Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
  1. #16

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Quote Originally Posted by london
    Please read just this page HERE

    Interesting read. While I would not call the MacPros a "Piece of Junk" by any means, for the high end performance you are seeking, it's probably not the right choice for you

    Quote Originally Posted by london
    If you put just one stick of ram in the Mac pro, both CPUs will use it.
    You can't just "put one stick in." It has to be two, matched pair, one in each bank (upper and lower). Your point may be correct though, I don't know


  2. #17


    Member Since
    Aug 11, 2006
    Posts
    21
    read the article. i aim nothing at Apple its intels fault.
    They are pretty much saying the memory system sux!!
    I know they only recommend you install in matched pairs to get dual channel with 2 sticks and quad channel with 4 sticks.

    As far as opterons having seprate memory banks for each cpu and the xeon sharing one. this is totally correct.

    They used 1 stick of 512Mb in one of the mac pro if you read the article. It ran in single channel mode. the memory bandwidth would be around 2200 GB/s with one stick, thats why you need matched pairs. to get dual and quad channel.
    Read that articl. i urge you. im not saying this lightly. this is a real disappointment to me.

  3. #18

    ezhangin's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location
    Indiana; there's more than just corn here
    Posts
    237
    Specs:
    Powerbook G4 1.67 MHz
    Quote Originally Posted by london
    No your wrong dual cpu socket Xeons share the shame memory and memory bus. the bus from the ram to the CPUs is the same. opteron have a completly seperate memory banks for each CPU. Do you home work. if you take the Ram away from one Opteron CPU it wont work it cant share the memory from the other CPu's memory bank.( it wont even boot if there is no Ram for one cpu.)
    If you put just one stick of ram in the Mac pro, both CPUs will use it.

    If a Mac Pro had a seperate memory bank for each CPU it would have a theoretical bandwidth of 1600 Gb/s.and going on the real world test of the Mac Pro. Even if it did have a seperate memory bank/bus for each CPu it would still only have a real world memory bandwidth of 8584 GB/s still well short of my 3 year old single core Opterons.

    I really wanted to like the Mac pro. i wanted one. but facts are facts. I know a 2.6Ghz xeon is faster then a 2.6Ghz opteron. In raw cpu speed. but in means nothing if your memory bandwidth is jank. memory bandwidth is crutial to overall real world performance.
    Woah there, where did I say Xeon 5100s do not have a shared memory bank? I basically said you need to clarify what you write. Also, you keep saying the Xeon 5100s will get beat by a Core 2, but they are Core 2s. But really, take a look at the myriad of benchmarks floating about the internet. If the AMD has a such a beter setup, then why is it slower in almost all real-world benchmarks? (regrettably coming from an AMD guy here)

  4. #19


    Member Since
    Aug 11, 2006
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ezhangin
    Woah there, where did I say Xeon 5100s do not have a shared memory bank? I basically said you need to clarify what you write. But really, take a look at the myriad of benchmarks floating about the internet. If the AMD has a such a beter setup, then why is it slower in almost all real-world benchmarks? (regrettably coming from an AMD guy here)
    I never said you said the xeons did not share the same memory banks!!
    The article said the core 2 duos willbeat the xeons oin memory bandwidth. im well aware they are the same thing appart from the memory they use.

    real world benchmarks? a benchmark is not real world.
    Mac Pro does share the same memory bus/banks. I done my research now. Thanks for your help.
    This applies for PC xeons to. Its intels fault.
    I dont argue that the xeon is faster the the opteron. But the opterons memory bandwidth, and just the whole memory system itself runs rings around the xeons.
    What i do needs memory bandwidth and if you work is memory bandwidth sensitive. Opterons area better solution.
    Intel have had this problem for a while. i am shocked they have not fixed it.
    I wont say anymore. I basemy opinion of the Mac Pro (or any new xeon) being crap on the facts i have read. If you think differant, so be it.

    I urgeyou to read that article. Esp the part about the memory

  5. #20

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Quote Originally Posted by london
    They used 1 stick of 512Mb in one of the mac pro if you read the article. It ran in single channel mode. the memory bandwidth would be around 2200 GB/s with one stick, thats why you need matched pairs. to get dual and quad channel.
    I'm too lazy to read the whole article, so point out the part about 1 512Mb stick to me. I did find this though:

    We tested a total of five configurations throughout all of our tests: a dual socket (single core) PowerMac G5 2.0GHz, a dual socket (single core) PowerMac G5 2.5GHz, a dual socket (dual core) Mac Pro 2.0GHz and a dual socket (dual core) Mac Pro 2.66GHz. The fifth configuration was the dual socket dual core Mac Pro 2.0GHz with one socket disabled, thus running as a dual core Mac Pro 2.0GHz. The reason for this fifth configuration is to help point out the areas where the Mac Pro is doing better than the PowerMac G5 simply due to its four cores (vs. two in the G5) and where the advantage is purely architectural.

    We kept configurations as close as possible, each system featured 2GB of memory (the Mac Pros used 4 x 512MB FB-DIMMs in order to run in quad channel mode) and used the same Seagate 7200.9 250GB HDD.


    Again, just because it's not right for you doesn't mean it is a bad machine by any stretch. Too bad for you, if you don't like it, go with the Opteron and be happy. Sure, the memory is less than optimal, but it's not a huge show stopper for most people. If you keep this kind of attitude up, you're going to get booted from here pretty quickly.


  6. #21


    Member Since
    Jun 11, 2006
    Location
    orlando
    Posts
    87
    Specs:
    2.0 macbook
    2823gbs caches (or whatever that is)
    intel core 2 duo vs opterons
    4 hdd bays (wanting more)

    **** you rich people.

    On a side note this is a very intresting conversations something I would defintly want to learn more on. (why you need 12+ bandwidth on a processor) Can anyone point me to a break down on what all this means? I'am 14 and find this very intriguing

  7. #22

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Quote Originally Posted by Techno Mutant
    2823gbs caches (or whatever that is)
    intel core 2 duo vs opterons
    4 hdd bays (wanting more)

    **** you rich people.

    On a side note this is a very intresting conversations something I would defintly want to learn more on. (why you need 12+ bandwidth on a processor) Can anyone point me to a break down on what all this means? I'am 14 and find this very intriguing
    I am by no stretch of the imagination "rich", but I have a good paying job. I could buy one of these with the above additions and not "kill" myself in the process.


  8. #23

    Avalon's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location
    Luxemburg, Europe
    Posts
    1,779
    Specs:
    PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB
    Well, london, we got the point:
    The Mac Pro does not fit your needs. Period.
    So please stop ranting.

    Just leave it there. There's no point in saying (and repeating it ad infinitum) the Mac Pro (or any Xeon based PC) is crap just because it doesn't suit your needs.
    They are quite powerfull machines, at an interesting price. Just not powerfull enough for you. Well, so be it, go with the system that suits you.

  9. #24

    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,910
    Specs:
    iMac 2010 27" QuadI7 OSX10.11, iMac 2008 OSX10.11, MBP Late2011OSX10.11 , iPad Air, iPhone 3GS
    I told you last night, go buy your Opteron box. It's what you need.

    Can you show me where Anand called the Mac Pro Junk? Read his Benchmarks of the new Core 2 Xenon CPU's. They blow down all the competition. Anand is not one to lie either.

    But for YOUR NEEDS, you need more. So get what you need.

  10. #25


    Member Since
    Aug 11, 2006
    Posts
    21
    "The other suggestion we have is to make sure you've got enough memory on hand, especially if you're going to be multitasking heavily or running a lot of non-native applications. The 1GB that these systems come with is absolutely the minimum; we tried running with only 512MB enabled and came away thoroughly disappointed in the system's performance"

    "One of our biggest concern about the Mac Pro is that users who don't need 8 memory slots or four cores would be better off if Apple released a single socket Core 2 based Mac tower. The memory performance of FBD on the Intel 5000X chipset is absolutely horrid and there's nothing you can do about it unless you switch entirely to an all serial interface or go back to using regular DDR2 memory.

    The memory performance of the Mac Pro is noticeably better than the PowerMac G5 and competitive with other products in the Mac lineup (for now), but it's still significantly lower than where it could be. Intel seems married to its FBD strategy for now, which unfortunately means that as long as Apple wants two sockets for the Mac Pro, you'll need to deal with FBD. Our recommendation to Apple? Give us a Core 2 based tower. Our recommendation to Intel? Give us an alternative to FBD."


    If you guys consider memory bandwidth of a so called workstation that are lower then a Pentium 4 good enough.
    Then so be it.
    my point is I dont thinks its good enough for a workstation.
    Thats all I have been saying. I was keen to get a Mac Pro. Untill I found out these limitations.

  11. #26

    Sobe's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 24, 2005
    Posts
    175
    Specs:
    17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
    Quote Originally Posted by london
    "The other suggestion we have is to make sure you've got enough memory on hand, especially if you're going to be multitasking heavily or running a lot of non-native applications. The 1GB that these systems come with is absolutely the minimum; we tried running with only 512MB enabled and came away thoroughly disappointed in the system's performance"

    "One of our biggest concern about the Mac Pro is that users who don't need 8 memory slots or four cores would be better off if Apple released a single socket Core 2 based Mac tower. The memory performance of FBD on the Intel 5000X chipset is absolutely horrid and there's nothing you can do about it unless you switch entirely to an all serial interface or go back to using regular DDR2 memory.

    The memory performance of the Mac Pro is noticeably better than the PowerMac G5 and competitive with other products in the Mac lineup (for now), but it's still significantly lower than where it could be. Intel seems married to its FBD strategy for now, which unfortunately means that as long as Apple wants two sockets for the Mac Pro, you'll need to deal with FBD. Our recommendation to Apple? Give us a Core 2 based tower. Our recommendation to Intel? Give us an alternative to FBD."


    If you guys consider memory bandwidth of a so called workstation that are lower then a Pentium 4 good enough.
    Then so be it.
    my point is I dont thinks its good enough for a workstation.
    Thats all I have been saying. I was keen to get a Mac Pro. Untill I found out these limitations.

    Are you done yet?

    You've made your comments.

    You've had people give examples, that show the Mac Pro out performing its AMD counterparts.

    We understand you won't "get it" ..

    Go buy your opteron and rejoice.

  12. #27


    Member Since
    Aug 11, 2006
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobe
    Are you done yet?

    You've made your comments.

    You've had people give examples, that show the Mac Pro out performing its AMD counterparts.

    We understand you won't "get it" ..

    Go buy your opteron and rejoice.
    Read the reply comments. its clear alot of people DONT get it!

  13. #28

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Well, that banning didn't take long. Not like I didn't warn him though.....


  14. #29

    ezhangin's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location
    Indiana; there's more than just corn here
    Posts
    237
    Specs:
    Powerbook G4 1.67 MHz
    It really is a shame apple didn't go with AMD though. Although the Core 2 is one BAMF I don't know how long they can keep that up with a front side bus and fully buffered memory.

  15. #30

    PowerBookG4's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,188
    Specs:
    Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
    I also would have liked apple to go AMD, but I read somewhere that AMD would not be able to produce the amount of chips apple wanted. I don't really believe that, I think AMD is big enough to produce a few chips for apple, its not like they make that many computers, sure they make alot, but not enough that a company like AMD can't keep up.
    My Website
    Blog
    I love my hosting company!
    I was on the M-F honor roll for Febuary:2006

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mac Pro 5,1 vs Mac Mini Quad i7 for Pro Tools 11
    By 13th Crowned in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-09-2015, 04:42 PM
  2. Mac Pro 2.7 8GB vs Mac Pro Retina 2.6 16GB
    By SofaKingBig in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-14-2012, 07:11 PM
  3. Mac Pro to Mac Book Pro Firewire cable
    By limu99 in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 10:10 AM
  4. iMac, Mac Pro or Mac Book pro; for iPhone development
    By BillyA in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 05:23 PM
  5. Windows XP Pro, XP Pro x64, or Vista on new Mac Pro?
    By analog guy in forum Running Windows (or anything else) on your Mac
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 05:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •