183,435 users have contributed to 42,299 threads and 255,074 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 13 new post(s) and 56 new user(s).
If you are going to overlook the above advice -- which includes a moderator and the editor of Virtual Instruments magazine -- and base your decision on a bar graph, then that is your choice. No one is saying that the Nehalem is slower. We're saying that it's not a difference which is proportionate to the price. I find the small edging of the new Nehalems over the previous MacPro's to be humorous. There is actually one benchmark in that article where the old 2.8 is better. The only case I could make for the new model is that somehow, someday, Snow Leopard offers some advantage realized on Nehalem that can not be known presently -- an advantage so compelling, it compensates for a limit of 8 GB of memory. My opinion: computers have been fast enough to playback a reasonably large orchestration for a couple of years now. But if you can't load a sample into memory, the computer won't play it no matter how fast it is.
But if you can't load a sample into memory, the computer won't play it no matter how fast it is.
This seems to be the main reason why I shouldn't consider the 4-core Nehalem. Some people have been hoping for an upgrade of the 4-core machine later this year, thus allowing 16 GB RAM instead. I don't find this very likely but one can always hope...
Thanks everybody so far for valuable advice.
Good advice from Plowman. I bought a 3.0 MacPro just before they changed over to the new Mac Pros. Over £5000 sterling (currently $7225 on exchange rates) for a 2.93 Nehalem. That's ridiculous. I can't believe the older models are not still out there only a few weeks on from these new releases.
Albert, you won't make a 3.0 even break sweat regardless of how much in the way of orchestration you're doing.
And I am sorry in turn if I responded too harshly.
A big congratulations to you. The speed increase you will enjoy from your previous Mac should be fantastic. By the way, I get my memory from Crucial, if you plan to upgrade. So far, so good, and a dramatically lower price from Apple. (And 16 GB would be about 600 USD, which is 400 less than eight months ago when I bought it.) Also, I installed two Western Digital 1 TB hard drives, currently at NewEgg for 120 USD per drive. Again, they've performed well to date, and they're very quiet.
My plan is to install at least 8 GB RAM (to begin with) and at least another internal disk. At the moment it's the original configuration, 2 GB RAM - 320 GB HD. I assume it's 2x1 GB sticks? And there are 8 Ram slots? Must the RAM sticks still be in even pairs for optimal performance?
@PaulR said:
Just remember that installing ram on Mac Pros can be a little complicated Albert.
Thanks for the heads-up Paul. Could you specify exactly what is complicated? (I have installed RAM and new internal HDs on several computers before.) Is it very different from a G5?
Interestingly, it is being reported that the 4-Core 'Nehalem' MacPros will support 4GB modules, so bringing the prospect of 12GB(three channel) and 16GB (dual channel) memory.
I will be looking for a new machine to primarily run Logic + VSL in a few months time, and could in no circumstance justify or afford the more expensive 8-core MacPro, but the 4-Core at 2.93Ghz with initially 6 or 8GB is feasible.My requirements will be the ability to run the full Special Edition with Vienna Suite and eventually full MIR (hopefully it will be reasonably affordable).
Is this a realistic proposition?
JohnM
MIR has so far only been tested with a 4 core 3.2 GHz X58 1333MHz board and 12 GB RAM but we came to the conclusion that CPU speed is not so much a factor as fast memory - benchmarks indicate (and there are currently a lot of them floating around) indicate that 1066 MHz memory (as the current MacPros have) will decrease performance by ~15%
the 4 core MacPro is very similar to X58 PC boards but i'd recommend to always use triples of RAM modules according to the design of the nehalems (3 channel on-processor memory controller) for full speed - eg. 6 x 2GB
as example figure: loading every patch of the special edition (something you wouldn't do in any arrangement) requires 4GB memory and you shouldn't fill memory too close to the limit, so going with 12GB might be a good idea ...
christian
Just wanted to mention that, despite what Apple says, the 4 core Nehalem machine which has only 4 memory slots will work if these slots are filled with 4GB chips (If you purchase these chips from Other World Computing it will cost you $770.00 for 4 chips) giving you a total of 16GB of memory.)
...which translated loosely means: "Dieses ist nicht die beste zu kaufen Maschine."
And in English: buy the 8-core.
Although Apple's advertising copy and specs suggest that the 4 core Nehalem model can only accomodate 8Gb of RAM - - and this statement has been repeated on this site, it is NOT in accordance with the facts. The facts are that the 4 core Nehalem machine has only 4 memory slots while the 8 core machines have 8 memory slots. However 4GB meory chips can be used in both machines so that the 4 core Nehalem machine can accodomate 16GB of RAM. The only limitation is that all 4 slots must contain matched 4GB chips. Other World Computing sells matched sets of 4GB chips for $770 for the 4 core Nehalem machine. (go to:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory
to see.
Apple does not offer this option and, if it did would, no doubt, charge an exorbitant price. (Apple charges $6100 for 8 x 4GB chips while Other World Computing charges $1480 for the same configuration.) The reason Apple's advertising suggests that the maximum amount of RAM available for this machine is 8GB appears to be the same as the reason they crippled it by offering it with only 4 RAM slots: Apple seems to want to suggest that if you are a "serious" user, you need to buy the more expensive 8 core machines. In other words, this is no more than a sales gimmick.
Ha! I did wonder about that, it didn't seem to make sense. [Cleopatra]I was shopping for a slave recently[/Cleopatra], and I remembered why I didn't have apple put 32GB in my 2x quad machine (I paid 500 over what 6GB would've cost, for 16GB. THEN, it's 5600 to populate the board with all 4GB, which just isn't what the 4GB sticks cost. I may buy a 24 GB kit. There's a lot of talk about DDR3 'triple channel', and I'm not sure about the gain of 32 vs 24; apparently what isn't 'in threes' goes back into the cfg as single channel.)
I do think this is the marketing reflecting what they're going to build in future, a split off into 'high end prosumer' instead of 'low end pro' with the quad, vs straight pro with the 8 core..
Thank you for this public service announcement!
Christian, I am thinking about more RAM for my MacPro. I was looking at the whole 3- channel thing, and it didn't seem that 32GB would be much of a gain over 24GB. I did see ... that what exceeded the 'triples' in a configuration would go back into the board as single channel memory, but I don't know how to use that information really. So, I should get a 24GB kit (6x4) then, yes?@cm said:
MIR has so far only been tested with a 4 core 3.2 GHz X58 1333MHz board and 12 GB RAM but we came to the conclusion that CPU speed is not so much a factor as fast memory - benchmarks indicate (and there are currently a lot of them floating around) indicate that 1066 MHz memory (as the current MacPros have) will decrease performance by ~15%
the 4 core MacPro is very similar to X58 PC boards but i'd recommend to always use triples of RAM modules according to the design of the nehalems (3 channel on-processor memory controller) for full speed - eg. 6 x 2GB
as example figure: loading every patch of the special edition (something you wouldn't do in any arrangement) requires 4GB memory and you shouldn't fill memory too close to the limit, so going with 12GB might be a good idea ...
christian
I did decide against a second machine (I have a MacBook Pro, which I think I will use for cubase and this 8-core with as much RAM as I can use maximally for vsts, until I see more about this supposed performance loss with 1066mhz vs the 1333. I'm not a windows user, though
