@plurye said:

JWL - Hope this helps - would also love to hear about the experience of others.

PL

yes-- yes-- yes-- thanks-- thanks-- thanks

Just seeing conversations about VI with the MacPro once again is encouraging-- and having some more specific numbers is particularly revealing. The entire topic was rather non-existent around here where computer horsepower to run the Cube is paramount. Seemed very odd in many ways.

I'd gotten the impression that the MacPros were only marginally better where instance counts were concerned compared to later model G5s. I, too, and interested in gathering all the information I can from MacPro Tower users who are running VI Cube. It will really make a huge difference as to what MacPro I add-- how many I add-- and when I add them.

While the 2.66 has an attractive price, the 8MB L2 cache on the 3.0 is a big plus-- it's twice the size of the 2.66's 4MB L2.

Also, the recent goof-teaser on Apple's UK site which listed an 8-Core as an option to be ordered appears to be an indication that the 8-Core is closer to an imminent release that we may have suspected. If this machine could push the 3.0's 32 instance count up to 40 instances, then this is the machine I should wait for. I already have two other machines running instruments at this time, but it's far from ideal.

Again, thanks to all for contributing to this topic. Do keep us posted of your developments!

Cheers,
JWL

@Another User said:

While the 2.66 has an attractive price, the 8MB L2 cache on the 3.0 is a big plus

uhh - where have you read about this? the specs in the apple store don't list that explicitely ... just 4 MB shared cache is mentioned
christian

Jack -

I'd love to know to what extent running DP as a full DAW (not just a plug-in host, as I'm doing) will do to the maximum VI count you can achieve. At some point I do want to go over to using the Intel as my master machine. Also intrigued by your idea to continue using your G5 as your Pro Tools HD host - I've been contemplating the same thing, since I'm so sick of shelling out money for PT hardware which only kinda sorta works with DP (despite what DP says). My idea may be even more complex - ultimately, when using DP as the master on my Intel Mac, I want to use my HD Accel 3 system on my G5 as a slave rig (i.e., superpowered plug-in and non-VI inst host), and the reverse when working in PT (i.e., continue to use the G5 as my master for PT and the Intel Mac as my plug-in host). I'd have to figure out how to make my hard drives easily switchable between the two machines, among many other things. And also load up on Advil before I try it ...

Re easing the transfer to 64-bit, this was part of my thinking. But the realist in me ain't holding my breath - as someone (I believe Jerome?) pointed out, first Leopard has to come out, then the hosts have to be updated, then plug-ins have to be updated. By then, our current Mac Pros will probably be quaint...

JWL -

I'm intrigued by the 32 VI plug-in count mentioned in an earlier post. With current RAM limitations that works out to an average of only slightly over 100 MB per VI, i.e., mighty few articulations. Still, would love to know more.

Also, wondering what other people's experiences are with using DP with the processor slamming into the red. Makes me nervous, even though I'm not hearing a problem.

PL

Jack -

Rereading your post, I realize that you use Logic, not DP, btw. Just thought I'd point that out.

Oops,
PL

@Another User said:

While the 2.66 has an attractive price, the 8MB L2 cache on the 3.0 is a big plus

uhh - where have you read about this? the specs in the apple store don't list that explicitely ... just 4 MB shared cache is mentioned
christian

It says "4MB shared per processor". I and a friend have been hitting Apple for info by phone-- as they explain it, 4MB shared means one double core uses a 4MB L2 cache.

The "per processor" wording was why we pursued the matter further-- it wasn't 100% clear, but it didn't stop at saying the L2 cache was simply 4MB. Twin dual CPUs = 8MB total, shared in 4MB allocations.

Now-- according to the basic site specs, this is true of all the Pro towers, but Apple distinguished this by phone. I could have also spoken to a total moron-- and that I could be a total moron myself is not out of the question...

@plurye said:

JWL -

I'm intrigued by the 32 VI plug-in count mentioned in an earlier post. With current RAM limitations that works out to an average of only slightly over 100 MB per VI, i.e., mighty few articulations. Still, would love to know more.

Also, wondering what other people's experiences are with using DP with the processor slamming into the red. Makes me nervous, even though I'm not hearing a problem.

PL

PL-- I'm a DP user, so I'm not only keen to learn more about VI on a MacPro, but the VI-MacPro-DP combo is of deep interest. I'll pass along anything reports for the sake of discussion.

CM--

In addition to the info mentioned above, I also found this info online:

Memory
RAM (installed) 1 GB
RAM (maximum) 16 GB
Cache Memory (installed) 8 MB
RAM Technology DDR2 SDRAM

http://www.macconnection.com/ProductDetail?Sku=6317121

I'm still trying to sort out some of the other misinfo, but it's hard to do on a Sunday night... more soon...

By the way-- this is among the many reasons why I'd hoped for more discussion on the MacPros here where VI Cube is concerned-- there are lots of questions that need to be answered and have never been brought up...

It's all in an effort to get to the truth... just honest curiosity seeking satisfaction, is all.

Peace,
J

i've just been curious about the 4 vs. 8 MB cache thing, because i don't know about a possible new processor-line and all woodcrests (aka xeon core 2 duo) have 4 MB shared cache, whereas the clovertons (aka xeon core 2 quatro) have 2 x 4 MB cache (assumably each 2 cores sharing one cache)
generally i'm not very happy with the lack of precise specs on the apple website (chipsets, bus-speed, memory timing, ect), too often one had to rely on third party information or find it out the hard way by oneself ...
as an example it is not at all clear to me which chipset would improve performance if 4 banks of same memory is used opposed to *normal* paired sticks and i can only assume it is the intel 5000X ...
if this is the case than i don't understamd why we don't have the option to choose between PCIe 16 lanes and PCI-X 100/133 MHz as other servers offer - selecting a soundcard is currently somehow painful (either for the quality or for the pocket)
christian

... but to step in to the original topic: the intel macs are significantly more performant than the G5s, although i'm convinced one could get even more out of it using some hand-tooled compiler-options (and loosing the universal binary thingie)
there are not such detailed performance reports as for earlier macs, because i'm not willing to purchase some *newest mac* all three months and we don't have our hands long enough on certain models to check out everything in detail. also the machines are so d***d fast that one had to play around a while with various harddrives and soundcards for a while to locate the current bottlenecks.
christian

@Another User said:

as an example it is not at all clear to me which chipset would improve performance if 4 banks of same memory is used opposed to *normal* paired sticks and i can only assume it is the intel 5000X ...
if this is the case than i don't understamd why we don't have the option to choose between PCIe 16 lanes and PCI-X 100/133 MHz as other servers offer - selecting a soundcard is currently somehow painful (either for the quality or for the pocket)
christian

From what I can determine, the 5000X would be that chipset-- only because it was after the release of the 5000X that the recommendation for RAM sticks in 4s emerged. Even there, some people were under the impression that this was to the exclusion of installing sticks in pairs, but this now seems to be untrue.

Even so, there are no specs that I know of that show any benchmarks to illustrate the performance benefits. One would *think* that any performance benefits such as this would be a serious credential for the sake of selling a better Mac.

And yet, I found it most interesting that the Apple rep continued to refer to the difference between the 2.66 and the 3.0 as a 4Mhz bump in CPU-- where it's only 3.4Mhz. It may be a small exaggeration, but even with the law of averages, that number would be rounded down to 3Mhz and not up to 4Mhz. In the context of what this difference might benefit VI Cube, I've yet to get the sense that it would matter very much at all for the difference in price.

But, I hope we can get to the bottom of these issues with continued discussion by sharing out knowledge, gathering a diversity of information, and filtering out the facts from the fiction.

These are good machines-- and I am encouraged by Sonrise's expression of a lack of regret for having a 3.0. It would be nice to compare the 2.66 with the 3.0 to further determine the differences in performance.

I, too, have been happy with Apple overall. I'm just not pleased with some of the confusing and cryptic data they share these days

I was trying to get fancy and post an image of my "about this Mac", to show the specs re backside cache. Then I realized I didn't know how to include an image in the post - can anyone explain?

Regardless, it lists:

Machine Name: Mac Pro
Machine Model: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 9 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B04
SMC Version: 1.7f8

For what it's worth, there it is.

@plurye said:

For what it's worth, there it is.

...and it's worth a great deal, plurye!! Thanks so much.

I just got similar specs from another friend who has a 2.66:

Machine Name: Mac Pro
Machine Model: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B04
SMC Version: 1.7f8

Another engineer/friend of mine who JUST got his 3G two days ago is now returning it. He bought it on the premise that the 3G's L2 cache was the other major difference from the 2.66 based upon printed material from his rep. This is turning out to be untrue since it seems ALL of the MacPro's have the same L2 cache size... which is 2 x 4 MB = 8 MB.

So far, there is no other difference between the 2.66 and the 3.0 except for the reported 3.4MB bump in CPU clock.

Thanks again! This feels like a very healthy discussion already!

@plurye said:

I was trying to get fancy and post an image of my "about this Mac", to show the specs re backside cache. Then I realized I didn't know how to include an image in the post - can anyone explain?

The image would already have to be posted elsewhere on the internet.

Given that, open the image in a separate browser window and copy the address.

In the forum message composition window, use the IMG tags-- starting with ''

For example, quote this very message and study the code used to post this image...

http://www.sweetwater.com/images/items/VISymphCube.jpg">

@JWL said:

So far, there is no other difference between the 2.66 and the 3.0 except for the reported 3.4MB bump in CPU clock.

I think the difference is actually 340MHz, or about 13%.

Steven

@JWL said:

For example, quote this very message and study the code used to post this image...

Thanks - I've copied the message to my computer for future reference. And while we're at it I'm attempting to quote some text from your message, which is something else I've been unable to do before now!

PL

@JWL said:

So far, there is no other difference between the 2.66 and the 3.0 except for the reported 3.4MB bump in CPU clock.

I think the difference is actually 340MHz, or about 13%.

Steven

Ooops-- what was it I said about my being a moron? [:P]

Mhz, not MB to start-- sorry.

Darn decimals: .34Ghz w/ factor of 1k = 340Mhz

Thanks for the correction!

Okee-dokee...

Is the difference of 13% on the 3G enough to matter compared to the 2.66 where loading VI Cube instances is concerned (given 4GB of RAM or more are installed on both machines)?

JWL, thanks for confirming the 5000X - then it's clear ... this is from the documentation of a board with a 5000P
http://vsl.co.at/upload/users/449/dualchanneldualbranchmemory.png">
i don't think the difference between 2.66 and 3.0 will be significant, even noticeable - but there are always configurations needing each single quantum of CPU power(eg. altiverb)

the quadcores are at 2.66 currently (producing a lot of heat) - maybe apple waits for the quadcore low voltage processors reaching 3 GHz or more ... to make an argument why purchasing a dual quad looking better
christian

CM --

OK, now I need clarification! [:)]

If you glance up higher in this thread, you'll see the specs for my machine.

1. My understanding it that the RAM limit is 16 GB for the dual 3.0 xeon Mac pro. Does the 32 GB possibility mentioned in your last post exist for my machine, or is that a later generation of Mac Pro?

2. After doing some research, I and the person who helped me acquire the Mac concluded that I was OK leaving my pair of 512k chips in my computer, as long as we got everything in the recommended slot order. Is that info incorrect? Should I take 'em out, leaving just the two 4 GB chips?

I'm not an expert in this area, as you can tell!

Thanks,
PL

ad 1) at least the 5000P _supports_ 16 slots (grouped in 2 branches each 2 channels each 2 banks), this doesn't say the board _has_ 16 slots (actually it has 8, as the macPro has). i've not heared about 4 GB mamory sticks so far, so the limit will be 16 GB ...
ad 2) that's hard to say and would need some in-depth reading of the chipset specs ... does throughput decrease if a second branch or channel is equipped with sticks of different size? i really don't know and only some nifty RAM benchmark test would give us numbers ...

but 8 GB seem to be enough - if you're really interested i'd try to take them out for testing and *feel* the difference - make sure you don't have any static electricity (get your wrist grounded) when touching the sticks and keep them in an antistatic bag in case you do so.
christian

Thanks - I figured 32 GB referred to a theoretical upper limit of the board, not the current Mac pro.

But what was the source of the info you pasted into your message, with the underlined warning not to mix sizes and speeds of RAM?