2ghz pro good enough??

[Cam]

I can't really stretch to a 2.66ghz mac pro, wot u guys reckon a dual 2.0ghz processor (effectively 4.0ghz I guess??) is gonna loose much in day to day use? Anyone got some performance benchmarks or anything? Pretty much gonna be running windows xp for games and maybe a couple of other programs, and osx for protools and some virtual instrument programs. My G4 (dual 1.2's (i thinks)) is pathetic at virtual instruments, it runs out of power after only a couple. How much faster are we thinking these pros are? Also I've heard a lot of stories about programs not yet being totally sorted for running on a intel chip in mac osx. What you guys heard?

 

[SuB8HaVeN]

Those new Woodcrest Intel Xeon chips are just plain amazing if you ask me. I'm an IT manager and we just purchased a ton of new Dell PowerEdge 2950 units with the new Woodcrest Xeons, and they are by a long shot the fastest servers we have ever dealt with. I have some boxes with the 2.0GHz 1333MHz FSB Xeons that are considerably faster than the older Netburst-based 3.4GHz Xeons. That said, the 2GHz Xeons should suit you well.

Read some reviews and check the benchmarks. There are a couple programs out there than run much slower on the new Mac Pro than the G5 because they are not optimized for the Intel chips yet.

Also, when you have dual CPUs, you have to remember that for effective performance, you can't just add the clocks. Two 2GHz processors actually perform more like a 3GHz, but it really depends on the application. If an application can only take advantage of a single thread, then two 2GHz processors will be as fast as one 2GHz processor. Also remember that with the Mac Pro, you have two dual core Xeons, so you have four processors in reality.

 

[Cam]

Thanks SuB8HaVeN, always good to get some info on this. It seems to me that these processors are sold by intel as server chips, so I assume for prgrams like protools they are going to be nothing short of blistering.

I am a student though, and buying a windows based game now and again for a bit of mindless realaxation is important (sortof!). Are the xeon woodcrest chips going to be effective for this? There won't be any stupic compatability problems will there? An intel chip is an intel chip so far as windows is concerned no?

I've noticed on the intel website that the 'core duo' chip is the one currently being sold as the top of the line desktop chip, so is its architecture significantly different that I could have problems?

so many questions, so little understanding! cheers

 

[mac57]

Is 2.0 GHz good enough? I guess it all depends on what you are going to do with it. No matter what, simple mathematics tells you that the 2.66 model will be 33.3% faster. Do you need that extra speed? Also remember that a lot of the really heavy duty apps, like Photoshop, are still PPC native and so will need to be emulated. While I hear subjectively that they perform OK on the 2.66 GHz model, I haven't really read any commentary on their performance on the 2.0 GHz model. When you are interpreting, that extra 33.3% may be really important.

So, it is up to your assessment of what you will be doing with the machine.

One final note: if you do not need any really heavy apps like Photoshop, should you consider an iMac instead? Less money and still all that Mac OS X goodness, plus a more convenient form factor and no need for an external monitor. It may be something to think about.

 

[SuB8HaVeN]

Are the xeon woodcrest chips going to be effective for this? There won't be any stupic compatability problems will there? An intel chip is an intel chip so far as windows is concerned no?

I've noticed on the intel website that the 'core duo' chip is the one currently being sold as the top of the line desktop chip, so is its architecture significantly different that I could have problems?

The Xeon Woodcrest is essentially a Core 2 Duo with a faster frontside bus and SMP capability. In all actuality, the Xeon Woodcrest 3.0GHz is faster than the Core 2 Extreme 2.93GHz, because the Xeon has a 1333MHz FSB versus the Core 2 1066MHz. The only problem is that the Xeon is limited to FB-DIMM DDR2 memory. Although FBD on the Xeon platform is quad-channel DDR2, it is actually slower than the Core 2's dual-channel DDR2 because of the design and how it was implemented. Intel kind of pulled another RDRAM mishap (in the day PC133 was faster than RDRAM, but Intel kept pushing the "faster" RDRAM).

That said, two dual core Xeon Woodcrests at 2.0GHz should perform like a 2.2-2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, which is a very respectable performer in gaming. In essence, the Intel Xeon Woodcrest and Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme share the same architecture. There will be no compatibility issues.

 

[Cam]

Thanks for all your help here, really helpful. mac57, I would consider the i-mac if it had a decent video card, but as far as I can tell you cant specify anything decent! I also prefer to have a case where I can see everything, and I can easilly swap a bit out if it breaks or it needs upgrading. I think I'll just go for the pro though, I'm struggling to see another option really! I'll be back on the site in a week or two panicking when I can't get boot camp to boot up windows! I'm off to try to get my windows cd upgraded to sp2 using some walkthrough I've found, I love pc's!!

cheers