Gizmodo
Anandtech took the Mac Pro through their exhaustive hardware review process, then compared it to the old PowerMac to see just how much added improvement the switch to Intel made. The results? It's definitely faster as long as you're not using Rosetta to run non-universal binary applications.
On the inside, assembly-wise, the Mac Pro has many advantages over the PowerMac. There are four very easily accessible SATA hard drive sliders to add more storage. The RAM and PCI-E cards are both also very easy to get to when you have to make upgrades. Definitely an improvement over the PowerMac. There's also plenty more USB 2.0 and Firewire ports on the outside for external connectivity—again, one of the complaints about the PowerMac.
So how does it perform?
Well, as long as the application was running natively with Intel universal binary code, everything was fine. As soon as you get to Photoshop or the Microsoft Office applications, things start to go slow. Keep this in mind as you make your purchase. If these are part of your daily must-use apps, you may want to stay with a PowerMac for now.
Overall, the Quad-Core (two processors, each dual core) made most applications faster than on the Powermac. Occasionally, when some applications are single threaded, the four cores didn't help much, because you can't split up the threads (tasks) among the cores. Think of it as four guys trying to drink out of one gallon of milk out of the container. If the application were multi-threaded, it'd be like four guys drinking the same gallon of milk that's poured out into four glasses.
One thing Anandtech did find was that the FB-DIMM memory had a pretty steep performance cost. It's a bit technical and dry, so you should head over there if you want to get the nitty gritty.
All in all, this is a pretty powerful machine that's actually the same price as a home-built config of the same specs, and cheaper than a comparable Dell machine. Really!
Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor [Anandtech]
Comments
If someone wants to give me $3k, I'll compare the Mac Pro to a dual 1GHz G4.
Once Adobe flips over to universal binaries (CS3, no doubt) then it'll be perfect for everyone. But I think that going from a G4 to a Mac Pro would be a slight bump up, no?
Anyone done any G4 vs Intel tests?
FlashSandbox:
I might when my PowerBook becomes second fiddle to the Mac Pro I'll be getting within the next couple of weeks. Not that I need to; even in Rosetta, the Pro should thoroughly trounce my G4.
> Quad-Core (two processors, each dual core)
Is that official terminology? Wouldn't it be dual dual-core, or something like that since any month now true 'quad-core' will be coming out?
Seriously -- I don't know the answer. Just asking so I can look real cool at those geek OK Cola parties.
Here's a slight hint to some Intel Core Duo performance vs Power PC. My PPC 2x1.8 G5 powermac (with a GeforceFX 5200 video card) chugged along at about 15FPS in Myst V. My Core Duo 1.8ghz iMac, with a Radeon x1600 running Myst V *under PPC translation* ran the same speed.
This meaningless benchmark brought to you by... something.
It's definitely faster as long as you're not using Rosetta to run non-universal binary applications.
Gee, I never would have guessed that it would be slower when emulating a completely different architecture for really obvious fucking reasons!
Perhaps the more interesting thing is that the earlier Anandtech article priced the Mac Pro as basically as cheap as building it yourself (the price difference was about $100, and the DIY box didn't include a case or power supply (we'll ignore OS, since if you want XP, you'll have to buy it for both machines)).
Nevermind how much the Dell cost (not "twice as much", but almost $1k more). Apple seems intent on shattering the "Mac Tax" myth. Sure it's a lot more computer than you need, but the premium overhead is negative in this respect...
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?