DIY 6-core or 12-core

You can go Windows PC and build your own, but even there, Gulftown required a number of changes and is not plug and play or just drop in. New BIOS and even motherboard changes.

The truth to me is that software can and has to do better. Yes you can throw more at a problem, but OS X is not optimized even now for Nehalem to what it can and should be.

Yesterday the 3.3GHz 4-core was in Apple Store Specials for excellent price.

Duals are challenging.

Way I see it today, skip Gulftown and go to Sandy Bridge makes more sense.

New Mac Pros have always had issues out the gate. EFI, SMC, graphics, and nice to take an update or two at least.

2009 saw a long delay before a serious problem with audio and heat.

So you are talking bleeding edge. There is something to be said for tried and true and TESTED technology.

I saw someone complain that they needed 10.5 and guess they didn't realize G5 could run 10.5.8.

People wait for CS3 before moving to the Mac Pro. Drivers broke at first. RAM prices were high, new, untested and that was a 6 month issue (March 2007).

Right now, I would say any of the graphic options for the Mac Pro, not the basic hardware, is the issue.

Sure, it looks nice to have 24 threads, if you need it. Build it and run Windows is what I recommend. eVGA SR-2 motherboard $600.

Apple wants $1200 extra just to go with 4-core 3.3GHz. An 8-core 2.93 system will run you over $6k.

I don't know why you think a workstation won't see the light of day with something in 2010 before those laptops, but maybe you know something I don't.

2008 was probably a good model year to jump to Mac Pro, that those suffered from freezing on waking up from sleep until fixed about 2-3 months in. And trouble with OEM ATI 2600s. Oh, yes, and really poor graphic drivers, and the 8800GT was old but "top of the line" outside of Quadro, but OpenGL wasn't fixed or improved to normal level until it was out for add'l 6 months.

The 3870 came out June 2008, but never offered as BTO but $219 retail.

Now we have graphic issues with 10.6.4, the GTX 285 is retail $449 + cost of aux power cables, and I would definitely check out where graphics in 10.6.4 stands.

Caught between rock and hard place? Hah! happens a lot, all the time actually.

2008: Leopard was new, the Mac Pro Early 2008 req'd 10.5.1+ and was a nightmare style "perfect storm" and busted a lot of apps. Not a pretty picture. Want to see that happen again?

My recommendation: the base 4-core 2.66GHz to "tide you over" and $2149 is still 2-3x as powerful as what you have (or more, you didn't say what you bought, Quad G5 maybe? heck some with LCS issue ended up with Mac Pros in the end under extended warranty).

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro

Right now $3200 for 4-core 3.3GHz.

Is dual 2.93 worth $5900? And some think 2.26 8-core is 'future proof' though slower.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB535LL/A

What I said was someone (else) wanted to install xyz on their G5, and the software req'd Leopard. Worth is relative. So with G5 2.5DP, 5x moving to the base 4-core in processing I would say. Geekbench 2000 for 2.5DP to 8800 pts. Mac Pro 2.66.

It has usually taken 6 months after Intel debuts a new processor, and the whole tic-toc cycle. Often November, and leading to preliminary protypes and first boot followed by test, testing, new compilers, and getting firmware in place.

Tide over, I don't think buying for 4-5 yrs makes sense. Tide you over? so you aren't hit with whatever comes after 10.6 Snow Leopard AND a new socket, firmware and processor. Something to use, and you think it won't do the job? not fast enough? no resale value in 1-2 yrs?

I build a system or buy when I need it not on rumors but I do watch Intel and others roadmap. And sometimes it is "now or wait a year" on some things. Available parts, RAM prices, Intel moving to X68, or that Core i7 D0 Stepping was finally out. And that PC BIOS development took 6-9 months, and Windows 7 wasn't out so that could change things as well.


When Mac Pro came out originally in 2006, it was amazing that it had so few problems, it shipped with three builds in 3-5 weeks of 10.4.7. And 10.4.8 boosted performance in some apps 20%. A full software and compiler takes TIME to master and put in place and figure out, nothing instant, but 20-40% is reasonable to expect - over 12-18 months.

Given the added cost of $2600 to upgrade processors, today, and Gulftowns - take a look at prices - $1795 each. Guess what the BTO will be?

And I still see apps that don't properly deal with hyper-threading and other features.

Some people saw real improvements from a couple quality SSDs than their (2.93 8-core processor). Sure it sounds great to have. And a single socket 6-core Gulttown is faster, over-clocks easily -- but not on Macs, and might make sense, with its 20% improvement, clock for clock, and not need a dual processor.

My money is that if it came out - maybe in the fall, and when Nvidia GTX 470s (and would require modification for more aux power with 8-pin) but then have to redo another motherboard soon after. Plausible. But, rule of thumb, wait for second silicon and 'stepping' not the first errata and revision, and for bugs to get worked out. In 3-4 months extra. And for 10.6 to advance at least one or two points. Those are learned rules of thumb.

Want to have the fastest GTO on the block for awhile?
The low end model you are laughing or scoffing at?
you haven't test driven it or your apps.
CS5 users seem happy.
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Issues.html
In fact, DDR3 helps with much better bandwidth.
Gulftown needs triple channel or quad to help feed data to memory, and from larger L3 caches.
I don't see people buying into large fast scratch arrays as much, and fewer need 32GB.
People use to spend $2000 and up on SCSI arrays for scratch.

8GB DIMMs help, memory matters. And an 8GB DIMM for $380. People use to buy duals JUST for the 8 DIMM slots, just so they could upgrade to 16-32-48GB RAM, in the past. Put money into RAM and SSDs. And sacrifice some going with slower processor (but what could you do? $1200 extra to make up, $2400 + RAM

And you could still build or have 3 base models for your one dual Gulftown, or dual 2.93 today. And those that bought dual 2.93s? they don't think they are even pushing to the limits, and are held back by software. 100% on a core is NOT being efficent, it is code that doesn't work properly.

The audio bug 2009 caused lost processor performance, the temps to hit 85C and above with little work being done, a real real mess and signs someone was sleeping and never tested for real world conditions. Got fixed but not until November/Dec long after shipping, and not for those that weren't ready to move to 10.6. Because not everything ever is. SoftRAID 4 just came out with their 32-bit/64-bit kernel mode driver.

A 64-bit kernel mode does help CS5, enough that the cost of hardware to get the same.


Mainframes use to consider a 20% boost in processing to justify an upgrade, and mainframes unlike other servers, tend to run above 80-85% utilization at the least. Few servers and fewer desktop users can say that.

The experience of many is that it takes a couple months to upgrade and get settled in and have RAM, hard drives, RAID, backup strategy and everything installed and customized and transferred over once they make the move. Not over-night thing.

Graphics. Takes time to get good drivers. And even Windows ain't always pretty and definitely takes a long time, and room for improvement. And in that area, and OpenCL look for real returns in what, a year. Same with old technology with new names to mature, like Grand Central.

I think DLloyd says it best:

In the meantime, if a new or refurbished Mac Pro saves you time and/or increases reliability now, consider an MPG Photo Workstation, taking into account the quad-core vs 8-core shootout. My top recommendation remains the 2.66Ghz quad-core “Burly” MPG Photo Workstation, with the 3.33GHz model a smart move for increased interactive responsiveness.
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2010/20100607_MacPro--macpro-news.html

http://macperformanceguide.com/Shootout-MacPro-Intro.html

As you mentioned C4D, a few things : I went from a 2GHz G5 (2 cores) to a 2008 (early) MacPro (8 cores), and the difference is vast .

For render times in any multi-core capable program, you mainly need core number and processor speed .
Every time you duoble the number of physical cores, you cut render time in half (C4D)

With the 2009 and later models, there is the added bonus of hyperthreading; for C4D, this is 'only' 50% speed gain per core.

Hence, again for C4D, a '09 (4core) MP would render as fast as 6 physical cores, the recent 8 core models as fast as 12 physical cores, my old 2008 8 core - 8 cores.

That's without considering processor speed, so the 2.26 8 core of the recent models might not even be considerably faster than any 2008 model, if at all.

Well, my point being, I got lucky (imho) by buying in late 2008 the old model for a fairly low price (compared to the newer 8 cores) , and can easily wait for a matured 2x6 core MacPro - that will be a serious boost again.
Hopefully there will also be a pro video card offerd by then, for the dreadful editor window performance .

Again, this is mainly about C4D, where those factors are crucial for productivity , don't know how FCP deals with multicore.

If you are using C4D professionally, your best bang for the buck might be a fast refurbed/used 2008 MP, and wait for a 2x6core Rev. B ; with a 4-core, you will probably pay more for less performance in some important areas.

Knowing where you have been, a history of sorts.
2006: 2.66GHz 4-core 1333MHz front side bus / 667MHz RAM / 775
2007: 3GHz 8-core 1333MHz fsb
2008: 2.8GHZ 8-core 1600MHz fsb / 800MHz RAM "Penryn" (no H-T)
There was 3.2GHZ $1500 BTO top end
Was not native 4-core butwas two dual-core in one package.

Small baby steps with each model year.

2009: "Nehalem" brought Hyper-threading / DDR3 (on chip memory controller) Mac Pro 4,1 and first big change since Mac Pro came out.

hyper-threading. 2009 cores are 20-40% more efficient as 2008. The whole "logical" or virtual cores is just misleading. A thread is not a logical or virtual core, it is two threads running on the same core. HT is just running another thread on the same core using idle cycles.

You can't drop a Gulftown in. It requires a new BIOS and microcode and we aren't going to see that happen. A single socket uses W3500, can use W3500 or 5500. And people have upgraded their 2009s, just not to Gulftown.

Will we EVER see graphic offering in line with PC?
GTX 460 now has mid-July release date. But having good to excellent support? And of course drivers lag and suffer and are a mess. Check threads about 10.6.4 and GTX 285. Whatever were they thinking? they weren't testing.

From Nehalem Westmere to Gulftown, and Sandy Bridge.... there may not be a very large market for $7500 workstation running OS X with high-end specs.

eVGA SR-2 based workstation:
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=441265

24GB x 2 Crucial Reg. ECC 1333 DDR3, 2 x 5680 Xeon CPU´s, 2 x GTX 480, 12 WD Velociraptor 600GB and a 3ware 9650SE 12port.

Every fall, TechReport has done a review of the next Intel platform and processor family.

V8 Media Creation Skulltrail 2007 (Mac Pro 2,1)
An eight-core monster claws its way onto the desktop
http://techreport.com/articles.x/12572

Skulltrail 2008 (Mac Pro 3,1) -
Intel's Skulltrail dual-socket enthusiast platform
Two sockets, eight cores, four PCIe slots—and one MHz increments
by Scott Wasson — 11:19 PM on February 3, 2008
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14052
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-skulltrail-part-1,1768.html

Core i7-powered Skulltrail may arrive in early 2009 (Mac Pro 4,1)
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15647

Introducing Gulftown: Intel's Core i7-980X Extreme processor
The desktop's first six-core CPU would strike fear into the competition, if it had any
by Scott Wasson — 11:00 PM on March 10, 2010
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581

+(Crystal Ball: A prototype that we could call "Mac Pro 6,1"?)+

Intel "Skulltrail 2" is based upon 8-Core Nehalem-EX (16-cores, 32 threads)
Octal-core 24 MB L3 cache Nehalem-EX "Beckton" processors
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/6/7/exclusive-intel-skulltrail-2-is-ba sed-upon-8-core-nehalem-ex.aspx

Intel has no plans to release a native quad-core derivative of Westmere.
Instead, the firm will press ahead with a quad-core version of Sandy Bridge, the upcoming architectural refresh slated for the 32-nm process.

Intel Developer Forum is when and where people go to hear about what's next, and this year's will be Sept 13-15 in SF.

deepshade wrote:
Sorry - I don't understand this. 4 cores with hyperthreading render as fast as 6 cores with hyperthreading?

Sorry if I was unclear, foreign speaker here ; basically, as Mr Hatter has mentioned, the 2009 introduced processors capable of hyperthreading, which is kind of like an addition of virtual cores .

This doesn't magically double the number of actual cores, but will add render-buckets in C4D.
The speed gain for rendering in C4D is roughly 50% with processors capable of hyperthreading, compared to the same amount of cores without hyperthreading .

So with hyperthreading, 4 cores will be as fast as 6 ; 6 like 9, 8 like 12, etc ..
But afaik there isn't much experience re. more threads than 12/ more cores than 8 yet, I understand there have been issues with a number of apps.

One more thing (...) re. G5-Intel MacPro : The MacPro let's you run the recent versions of C4D in 64bit mode, which helps quite a bit with possible memory issues (large scenes, complex materials etc .) .

It is also hard(-er) to compare 2008 (Penryn, 65nm) to 2009 Nehalem 45nm and other changes as well as how much 'work' can be done.

There were some benches of 2008 3.2 8-core vs 2009 models, very interesting.

That was why at the top I was pointing to even the base 4-core, and to not worry all that much... and $2400 vs $6400 in the process!

Larger L3 caches help.

Right now, even triple channel (DDR3 instealled in sets of three) doesn't help a huge amount over dual (sets of 2 or 4) all that much, but still better than hot, slower FBDIMMs. However, a 6-core processor and above does need triple AND quad-channel memory (and there are some tips and tests of memory bandwidth performance).

OS X in 64-bit mode can also make use of 48GB RAM for now (not sure what if any programs though).

Those reviews? from there until retail and ending up (other than March 3GHz / 8-core) usually means about six month gap. So if XYZ-cpu came out today, add six months. And then add 3-4 on top for revision; for OS updates and tweaks; and the obligatory firmware fix. Better investment is probably to stay behind the bleeding edge curve (fewer cuts or bugs).

Would HAVING to jump to Snow Leopard and have all the software, drivers, and hardware in place and be ready be a challenge? Some shops definitely can seem very conservative - stability and 'don't rock the boat.'

Perfect storm to break your mast: new hardware and all, new OS, none of the sofware or drivers are going to be ready, will take six months at least. And you may or may not be able to use Leopard or whatever was the last OS (and now basically not availble or supported and may not install).

What can happen, and I know you expressed wanting to use CS5, and this isn't even +bleeding edge,+ it is just poor/sloppy development (was everyone pulled off to work on iOS?) which is why I put Windows 7 on my last two systems (and dual boot Mac Pro):

*Freeze of Photoshop CS5 and After Effect: Adobe Blames Apple Mac OS X 10.6.4*
By linathael 30/06/2010
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/06/30/
Category: Mac OS X Source: http://appletoolbox.com

The main problem with Mac OS X 10.6.4 is as we mentioned it several times the low performance Open GL drivers update, (See Mac OS X 10.6.4 Open GL Problem, Part II as it kills performance, but not only that... It impacts stability of Adobe Photoshop CS5, leading to freeze or sudden exit, a rather disturbing problem for Pro users. A representative from Adobe is recommending unfortunate users to contact directly Apple and report the issue in order to push Apple to quickly release a fix. On its side, Adobe keeps looking at the bug in order to define which hardware configuration and/or graphic cards are affected.

Nah, just shows really poor Q&A and how actually Windows 7 took a year to test, while Apple ships an OS and then tests! 🙂

The hardware is good.