Hi,

Years ago I built a dual processor system using two 2ghz Athlon MP chips and a Tyan mb. It was satisfyingly fast.

Later, when it died, I replaced it with a Dell with Dual 2.4ghz Xeon chips, which was a bit slower than the previous system. I thought this might be due to the better performance of the Athlon chips.

Later still, I replaced that with a Dell with a Pentium 4 dual core 3.4ghz chip. This is way slower than the original Athlon system.

Each system had more ram than the previous, the two earlier ones ran winders2000 and the last one xp.

I tend to run two cad system, word, excel, acrobat, firefox, thunderbird, and a couple of other things all the time. Same for all systems, mostly all the same versions.

So, I'm thinking the dual core system is so much slower than the separate chip systems because all the external stuff is shared between the two cores, while the separate chip systems have everything duplicated for the two chips.

Is this a correct assumption?

The reason I'm asking is I'm now looking to replace the latest system, but all the multi processor system now offered are all multi core as well. I'm thinking that if I have four quad core chips, xp will run everything on one chip, and I'll have the same performance hit.

Thanks!

I think you've just had odd luck with the "upgrade" path you took. The Athlon system was around the time AMD was noticeably ahead of Intel. AMD was making major inroads with servers at the time, and the Tyan motherboard and setup was likely a very solid platform.

The Xeon at 2.4ghz doesn't give me a full idea of what exact Xeon it was. Some Xeons from that era were derived from the Pentium 4, a chip that did have performance issues. To drive the clock speed up, they kept increasing the instruction pipeline. Apple had an explanation of this in their keynote a number of years back (prior to their switch to Intel). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38 is worth a watch. For your earlier AMD system, the pipeline was much shorter then what was likely in the Xeon.

The Dual core Pentium 4 chips were two physical processors chips placed into a single package. Beyond the general issues with the P4 architecture and the pipeline mess, this package setup led to other issues. Often, these processors were placed onto motherboards that weren't fully built to support multi-core processors. And since they were still two separate chips in one package, they didn't benefit the way proper multicore chips do. Proper multicore (one chip, multiple processors) can skip sending messages across a bus (slower then in chip messaging), and often share the same cache.

Oh, and the other issue that might have caused problems on the Xeon and P4 system, Hyperthreading. This was a trick Intel did to make a single processor core appear as multiple processors. If done correctly, this can boost system performance, since it helps utilize more of the processor. The P4 era hyperthreading was bad though, and at times could impact performance by a noticeable amount. Modern hyperthreading has been improved quite a bit, and better OS kernel support has also helped.

Thankfully Intel finally came to their senses and killed the P4, replacing it with the Core architecture. The initial Core chips were basically reworked Pentium 3 processors, with their architecture dating back to the very solid Pentium Pro days. The newer Core 2/i3/i5/i7 chips are a proper generational jump to a new architecture, one without the major design flaws of the P4 architecture.

Honestly, you need to move off Windows XP if you want to take better advantage of any modern multiprocessor (multiple chips, or multi core) setup. The OS plays a major role in how work is divided between all the processors, and the XP kernel is simply too old to properly account for modern processor setups. On the same multi processor multicore setup at a previous job, we saw a noticeable jump in compile speed simply by changing from Windows XP to Windows 7.

No.

Unfortunately I'm stuck with xp for a while. Most of the plc programming software I use is not vista/7 compatible and I have a lot of old engineering programs that also don't run under 7. Even the stuff I can buy "upgrades" for would run me about $4k usd, a bit much for me, especially since these programs are not what need the performance increase (word, excel, etc...).

So, buy the Dell multi quad?

If you are going to invest in a Xeon system with multiple processors, I'd advise you to wait if you can. The current E56xx processors are quite old, and due for a refresh in November. Most of them came out around March 2010.

If you are eyeing Xeons in the E3-12xx range, they are mostly just rebranded Core i5/i7 chips, and work in a single processor setup only. Better to just pick a Core i5/i7 based system at that point.

And I will put in a serious recommendation for looking at a Mac Pro if you wait for the new Xeons. When I bought mine in 2008, I priced the identical config against Dell Precisions, HP's workstations, and one other company I can't remember now. Even with the cost of a Windows license added to the Mac Pro, it came in cheaper then Dell and HP, and it's been a very solid machine. I think peter here did the same at some point.

Getting XP to run on a new machine, Mac or not might be tricky though, since it is well past the supported timeframe and newer motherboards may not even have drivers for XP. Windows 7 does have an XP mode with Professional and up. I don't know how well it would work with the apps that are XP only, but may be a solution. You would need Win 7 Pro anyhow, since home only supports one processor.

And, as we've discovered here, sometimes Win7 will tell you "it won't work", but if you ignore the warning message and run it anyway, it works fine.

Another option, if you're getting a quad-core machine with a load of ram, is to run the stuff that must run in XP in a virtual machine, and everything else (like your office apps) natively.

Oh, and there's always the normal "compatibility mode" settings. Navigate in the Windows Explorer (not Internet explorer) to the location where your executable is. Right-click on the .exe file, and select "properties." In the dialog box that pops up, there's a "Compatibility" tab. Select that, and toggle on the "Run this program in compatibility mode for".

The XP mode stuff detailed in the above link may not be necessary, at all.

The XP mode above is a virtual machine (running via VirtualPC), nicely prepackaged and integrated to show just the app, and not the full Windows XP desktop by default.

Free download for anyone running a valid Windows 7 Pro license.

Ah, I see. I couldn't watch their Silverlight video.

I did, but that was the very first generation of Intel Mac Pro -- five years ago! -- and since then some Apple tax seems to have crept in, progressively so at the high end. Today's dual-socket Mac Pro seems to come with Xeon E5620, E5650, or E5670 at price differentials of £1200 and then £1000, compared with chip price differentials of £900 and then £600. At that rate you could in theory save twenty-five quid by buying the E5620 one, throwing its CPUs in the bin, and buying two E5670s on the open market.

I think there's been some catching-up recently in the non-Apple world in the arena of making PCs that are actually quiet. At least these days we have SSDs and don't have to put up with the scream of 10k or 15k RPM winchesters.

Peter

I think this is just a result of how old the current Mac Pros are. It's been 419 days, and traditionally Apple doesn't lower prices as the products age. The best time to buy them is when a new model is introduced, as it's the most likely time Apple equipment will be price competitive with the others. The flip side is that it's best to buy a competitor after the current generation has been on the market a while. All depends on where you want to be, new when it's properly new, or new to you when vendors other then Apple are running price cuts to clear inventory. Apple's products will only see clearance prices after the new model is introduced.

I apologize for the obvious stance I'm taking, and I'm sure you'll be able to throw some numbers up to dispute it, but the Mac Pros have always seemed overpriced to me, even when new models are released. It's been an extremely long time since a base computer was worth $2500, which is where the Pro always seems to start.

Then again, my main problem with the Pro is the same one many people have: Apple refuses to make a computer in between the the Pro and the Mini (iMac doesn't count), and I just wish they would. I guarantee you that I would own an Apple computer right now if they'd had a $1200-1500 Intel system a few years ago when I built the system I have now. And no, the iMac is not an option for me. I don't upgrade my monitor that often, and I do not want my computer tied into my monitor.

Anyway, I'll plunk down the cash for a Mini one of these days, because I don't see Apple releasing a reasonably priced Mac Pro. Still, I can't see using the Mini for a lot of processor-intensive stuff like video encoding. I've already tested it on my mom's system and Handbrake ran much slower on her brand new Mini than it did on my three year system...

This is a bit off topic, but yes, I agree with Matt. This year, I took my first baby steps in the Mac world, as my new company computer was a Mac. A shiny new Mac Book Pro 15", worth about 2500 euro in its current configuration.

And while I like the Mac OS, love the design (which is second to none) and have bought an iPad 2 since then (which I also love), I still have an issue with the price Apple asks for its hardware. In this case I didn't have to pay for the notebook myself, but I doubt I ever would have. I mean, come on: 2500 euro? If you buy the hardware equivalent of this MacBook Pro in the PC world, you'll pay about 800 euro. This means you effectively can buy THREE PC notebooks, using equal hardware, for the price of ONE MacBook Pro. Now, I would have no problem paying about 50% more, but 300% more is just greedy. Even if you consider Macs usually make for a better price on the second-hand market.

I don't want to make this into a "bash Apple on its prices"-topic though, because I do agree the system certainly has its merits. The OS is very nice to work with and its very stable. But on the other hand, I have to admit that most of my stability issue with windows were also gone since XP SP2. (I was smart enough to skip Vista and am now on Win7, wich is also very stable for me - I still have to encounter my first BSOD and it's been running for more than a year).

The Apple hardware is beautiful and just breathes "class", more than any competing PC product does. But same as Matt, I also don't want a computer in my monitor! My monitor is the piece of hardware upgrade the least of my entire computer setup. I've been using the monitor I'm typing this on for 6 years, it's been used with three hardware setups by now and I don't see that changing any time soon, short of it dying (in which case I'll simply buy a new monitor) Apple definitively left a gap in their range for not offering a desktop unit between the mini and the Mac Pros. Because I must admit I've been in doubt once or twice if I would get a mac mini or not. I never end up doing so because in the end there is nothing I could do with it that I can't do with my current pc, and there would be no speed upgrade as well. And call me old fashioned, but I also like to be able to put a couple of harddisks in my pc case, just to have a lot of local storage. I know there's now such things as NAS'es, and I even run a Windows Home Server (which, agreed, is not a true NAS, but comes close), but still, that's how I feel about it.

So for me, personally, I don't see myself switching to Apple completely. And it's not a question of not liking the OS or the way it works (because I do!), its simply a matter of cost. I simply cannot justify spending more on a laptop than most people make in a month over here, especially if I could have almost the same functionality with only spending about the equivalent of a week's pay for most.

That, and there's always hackintosh.

Not sure what numbers I can throw out that would sway your opinion that a computer (any machine) at $2500 is overpriced. All I'll say is that some people value tools differently then others, and the Mac Pro sits in the workstation class machine. As a workstation, when the new models are released, I've generally found it quite price competitive to every other workstation class machine out there. I didn't do exact comparisons with the 2010 models, but I can state factually that in 2008, my Mac Pro was cheaper then a Dell or HP equivalent workstation class machine. (in USD, didn't check every currency and region around the world ) I'm mostly sure the same is true for 2009, as I helped a coworker decide on his specs for one.

Working in an industry where millions of dollars are spent to then hopefully make a few million more, there isn't much room to tolerate cheaper PCs. It's just not worth it to save a few hundred on the machine and run the risk of memory errors, or poorly designed computers that destroy the SATA controller under normal operation. Nor is it worth it to saddle highly paid engineers with a machine they are waiting on all the time because it only has 4 processor cores to compile on.

On the laptop side, I haven't poked my head around to see what is competing with the MacBook Pro to really say much. My main use for such a machine in the past was as a primary machine, and a portable gaming laptop. With my current situation, and if I didn't have a work provided laptop, I'd probably go with an Air again. It's a very nice and light form factor that I appreciate, with still enough power in it that I don't feel like it's too slow. Yep, an Air is more expensive then a netbook, but I find an Air much more usable for what I want over the netbooks I looked at a while back.

OS wise, I've even attempted to go back to Windows, evaluating the landscape again earlier this year when I had my Windows Phone 7. Sure, Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista, and I could probably say it's an improvement over XP. However, with almost exactly 10 years worth of OS X experience under my belt, there are still many workflow issues Windows simply doesn't address that I now depend on daily. I could switch back if I had to, but I don't want to. I like the Apple way for their OS, and I don't see it as a negative as some others do.

As for the form factor issues, we've been over that in the past, and I have nothing really new to add to that debate. Their hardware, including my iMac at work, works for me. I'm happy to have a NAS to ensure my data is machine agnostic, and I'm looking forward to utilizing Thunderbolt to in my future machine down the road to eliminate my one desire for a proper PCIe slot.

I just did a quick UK comparison between the base Mac Pro and a Dell Precision workstation.

Mac Pro: £2,221.00
Dell: £1,248.00

I don't know enough about GPUs to know how they compare exactly, 1GB ATI Radeon HD 5770 in the Mac vs 1 GB NVIDIA Quadro 600 in the Dell. But I'm guessing that picking a properly equivalent* GPU in the Dell would only add another couple of hundred (it would appear that the 5770 can be had for <£100 for example).

So a fair premium.

Don't get me wrong, I love my new MacBook Pro and am happy that I paid a premium over an "equivalent" PC laptop. But the relative prices of Mac Pros are anything but close to the "equivalent" spec Wintel PC.


* the Dell site overs a bewildering array of other GPU options, but I have no idea how they compare to each other

Tom, I'd be fine with the price if Apple made a computer that I and many others want. I don't want an iMac for the same reasons I would never buy a rumored Apple television: I don't want convergence, and I don't replace my screens as often as my computers.

That's why the Mac Pro is expensive, because if you don't want a Mini or a new monitor, you have no choice but to spend a minimum of $2500. I don't argue that the Mac Pro is incredible hardware, but Apple is fully capable of making a $1200-1500 computer with Sandy Bridge chips in it. Do you have a theory for why it is that Apple doesn't make a mid-range desktop?

Out of curiosity, what do you want your $1200 Mac to do that the quad core Mac Mini doesn't ?

A better GPU and more hard drive slots I'm guessing ?

Hopefully both of those can be solved via Thunderbolt addons in the near future.

I'm guessing you'd also like more RAM slots as well, which is more of a problem (I really wish the MacBook Pro had 4 slots).

I don't have a theory. I know with a certainty why. Because low margins on low sales makes for poor ROI. Mac desktop sales, including the mini are insignificant compared to those of the notebooks and iMacs. They have been this way for over 6 years and they're only getting more insignificant each year.

The iMac is what started Apple's reversal of fortune over ten years ago and what prompted other manufacturers to start copying them.

The consumers have spoken and Apple has responded. If Apple had seen trends going in a different direction, they would have adapted accordingly. Unlike other product segments where Apple has managed to create its own category, the desktop PC market would, IMO, prove a lot more difficult. I believe the bottom line is that regardless of tricks or treats, the market just isn't interested in computers with the capability to be upgraded.

You can see for yourself the lack internal card products compared to external equivalents. Personally speaking, I don't know anyone (and have never known) who is not a computer geek who has ever purchased an add-in card or CPU upgrade on their own.

Back to the Mac Pro specifically, the case alone is probably worth some $500-$700

I am (or was; what I'm about to say might disqualify me) a computer geek, and I don't usually bother purchasing an add-in card or CPU upgrade these days.

I do appreciate the ability to spec out what I want in the PC at purchase time (either from Dell, for example, or because I'm building it myself), but once it's built, it tends to stay that way.

I did buy a new graphics card for my desktop PC recently, but if that hadn't been an option, I'd have just bought a new PC. It wouldn't have been a Mac, though.

The other piece I left out earlier is that Apple rarely changes processors without a full model revision. Dell on the other hand is constantly looking at new processors and adding them as options, including cheaper Xeons at the same performance rating as older ones Apple may still be using.

In no way am I trying to say Apple is always price competitive. In my personal experience, again with USD, they are cheaper when comparing identical specs, when new models are launched. YMMV when the Apple model is dated, especially over a year old now. Or when comparing non identical specs. Apple does offer far fewer options from other vendors, resulting in situations where a similar spec machine may be available from another vendor.

In this case the Dell I compared is using exactly the same Xeon as the Mac

Same here. Personally, I can't imagine not building my personal home PC. I would not give up the possibility to spend my money in the components I want, building a system that matches the price level and the specs I want. Also, even though my initial goal in building a system is to design it to last as long as possible, still I always end up changing some component over time.
Also, usually I don't re-install the OS for years; I upgrade it as much as possible (32->64 bits did not allow me this), and migrate it from one machine to another.

Not being able to use this type of flexibility is one of the barriers, for me, to enter the Apple universe, although not the only one and probably not the most important. Actually, I satisfactorily use it, occasionally, for work. But I would not make it my personal machine.

I'll never use a desktop as a personal system again, so this doesn't affect me to the same degree. And I'll continue to buy Macs as I don't see any compelling reason to ever go back to using Windows.

I do keep a self-built workstation running Windows as my PVR server, but the only thing that ever gets changed out in it anymore are hard drives. Over the past few years any time I've had to update it I've had to pretty much get rid of everything else (except the case and optical drive). Even the power supply has had to be swapped out because older ones were no longer compatible with new motherboards. In the end, the only reason to keep a desktop-type system here is so that I can use the TV-tuning add-in boards, because the HD space could just as easily live externally as NAS.

Basically. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with not wanting a bunch of external hard drives sitting around with their own power supplies, taking up space and USB ports (if not thunderbolt)? 500GB is already not nearly enough space for me.

And yes, it has a quad core i5, but why can't I want a core i7? Like I said already, I've tried Handbrake on a brand new Mini, and it was slower than on my three year old Core i7 PC.

Anyway, clearly the better option is to buy an iMac and replace my entire monitor every time I want a new computer. Nevermind that I've had the same monitor for six years now and have no plans to replace it for a few years to come. It's also you guys who assumed the hypothetical computer I was talking about was needed for people to swap parts in and out of. I never said that. All I said was that I wanted something that performs somewhere in between the Mini and the Pro. I still haven't heard a good reason why they don't have it. Yeah, I've heard Bruno's reason, but I'm not buying that. I don't see why the sheer existence of the iMac precludes a similarly specced machine without a monitor and with more storage options.

Calm down

I didn't assume anything, I specifically asked what it was you wanted from the machine.

And no one has said you should be happy with an iMac, also no one has said that they don't think a $1,200 desktop Mac wouldn't be good for people who want one. All Bruno said is that he believes Apple don't do one because not many Apple buyers want one, he didn't say such a beast wouldn't be useful to some people.

You may also notice that, generally speaking, the $1200 computers are poorly designed and assembled.

Do you really want a Mac that is as shoddily put together as a Dell Inspiron? Maybe, but Apple doesn't want to go down that road. They want to continue to be thought of as a top-of-the-line manufacturer, and I can understand that, as much as I personally would like to be able to get a desktop Mac for less money than they want.