|
BernardLanguillier
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2009, 09:03:18 AM » |
 Reply
|
That is one funny article, but completely to the point... Apple is dropping the ball a bit with their Mac Pro series. The price performance ratio has become a lot worse and they are much farther to their time dream's set up than they used to be... Cheers, Bernard |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A few images online here! |
|
|
|
ziocan
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2009, 10:17:56 AM » |
Reply
|
Yes and yes. But it is not an earth-shattering difference in either software IMO. Thank you Jack. I was just wondering if it was worth to upgrade the processors from 2.66 2 cores to 2.66 4 cores. It would be a couple of hours of work and 8/900$ for a pair of new processors. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 10:18:29 AM by ziocan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Flesher
|
|
« Reply #42 on: March 09, 2009, 11:46:20 AM » |
Reply
|
Thank you Jack.
I was just wondering if it was worth to upgrade the processors from 2.66 2 cores to 2.66 4 cores.
It would be a couple of hours of work and 8/900$ for a pair of new processors. Here is a little bit of data to ponder. Some friends and I just did the following comparisons on our three different Mac Pros. We processed out 10 P45+ files to full 16-bit tiffs and timed the total process. All of us are running C1 4.6.2 and read and write our files from/to RAID-0 drive arrays. Note this is *NOT* a scientific test though, as we used 10 random files on our systems and only processed to similar, not identical output settings, But at least it should give a relative idea of performance differences: Box 1, Quad-core 2.66 with 12G 667 RAM: 2:13 Box 2, Quad-core 3.0 with 24G 667 RAM: 1:58 Box 3, 8-core 3.2 with 16G 800 RAM: 1:17 So we can see that cores and actual processor speed seem to matter and perhaps RAM throughput matters more than total RAM. This is where the new machines improve significantly -- at least in theory; 1066MHz DDR3 RAM being theoretically twice as fast I/O as 800MHz DDR2 RAM. FWIW Note on the above: I can tell you on my box, C! had the cores being utilized at 800% nearly 90% of the time, yet only about 30% or 5G of my RAM was being tagged. Cheers, |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 05:33:05 PM by Jack Flesher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Guy Mancuso
|
|
« Reply #43 on: March 09, 2009, 12:30:22 PM » |
Reply
|
Okay just to throw I want to slit my wrists now comment.
On a old 2.4 667 mhz with 6gb of Ram MacBook Pro with mind you a Intel 80gb SSD drive
Same 10 P45 plus files it took in batch 4:27
i obviously need a new laptop now. LOL
BTW Box 1 above was my desktop
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 12:31:23 PM by Guy Mancuso »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dustbak
|
|
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2009, 02:25:07 PM » |
Reply
|
I hope to receive my new 2.26 8-core somewhere end of this week. I am looking forward to it First thing I will do is take out the HD and replace it with a 1.5Tb and see if I can put some 4Gb modules of Ram in it (not ordered via Apple that is ).
It seems many people are screaming and are obviously not impressed with this update. I think it might be a surprise, the ideas behind this update appear pretty valid to me. Yes, I also would have liked to receive more for less, don't we all. I am really curious to comparisons between the new one and the previous one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
klane
|
|
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2009, 04:35:12 PM » |
Reply
|
Okay just to throw I want to slit my wrists now comment.
On a old 2.4 667 mhz with 6gb of Ram MacBook Pro with mind you a Intel 80gb SSD drive
Same 10 P45 plus files it took in batch 4:27
i obviously need a new laptop now. LOL
BTW Box 1 above was my desktop How did you get 6gigs of ram in a mbp? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Flesher
|
|
« Reply #47 on: March 09, 2009, 06:01:24 PM » |
Reply
|
And yes, it works - I have 6G in mine too - and it provides a notable boost in performance over 4G - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Guy Mancuso
|
|
« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2009, 06:46:50 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes it really works well with CS4. Like as soon as you get past 4 there is a nice improvement
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carstenw
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 09, 2009, 07:40:52 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes it really works well with CS4. Like as soon as you get past 4 there is a nice improvement Does the 6GB kit work with the unibody MacBook Pro 15"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carstenw
|
|
« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2009, 08:37:42 PM » |
Reply
|
Ah, sorry, I should have checked myself. It is late and I am tired. I'd better go to bed. Btw, that is a bit pricier, so I guess I'll hold off for now, until I can prove to myself that I really need more |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dale Allyn
|
|
« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2009, 08:40:16 PM » |
Reply
|
Ah, sorry, I should have checked myself. It is late and I am tired. I'd better go to bed. Btw, that is a bit pricier, so I guess I'll hold off for now, until I can prove to myself that I really need more Carsten: no need to say "sorry". I didn't mean to be terse with my reply (and I intended to add a "smile" to the post with the link), but I posted while sort of multi-tasking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RoyS
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2009, 07:05:33 AM » |
Reply
|
I hope to receive my new 2.26 8-core somewhere end of this week. I am looking forward to it First thing I will do is take out the HD and replace it with a 1.5Tb and see if I can put some 4Gb modules of Ram in it (not ordered via Apple that is ).
It seems many people are screaming and are obviously not impressed with this update. I think it might be a surprise, the ideas behind this update appear pretty valid to me. Yes, I also would have liked to receive more for less, don't we all. I am really curious to comparisons between the new one and the previous one. There were some problems with the Seagate 1.5Tb 7200.11. Unfortunately there is no date on this report. It may be fixed now. I's waiting for a 8-Core 2.26 as well. From my reading a RAID 0 with multiple drives would be faster than a solitary drive. See Setting Up Your New Mac. My plan is to leave the 640 MB drive in for system and applications, and put in 3 1TB drives each partitioned into a 32 Mb "fast" partition and then the rest of the disk into a "data" partition. Then combine the 3 fast partitions in a RAID 0 scratch disk, and the 3 data partitions into a RAID 0 data disk. Now I need to figure out backup for this. Any suggestions? Ciao, Roy |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dustbak
|
|
« Reply #54 on: March 10, 2009, 08:02:22 AM » |
Reply
|
Funny, I think you have been looking at the same place to set-up your Mac
I have not yet completely figured out how to set it up. To move the 640Gb drive to an external FW casing and have 4 1.5TB drives in the bays might also be an option. I might even go for the Raid card and do a Raid5 and use an external for additional backup.
First things first and get the MP in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Flesher
|
|
« Reply #55 on: March 10, 2009, 11:50:46 AM » |
Reply
|
I might even go for the Raid card and do a Raid5 and use an external for additional backup. For the cost of the Apple RAID card, you can buy a complete external eSATA 5 drive RAID box AND almost fill it up with 1TB enterprise drives! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 11:51:14 AM by Jack Flesher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dustbak
|
|
« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2009, 04:58:35 PM » |
Reply
|
I wasn't thinking about the Apple raid card more like the Highpoint Rocketraid which is priced a lot friendlier.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Flesher
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2009, 05:40:58 PM » |
Reply
|
I wasn't thinking about the Apple raid card more like the Highpoint Rocketraid which is priced a lot friendlier. Okay... A FWIW aside: Leopard allows for very easy and efficient RAID 1 or 0 without a card and for Photoshop it is clear that the fastest possible scratch drive is one of the best ways to improve its performance -- and why several of us stripe (RAID-0) 3 or 4 of the main drives in our Mac Pros and partition off a thin outer rim portion for dedicated CS scratch. As a benchmark, I have a standard action that combines several filters and sizings that I run on a 50 MB file and time for CS performance. With a single drive dedicated to scratch that action takes 1:04 on my machine. Moving to a 2-drive RAID-0 stripe, the same action runs in 41 seconds. I recently went to a 4-drive stripe and the same process dropped to 29 seconds with no other system changes... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoyS
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2009, 06:51:51 AM » |
Reply
|
Does anyone know if the MaxConnect for Mac Pro Optical Drive Bay Disk Mounting Assembly works on the new Quad-Core or 8-Core models? These products utilize the two extra SATA DATA channels available on the previous logic boards. I have not been able to find if these data channels are on the new boards. Has anyone used these products on previous models? I'm thinking this could work as a back-up within the Mac Pro rather than an external drive enclosure. Ciao, Roy |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
