Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5102777 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:19:08 +0200 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id m6so2356875wiv.15 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0twPbdqkrdnC42kF1mSLhL8ltv6nHqdokzkryjoULbE=; b=GIhRQS4O4sxpT1++ySWkKymh0BqbV0Z9hrd8D7Uppqzmc6hweVgI3LpA19e8xoBwaM 23kRxyNdXZfoP1tePnBw4cwhw+ds4/9wbN69CfQzF/3lKQ2lbGhMNB2kozhBecjZfk6F /yQYGxe/iL0Q/rdSJRBptZgU+L0Ypier2NDpir2Tpi/VpviHg3x2QRFng1oW5FdRXphz CSZU0UoE1azmtgQbf6pBw6m8xcx/rgXYciNZ2DKc/mITHZqzLt4JMClmwUzO4CV3r7MC FUsMh7JZjnxfj+Tx7tBWiW14Nns9bGE2NaDV765caGj1zJuXbOcOOiaaaXmqgvLf+xkk Gamw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.104.74 with SMTP id gc10mr9838902wjb.48.1370986142092; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.11.102 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:29:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] New MacPro From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10b46fdd3ea04dee7953e --047d7bf10b46fdd3ea04dee7953e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 we all seem to forget when the original mac pros came out. if you tried to spec a similar dell or HP they were more expensive On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Dennis Wilkins wrote: > On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > > maybe, but I don't see an ROI on spending 50% more for 10-15% faster. I > don't need the fastest CPU, just one thats really fast. my i7 2.93 4core > averages 5% than my zeon 4X2 2.8 tower. the i7's have more than good enough > performance. > > > I guess you didn't check out the link (http://www.cbscores.com); current > 12-core Xeon machines are closer to 75-80% faster than the fastest > available over-clocked 6-core i7 chips. Cost/performance wise, i7 CPU's are > very good CPU's. > > This new machine will be expensive, as all Mac Pro's have been (relative > to the average PC), but I also think it will be an amazing performer. > > - Dennis Wilkins > > -- danny princz vimeo.com/rendernyc --047d7bf10b46fdd3ea04dee7953e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
we all seem to forget when the original mac pros came out.= if you tried to spec a similar dell or HP they were more expensive=A0


On Tue, Jun = 11, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Dennis Wilkins <dennis@reelsolutions.com&g= t; wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> = wrote:

maybe, but I don't see an ROI on spending= 50% more for 10-15% faster. I don't need the fastest CPU, just one tha= ts really fast. =A0my i7 2.93 4core averages 5% than my zeon 4X2 2.8 tower.= the i7's have more than good enough performance.

I guess you didn't check out the link (http://www.cbscores.com); current 12-co= re Xeon machines are closer to 75-80% faster than the fastest available ove= r-clocked 6-core i7 chips. Cost/performance wise, i7 CPU's are very goo= d CPU's.

This new machine will be expensive, as all Mac Pro's hav= e been (relative to the average PC), but I also think it will be an amazing= performer.

- Dennis Wilkins




--
--047d7bf10b46fdd3ea04dee7953e--