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 quad core iMacs outperform 8 core Pros

I've been doing quite a bit of research on this the past few days, and yes the higher clocked core i7's may match or beat the dual e5520's chips in some tasks (also i7 based), but thats where it stops. The macpro's with higher spec nehalem xeon's will smoke anything that moves.

I dont know what apple puts in their motherboards, but I just recently assembled a dual Xeon e5520 workstation PC using the same specs one would find in the macpro (Same ram, same cpu's, better video card, similar motherboard) and its about 20% slower than the equivelent macpro in real world benchmarks. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware thats for sure.
 
Last edited:
Denis Haineault said:
For those considering a new purchase, here's something to think about:

"...Macworld also compared the new models to Apple's latest entry-level quad-core and 8-core Mac Pro models, with both new quad-core iMacs even out-performing the Mac Pro in this real-world battery."
Click to expand...

Agree. The iMac should be a tad faster than the same "rated speed" Mac Pro due to non-ECC memory and more aggressive Turbo Boost.

Ace said:
I dont know what apple puts in their motherboards, but I just recently assembled a dual Xeon e5520 workstation PC using the same specs one would find in the macpro (Same ram, same cpu's, better video card, similar motherboard) and its about 20% slower than the equivelent macpro in real world benchmarks. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware thats for sure.
Click to expand...

Hey Ace, are you comparing a Mac Pro with legit OS X to a workstation PC with hacked OS X?

Tomshardware compared:

a) a Macbook Pro with legit OS X
and
b) the same Macbook Pro with hacked OS X

The hacked OS X ran 17% slower on the same hardware because AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext was disabled in that OS X install.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-macbook-laptop,2132-5.html

They fix it in the next page - "We Get Things Fast Again"
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-macbook-laptop,2132-6.html

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce Allen said:
Hey Ace, are you comparing a Mac Pro with legit OS X to a workstation PC with hacked OS X?

Tomshardware compared:

a) a Macbook Pro with legit OS X
and
b) the same Macbook Pro with hacked OS X

The hacked OS X ran 17% slower on the same hardware because AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext was disabled in that OS X install.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-macbook-laptop,2132-5.html

They fix it in the next page - "We Get Things Fast Again"
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-macbook-laptop,2132-6.html

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

I Dont think I mentioned OSX at all. The comparison was between A macpro running windows 7 and a generic workstation of similar specs running windows 7 side by side for rendering purposes...
 
this is quite interesting though.. I hadnt come accross this issue. Maybe its not the hardware after all?

If anyone has an answer let me know..
 
Last edited:
Will the rendering be faster if i hook up mac pro and the new imac with ethernet and qmaster to get fast rendering?
 
2nd station

2nd station

Seems great for a 2nd editing station, with finishing capabilities.
Curious about Dynamic RT performance, Motion performance, as well as transcoding tests.
These machines are now out in the wild. Tests welcomed.
 
Ive been looking to upgrade from a dual Macbook Pro kit to some sort of portable onset desktop solution.

Would the new quad core iMac be fast enough for low to medium weight transcoding on set? (compared to the cost of buying into an 8 core Mac Pro setup)
 
As discussed in other threads, the bottleneck with the iMacs is storage.

I'm seriously thinking of dumping one of my 30" Dell displays in favor of a 27" quad iMac though. They can accept video input and be used as a monitor. So it's a monitor that can double as a secondary workstation. If Apple would've given us an ExpressCard slot on these so we could connect an eSATA something, that would make them a real system. In terms of CPU, video, etc. They're awesome for a system with this form factor.

And Ace is right in his post above. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware. I have an 8-core Xeon PC I assembled just a couple months ago and it's overclocked to 3.4GHz. My 8-Core 2.93 Mac Pro is still a bit faster and all specs are pretty much equal with the PC actually having a better internal HDD setup and a better video card. This is under Windows 7 64bit Ultimate.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
As discussed in other threads, the bottleneck with the iMacs is storage.

I'm seriously thinking of dumping one of my 30" Dell displays in favor of a 27" quad iMac though. They can accept video input and be used as a monitor. So it's a monitor that can double as a secondary workstation. If Apple would've given us an ExpressCard slot on these so we could connect an eSATA something, that would make them a real system. In terms of CPU, video, etc. They're awesome for a system with this form factor.

And Ace is right in his post above. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware. I have an 8-core Xeon PC I assembled just a couple months ago and it's overclocked to 3.4GHz. My 8-Core 2.93 Mac Pro is still a bit faster and all specs are pretty much equal with the PC actually having a better internal HDD setup and a better video card. This is under Windows 7 64bit Ultimate.
Click to expand...

If you dump a monitor.... let me know. I might be interested.
 
The OS makes a big difference too. Much lighter and better coded
 
When FCP and all the other programs go 64bit its going to make a big difference...as far as the iMac goes, I doubt they'd put in an express card slot just because they want to keep it as a consumer product, given it seems rather high spec'd for most consumers which obviously poses the question, why not just put that express card slot in?

On the MacPro etc. 64bit apps will be an obvious advantage but clear speed increases I'm sure would be felt on the iMac
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
As discussed in other threads, the bottleneck with the iMacs is storage.

I'm seriously thinking of dumping one of my 30" Dell displays in favor of a 27" quad iMac though. They can accept video input and be used as a monitor. So it's a monitor that can double as a secondary workstation. If Apple would've given us an ExpressCard slot on these so we could connect an eSATA something, that would make them a real system. In terms of CPU, video, etc. They're awesome for a system with this form factor.

And Ace is right in his post above. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware. I have an 8-core Xeon PC I assembled just a couple months ago and it's overclocked to 3.4GHz. My 8-Core 2.93 Mac Pro is still a bit faster and all specs are pretty much equal with the PC actually having a better internal HDD setup and a better video card. This is under Windows 7 64bit Ultimate.
Click to expand...

Hey Jeff, how did you manage to overclock the Xeons? From what I understand most dual socket boards don't allow for overclocking.. Im running a Z8NA..
 
I'm running a SuperMicro X8DTH-6F. Overclocking via BIOS hack. So far it's not quite perfect -- I should be operating at 3.33GHz and not the 3.39/3.4GHz being reported. I guess everything isn't dialed in just right yet. I haven't worked with the new ASUS boards, but there are people reporting OC success with the Z8NA series. I am worried I'm over-volting the CPUs as it is -- I guess that's what I get as I didn't want to spend the almost $1700 per CPU for the 3.33GHz Nehalem-EPs. So far the system hasn't reported getting too hot. Using a water-cooling system cobbled together out of an OCZ pump, Thermaltake and Zalman parts plus a few things of my own. In then end, I probably should've just went for air-cooling and bought the 3.33 CPUs... We'll see how long this system lives. But running Windows7, the Mac Pro still beats this system out on lengthy renders, that's the only place I can see the speed difference. Otherwise they are very comparable and I was expecting this beast to be a rendering powerhouse, oh well...

I went for the SuperMicro board over the ASUS one because over the years, I've had far more reliable systems with SuperMicro. I also liked their PCI-e configuration better and that I could get the board with onboard LSI SAS HBA.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I'm running a SuperMicro X8DTH-6F. Overclocking via BIOS hack. So far it's not quite perfect -- I should be operating at 3.33GHz and not the 3.39/3.4GHz being reported. I guess everything isn't dialed in just right yet. I haven't worked with the new ASUS boards, but there are people reporting OC success with the Z8NA series. I am worried I'm over-volting the CPUs as it is -- I guess that's what I get as I didn't want to spend the almost $1700 per CPU for the 3.33GHz Nehalem-EPs. So far the system hasn't reported getting too hot. Using a water-cooling system cobbled together out of an OCZ pump, Thermaltake and Zalman parts plus a few things of my own. In then end, I probably should've just went for air-cooling and bought the 3.33 CPUs... We'll see how long this system lives. But running Windows7, the Mac Pro still beats this system out on lengthy renders, that's the only place I can see the speed difference. Otherwise they are very comparable and I was expecting this beast to be a rendering powerhouse, oh well...

I went for the SuperMicro board over the ASUS one because over the years, I've had far more reliable systems with SuperMicro. I also liked their PCI-e configuration better and that I could get the board with onboard LSI SAS HBA.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty awesome Jeff. Do you know where I could find out more Re bios hacks?

I just completed the Benchwell test and it clocked 6m22s. Not too far behind the Mac pro's at 6m15s... I guess some apps work better than others?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
As discussed in other threads, the bottleneck with the iMacs is storage.

I'm seriously thinking of dumping one of my 30" Dell displays in favor of a 27" quad iMac though. They can accept video input and be used as a monitor. So it's a monitor that can double as a secondary workstation. If Apple would've given us an ExpressCard slot on these so we could connect an eSATA something, that would make them a real system. In terms of CPU, video, etc. They're awesome for a system with this form factor.

And Ace is right in his post above. Apple tweaks the hell out of their hardware. I have an 8-core Xeon PC I assembled just a couple months ago and it's overclocked to 3.4GHz. My 8-Core 2.93 Mac Pro is still a bit faster and all specs are pretty much equal with the PC actually having a better internal HDD setup and a better video card. This is under Windows 7 64bit Ultimate.
Click to expand...

Here's my two pence..

I have an old dual core imac, pimped to 3ghz, 4mb ram, but with the ATI card in favour of the Nvidia (for Red compatibility, doh!).

Only TIFF export works with original Redcine, and Redcine-X beta will not run. Apart from that its great, but not as a Red machine. Since I did a clean install of snow leopard I've been unable to play proxy QTs from the internal drive in real-time. It used to play medium before fine.

If anyone buys one, seriously convince the store selling to let you install/test Redcine-X on it first. If I could do this before committing, I'd still buy another imac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top