New Mac Double Quad - will it make SL faster?

The question is: will the new 8-processor tower really make a difference in SL? Would Linden have to write a client especially to support that processor-architecture? How can one find out before spending 2.5K $$$ on this Mac? Which is more decisive - the processor power or the videocard? Anyone here in real Mac-tech knowledge?

The graphics cards (NVidia 8800) and fast RAM alone should allow it to perform well with Second Life. I've ordered one myself but I won't kid myself on, the 8-cores themselves are unlikely to make a huge difference to SL, it's got the multi-core optimisation of a slice of mouldy bread.

LL have promised us better multi-threading capabilities (reducing freezes and taking advantage of multiple processors/cores), but there isn't a whole lot to see on that front so far. There is a JIRA issue to vote on if you're concerned about it:
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-1135

I am however hopeful that the new machine will perform well. I'm moving from a PowerMac G5, Dual 2.5ghz with a NVidia 6800 Ultra (256mb).

I'm just hoping RAM becomes available for the new Mac Pros in the UK sometime soon, I can get it from Apple but it's ridiculously expensive. The 2gb standard will do for now, but I'm currently on 4gb which for me is more reasonable, and actually made a big difference to SL when browsing in malls and such.

1GB RAM is sold here for 50€. --> gravis.de/Liste.aspx?path=/Apple+Rechner/Mac+Pro/
I am using a G5 2,3GHz dualcore with 2 GB RAM and a X1900 256MB card. What puzzles me is that this machine is actually slower than a MacPro book I recently used, that had less CPU, less videocard-MB and less RAM... plus: I cannot understand why any of the vieocard producers, that already build 1024 MB cards for PCs doesnt offer a flashed version for the PowerMac. I'm sure they could sell tons of it. But as for now, the 256MB is the end of the trail for a PowerMac owner

Currently Apple write their own graphics drivers, while it ensures a good level of consistency, it means we lose things like SLI and bigger cards =(

Anyways, as for your performance test, remember that a lower clock-speed processor does not necessarily mean that it's worse. It may be running programs that use new functions available on that processor that the G5 does not have, or it may be more optimised to the Intel chipset. The processors also have more cache memory than the G5's do, G5's I believe only have 512k cache, while the Intel Core Duos started with 4mb (2mb per core).
Similarly, the RAM may be less, but it may be faster, my G5 has 400mhz RAM in it, while the new Mac Pros have 800mhz RAM, meaning it can send a lot of data to the processors a lot more quickly.
And again, graphics card memory is not the only vital statistic for graphics cards. When I got my G5, there had been several 256mb graphics cards out for a while, and yet the newer 6800 Ultra card from NVidia outperformed them due to faster memory and greater amounts of work done per cycle.

Unfortunately computing relies to heavily on people assuming bigger numbers always mean better, but more often to really understand the pros/cons of hardware you have to look at a whole load of different stats which requires much more time and knowledge
Fortunately though that's why we have review sites =D

Thanks for elaborating this in detail. Yes, makes sense... whereas the higher numbers still count, only you have to include all essential parts of a computer's architecture, frontside bus speed and all... I will give that nVidia card a chance and test if it outperforms the X1900. Last chance for th Power Mac, so to speak.

If you get an itch to sell off that G5 video card, drop me a message. I have the original video card in my G5 tower (the one with the ADC connector on it) and that machine could do with a little new year's present, to match the Radeon going in the Xeon tower.

The amount of CPU processing power won't make any difference at all. I have an intel 6750 dual core Windows PC and I am very rarely over 50% usage at 1650x1040 resolution with all the settings turned to full and several other programs (messenger, firefox, mp3 player) running. For CPU capacity, any current Mac including the nonpro MacBook and base mini would have more than enough CPU power. Honestly, unless you are doing something like video editing or scientific modeling, you just don't need more than a dual core, nevermind two quads. Modern CPUs are simply that powerful.

Unfortunately, none of those Macs have a really good video card and it's really all about the video card. The 8800 GT in the MacPro is the best one Apple offers (really the only good gaming card apple offers), but I understand it's not out available for another month and by pushing it into the MacPro, you're buying about $1500 worth of computer you don't need just to get a video card that you do.

Honestly, I think the best price/performance Mac right now for SL is probably the imac with the ATI 2600pro card. But the performance won't be significantly higher than your 6800 card.

Other than that, I'd drop one of the CPUs in the MacPro (four cores is way more than you need anyway) and get the 8800GT video. But damn that's expensive. Apple really needs something roughly on the level of the Imac, but with a better gaming card--something like the 8600GT or GTS. The 2600pro isn't terrible, but it's not something worth upgrading to. I try to stay agnostic in the computer wars, but with buying a MacPro for gaming you are paying for a bucketload more PC than you need just to get a video card that's up to the task and could get comparable gaming performance for less than half of the cost with a PC.