Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

0 points

2006 Mac Pro vs 2009 Mac Pro

I currently own a 2006 Mac Pro 3.0GHz 8-Core with 13 Gigs of Memory.

I was thinking about getting the 2009 2.26GHz 8-Core with the new processors.

I see my memory is only at 667MHz compared to the 1066MHz but besides that I really can't tell if it will be comparable or surpass my current set up.

Anyone know more about comparing these 2 machines. If it is equal that is enough but if it is better than great.

I would guess it should probably be better and faster despite a smaller speed due to the better architecture. I just don't fully understand how if the speed is still rated slower by the GHz number on the processors.

Thanks in advance

MacPro 3.0 8 Core, Mac OS X (10.5.8), 13 Gigs

Posted on Feb 26, 2010 8:18 PM

25 replies

Phastroh Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 1, 2010 8:07 AM in response to Samsara

Well thankfully my cash supplies are usually evenflowing.

If my new project works out half as good as predicted they will rise like the sun.

I will come back here to post about the new digs when I set it up and get working.

My prediction is that it will be like nothing ever broke as if I have the same computer.

My buddy just picked up a 27" iMac with the 2.66 Quad and it seems to do quite well even doing the HD Video editing and if that can do it with ease I am sure this will have just as little problem if not less.

Well there are no problems haha! This is just a bit bigger than his iMac.

Anyway I have tried to email Applecare to explain my plight, hopefully it turns out well. You never know unless you try.

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Mar 1, 2010 9:03 AM in response to Phastroh

I use a lot of Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver with a dash of Flash so I am good. I was even able to run Maya on my 3GHz with ease. of course I didn't really render much and my scenes were not complicated but it was as snappy as ever even with a very complicated train I built.

And now the what you use your systems for. Gives a better perspective.

Even a single cpu 4-core with 4 x 4GB RAM though. The 8-core / 16-threads is... interesting. The 4-core is crippled with just 4 DIMMs / 16GB though now there are 4 x 8GB kits (but cheaper oddly enough to get an 8-core).

I have a better clearer idea of what you do, and read reviews and such. One person said it was the Geekbench score that mostly convinced that the Mac Pro really and finally trounced the Quad G5s. And you owned a G5, too.

People on MacRumors have experimented with processor upgrades of course, even replacing 2009 W3520 (single socket) with the fastest available. And waiting to see if Gulftown is a drop-in upgrade. Dual processor is much more of a challenge.

Anyway, glad you got one. At one point I felt (still do) that a base stock 2.66 4-core off the Specials page would have done fine. And got you up and running. Just didn't realize it had to be soon.... the broken down part... there are constant questions asking if and when new models come out, just as yours came out in March '07, March has been popular for last 3 yrs. Even though graphic card options are never ready on time.

I'm debating a new Intel 930, 2.8GHz but clocks on air in PC to 4.3GHz. Could be fun.

Samsara

Level 4

1,321 points

Mar 1, 2010 9:40 AM in response to The hatter

One person said it was the Geekbench score that mostly convinced that the Mac Pro really and finally trounced the Quad G5s

That was me... I really don't how well these tests, Geekbench, xBench, et al, do in a precise job of measuring performance. But if you note the scores of the G5 Quad vs the 09 2.93 MP, power and speed-wise, it showed exactly as I felt it to be when I got the MP. So that's why I refer people to this page a lot. It turned out to be a good guide for me.
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/mac-benchmarks/

I'm seeing 2006 and 2007 in this thread, exactly which MP does Phastroh have? An 07 is the definite answer? He doesn't think he'll see much difference in performance between what he has now and the one he is about to get. I'd like to check the Geekbench chart to possibly see what he might expect. Maybe being the lower of the 8 cores he will be right. Hope not though, I hope he sees a real difference.

I think he'll do ok though. Am I the only one who thinks that the 09s have a lot of room to grow?

I'm debating a new Intel 930, 2.8GHz but clocks on air in PC to 4.3GHz. Could be fun.

To build I'm thinking, not to buy, except parts. Hatter, are you ever going to get another Mac?

Phastroh, you'll have better luck calling Apple directly rather than an email. But yeah, it's worth a try at least. Maybe they'll pay for the diagnosis of the machines problem. That wait up to a year to decide bit is a little tricky if you ask me.

Message was edited by: Samsara

Phastroh Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 1, 2010 11:01 AM in response to Samsara

In my opinion I think that if you took my 07 3GHz 8 with the 13Gigs and my 2009 2.26Ghz 8 and say a 2008 model whatever 8-core you pick they would all feel the same using these programs.

At one time even my G4 seemed fast using Photoshop CS1.

Those bench tests seems pointless for the majority of Mac users to even worry what they say. In general I mean.

I know there are people who love to know and pick and choose by these marks but really how many people will save time by picking the 2.93 over the 2.26.

If it was like 30 minutes of time difference to run a filter I can see it but in advertising and web design I do nothing that will even cause the computer to breath hard.

Its like my mower I got. It has like a huge 7.75 motor in it and now when I mow the yard it is just like taking a walk for 30 minutes.

Who doesn't want the biggest, baddest processor, but the real question is who really needs it.

I can't imagine more than less Mac users would be having a bad day with even a 2.26 quad.

I will just fill it up with memory, say 12-15Gigs and I will never have an issue. I will be only viewing and upload HD commercials.

My buddies 27"iMac 2.66 Quad has not one issue processing the 1/2 a Gig files, editing them and slapping music into them.

It all seems to bore the iMac.

You can see my own website here. It doesn't work right now because I am so busy making other peoples stuff I can't get it done.

http://www.graphicsevolved.com

Oh yeah I am doing this right now. http://www.graphicsevolved.com/flvtest.html

This page is under construction and I have to add 2 more links to the Nav Bar and the rest of the pages, no links work. The light blue is the background but I had to take one shot of it because the clients resolution would not allow him to see the background(only slithers down the side of the page) so I squished it into a simple .jpeg just for viewing purposes. The white wil be where the blue fills to.

Anyway the real sample page was this http://www.graphicsevolved.com/flvtest3.html but as you can see the background is not the right color. I am telling him to use black with a faded silver logo but I can't do squat till I get my stuff working.

This is just one the projects that is on hold thanks to the crashing MAC.

Message was edited by: Phastroh
I forgot to say I shot that video at Busch Gardens and we decided to use it to cut a sample for the client for quality purposes. It was a cloudy cold day but my friend made it and did all the stuff.

That bird at the end if you saw the original video tried to get me, I ducked out of the way. It was soooo funny.

Message was edited by: Phastroh

Samsara

Level 4

1,321 points

Mar 1, 2010 11:02 AM in response to Phastroh

My prediction is that it will be like nothing ever broke as if I have the same computer.

Going from that Geekbench list alone, if I found the correct machines, you're probably right. A tad faster but not too much. I still think it's well positioned for the future though.
Wish you could have experienced the rush I felt when I went from my G5 to this.

Sorry, looks we were writing at the same time.

Message was edited by: Samsara

Phastroh Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 1, 2010 11:02 AM in response to Samsara

Check my post above yours Samsara

Samsara

Level 4

1,321 points

Mar 1, 2010 11:22 AM in response to Phastroh

I hope my last post was in part some answer to the things you say. Sure, it often comes down these days to the things you need and the things you want. But some of us want speed, speed and more speed. And going from my G5 to this, well, I got it in spades.
I'm not challenging your desires, you need not challenge mine or those like me.
But keep in mind this page and the links on the left if you think an earlier Mac would get you as far as an 09: http://www.apple.com/macpro/features/processor.html

And that goes for a certain troller who just emailed me at home out of the blue. Don't get me wrong, they are excellent machines? But are they as geared to the future as the latest MP's?

My last post on the topic, to everyone, Nadav. Have a good day.

Phastroh Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 1, 2010 11:56 AM in response to Samsara

I am not sure what you mean by question you or anyone who want more speed. I wasn't and didn't think it sounded that way. I was only speaking to the actual need for it as opposed to the desire of it.

Sure I want the fastest but I can't see the cost difference of course in my opinion. It is like spending $20,000 for 300Horse Power or $40,000 for 350 Horse Power.

If I were rich I would have the biggest for sure. Hope that makes more sense.

So you see I am kind of just like you. I was looking at the 3.2GHz 08 so I could have the bigger speed. Again more proof I am like you.

I was simply stating that it would not make my work go any faster.

Thank you though for all your posts. Very good stuff.

As far as the link you sent me, that is the same thing. The '09 will not make building a website any faster or smoother than my '07 3Ghz. I am not doing anything that requires that type of computing power.

Lastly, in no way would I ever think my G4 could even compare to even a G5. I was only saying how back when it came out it was able to run the early Adobe programs smoothly.

I have been using Macs since the old Power PC's so as the years and programs go on, I can remember how they ran the programs at the time and that middle area when the computer was too slow for the current versions of the programs.

Take care

Message was edited by: Phastroh

Samsara

Level 4

1,321 points

Mar 1, 2010 5:53 PM in response to Phastroh

Phastroh,

I'm sorry. Started out as a weird day with a program I have telling me one of my expensive SSDs had a 20 to 60% chance of dying in the next 6 months. Turns out that was wrong or at least the techs think it was wrong. Then I got broadsided by a guy who used to be a member here who wrote me an email screaming at me for something I said in this very topic. I don't know what, I couldn't read it through. Then a daily illness kicked in and I was down for the count and back to bed. Sorry if I took it all out on you. Writing like this has it's limits, we would have had a much better time talking face to face.

I really just wish you the best, now and in the future. And I think your choice was a wise one for reasons you'll see in that not too distant future.

Take care yourself too,
Steve

Phastroh Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 2, 2010 11:39 AM in response to Samsara

Hey I posted a new topic that explains my new finding dealing with my '07 Mac Pro.

It sounds like it will be a good ending.

2006 Mac Pro vs 2009 Mac Pro