Outperform in what way? Stability/reliability is a type of performance, and the Xeons are specifically created for reliability under heavy load because they're meant for servers. It's kinda like saying, "I just twin turbocharged my Mustang, and it's a 911 killer. It outperforms it in every way." You can't really compare them, especially once you start OC'ing stuff.
The new Mac Pro is NUTS.
- Thread starter BLUElightCory
- Start date
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
AFAIK Xeon processors have always been designed/optimized for servers and network tasks, not stuff like audio or video. So benchmarks aside, as of now the i7 line is currently the 'top of the line' for performance, while Haswell is aimed as a new standard in terms of energy savings, with lower price tags.
The only difference between a Xeon and a "consumer" processor, is the Xeon is made to be running at full power 24/7 (because it's supposed to go in a server). Unless you're using them as a render farm/server around the clock, they offer no increased performance or stability over their "consumer" counterparts, just a far higher price tag. Benefits of the Core series outweigh those of the Xeon series for most power users, as you can stably overclock them to give better performance than their server equivalents, at a much lower price. Obviously, you can't run more than one CPU at once, but the price of running two Xeons that would perform better than one of the top of the line i7s is insanely high, and likely won't make a giant difference for 99% of users.
So instead of building a machine that is, "basically the same," as a Mac Pro, you built a machine that suited your needs best. That's great, but you can't compare a workstation like the Mac Pro to something you built, especially when you start throwing prices like "~$800" around while bragging your computer is superior than the previously offered Mac Pro.
Also, if the Xeons are meant to handle full power 24/7 (your words), wouldn't that inherently make them more stable and reliable than consumer desktop processors? After all, it's what they're built for, and it's part of their tolerance spec. If they weren't, why would they be used in servers in the first place? If they weren't, why would Intel even go through all that effort of designing them and marketing them if a consumer desktop processor could do the exact same thing?
Just seems unfair to talk about how your Hackintoshes are so much better and cheaper than the Mac Pros when they're not exactly the same machines. Just because your machine does certain tasks for you better than the Mac Pro can doesn't mean they're comparable, let alone better.
Also, if the Xeons are meant to handle full power 24/7 (your words), wouldn't that inherently make them more stable and reliable than consumer desktop processors? After all, it's what they're built for, and it's part of their tolerance spec. If they weren't, why would they be used in servers in the first place? If they weren't, why would Intel even go through all that effort of designing them and marketing them if a consumer desktop processor could do the exact same thing?
Just seems unfair to talk about how your Hackintoshes are so much better and cheaper than the Mac Pros when they're not exactly the same machines. Just because your machine does certain tasks for you better than the Mac Pro can doesn't mean they're comparable, let alone better.
Luke Hertzler
Member
What? You're just dodging the fact that Apple is ridiculously priced by saying "we can't compare" our hacks to the off the shell mac pro because we don't have the exact same specs. This isn't a thread about theoretical "fairness" of comparing the two. Yes, I agree, at the end of the day it isn't a fair comparison solely because the fact is Hacks are FAR cheaper and JUST as reliable. The only variable in this is whether or not the person building it is tech savvy enough to accomplish this. Hacks aren't for everyone, but if you know you're way around a computer then I would highly suggest one over a mac pro.
Saying a Hackintosh is automatically as reliable as the real thing is merely a hyperbole - unless you're extremely specific on which parts to use.
Let's not forget that the closed ecosystem is the main reason Macs are so reliable; building a hackintosh without following a known build can result to something that works just as well as a Mac, or something resembling one of those bad Windows configurations we've all seen. In other words, it's a gamble.
You missed my point completely... I never said you can't compare a Hackintosh build to an Apple computer. I just said that, unless you're using all Xeon architecture, you can't compare the price of the machine to a Mac Pro. Nothing more. I'm sure your Hackintosh builds are powerful, reliable and much cheaper than what Apple offers. However, they're more comparable to an iMac minus the IPS panel than a Mac Pro. Mac Pros are server-grade workstation machines; yours aren't.
The biggest difference between server CPU series (xeon, itanium etc) and consumer CPU's are things like support for ECC-memory, multi-cpu, virtualization stuff (VT-x), CPU Instruction Sets, more internal memory support.
And they run a bit cooler, sometimes with different voltages ... nothing huge.
Most of those consumer and pro series have the same chip on the inside anyway (http://ark.intel.com/compare/63698,64621). There is nothing special about Xeon's which makes them more superior/reliable, they are just build for different purposes.
And there is nothing "magical" about Macintosh hardware (anymore), they have the same CPU's, chipsets and graphic cards you can put in your own system. Just a different motherboard, a fancy looking case and a different OS.
And that OS is probably the cause of that "legendary stability".
And they run a bit cooler, sometimes with different voltages ... nothing huge.
Most of those consumer and pro series have the same chip on the inside anyway (http://ark.intel.com/compare/63698,64621). There is nothing special about Xeon's which makes them more superior/reliable, they are just build for different purposes.
And there is nothing "magical" about Macintosh hardware (anymore), they have the same CPU's, chipsets and graphic cards you can put in your own system. Just a different motherboard, a fancy looking case and a different OS.
And that OS is probably the cause of that "legendary stability".
