# Would I be crazy replacing a 2008 Mac Pro with the new RMBP?



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

With my new RMBP slated to arrive tomorrow, I am considering my options on how to integrate it into my workflow and network.

I currently have an original 11-inch MBA from 2010 and an 8-core 2.8 Mac Pro from 2008. I highly doubt I will keep three computers going once the RMBP arrives. I initially thought I would retire the Air and sell it since I'm not travelling as much as I used to, and the weight of the RMBP is rather manageable.

But now after looking at some benchmarks, I'm considering using the RMBP as my only machine, and connecting it to my 25" NEC Pro display at home. It seems that the 2.3GHz quad-core Ivy Bridge chip in the RMBO doesn't give up much in terms of performance compared to my old Pro (especially with 16GB, compared to 10GB in my Pro), and with USB3, I have some good affordable external storage options too.

I'd like to go with something like a 27" Thunderbolt Display to make docking super easy, but the colour gamut of the current display is too limited, and the glass surface is not appealing to me.

Anyways, am I crazy to think I could replace a Pro with the RMBP?


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Some folks on here were talking about some good colour accurate displays. I think MacDoc sells them. Also if you're display is mini display port it can go at the end of a Thunderbolt chain (I think)

I use my MBP as my desktop. So I'm sure you can use your RMBP as one too!


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I already have a NEC LCD2690WUXi2 (which I purchased from MacDoc), and I'm very satisfied with it. It's DVI only, but I do have a MDP to DVI adapter that I can use. Having two TB ports on the RMBP should also allow me to connect a second monitor which is native display port. I don't plan on using thunderbolt for much, USB3 is just as good for storage and much more affordable.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Hi ID,

Here's what I would do:

- sell your air, keep your 8 core and use the new RMBP (jealous btw!) as your main work machine.

- you could sell the MP, but you wouldn't get alot for it and to be honest, you'd probably see more value using it as a backup machine (for system and/or client files) or occasionally running some tasks on it. Just plug it into your network without a monitor and share the screen.

I do this with a G5, G4 and 2009 MP with the latter 2 being used quite a bit. I thought about selling them, but for what I could get, they are worth more being used occasionally.

Enjoy!
Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I guess it comes down to how much you value the extra internal storage and pci-e slots of the mac pro.

even USB3 externals won't perform as well as internal SATA drives (the HDDs are still SATA drives after all.... so at best need to be converted from SATA to USB3 in any enclosure). Also, while thunderbolt gives a lot of options, I (personally) rather have the the PCI-e slots.

regarding the early benchmarks of the new MPBs vs a 2008 Mac Pro, keep in mind those benchmarks are theoretical, and don't really reflect everyday real world use. Unless programs are specifically written to make use of the extra virtual cores, clock speed & physical processors will sometimes outperform a processor with virtual cores and a slower speed (although i guess the turbo boost may also be a factor in favour of the newer chips).


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

That's an interesting suggestion to keep the Mac Pro n the network as a secondary machine. My oly concern wold be the continuous 350W power draw of keeping that machine running 24/7. That does add up after a while, and I don't like wasting energy. I already use a low-power Atom windows machine as a file server and iTunes server for the appleTVs and it works well.

As for the performance of the RMBP vs the Pro, I will find out soon enough (fedex is still saying delovery by non today!) If my experience on the PC side translates to Mac in a similar fashion, Ivy bridge is significantly faster than Penryn clock for clock, and Turbo Boost adds even more to the difference. My main apps, Aperture and Photoshop, never use all 8 cores very well anyways, although I have not tried CS6 yet.

It just seems that the 2008 Pro is a large power-hungry beast. If there was a Mac Mini with a quad-core CPU and discrete graphics, I probably would already have made the move to the Mini.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> Hi ID,
> 
> Here's what I would do:
> 
> ...



He could still easily get over a grand for that machine which isn't chump change.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> He could still easily get over a grand for that machine which isn't chump change.


wow. I was thinking that the last time I looked, my 2009 quad wasn't worth more than 1100 so I just did the assume thing and maybe i'm wrong  

ID, if you do keep it, it doesn't have to be on 24/7. Mine are only on when needed (for backups or while working on a project). Otherwise they're off.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> wow. I was thinking that the last time I looked, my 2009 quad wasn't worth more than 1100 so I just did the assume thing and maybe i'm wrong
> 
> ID, if you do keep it, it doesn't have to be on 24/7. Mine are only on when needed (for backups or while working on a project). Otherwise they're off.


The OPs machine is a:



> *8-core *2.8 Mac Pro from 2008


it is worth more than your slightly newer *quad*... depending on one's needs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it's not - 
The Quad is easily as fast as it multithreads to 8 processing threads and has faster and cheaper RAM plus much faster internal bandwidth.

The 2.8 is a good machine but ram prices are a downer and it's not as "quick" - tho very powerful.

The two are about equal in value mid teens depending on config.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> No it's not -
> The Quad is easily as fast as it multithreads to 8 processing threads and has faster and cheaper RAM plus much faster internal bandwidth.
> 
> The 2.8 is a good machine but ram prices are a downer and it's not as "quick" - tho very powerful.
> ...


I stand corrected... but the point I was making is it is still a very capable machine and worth over a grand... like I said not chump change.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes that is correct - it is a very good machine and finally coming on the market at reasonable price points now Apple has it's tower prices realigned.

The RAM price is the real downer - many clients go to 24 or 32 gigs now and it's a grand for that in the 2.8 8 core  versus $2-300 on the newer models.


----------



## jagga (Jul 23, 2005)

ID,

I think you should further consolidate your hardware lineup - scraping the windows boxen after migrating the iTunes library over. Keep the Pro for another month or two, and check out mother thread in this forum section from someone that uses FCX & Mac Mini Server (SATA3 & SSD). If that can do what you require, sell off the Pro. 

Consider the huge difference in WATTS max - Mac mini: Power consumption and thermal output (BTU) information - of the mini vs the current Pro over 1mth + on that hydro bill: it's not getting any cheaper 
, actually increasing every month at random!

Congrats on the new MBP R-Type! Looking forward to how you make out with your future setup, keep us posted.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

The windows machine will probably stay, and I'm pretty happy with it actually. It's a low-power Intel ATOM 1.6 GHz dual-core machine, which has similar power usage as a Mini (about 45W). The upside is that it can handle two 3.5" hard drives, so storage capacity is bigger than what any Mini can do. That windows machine only serves two purposes:

-Duplicate iTunes library (about 1.6TB at this time), which is always on for use by the AppleTV devices or remote play to iOS devices. It is kept in sync with my main library (currently on the Mac Pro) using Home Sharing.

-Live backup device using crashplan backup I have setup with a friend. Essentially everything I put in a certain directory is backed up to his crashplan server and vice versa, so we both have off-site backup.

Both of those functions could be performed with any Intel Mac Mini (and at one point in the past, were handled by a Mac Mini), but I prefer the option of having 3+ TB of fast, internal storage.

I'm pretty certain I will sell the Pro in the near future. I'm just not sure what I'd replace it with, if anything. My RMBP is faster than any Mini currently available, so it would seem to be a bit of a regression to go that way. I'm leaning towards USB 3.0 as my external storage standard rather than TB, so I don't really want to buy a current mini with USB 2.0. If a new quad-core mini with USB3 and good discrete graphics is announced shortly (i.e, at the same time as Mountain Lion), I would be very interested to try that out. Or if a retina iMac appears out of nowhere, I'd jump on that, but I highly doubt they can pull that off technically.

I'm well aware of the power and heat issues with large desktop computers. In parallel to my Apple setup, I have a Windows machine with a 6-core Sandy Bridge-E CPU (overclocked to 4.4 GHz), 32GB RAM and dual ATI 7970 video cards. It is used for gaming and video encoding/transcoding (and blows any Apple machine out of the water, which is a bit of a shame considering I built it for about the same price as the current base Mac Pro). At peak CPU and GPU load, it pulls about 1kW from the outlet, and requires a portable A/C unit to keep the room cool in summer (on top of the central it for the house).


----------

