doesn't mean crap for audio.

Yes and no.

That's only true now and/or if you are recording everything internally.

If using VIs or accessing audio on remote drives then, absolutely, it will make a difference now. Sort of and it depends.

There is no speed difference between eSATA, TB and usb3 if using a 7200 rpm mechanical drive - except that all are much faster than FW800. Big difference if using SSDs as usb3 a good deal faster and TB is a lot faster.

As for the future, interfaces that promise to take advantage of the greater pipeline are coming but they aren't here yet. My guess is that the new Mac Pro will be the watershed event that finally sees the release of those new products.

Back to the OP:

The Mac Pro doesn't have Thunderbolt or USB3 ports - is that a problem?

It will never have TB; usb3 is available now on PCIe cards. Besides, SSD via PCIe is also available for the current Mac Pro.

Such a system should keep you going for a few years more.

westla wrote:WHat would you do? If this was 2 years ago, the Mac Pro would be the obvious choice, but today with PCI gone in the next Mac Pro, would it be a mistake to go that direction?

Thanks again!

I'd get the Mac Pro, unless you also need a good monitor and forgot to add in the price for that. If the iMac was an i7 the decision would be more difficult. The USB 3 doesn't matter because you can add internal drives to the Pro.

As noted in one of your other threads, I chose the 4,1 2009 Quad 2.66, which I then updated to a 5,1 via EFI Update available for free/donation from Netkas.org, then replaced the CPU with a Hex 3.33 Xeon Westmere and the GPU with an ATI 5770 rendering my 4,1 2009 equivalent in every way to a 2012 hex.

With all the internal space and PCIe slots, I was able to use my existing UAD2 Duo card, add a SATA3 card ($17.00) and a FW400 card ($35), four SSDs and three HDs, plus external USB2 Time Machine backup, of course. Oh yes, I also added three 8gb RAM sticks to bring system memory to 24gb, memory I can actually use now that DP is 64 bit.

Geekbench 64 bit approaches 16,000, over 13,000 32 bit.

Although one never knows what Apple will do in the future, I feel quite confident my "2009" machine will survive at least several rounds of OS updates (if Apple orphans my Mac, they orphan the 2010 and 2012s, too) and will be rocking DP for years to come.

The expandability and durability of the Mac Pros (combined with the fact you can continue to use peripheral equipment you already own) make the MP a winner IMHO.

Thanks for all the advice and info, I really appreciate it.

So just to help me get this straight in regards to the Mac Pro:

Mac Pro 1,1 & 1,2 - no good because can't run 64-bit.

Mac Pro 3,1 - can run 64-bit, but can't be upgraded to 5,1 specs (so if Apple changes something in the architecture of the Mac Pros, this may become obsolete)

Mac Pro 4,1 - can be upgraded to 5,1 specs with new processor and GUI.

Mac 5,1 - identical to current Mac Pros.

Do I have that right?

Sounds right to me, altough not so sure on the exact details for the 1,1 and 2,1 as I never considered these older Macs in my research.

3,1s also use more expensive memory than later MPs.

5,1 IS the current MP. Some models were introduced in 2010, some in 2012.

Get the iMac. Make life easier.....

Guitar Gaz wrote:Get the iMac. Make life easier.....

To each his own. Individual circumstances and needs do vary.

westla wrote:Mac Pro 1,1 & 1,2 - no good because can't run 64-bit.

Actually, the MacPro 1,1 can run 64-bit apps, it just can't boot into the 64-bit kernel.

westla wrote:Thanks for all the advice and info, I really appreciate it.

So just to help me get this straight in regards to the Mac Pro:

Mac Pro 1,1 & 1,2 - no good because can't run 64-bit.

The 1,1 can run 64 bit applications. However you won't be able to install Mavericks on it (unless some third party ends up providing a hack to enable it).

Yep. Lion was the end of the road for MacPro 1,1. I installed it for an hour before removing it and going back to Snow Leopard.

Get the iMac. Make life easier.....

But if you do, spring for the i7 for the extra $200. The i5 works for DP but for some tasks, the i7 runs circles. I have tested and posted in other threads.

The 2011 iMac has Thunderbolt. The 2012 has Thunderbolt and usb 3.

The advantage of TB and usb3 is that you can slave multiple very fast external drives if you need to. If you are on a budget and just want fast, there's usb3.

Finally, there are new TB racks supporting JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) with a single TB connection. This gives you what a Mac Pro has - multiple fast drives, much faster than SATA if you are using SSDs in the rack. 6 drive racks are already shipping.

These new racks are also the component that will make the next generation Mac Pro a practical reality although, no doubt, Apple will have some slicked down, tricked out monster companion that goes with the new MP, priced to match.

Just learned OWC sells used Mac Pros...

HCMarkus wrote:Just learned OWC sells used Mac Pros...

Cool. Thanks for the info. Think I'm going to go with them. Always have had good experience with OWC.

By the way, according to OWC, the Mac Pro 4,1 will be compatible with OS 10.9 Mavericks. So that gives us a few more years without having to worry.