Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Mac Pros with Nehalem

Kaku Ito

Kaku Ito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
65
Location
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Website
www.dittok.info
So, finally, the new Mac Pro with Nehalem came out.

Craig, did you try this with Cineform already?
 
yeah, but $5899 for a new one with 2.93 GHZ 8-Cores??

ouch. Ill wait for the refurb's and by then most Software should be updated to optimize the new chipset.
 
hold on, by default its now down to a 4-core and you have to upgrade to get 8-core??? They've been 8 core by default for some time now
 
Isn't it that new Mac Pros with Nehalems twice as fast as older ones because of the architecture?

Faster memory access, faster bus, and the CPU boost. Of course, I'm not naive to believe everything.
 
C.H.Haskell said:
So is the 8 core version provide a virtual 16 core?
Click to expand...

Yup. From the apple site...

The virtue of virtual cores.

The new Intel Xeon “Nehalem” processors support Hyper-Threading, which allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So an 8-core Mac Pro presents 16 virtual cores that are recognized by Mac OS X. Performance is enhanced because Hyper-Threading enables the processor to take better advantage of the execution resources available in each core.
 
Good heavens - that's a mighty high Mac tax:

Quad 2.66ghz nehalem Dell, 4 GB RAM, 24" LCD - $1095 (via dealnews)

Quad 2.66ghz nehalem Mac Pro, 3 GB RAM, 24" LCD - $3398

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Yes. Virtual 16 cores on the 8 core model.

Intel is trying the HyperThreading thing again. Like last time, this is a marketing push to get developers and consumers alike to start thinking of more cores faster. Hopefully this time around the industry will "get it". As with HT the last time around, we can expect that HT will help in some situations, but be less efficient in others.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Intel is trying the HyperThreading thing again. Like last time, this is a marketing push to get developers and consumers alike to start thinking of more cores faster. Hopefully this time around the industry will "get it". As with HT the last time around, we can expect that HT will help in some situations, but be less efficient in others.
Click to expand...

So this means HT works only in conjunction with software optimized for HT, right? So if i buy a MacPro today i'll see a HT optimized Photoshop by 2012 a day before the world will end? :biggrin:
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yes. Virtual 16 cores on the 8 core model.

Intel is trying the HyperThreading thing again. Like last time, this is a marketing push to get developers and consumers alike to start thinking of more cores faster. Hopefully this time around the industry will "get it". As with HT the last time around, we can expect that HT will help in some situations, but be less efficient in others.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

Thank you for the real world view.
 
I'm not sure if the new Mac Pros will deliver twice the performance in all applications, but the Nehalem architecture certainly has shown itself to deliver great media processing performance. I'm looking forward to see Nehalem Xeon benchmarks, especially with eight cores.

Between RED and Core i7, this is an exciting time to be a low-budget media producer.
 
With all the technological jargon being tossed around, it's easy for guys like me to get lost on what is the best way to go. Right now, for around $3,500 you can get either the low end Nehalem at 2.26 GHz or the older mid-level 3.0 GHz . Unfortunately, Apple only shows performance comparisons between the top level Macs. I was hoping for comps between the lower end ones as well. I am buying this computer strictly to use with my RED camera so here is my questions.

Will the RED programs utilize the Hyper Threading technology allowing the newer processors to run programs such as RED rushes faster, or will the older 3.0 GHz machines be better for this application? Even the lower end, older versions have a processing speed of 2.8 GHz.

I really don't want to buy the newer upgrade if the RED software does not take advantage of the new technology.
 
I have been waiting for the nehalem's to arrive before making the switch to Mac Pros.. I know they are more efficient and faster than their older models. The apply website gives performance comparisions between the oldCPU @ 3.2GHz and the nehalem @ 2.93Ghz and it performs faster at varying levels depending on the task at hand.

My only worry is their entry level nehalems @ 8-cores it's only 2.26, compared to their old CPUs that started @ 8-cores @ 2.8. Does anyone know or have does performances test between these two systems? Hopefully my worries are premature and the nehalem's will indeed out perform the old 2.8 8-core.

This will be my dedicated Red workflow system. This is indeed exciting times, with the new Reds and MacPros coming out
 
Ralph Wong said:
Will the RED programs utilize the Hyper Threading technology allowing the newer processors to run programs such as RED rushes faster, or will the older 3.0 GHz machines be better for this application? Even the lower end, older versions have a processing speed of 2.8 GHz.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but...

Red Rushes uses multiple processors to process the footage and to Red Rushes it will look like you have 16 processors on the biggest one. Now if Red Rushes tops out before that I don't know.

Your real slow down at this point would likely be the drive IO so I would say if you can get it into some Raid array--it should totally smoke anything else.

Of course when snow leopard comes, (this summer) things should get even better.

For me--there is definitely one of these beasts in my future. I'm just going to wait to see how the early reports come back making sure the kinks are worked out and let someone else be the test pilot!
 
Man... what a horrible price! Then again they are the only dual quads out right now so they can do that. Glad they are out at least.

Anyone think the prices will drop once dual i7 PC motherboards come out? Is that something that Apple does with their prices?

And I can't wait to hear of a working hackintosh version with two overclocked 940's... unless I get a Mac Pro from work that's what I am building next. :drool:

Of course I kid. :sarcasm:
 
MAc discussion boards answer most these questions guys... lower processor speed is offset by faster bus architecture... so in theory a 2.93 quad core is equivalent to 3.2 8 core
a 2.93 8 core is nearly 2X the 3.2
 
USlatin said:
Man... what a horrible price! Then again they are the only dual quads out right now so they can do that. Glad they are out at least.

Anyone think the prices will drop once dual i7 PC motherboards come out? Is that something that Apple does with their prices?

And I can't wait to hear of a working hackintosh version with two overclocked 940's... unless I get a Mac Pro from work that's what I am building next. :drool:

Of course I kid. :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

i am seeing one everyday in work...hehe
 
Here's the deal with the "Nehalem" architecture (also called Core i7). The chips seems tailor-made for media encoding and rendering. Here are some sample benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=18

The 2.66GHz Core i7 beats the 3.2GHz Core 2 handily in media benchmarks. One thing to keep in mind is that PC's have been overclocking these chips very well. So, unless you want to risk hardware compatibility and some bugs with building a hackintosh, an Apple-based workflow is going to have a bit of a price premium here.
 
but prices should drop once PCs come out with dual quads, right?

or will Apple hold their prices sky high?

It is all about the sound of it for most consumers... this one has 1.2 the other has 1.8 I want the "bigger" one... even if the 1.2 runs faster than the 1.8... dumb numbers... a lot of people don't want to bother cause there is no need for them to take it so seriously... they just buy when they are ready to and try to guess what is best...

but I am sure there is a precedent for this in Apple's practices... have they ever come out with an exclusive first to market deal and later dropped the prices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top