!Restored: Time for a new Mac?

[Rick Thompson]

I have been reading the new speed results in Macworld regarding the newest Mac Pro desktops, and I am wondering if it is that time again. I am still on a G5 (2Ghz). It seems the new ones overall score are from 294 (basic) to 327 (all the way). My G5 is rated overall at 166, so that says it is time. However, with AC, I just don't know if the "overall" has much meaning or not. My guess is running AC would not see that percent increase.

My main areas I could benefit would be opening files, updating externally linked drawings, publishing etc. Renderings are not as important, but of course, they count too. I might open and close quite a few files each day, so updating is where I tend to get impatient.

And, then there is the G5 and the intel factor. I think there is not that much difference there, if anyone knows, i would appreciate hearing your experience. I think processor speed is the biggest factor (?).

Assuming (haha) GS is busy making AC multi-processor enabled, then the 8 core would be worth the extra few hundred.

Oh well, any feedback would be appreciated.


thanks

[Erich]

Hi all,

I've been following the conversation with some interest as a number of future AC users in our office are using Macs w/ the suspect ATI card. Since apple just released a graphics update for Leopard (see here for additional information: http://www.powerpage.org/2008/02/apple_releases_leopard_graphics_10_update.html ) as well as the long anticipated 10.5.2 update.

I am wondering, has anyone tried this? Does it fix the issues?

[Rick Thompson]

I have installed it, but I never had any graphic problems, but it did seem to address graphic issues. You do need to install the major update, then recheck to get the graphic update as 10.5.2 must be installed first.

[Scott Bulmer]

Rick and others, thank you for this information. Regarding memory for the new Mac Pro, I have come to understand that OWC and Crucial provide much cheaper memory than Apple. I'm no expert, but it looks like the memory is basically the same on each site, however is a little more spendy from Crucial at $940/4GBx2. OWC is at $750. Is the memory at Crucial somehow better, thereby commanding a higher price? Or is it that Crucial is notoriously more expensive? Thanks for any advise you have.
Scott

[Rick Thompson]

Mine came from OWC, and seems fine to me. I have used them for years and never had an issue.

[Dwight]

Upon switching from Crucial to OWC this time at the suggestion of our Archicad colleagues, there seems to be no problem and cheaper delivery to Canada.

[Dwight]

At that price you could have 8x2Gb chips from OWC

[Scott Bulmer]

Dwight wrote:
At that price you could have 8x2Gb chips from OWC

That raises another question, perhaps this has been answered somewhere else.......is 8x2GB a better configuration or 4x4?

[Dwight]

Yo, Scooter!

The Mac Pro can employ 32 Gb in eight slots.
It is proven to work better with at least 8Gb.

The price of denser Ram is always a premium, especially at the beginning of the purchasing cycle - like now. I don't think 4Gb chips result in a quicker machine than 2Gb chips.

I bought 8x2Gb, discarded the 2x1Gb that came with and all the slots are full. I decided this was optimal since by the time I can exploit more ram than that, it will be time for a new machine. $849.

If you have the dream of more than 16Gb ram, then pay the premium and get the dense ram with an eye to filling the slots later with less expensive chips. It is a hefty premium right now. You might consider 8x2Gb and resell them later when 4Gb chips descend. You could be ahead financially that way.

BTW: Extreme easy install on hard drives and RAM - no need to be scared of after market add-ons. They made the hard drive slots so your grandma could do it with a soup spoon and a phillips head screw driver.

BTW: Don't mix OWC RAM with the Apple RAM. The OWC RAM ridicules the Apple RAM when there is nothing else to do, like at night.
"Hey, overpriced Apple RAM. Youse only gots eight fins while we gots 14. We way cooler than you."

[Scott Bulmer]

Hey LightMaster -

That OWC RAM sounds like a pretty bad-a*s dude. I sense that the next evolutionary step for this RAM would be the purchase of mini-RAM sunglasses and mini- RAM bling. THEN it would start harassing and hand gesturing other Apple components. This could end up being a nightmare! Considering the opposite spectrum, I've heard the Crucial RAM to be much more polite and sociable.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Scott,

barefeats.com has some memory tests that show that the performance is best with all 8 slots filled. Graphs show a big jump in performance from 2 to 4 slots, and continuing increase at 6 and 8.

www.barefeats.com

Cheers,
Karl