This month, Apple is adding a 12-Core 5000$ desktop to it's store. And I really want it.

The Upgrade

My MacBook has one Core 2 Duo Intel Penryn processor and it's beginning to feel a bit under powered after two years. These days I run Wine, Photo Editing Software, Audio and Photoshop. And that alone eats a lot of my CPU and available RAM (4GB 667 MHz DDR2).

My photoshop files typically end up at around 200MB's but occasionally see sizes up to or just shy of 1GB, which is where all of my RAM is dedicated to when I'm working on select photos and most of my CPU power is dedicated mostly to tasks within Wine.

And on the eve of a new DSLR purchase, I'll likely be getting into video editing, so I'd like a great multi-tasking system that can accomplish movie renders, photoshop renders, and intensive Wine tasks.

I don't do those two things at the same time, but it'd be extremely nice to increase productivity, as my Wine tasks often correlate to my photoshop tasks.


Looking For

Enough processors to do my everyday tasks, plenty of RAM and, a dedicated video card. Plenty of HDD expansion bays are also a plus so I can have on-computer drives to store photos, documents/OS and client files on separate drives.

Minimum:

4-8 Processors
8GB's RAM
3 HDD's (range: 512GB-1TB)


Things I can't live without

Bluetooth. I've become so accustomed to working without cables that I don't want to go wired. With the exception of a network, I wouldn't mind switching to a wired connection due to my persistant wireless router issues.

So, I don't really need the 12-Core Powerhouse but I'm always for an overkill. I can equip 2 ATI 5870's and up to six monitors. And with Adobe Photoshop CS5 utilizing Graphics Cards, it'll be great to have that extra oomph of the 5870, whether or not I get two. But those cards won't serve me much at all until I buy CS5! The 5870 isn't available on the lower core Mac Pro's, at least it isn't advertised as an upgrade on the sale page when you go to purchase one.

My Plans

I've figured I'd install four drives in the Mac Pro: 3 512SSD's and 1 2TB HDD. Using the SSD's for Photos, OS/Docs, & Client Work and the HDD for back-ups for the three drives: 1TB for photos and 512 for the other two.

I'd also add in the two 5870 ATI cards, 16GB's of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM, a second CD/DVD Drive and a wireless N card, in case I ever happen to need it. In upgrades I'm looking at an additional couple grand - which, I could always buy compatible HDD's, and likely RAM for a lot less.


The Operating Systems

Aside from OS X 10.6, I plan to install Windows 7 Ultimate via Bootcamp. But I don't really do anything on Windows; aside from a few Steam games I have.


Why OS X?

Here's where I'll stir more than I have with this entire post. The Mac OS is coded with all the drivers needed into the OS, and you know it'll work because the OS is coded to the hardware and the hardware is made to the OS.

While none of my routine programs are Mac specific, it'd be a bummer to re-buy programs for Windows. Though I don't have CS5, so [re]buying that won't be an issue!

Why such an expensive and massive upgrade? I want something that'll last and push through everything I do. It won't really be used for recreation, that's what I'll have my laptop for. I'm even planning about leaving the desktop without a monitor and just using OS X's Remote Desktop software to access the computer. But it'd be nice to have a dedicated monitor.

Perhaps I'll go with an HDTV or something, rather than those 1+k Apple Cinema HD Monitors, might as well spend that on a TV and use it as a monitor as well!

But I'm not all for Mac, here. I know this will cost me a nice, Minted 2011 (P) Penny. I'm all ears for a Windows alternative that'll cost less but either matches or surpasses the Mac Pro in my minimum requirements for RAM and Processors.

And if there is one already built, massive kudos as I haven't been able to find one. I am not about to build a computer. I won't have the time with School starting, a 40 hour work week and photo shoots with/for clients.

I understand your enthusiasm over "4-8 processors" (what you actually mean are cores, as I don't know of anything other than a super-high-end server that has even 4 physical CPUs these days), but I fear you may be way overly optimistic at how well modern software is written to take advantage of available parallelism. I feel like you're better off sticking with a quadcore processor, maybe getting 8GB of RAM if you feel it's necessary, and making sure your processor has a nice hefty cache for all your photomanipulation.

Regarding prices: Do you have any idea what 3x 512GB SSDs would set you back, assuming that's what you mean by 512SSDs? That on its own would destroy any budget you have, even before the Apple Tax (look, I'm trolling! ). One SSD might be nice for speed, but 3 are overkill in my opinion.

A final point before I pass out: you'll be able to get a great machine if you build yourself a Windows or Linux box, and the amount of thinking it takes is beyond minimal. Modern cases require about 6 screws to secure the motherboard, a few color-coded, idiot-proof cables that only go in one way, and a few other things that go into color-coded slots. Close it up, turn it on.

Whoops!

Hm perhaps. I'll do some reading as to what that is and how it pertains to any of the above post

Yeah. But as it is creating ~11MP's fractal renders is a couple day task, and with my new camera at 18MP's (so, 20MP fractals for some wiggle room, say) will be long, tedious task. Not sure how fast 4 cores and 8GB's of RAM will accomplish that much quicker than 2 and 4, as I'll essentially be doubling the fractal size with double the RAM and cores.

I'm estimating a 512SSD at about 550$. And that's where the Minted Penny comes in! +/

Yeah, I'm greatly over-thinking the work for custom built computer.

I haven't had much success looking around, but are there Mobo's with two CPU slots? I would personally feel much more at ease with eight cores than four Or, I could just wait for the Intel XEON X7560 8-Core CPU.

Another Thought
AMD has a 12 Core SERVER CPU for 800$. Is it alright to use such a CPU in something other than a server, such as a household desktop computer? I have no interest in buying this or any Server CPU but I'm quite curious.

I'm pretty sure only some server or Mac mobos have more than one CPU slot.

Also, Intel Core i7 Quad Core Hyperthreaded CPU. It may only be 4 physical cores but each core can support two threads, allowing the processor to act like 8 cores.

Also, I thought software had to be written to take advantage of additional cores. What's the point of having N cores if the software only supports one or two?

...barg! MUST. RESIST. ARGUING.

Anyways, have you considered spending a teensy bit less on a computer by building it yourself, and then just hackintoshing it for your beloved MacOS? Dropping 5k on a desktop that'll become outdated within 4 years sounds a little insane to me.



As far as I understand, yes, you could. But I seriously doubt it would fit whatever motherboard Apple uses.

*EDIT*
@Keith It also comes in 6 cores, huzzah!
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47933

That's exactly what I meant by parallelism. Software doesn't scale to more processors/cores unless the programmer has explicitly made it so, and unfortunately, at this point most software has very poor support for multiple cores.

Then you live in a dreamworld, because they're more on the order of $1500-$2000:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=512GB+SSD&x=0&y=0

Haha, great idea. But I'm interested in what you have in mind regarding that, send it to me on FaceBook?

Indeed! But I'm not interested in a hackintosh.

Threads are handled by a technology within OS X, not by the individual programs. So if a program is coded with this technology, "Grand Central Dispatch" (GCD), the program can see and use as many cores as the OS can, which appears to be at least 12.


I like how we're borderline on-topic. Let's keep it that way by trying to find a comparable Windows computer (built or in parts). I have no issues going back to Windows but the hardware in this Desktop better be as beastly as the hardware in the 8-Core Mac Pro.

I'm bumping it up to eight cores. I'm extremely worried four cores (even when hyper-threaded) won't be enough.

Indeed, which is wonderful if the programmer writes their program to be able to take advantage of arbitrary numbers of cores. Our point is that's generally not the case; even if the program can see 12 cores, it may only have one or two threads total, so the other 10 cores go idle, and you've wasted money. Just because the features are there, the OS knows about it, and the OS tells the program about it, doesn't mean the program's programmer told it what to do if it has lots of spares. Therefore, many cores is (at this juncture) generally more useful if you're running a lot of programs at once, rather than if you're running one or two very CPU-intensive programs.

Which is what I plan to do. With Photo Editing Software, PhotoShop, Wine and perhaps UT running. If each of those use two cores each at most, then eigh is sufficient and 12 would be overkill - or ideally used for video editing software when I start getting into it.

And regarding the first part of your post Kerm,

But again, the problem is that developers have to use GCD. I'm glad that they're making it easier to distribute threads, that's definitely a step in the right direction, but it does nothing for existing apps. If you research Photoshop though, I bet they do indeed take good advantage of parallelism. For $1K or whatever it costs, I would certainly hope so.

What processor(s) were you eying that have eight cores, comic?

I haven't really been looking at processors, I've just been eyeing the Mac Pro and assuming there are counter parts out there to build/buy a Windows equivalent since Apple's lower end computers seem to be easily replicated for less.

If you take a look at NewEgg, you'll see that the highest currently available is 4-core and 6-core processors, no 8-core CPUs yet. Therefore, you'll want a dual-CPU mobo with two quadcores if the 8-core thing is that important to you

Desktop CPUs at Newegg

That's just Apple's marketing doing what Apple's marketing does best - making standard, normal crap somehow sound "revolutionary" and "magical"

Threads are more or less always handled by the kernel. They are kernel level constructs. GCD is simply a fancy name for a scheduler, which OSes have had for over a decade.

The simple fact is that a program *must* *explicitly* use threads. There is *NO* method of automatic multithreading for most languages, it just doesn't exist. Might as well try to solve the halting problem.




Truly honestly the Mac Pro has a *massive* Apple tax, they really are completely ripping you off.

But here:

($600) 5x Western Digital Caviar Green WD20EARS 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

($160) XFX HD-577X-ZNFC Radeon HD 5770 1GB 128-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

-- No, photoshop will not benefit from 2 GPUs, and no, it won't benefit from a faster GPU. This is already *massive* overkill for Photoshop. Premiere is a completely different story, but for photoshop, this is ridiculous power

($440) ASUS KGPE-D16 Dual Socket G34 AMD SR5690 SSI EEB 3.61 Dual 8/12 Core AMD Opteron 6000 series Server Motherboard

($1,111) 4x Kingston 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 ECC Registered Server Memory Model KVR1333D3D4R9SK2/8G

($600) Corsair Nova CSSD-V256GB2-BRKT 2.5" 256GB SATA II Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

($1490) 2x AMD Opteron 6168 Magny-Cours 1.9GHz Socket G34 115W 12-Core Server Processor OS6168WKTCEGOWOF

$4,400 gets you:

24 1.9ghz cores
32gb RAM (16gb per CPU)
5770 1GB
10 TB hard drive space
256 GB SSD

And it would be stupid.

Really, a single Core i7 six-core is going to be a *far* better option, and even that is a waste.

Now for a *real* build:
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=14223892

Core i7 3.2ghz 6 core
12 GB triple channel RAM
2x2TB in RAID 1
2x120GB SSD in RAID 0 (blow your mind fast)
5770 1GB
Asus P6TD Delux mobo (so good, it's the board I'm using)

Total: $2800

To drop the price like a rock, drop to the 2.8ghz quad core i7-930 (-$600) and get only one 120gb SSD (-$330) and you are now down to $1900 for a seriously bad ass rig.

Also, if you are serious about photo editing, you *NEED* a quality IPS panel and you *NEED* a colorimeter. Not some crappy TV. The 30" Apple isn't a bad choice, but you should really look at a pro display like the NEC PA series (http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Series/?series=b7e3df18-9477-4f55-a29c-ad0fbdf58464). Expect a 24" to set you back about $1000, and then a quality colorimeter (like the lacie blue eye pro) to be another $300-400.

And really, if you plan to edit photos over a remote desktop connection, you are a complete retard who might as well do his shoots with a cell phone camera. Your DSLR will be a complete waste of money.

See, this is the kind of thing that we keep Kllrnohj around for. That is a serious off-the-wall insane $4400 rig. 10TB, 24 cores, and 32GB of RAM? In what is now passe lingo, that could certainly run Crysis.

Uh, Kerm? That was 4x 8GB - as in, 32gb of RAM

Edit by Kerm: whoops, reading fail.

And actually you would want a more powerful GPU for Crysis - probably a 5970 since I'm not sure if CF/SLI are supported on that motherboard. SLI isn't, that's for sure, but I'm not sure about CF.

EDIT: Oh, and add $300 for the case and PSU I forgot to add on that $4400 build - oops

I bet it would be a pretty ginormous case to fit a machine that beastly. Any idea what the power consumption on that box would be?

Probably not as bad as you might think. The TDP on the CPU is 80w, so two of them would be 160w. Figure another 30w for the GPU at idle, maybe 130w at load. Add the draw from all those harddrives and crap and maybe 500w under a very heavy load?

Well, 1kW is certainly nothing to laugh at for a desktop under full load, but given all the power you crammed into it, I'd say you're getting quite the decent per-watt computing power. Imagine folding on that beast.

Sweet, I like how that sounds. I'll likely ditch the SSD's and keep the 6-Core or upgrade to 12-Core; 120GB's isn't all that important when I easily take 4GB's of photos a session which would last me a few months, 330$ for four months of photos is a bit steep, especially when I delete all the un-rated/bad photos after six months.

One thing I find lacking from that is Bluetooth. But it shouldn't be hard to add that in there - without sacrificing USB slots.

Now, I found a RAID card for 15$ and 565$, and one of the differences that I'm vastly curious over is that the 565$ sports "Single Disk." I did some Googling but was only able to assume that it takes data from one disk and copies it to two disks, requiring three disks. Yes?

And truthfully, I've been eyeing RAID for a while. But the 600$ price tag from Apple was off-setting. Is it possible to setup to RAIDs within a system? Such as: Drives A & B are read as a single Drive, E. Drives C & D are read as a single Drive, F. Because that'd be awesome for both photo and client data, my Document/OS drive won't need RAID as much as it'll need an external back-up. And with the Money I'd be saving here I might as well buy a 10TB external - or so - to back-up all my on-computer data.

RAID Cards (somehow, [url] didn't work.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007607&IsNodeId=1&srchInDesc=1&page=1&bop=And&ActiveSearchResult=True&CompareItemList=410|16-132-001^16-132-001-TS,16-116-072^16-116-072-S01

Comic, for you uses Software Raid, or Intel FakeRAID would work fine, the cost of hardware raid for your setup is no where near worth the costs involved IMO.