Which Mac Pro; One 2.93 GHz Quad or Two 2.26 GHz Eight Core?

[Anonymous]

I am in need of a new Mac as my 5 year old G5 Power Mac is getting arthritic. I run ArchiCAD 12 most of the time, with a little Photoshop and Piranesi thrown in at the odd times.

I have read the previous discussion on the two options (One 2.93 Quad or Two 2.26 Eight Core) and feel the verdict is still out.

It seems that looking into the future is necessary, and the big question is whether or not ArchiCAD will be needing 8 cores to process the large 3D files for the buildings I design, and then render them quickly enough as we get more upgrades on the program. I don't want to need to purchase a new computer for another 5 years.

What opinions have people formed now that the new Xeon Nehalem Mac Pros have been out? Any advice and opinions are welcome!

I am considering one of the following:
Mac Pro One 2.93 GHz Quad Core 3 GB SDRAM (w/6 or 8 GB memory upgrade), GeForce GT 120 Video Card
Mac Pro Two 2.26 GHz Eight Core 6 GB SDRAM, 640 GB HD, GeForce GT 120 Video Card

I will be adding another GeForce Card, as I have 2 monitors.

Thank you very much!

[Thomas Holm]

Gail wrote:
I don't want to need to purchase a new computer for another 5 years.

THAT is the crucial part. With such a long perspective, you should aim for th most powerful combination you can afford. The applications, Archicad or Artlantis or whatever, will only get heavier and more demanding but also better utilizing the power of the multicore machines. At the moment, the sweet spot seems to be the 2xQuad-core Nehalem, with 12 GB memory. It shows as 16 cores to the software, using hyperthreading. Go for the 2.26 GHz!
If budget concerned, buy the basic upgradable parts, (memory and graphic card) and count on upgrading them later.
Read this test: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/04/266ghz-8-core-mac-pro-review.ars

[Chazz]

I've been happy with my 8 core 2.66 but the disconcerting thing is how LITTLE ArchiCAD ever uses the available cores. Lately I've been working with Activity Monitor/CPU usage on and the conclusion you have to draw from this is that there is a lot of computer under my desk that is not doing much. Unless I thought GS would be making use of more of the cores in future releases (doubtful), I'd recommend getting a faster 4 core machine. Skip the 8 core altogether. The issue with the 4 core is the limited Ram slots and the expense of 4 gig chips.

In short, the machine is great, the problem is AC.

[Thomas Holm]

Chazz wrote:
I've been happy with my 8 core 2.66 but the disconcerting thing is how LITTLE ArchiCAD ever uses the available cores....

Chazz, with all due respect, I think your negativity clouds your conclusions. If you think back 5 years, you'll see what's happened in the mean time with both hardware and software. I think it highly likely that GS will considerably overhaul the internals of Archicad in the coming years (just read what Cigraph's representatives have hinted at in another thread).

Such an overhaul will just as likely concern how it utilizes multiple cores. To look 5 years ahead isn't easy, but just as with weather forecasts, the safest bet is that the recent development will go on, more or less. AC12 is multithreaded in several aspects, not single-threaded like previous releases, and that development will continue!

The difference btw 2.26 and 2.66 GHz is minimal, but the difference btw 4-8-16 cores can become huge with this development. Also, the 2.66 4-core machine cannot currently utilize as much memory as the 8/16-core 2.26 MacPro. Read the test I linked to!

[Chazz]

Thomas wrote:
Chazz, with all due respect, I think your negativity clouds your conclusions....

No need for the respect. We Nabobs dont expect it.

Here is what I've learned over the last several years, expressed as an equation:

ArchiCAD upgrades = Disappointment.

So often the upgrade includes junk I don't want. The last several "upgrades" have included mostly:

• 1) Stuff I don't need (Curtain wall tool)
  2) Stuff I don't want (Trace)
  3) Stuff that should have been done ages ago (3D Docs, better detail linking)
  4) Stuff that should have been a free .01 fix because the previous functionality was so laughably terrible (dimension tool enhancements )
  5) OR is something I do want but is not bundled (VBE, MEP modeler)

Thomas wrote:
To look 5 years ahead isn't easy, but just as with weather forecasts, the safest bet is that the recent development will go on, more or less. AC12 is multithreaded in several aspects, not single-threaded like previous releases, and that development will continue!

In 5 years we will be using Revit (keep praying for that Mac version) or feel like dorks for not using Revit. Now that is a product that is getting some good upgrades.

[Thomas Holm]

OK Chazz, you really live up to your signature. I just don't think you should let your own AC disappointment influence your hardware advice this way.

Because I'm positively convinced that if you're talking hardware, it doesn't matter wether we'll be using Archicad or something else in five years. Revit may not be there completely yet, but I'm sure they - and others - will be utilizing multiple cores soon too. And even perhaps in a more demanding way, especially if it means you'll have to install Vista or W7-64 on the machine.

[Chazz]

Here in the US, the quad core is $800 less than the cheapest 8 core. That's a lot of scratch for 4 extra cores that ArchiCAD does not use now and may or may not use in future. If you use a lot of Apple creative apps (logic, FCP, etc) or Atlantis etc, you could see some gains but otherwise, I remain unconvinced of the value proposition. As I start to increasingly use Artlantis, I appreciate the 8 cores more but this i still a pretty small fraction of my usage. With these caveats, I'm sticking by my original recommendation. Go quad core.

[Thomas Holm]

Chazz wrote:
...Go quad core.

I'd agree with Chazz if the perspective ahead was just two years. But thinking five years ahead, I'm convinced 8-core is the only viable choice, if the budget allows it.

[Anonymous]

I've ordered the quad-core with 8 GB ram.
In computer development 5 years is like eternity. I'll be more than happy to replace this machine in x? years for a 32-core - 64 GB ram - 2 GB graphic card or wathever I can dream of

[Chazz]

Joeri wrote:
I've ordered the quad-core with 8 GB ram.

Per the reports on bare feats I thought the choice was between 6 GB and 12 GB RAM. Seems like the biggest bang for buck is in the first 3 slots.

Why is this thing so hard to spec? Jeeze, it's like ordering from Dell.....