Building a $3000 Mac Pro alternative

[cirquenebbe]

First of all, I've been using Mac's at home for the last 5-6 years, but I'm a Windows user at work. Being a Mac user has its advantages, but this time around I'm looking for a desktop computer and the iMac isn't an alternative due to the built-in glossy display. Primarily, I want a computer for Photoshop/imaging work, but I want to be able to play games as well. When Modern Warfare 2 comes out, I'm gonna be all over it!

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.

Photoshop, Lightroom and games. Other than that, the usual Office applications.

2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread

The alternative here is a Mac Pro priced at around $3000. So, I want to stay at or below that.

3. What country YOU will be buying YOUR parts from.

USA

4. IF YOU have a brand preference. That means, are you an Intel-Fanboy, AMD-Fanboy, ATI-Fanboy, nVidia-Fanboy, Seagate-Fanboy, WD-Fanboy, etc.

Intel until someone convinces me to og with AMD

5. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.

My display, a 24" Eizo ColorEdge monitor

6. IF YOU have searched and/or read similar threads.

Yes, but most seems to cover the sub-$1500 range

7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.

No

8. What resolution YOU plan on gaming with.

The Eizo's native resolution is 1920x1200, so that's what I'm aiming for

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?

Within the next month. I might wait until Sept/Oct. if something big is on the horizon


The problem with being a Mac user is that after a while you kind of lose track with what is going on in the outside world. Last time I was well connected, the Pentium 4 was all the rage.

To be honest, I'm not too concerned with "upgradability". Most likely I will build this rig, and keep it more or less as it is for another 3-4 years.

Just getting a Mac Pro is an alternative, but after having tried the latest Windows version, I kind of felt that this might work for me. So I want to look into what I can get for my $3000 if I decide to go the Windows route.

The i7 seems like the natural choice for processor, but when it comes to graphic cards I'm pretty much lost between the 4890's and GTX295/285. As for RAM, I'm thinking 6GB as a minimum, more is better since I work with rather large files.

I want a proper case, doesn't have to be huge - just something that is intelligent and "easy" to keep cool without the use of water cooling or ten monster fans.

NOISE is a rather big issue, I'm willing to sacrifice some performance if it will save my hearing.

If this is the ultimate noobie thread, I apologize. Just see it as a chance to bring a Mac user back in the fold

 

[Eureka]

Firstly, theres not much to putting together a mac pro alternative, since all of those parts are pulled off the shelf anyway (there are nothing, I mean nothing, special about macs).

From amazon:

* Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
* 6GB (six 1GB) 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory
* 640GB Serial ATA (3Gb/s); 7200 rpm
* 18x double-layer SuperDrive
* NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB of GDDR3 memory, PCI Express 2.0, one Mini DisplayPort, and one dual-link DVI port

Unless you really need dual quads, a single i7 will hold you over. Get a i7 920, and overclock it (very easy, and very recommended). 6gb of RAM is plenty, pick your choice. For graphics, I would get the 4890, it's equivalent to a GTX275 and significant cheaper. Especially with the next-gen coming out soon I do not see a purpose in spending a high amount of money in getting a graphics card.

And what makes a mac is the nice aluminum case. Of course there are many nicer aluminum cases:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16811163067
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16811163072

If you want to save on noise, you could get a compact water cooling system. The 4890 is also rather noisy at full speed, but for normal uses its dead quiet.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Building a Hackintosh?

 

[elconejito]

First of all, nice monitor.

You are going to be really hard pressed to spend all $3000 on a Windows box. Apple's are just soooooo expensive for what you get. Most of the threads are sub-1500 because you can get a really killer system for that amount.

An i7 920 is an easy choice. Then you'll want 12GB of RAM. You want 12GB of RAM because you're in photoshop & lightroom, and it's well within your budget. Look for a couple of kits of decently priced DDR3 1333 or 1600.

The video card is really just a personal choice. CS4 uses OpenGL for it's GPU acclerated features which is supported by both ATI and Nvidia. Get as much performance here as you want, and can spend. If you'd like you can get multiple GPUs for gaming, although I'm 99% sure you won't see any benefit in CS4 from the multiple cards. Again, this is well within your budget. [Not sure how that Eizo will hold up for gaming though. GREAT at image quality, but I don't know about response time. You might want a second monitor for gaming]

Power supply you'll probably want something around 650w give or take. Corsair has two real nice models at 650w & 750w. Antec has a decent 650w <$100 and depending on the case you get a CP850 which only fits in the 1200, P183, and one other which I forget. PC Power & Cooling and Seasonic have a couple models in here too. Cost about 100-150 give or take.

Now for the hard drives, what is your workflow like? As far as file sizes, PS scratch sizes, version control, etc? With that kind of budget, you can get some SSDs, or maybe even RAID some hard drives together (RAID 10 would be perfect) in that system.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: cirquenebbe
Building a $3000 Mac Pro alternative

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.

Photoshop, Lightroom and games. Other than that, the usual Office applications.

2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread

The alternative here is a Mac Pro priced at around $3000. So, I want to stay at or below that.

5. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.

My display, a 24" Eizo ColorEdge monitor

6. IF YOU have searched and/or read similar threads.

Yes, but most seems to cover the sub-$1500 range

7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.

No

8. What resolution YOU plan on gaming with.

The Eizo's native resolution is 1920x1200, so that's what I'm aiming for

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?

Within the next month. I might wait until Sept/Oct. if something big is on the horizon

You don't need a $3000 "Mac Pro alternative" for the tasks you've listed.
Try the $1500-$2000 range, unless you plan some exotic case, etc.

 

[swanysto]

Case -> I have pretty simple taste and space limitations(antec 300), so I will let someone else comment on this.
Corsair 750HX -> 165.00
Asus P6T -> 240.00
i7 950 -> 570.00 => Overpriced, but if you have the money, and will not OC the 920, I would go with this. If you would consider OC'ing, you could save 370.00 by going with the 920.
Corsair XMS 6x2gb -> 240.00
BFG GTX 285 2gb -> 400.00 => Always been satisfied with BFG and their customer service.
OCZ vertex 120gb -> 370.00 => I have the 60gb version, and I swear by it. It opens PS unbelievably fast.
WD 1tb black -> 100.00
Sony optiarc sata dvd burner -> 32.00
Windows Vista 64bit Ultimate w/ win7 ugrade OEM -> 189.99

This system could be overkill for what you are doing, but I don't see why it wouldn't last 3-4 years. It would probably last longer depending on how crazy you get about gaming.
You could also find better deals on this stuff, I just used newegg as a guide.

 

[Fox5]

Your build is high enough that you could probably afford a dual socket system and go for 8 cores and a crap load of ram. 12 cores if you'd consider AMD, but I don't know if the extra cores would make up for the slower processors.

 

[swanysto]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Your build is high enough that you could probably afford a dual socket system and go for 8 cores and a crap load of ram. 12 cores if you'd consider AMD, but I don't know if the extra cores would make up for the slower processors.

I think photoshop can only take advantage of 4 cores right now. Maybe down the line it will use more, but 12 is very much overkill regardless of the speed.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

First, the Mac Pro uses Nehalem Xeon CPU(s) and ECC (Error Correction Code) memory. The Xeon's have ECC support, QPI (Intel's version of HyperTransport), and Hyper-Threading, so you have 8 virtual cores. The i7 does not have ECC support or Hyper-Threading. ECC fixes bit errors. So, I would go for a PC with a server board and ECC RAM if you want to remain in that class.

Second, I would get a workstation gfx card if you are a gfx artist or whatever in that field, as opposed to a gamer who only needs a gaming card.

Third, be prepared to pay up for the above hardware. Workstation gfx cards, like the nVidia Quadro or the ATI Fire range from $500 - $2000, roughly. I don't even look at those because I don't need one... You might consider one though.

also, Pentium 4's were never the rage. Back then, the Athlon 64 was the better CPU. Also, the fastest supercomputer in the world uses AMD Opterons and IBM cells, NO Intels.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
First, the Mac Pro uses Nehalem Xeon CPU(s) and ECC (Error Correction Code) memory. The Xeon's have ECC support, QPI (Intel's version of HyperTransport), and Hyper-Threading, so you have 8 virtual cores. The i7 does not have ECC support or Hyper-Threading. ECC fixes bit errors. So, I would go for a PC with a server board and ECC RAM if you want to remain in that class.

Second, I would get a workstation gfx card if you are a gfx artist or whatever in that field, as opposed to a gamer who only needs a gaming card.

Third, be prepared to pay up for the above hardware. Workstation gfx cards, like the nVidia Quadro or the ATI Fire range from $500 - $2000, roughly. I don't even look at those because I don't need one... You might consider one though.

also, Pentium 4's were never the rage. Back then, the Athlon 64 was the better CPU. Also, the fastest supercomputer in the world uses AMD Opterons and IBM cells, NO Intels.

I7 Does have HT, and 8 thread just like the xeons. ECC is unnecessary for the OPs purposes, and he stated gaming, so he'll want a gaming card, not workstation.

 

[OptimusP83]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
Second, I would get a workstation gfx card if you are a gfx artist or whatever in that field, as opposed to a gamer who only needs a gaming card.

Third, be prepared to pay up for the above hardware. Workstation gfx cards, like the nVidia Quadro or the ATI Fire range from $500 - $2000, roughly. I don't even look at those because I don't need one... You might consider one though.

You're right about the Server class hardware that the MacPro uses, and if you want the bullet-proof reliability that stuff provides thats great, and probably genuinely useful. The Workstation GFX cards on the other hand are entirely pointless for the OP's uses I believe. For hardcore 3D work and possibly video editing, yes you need those, but for PHOTOSHOP??? Lightroom?! There is NO reason you should pay for a Workstation class card (and pay 3-4x more) for the exact same performance. Those apps take advantage of OpenGL, yes, but in a very limited sense. Whats more important is the amount of memory they have. Aim for at least 1GB.

I am not entirely sure that a Xeon would really provide that much more performance than a i7 would. I mean I am all for MacPro's, I use one at work and have one at home, but it can be pretty overkill for most tasks. The ECC memory will be a plus though. My MacPro uses FB-DIMMs though which are slow and expensive, and use somewhere around 10W EACH. I have 8, so it adds up quick.

EDIT:Of course, beaten to it...

 

[deputc26]

I'm just going to spec out the fastest possible (but not completely ridiculous) system available with little regard for price and I have no idea what the price will end up being but I bet it's under $3k, here goes.

note: Buying any core i7 but the 920 is a gratuitous waste of money so I'm sticking with the 920.

Case and PSU combo deal: Cooler Master ACTS 840 (even looks a little maccy with brushed aluminum) and Thermaltake 900w $319.97

Mobo, Processor and 6gb RAM Combo Deal: ASUS P6T, Core i7 920, 6gb OCZ Gold DDR3 1600 $557.97

6 more gb of OCZ Gold DDR3 1600: Here $99

CPU Cooler: Thermalright IFX-14 $79.99

Boot/programs drive: 160gb Intel X-25m G2 $449.00

Storage Drives: 2x 1Tb WD Caviar Black 2x $86.99

Optical Drives: Pioneer Blu-Ray Burner $199.99 Samsung DVD Burner $27.99

Memory Card Reader: Siig SD/CF/MMC/MS Reader/UDMA $29.99

Graphics: EVGA GTX 285 $339.99

Total: $1833.36

Many card readers are slow and no-one has benchmarked them, I got my limited info on the Siig being fastest from here.

Overclock the i7 to 4.0 GHZ and your system will be pretty much as fast as a conventional computer can be. As a note I believe nvidia better supports GPU acceleration for the programs you mentioned but AMD may have caught up, not sure. Also I believe there may be issues with GPU acceleration and SLI/xfire which is why I gave you a single card solution. This build is meant to be fast first and cost effective second. For your uses it will be way overkill most of the time but I'm sure Photoshop and lightroom won't do everything completely intantaeously. The 160gb SSD could easily be downgraded to the 80gb model but you definitely want to be loading your heavy progs off an SSD. You could toss in another GTX 285 or use an HD4890 xfire solution as well, you could also throw in another SSD in RAID 0 for your boot/programs drive.

For the OS I'd get Windows 7 RC 64bit and pre-order the real version. Absolutely no point in getting Vista right now.

Edit: Actually I think Swanysto's 2gb BFG 285 is a good call, get it here. it's another $55 on top of the one I listed.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
First, the Mac Pro uses Nehalem Xeon CPU(s) and ECC (Error Correction Code) memory. The Xeon's have ECC support, QPI (Intel's version of HyperTransport), and Hyper-Threading, so you have 8 virtual cores. The i7 does not have ECC support or Hyper-Threading. ECC fixes bit errors. So, I would go for a PC with a server board and ECC RAM if you want to remain in that class.

Second, I would get a workstation gfx card if you are a gfx artist or whatever in that field, as opposed to a gamer who only needs a gaming card.

Third, be prepared to pay up for the above hardware. Workstation gfx cards, like the nVidia Quadro or the ATI Fire range from $500 - $2000, roughly. I don't even look at those because I don't need one... You might consider one though.

also, Pentium 4's were never the rage. Back then, the Athlon 64 was the better CPU. Also, the fastest supercomputer in the world uses AMD Opterons and IBM cells, NO Intels.

I7 Does have HT, and 8 thread just like the xeons. ECC is unnecessary for the OPs purposes, and he stated gaming, so he'll want a gaming card, not workstation.

Hmmm YOU'RE RIGHT about HT - sorry about that. ECC is not entirely unnecessary, IMO. He stated gaming, but he listed Photoshop and Lightroom as well, so if you have your priorities straight, then work before play - get a good workstation card if you're using this machine for rendering work.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Originally posted by: OptimusP83

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
Second, I would get a workstation gfx card if you are a gfx artist or whatever in that field, as opposed to a gamer who only needs a gaming card.

Third, be prepared to pay up for the above hardware. Workstation gfx cards, like the nVidia Quadro or the ATI Fire range from $500 - $2000, roughly. I don't even look at those because I don't need one... You might consider one though.

You're right about the Server class hardware that the MacPro uses, and if you want the bullet-proof reliability that stuff provides thats great, and probably genuinely useful. The Workstation GFX cards on the other hand are entirely pointless for the OP's uses I believe. For hardcore 3D work and possibly video editing, yes you need those, but for PHOTOSHOP??? Lightroom?! There is NO reason you should pay for a Workstation class card (and pay 3-4x more) for the exact same performance. Those apps take advantage of OpenGL, yes, but in a very limited sense. Whats more important is the amount of memory they have. Aim for at least 1GB.

I am not entirely sure that a Xeon would really provide that much more performance than a i7 would. I mean I am all for MacPro's, I use one at work and have one at home, but it can be pretty overkill for most tasks. The ECC memory will be a plus though. My MacPro uses FB-DIMMs though which are slow and expensive, and use somewhere around 10W EACH. I have 8, so it adds up quick.

EDIT:Of course, beaten to it...

It's probably not worth paying the premium for ECC and a workstation gfx card, but it's not my money. I just figured if it was for serious work (which may not include any of the programs the OP uses) and he is considering a Mac Pro, then why buy mainstream gamer crap?

 

[yh125d]

You realize you can't buy a Mac Pro with a workstation card right? They offer a GT120 (OEM card, non workstation) and a 4870 (gaming card). I have a feeling that if a workstation were needed, Apple would offer one...


Photoshop and Lightroom can use gpu acceleration, but it's neither necessary, all that intensive, or requiring a workstation card. He also plans to play games, which on a workstation card, really isn't a great idea. Really any midrange GPU or better will handle the accelerated features with ease. Especially a GPU that would be bought considering the OPs budget. 4890 or 4890xfire would do great at gaming and photoshop

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

yes I realized that, but Mac is not the end-all-be-all of computers.

I'll agree with the general idea that a workstation card is overkill for him, although the workstation cards aren't going to put him over budget.

 

[yh125d]

It's not that the workstation cards are overkill, its that a gaming card or cards will do the workstation card's duty just as well while handling the gaming much better, also for less money. Just because something fits in a budget, doesn't mean its a good idea.



And I pointed out that mac pro's don't have workstation cards because you were using the mac pro's professional status to assume that anyone who considers one needs to buy a workstation card

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

not so, and not worth discussing with you. carry on.

 

[deputc26]

Awright, OP are you there? The debaters came to the correct conclusion. This whole workstation card debate is ironic as the chips are identical to those in the gaming cards just with different drivers, you can actually turn gaming cards into workstation cards by flashing the bios (Or you could with last gen nv cards don't know about gt200). ECC will be completely useless for the programs you are running. You could make my build above a tiny bit faster by adding another gfx card or raiding SSDs but aside from that this is about as fast as it's possible to make a conventional system, even if you got a server class dual socket board it wouldn't make you much faster (in fact it would usually be slower) because 4 cores at 4.0 ghz will usually beat 8 cores at 2.66ghz and you can't OC those boards safely (though you could put more ram on the dual socket). You could OC the i7 in my build to 4.5ghz but that's the bleeding edge, better to be conservative.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

ECC is more for mission critical systems.

Workstation cards may use the same chips, and may be useless for Photoshop or lightroom but, obviously, some people need workstation cards or they wouldn't be available. The GPU is only one part of the circuit, and everything matters in the end. I'm not saying the OP should or shouldn't buy ECC and a Quadro - but they are within the proposed budget and available for those who know the merits of such equipment.

 

[deputc26]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
ECC is more for mission critical systems.

Workstation cards may use the same chips, and may be useless for Photoshop or lightroom but, obviously, some people need workstation cards or they wouldn't be available. The GPU is only one part of the circuit, and everything matters in the end. I'm not saying the OP should or shouldn't buy ECC and a Quadro - but they are within the proposed budget and available for those who know the merits of such equipment.

It's true that it is within his budget but it seems to me like you are implying that this equipment is better which is not true for his applications, quadros will run CUDA identical to their geforce equivalents but will not run games as well giving the advantage to geforce. ECC only does anything 1 in 10^12 bits while slowing your ram down slightly and making overclocking difficult. Modern OSes are easily capable of dealing with one bad bit.

@the OP: Obviously you could figure this out for yourself but you could add another 3 Caviar Black Tb drives for ~$270 giving you a mildly ridiculous 5 Tb+ of fast storage, that should easily be enough for 5 years. Still trying to think of ways to fill your budget with practicality lol

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

I'm spinning from one side and you're spinning from the other. It's funny that you say mildly ridiculous and practicality on the same subject.

I'm not sure what the OP means by NO, but I am guessing he means he doesn't want to overclock.

Also, big fans are actually quieter per air-flow than smaller fans, so you should get a case that you like with the PSU on the bottom (so the heat from the CPU doesn't rise into the PSU and compound) and large fans with filters (or buy your own). I like the Cooler Master Storm Scout http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16811119196 I guess the Yate Loons are the best fans right now, so I'll probably look into those for wherever applicable. PTS is the only place to get the Yate fans, apparently.

 

[deputc26]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
I'm not sure what the OP means by NO, but I am guessing he means he doesn't want to overclock.

Ya I think your right, even though it could be a no to the second part of the statement. If it's impossible to convince you to OC then I guess you can tack another $710 on to the price tag for an i7 975 and get worse performance for 3x the price.

 

[jkresh]

cirquenebbe as others have said you can build a similar system for a lot less then the mac but since you have been using macs at home for a long time you might want to consider if there are any mac specific programs that you would really miss (also if you happen to have recent licenses for photoshop... that you could transfer to a new mac but not use on a windows machine then that changes the cost). You can install vista/windows 7 on a mac pro, you can also install osx on a windows machine (but that is harder and not really legal (even if you pay for an osx license)) if you think you might really want/need access to osx then either get the macpro and install windows on it for your windows tasks, or look into what would be required to install osx on a windows box (efi-x makes things alot easier, and that is about $200 plus it only works with certain i7 motherboards so if you want to go that route make sure whatever motherboard you buy would support it).

 

[Dadofamunky]

Running Photoshop CS4 on this new rig, I'd get a fast NVidia card for the CUDA support. Supposedly, really accelerates Photoshop.