should I just get a Mac Pro tower or.... ?

M

mecca

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
240
my last 3 machines have all been custom builds from newegg parts, and in the past i've always liked creating my own machines but honestly i've come to the point where i'd rather just pay some more money for a solid kickass machine that i almost barely have to touch in order to have it working perfectly.

i need something very powerful for 3d animating and super high res photoshop work.. NOT gaming whatsoever. if it can handle designing inside an 8000x8000 PSD file or can crank out 3d renders much quicker, then that's what i need.

keep in mind im not using OSX, i'd be running bootcamp Vista or XP.

all i can think of is Mac Pro.. solid and it sounds like it performs really well. i'd probably order my own RAM and go as high as i can.

is a mac pro the most affordable solution (all i need is the tower.. no monitors, nothing)? or is there another PC brand i should opt for since i'm not using OSX whatsoever. basically, just considering cost and overall hardware performance
 
Yeah, no point in getting a Mac Pro if your not even going to use OSX, that more than half of the reason I originally switched over was just for the OS.
 
so when forgetting OSX and looking purely at cost & performance, the dell is the better economic choice?
 
The only point to purchasing a Mac Pro is, well, if you want to run OSX. So, if you don't want to run OSX, then I'd go with a Dell.
 
What's the point of getting a Mac if you're gonna run a crappy(compared to OSX) winblows on it? Get a dell and save $$$.
 
No need to turn this into a Windows bashing thread.

I agree with the other replies, if you'll be running Windows-based apps, then just get a Windows PC.
 
Thats the thing..it doesnt look like im saving any money at all.. the Quadcore config runs $3,000 for the Dell
 
mecca said:
Thats the thing..it doesnt look like im saving any money at all.. the Quadcore config runs $3,000 for the Dell
Click to expand...

So then what's the issue?

Spend the money and get the dell, since you'll only be running windows.
 
KaosDG said:
So then what's the issue?

Spend the money and get the dell, since you'll only be running windows.
Click to expand...

I agree. Intel macs just have issues with windows right now, plus its just going to be an extra cost to buy and install windows.

Oh and get x64 windows.
 
i meant dell being $3,000 for a quadcore IS the issue. the bad issue. thats incredibly expensive.
 
If you'd be at least somewhat open to using it as a Mac, you should give it a shot.
 
OmegaAvenger said:
I agree. Intel macs just have issues with windows right now, plus its just going to be an extra cost to buy and install windows.
Click to expand...


Such as? I haven't experienced any.

Also if he is coming from PC (and sounds like he build his own) he probably already has a copy of Windows to use.


That said OP, if you aren't going to run OS X you might as well get a Dell or something. The only time I would say otherwise is right after a hardware refresh. In those situations a Mac Pro would be worth pricing anyway as they can actually be very competitive right after an update. Since it has been a while since a refresh, I don't know if I would consider that this time around.
 
I run an Intel Mac with Windows occasionally, and it runs just as well as it does with Mac OSX. I would be interested to know what types of issues that Intel Macs have with Windows as well.
 
TheLordsServant said:
I run an Intel Mac with Windows occasionally, and it runs just as well as it does with Mac OSX. I would be interested to know what types of issues that Intel Macs have with Windows as well.
Click to expand...

Add me to this list. The only "issue" is if you try to have a drive with more than two partitions on it and that's not a limit of the Mac, that's a limit of the old boot BIOS boot methods. EFI doesn't care about partition count or type, but Windows doesn't support EFI so the Intel Macs have to play tricks to make Windows boot via the older BIOS method.
 
The_Mage18 said:
Add me to this list. The only "issue" is if you try to have a drive with more than two partitions on it and that's not a limit of the Mac, that's a limit of the old boot BIOS boot methods. EFI doesn't care about partition count or type, but Windows doesn't support EFI so the Intel Macs have to play tricks to make Windows boot via the older BIOS method.
Click to expand...

vista sp1 does, but i'm not sure if anyone has gotten it to boot natively off of apple's efi implementation
 
MattyC said:
Such as? I haven't experienced any.

Also if he is coming from PC (and sounds like he build his own) he probably already has a copy of Windows to use.


That said OP, if you aren't going to run OS X you might as well get a Dell or something. The only time I would say otherwise is right after a hardware refresh. In those situations a Mac Pro would be worth pricing anyway as they can actually be very competitive right after an update. Since it has been a while since a refresh, I don't know if I would consider that this time around.
Click to expand...

I've just read random people having issues with it here in the apple forum. I think at least one person had his windows installation screwed up. I know 10.4.11 screwed boot camp up for alot of people.

Over all yes its good, just was saying it hasn't been a smooth experience fo everyone
 
Buy the Mac Pro, or if you can wait a bit hold off for the expected Nehalem revision next year.

I am speaking from experience, not going from "what I've read".

I have a pair of Dell "workstations" at the office, one is a 7400 series 8-core box, the other a 3400 series quad-core. There is no way on earth I would even consider spending my own money on one of these machines.

The 3400 is terrible. Just getting the rear USB ports to function reliably took 4 WEEKS to resolve. It was shipped in a state where it would NOT successfully shutdown, regardless of what you reset the TTK values to or how long you let it sit.

So much for all the "certification" that supposedly goes on to differentiate any-old-Dell-PC from their "workstation" line.

The 7400 is a bit better, but I do not care for the enclosure and it is significantly more expensive for less power than the equivalent Mac Pro. And that assume you buy your additional drives and memory from third parties and install them yourself - as opposed to paying the staggering premiums both Dell and Apple put on those components.

I was originally looking at a 7400 series to replace my own self-built high-end development box. Up to that point I had always built my own machines as well, and finally got to the point where it was not interesting to do so, and the additional cost and minor reduction in flexibility of component choice made it make more sense to have someone else build it.

After my experiences with the 7400 I decided to give the Mac Pro a chance. Walked into the local Apple store, walked out with the Mac Pro and a 30" Apple LCD, and was up and running an hour later. A far cry from the assinine build-lead time that Dell wanted at the time (it was something like 4 weeks).

I ordered my memory from OWC, my hard drives from NewEgg and threw those in myself, which is trivial since the Mac Pro is about the easiest box to work on I have ever encountered.

Just go into the Mac Pro on the assumption that you will only ever upgrade drives, memory and cards, and assume your CPU choice at purchase will be what you want until you are ready to replace the box. I would not, honestly, look at the Dell any other way either, but the Dell would be easier to swap CPUs IF there was something interesting to swap them for ;)

I don't game much on my PCs anymore either. A little WoW is all. I am using a pair of the stock Radeon 2600XT HD cards since I drive 3 displays (1x 30", 2x 20" in portrait mode) which results in a totally silent machine even when WoW is running. WoW gets a fixed 60 FPS (with V-Sync of course) without tarting about with CrossFire and that is more than enough for me.

The machine is running constantly, is heavily loaded with multiple VM instances loaded all the time (with no need to turn them off to play WoW), Visual Studio is almost always loaded also, and the thing barely registers the load, even with WoW going on top of all of that.

It has been smooth, flawless and simple from day one.

Even the raw installation was stupidly straight forward. Boot OSX, use Boot Camp to Prep for a Vista install (I put mine on a different drive, since I DO use OSX on there as well), thrown in the Vista disk, let that install as normal, feed it the first OS install disc, load the drivers, reboot, call it good!

A far cry from even the last INTEL board based PC I built, which required no less than 5 reboots just for the drivers Intel shipped with it.

As for "issues with Windows on Mac", I've not had any. In fact this machine has been the single smoothest Windows box I have EVER touched (and I've been coding for Windows since 2.15).

No failures, crashes, hiccups, or any other issues whatsoever.

And regarding boot camp updates toasting Windows? I've seen fewer reports of that than I have of WINDOWS updates toasting Windows :)

My Mac Pro is configured with 8x 2.8Ghz cores (two physical processors) 16GB OWC RAM, 4x 1TB Seagate ES.2 drives, dual Radeon 2600 XT HD's and a Blu-Ray burner, driving a central 30" Apple LCD and a pair of 1600x1200 Dell 20" panels in portrait configuration.

I run OSX and Vista x64 on it, and both environments are used for development and both us VMwares virtualization products to maintain multiple active environments.

Hope that helps, holler if you have specific questions.
 
8k by 8k is "super high res"? :confused:

Also, we have Dell Precisions at work. Mostly the single quad-core Xeons, though. They're not great machines, to be honest (stability issues). I'd rather get a Mac Pro, even to run Windows on. Especially if it's cheaper, to boot.
 
torq that was incredibly helpful, thanks so much!

ive always been weary of Dells for these reasons
 
You're quite welcome :)

I don't have a particular issue with Dell. That's what we bought my wife for her gaming machine, and it has been trouble free and very nice (excepting all the bundled and pre-installed shit-ware). It was still over-priced, but it was from their XPS line not their workstation line.

Her next machine will definitely be a Mac Pro though.
 
mecca said:
i meant dell being $3,000 for a quadcore IS the issue. the bad issue. thats incredibly expensive.
Click to expand...

You can configure quad cores for very cheap. Look at other models there. Models from other companies. Or just build your own. I know you don't want to but you can get exactly what you want for cheaper. And building won't take more than an hour or two.

What specific specs are you after? I get the impression that workstation computers are more expensive simply because they are called "workstations" and nothing more. They are still PC's at heart. Does the CPU have to be a xeon? Does the ram have to be ECC?

For $2000 and not gaming you can build an amazing system that would put a mac pro to shame. Even for less most likely.
 
Wait for core i7 if you can. Its just that much better than current processors. Intel was claiming 50% speed increase to current chips (im not too sure i think thats what i read and im lazy to do research). If you cant wait then just get the mac pro.
 
Archer75 said:
Does the CPU have to be a xeon?
Click to expand...
If you want more than one of them, then yes.


For $2000 and not gaming you can build an amazing system that would put a mac pro to shame. Even for less most likely.
Click to expand...
Well, no, you can't. There aren't actually any computers on the market today capable of "putting the Mac Pro to shame," except for gaming I guess. The multi-socket Nehalem CPUs haven't been released yet, so there isn't really a desktop machine faster than the eight-core Mac Pro (or the other eight-core Xeon machines out there, for that matter). The only way to build a machine that "shames the Mac Pro" would be to buy a machine with more memory bays and load it with more RAM than the Mac handles.

Yes, you can get really good performance for a hell of a lot less money by building your own single-CPU setup, and by grabbing a new Nehalem and overclocking it like a crazy person, you'll probably get about the same performance as the eight-core systems, even with just four cores. But, again, that's hardly "shaming" it.
 
Like some other people said, wait til the beginning of the year when the new core i7 mac workstations come out.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
If you want more than one of them, then yes.
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything about how many he wanted.


Black Morty Rackham said:
Well, no, you can't. There aren't actually any computers on the market today capable of "putting the Mac Pro to shame," except for gaming I guess. The multi-socket Nehalem CPUs haven't been released yet, so there isn't really a desktop machine faster than the eight-core Mac Pro (or the other eight-core Xeon machines out there, for that matter). The only way to build a machine that "shames the Mac Pro" would be to buy a machine with more memory bays and load it with more RAM than the Mac handles.

Yes, you can get really good performance for a hell of a lot less money by building your own single-CPU setup, and by grabbing a new Nehalem and overclocking it like a crazy person, you'll probably get about the same performance as the eight-core systems, even with just four cores. But, again, that's hardly "shaming" it.
Click to expand...

You'd be suprised. Those FB-Dimms can be slow. Same with ECC ram, so unless it's actually necessary you can get better speeds. The memory bandwidth on my 2 year old gaming machine that I built for $1200 back then is much higher than than what benchmarks are showing for the Mac Pro.

And to actually use multi cores the app must be coded for it, as you know. Some only work with single cores, some only with dual. Very few with quad. It's something I would certainly check in to before I made a purchase.

Quad Core xeon's can be had for $280 on up, same with the motherboards. I have also heard that you can take a non xeon quad core and with a jumper change make it work in a dual quad core setup. Not that everyone has the knowledge or the will to do that.
 
Can you build a cheaper machine that will out-bench a Mac Pro? Sure.

Can you buy one that will do it ready-built for the same price? No.

Your 2 year old gaming machine might well run a faster memory benchmark than the Mac Pro, but the second you hit the swap file as you run out of RAM at 4GB any advantage that running for hours with your marginally increased performance are lost in seconds.

It is all about balancing your configuration based on the needs of the tasks at hand.

8GB of RAM, on a modern desktop board, at blazing speeds is about as much use as a chocolate teacup if your processing or usage model needs 1 byte more than that 8GB at a time.

Also just because some applications will not use all of your cores does not mean that none will, and that assumes a working environment in which only one application is doing anything intensive. My Mac Pro spends its "idle" time at 50% load (24/7), which would make ANY quad-core system a very unpleasant experience indeed.

But everyone has different needs. In my case they are no longer served by build-it yourself solutions. I have built my own PCs, typically several a year, since the first days of the 386. I have no wish to build any more, which limits my "workstation" options to Dell, HP and Apple.

I have used them all, I do not care for HP or Opterons, the Dell units I have at work I would NOT spend my own money on, so that leaves Apple.

And yes, omitting the ready-built requirement, you can go on NewEgg etc. and put together a theoretical specifcation based on high-end parts at low prices and claim a faster machine. You can have all the fun you want making that stable and making sure those parts really do work as seamlessly together as they should.

That is a far cry from a guaranteed to work/guaranteed stable configuration (that is what you are getting with premium that the "workstation" moniker is supposed to mean - hardware and driver certification and stability guarantees) that I pick up at a local store and have running less than an hour later.
 
Torq said:
Your 2 year old gaming machine might well run a faster memory benchmark than the Mac Pro, but the second you hit the swap file as you run out of RAM at 4GB any advantage that running for hours with your marginally increased performance are lost in seconds.

It is all about balancing your configuration based on the needs of the tasks at hand.

8GB of RAM, on a modern desktop board, at blazing speeds is about as much use as a chocolate teacup if your processing or usage model needs 1 byte more than that 8GB at a time.
Click to expand...

Then buy more ram. I guess I don't get why you took the time to write all that when the solution is to build/buy your system with a board that supports however much ram you need.

Torq said:
Also just because some applications will not use all of your cores does not mean that none will, and that assumes a working environment in which only one application is doing anything intensive. My Mac Pro spends its "idle" time at 50% load (24/7), which would make ANY quad-core system a very unpleasant experience indeed.
Click to expand...

Most applications won't use all your cores. Most apps out there cannot use 8 cores let alone 4. A great many are still single core apps. More and more are becoming dual core apps and very few use a full quad core.

As I said before, the op should look at the apps he is using to see how many cores they support and go from there. No point in buying an 8 core machine and 16gb of ram for an app that would only use a quad core at 2gb of ram at most.

So perhaps if the Op could post what specs his apps need and what they are capable of using a better recommendation could be made.

I find that most people tend to go overkill when building/buying a gaming machine, HTPC or home server when ones actual needs could be had for hundreds if not thousands cheaper.
 
That was the point - on a desktop machine from 2 years ago 4GB was your LIMIT no matter how bloody fast the RAM you had was. The VERY few boards that did support more than that ran ECC RAM or had lower RAM bandwidth due to chipset issues.

I was there, I tried it :)

What they CLAIM they can do and what they will ACTUALLY do in a stable manner, without performance compromises, is typically VERY different.

What is your recommendation for a stable configuration that does consistute support for, lets say 16GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and 2 Dual Core Harpertown Xeons at a minimum 2.8Ghz?

If the application YOU need DOES take meaningful advantage of multiple cores then it does not matter whether every other application in the world is entirely single-threaded.

On top of which most pro-apps DO use multiple cores and quite nicely. Also that most serious workstation users are not just piddling about with a game, IM and iTunes. At a minimum I have two VMs up at all times, each doing real processing work, with 2 cores per VM and 4GB each. That is 100% load on a quad-core box. To do more, we are now building or buying extra machines etc., even though there is no real need.

On top of which I find it nice being able to fire up WoW for a bit, while still using the same machine, and not even noticing a difference in performance. No way that will work for my applications load on any quad-core box.

No argument that buying more machine than you need is a waste. And most people ceratinly do. Though I am not sure what consitutes "too much machine" for a serious Photoshop user running on 8K by 8K images, or anyone doing any kind of serious video work or any of a multitude of other activites that are highly parallized even with standard software.
 
Torq said:
That was the point - on a desktop machine from 2 years ago 4GB was your LIMIT no matter how bloody fast the RAM you had was. The VERY few boards that did support more than that ran ECC RAM or had lower RAM bandwidth due to chipset issues.
Click to expand...

My board supports 8gb. I found most did from that time if memory serves me. I have a 975x chipset and it was inexpensive back then.


Torq said:
What is your recommendation for a stable configuration that does consistute support for, lets say 16GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and 2 Dual Core Harpertown Xeons at a minimum 2.8Ghz?
Click to expand...

I would have to research it more thoroughly and get back to you.

Torq said:
If the application YOU need DOES take meaningful advantage of multiple cores then it does not matter whether every other application in the world is entirely single-threaded.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that.


Torq said:
On top of which I find it nice being able to fire up WoW for a bit, while still using the same machine, and not even noticing a difference in performance. No way that will work for my applications load on any quad-core box.
Click to expand...

That's great and all but the op did say he has no intention of gaming whatsoever. And I don't think he'll be doing photoshop work and 3D animation at the same time.

But again, we need to know what apps he is running, how many cores the apps can actually use, how much ram they will consume while doing the work that he does.
Sure he could just buy a mac pro but he may not need all that. He's needs may be satisfied by a far cheaper system
 
A lot claimed they supported 8GB. You actually try and set them up that way and suddenly you are running loose timings and lowering your RAM speed/upping your divider to keep it stable.

In fairness the actual Intel manufactured 975x boards did work to spec (I had the original Bad Axe back then which ran about $250), but that really was the exception rather than the rule. At least in my experience (I think I built 4 C2D boxes that year).

As for the research aspect, that is where things start to go pear shaped. I have no doubt that you know what to look for to build a stable multi-proc system right out of the gate and probably (i.e. if it is possible, the last time I actually priced, admittedly a while back, just the CPUs were $964 each) do it for less money than one of the pre-built solutions (not being sarcastic here).

It then becomes a question of whether the time spent doing that, and then putting it all together actually saves you anything. The threshold for where that becomes worthwhile varies obviously. For me, I am done building my own rigs, and the OP did not want to go that route either.

As for taxing a quad core box with 8GB of RAM ... Photoshop CS4 with large images is, all on its own, more than capable of bringing it to its knees. If you are just touching up photographs etc. then no, but actual creative work with it, at high resolutions, absolutely will.
 
You know ... I am mixing my needs with the OPs here ... bad trait I am afraid. Sorry about that.

I think we are in general agreement, and our experiences and preferences in build/buy and what software we use are biasing our answers. Or maybe I just need a Scotch :)

Still Photoshop CS4 will certainly make very effective use of four cores and as much RAM as you care to feed it. My only lament with my Mac Pro there is that I did not go for 32GB of RAM out of the gate ... but now I just want to wait for the Nehalem refresh and buy a loaded one of those instead.
 
Get the Mac Pro,


A Dell precision with two Quad-Core approx. 2.8Ghz is $3000+++


Plus you will love OSX even if you have to run windows!!!
Business with Pleasure, that is fits the build.


I love mine to DEATH :D:

 
Torq said:
What is your recommendation for a stable configuration that does consistute support for, lets say 16GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and 2 Dual Core Harpertown Xeons at a minimum 2.8Ghz?
Click to expand...
That's not possible. Dual socket 771 board require DDR2 FB-DIMMs.
 
Archer75 said:
And to actually use multi cores the app must be coded for it, as you know. Some only work with single cores, some only with dual. Very few with quad. It's something I would certainly check in to before I made a purchase.
Click to expand...
Mecca said he wanted the machine for content creation, including 3D animation. 3D animation applications are pretty much always multi-threaded. Not all parts of them are, but the bits that are really CPU-dependant and really slow generally are. Rendering usually achieves about a 95+ % multi-threading efficiency, even on eight cores.
 
I am going to jump in this thread as well with my vote for the Mac Pro. I recently made the switch from a desktop self-built gaming rig to a new 2x 3.0GHz Mac Pro and I absolutely love it!

I am a UNIX guy by trade (software dev) and an avid gamer, and spent a lot of time reading up and planning. I did manage to get one fast, kick-ass machine that will game "Ok" in OS X but will fly in Windows.

Here's what I did:

The Mac Pro is configured with 2x 3.0GHZ Xeons as stated above, with 8GB of Corsair RAM (for now).

I then replaced the Superdrive with a SATA burner for a speed boost (as there are two extra ports on the motherboard for SATA / eSATA).

Pulled the default 320GB drive and dropped in 4x Velociraptors and connected them to a Caldigit RAID card.

Put a 150GB Velociraptor in the upper bay for the OS drive for OS X / Vista. Nice quick boots with the data for both OS X and Windows being stored on the Caldigit array (as it is supported in Windows and OS X without a hitch).

Put a GTX 280 into the Mac Pro and set it to the primary display adapter in Vista. It won't work in OS X as you need a supported EFI video card ... for now. That's Ok though, as I only need that card for gaming (like I said, for now). OS X uses the 8800GT and it is amazing how fast their OpenGL video driver is.

For sound I grabbed a Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1, a USB sound card. Under OS X you get sound which is OK (no 5.1 remember), but under Windows it works perfectly!!

The point of the above is to show the OP (and whoever else cares) that a Mac Pro can still make it as a good gaming rig while being an AMAZING workstation. I couldn't recommend it enough.

Besides that, the Bootcamp stuff under x64 "just works".

My 0.02,


- Stan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top