Do I really need 8 cores?

[odinsride]

So I have configured a Mac Pro with the following specs:

One Quad Core 2.8ghz CPU
2gb RAM (will buy 3rd party memory to upgrade)
1x500gb HD
8800gt
23" ACD
Airport card

Total price is $3172 (through my employer's EPP)

If I bump it up to 2x CPUs it goes up to $3632.

My question is if it's worth the extra $460 for 8 cores for the following usage:

Aperture
Light Photoshop
Logic Pro
Light Gaming (mostly WoW)
VMware (maybe 1-2 VMs running at once)
And all the other usual programs (itunes, firefox, etc)

Thanks

[Firefly2002]

You'd be fine with an iMac.

(So no, you don't need 8 cores).

You know how if you have to ask the price you can't afford it? It's kind of the same here.... if you have to ask, you don't need it ;)

[nick9191]

All I can suggest is that the 8 core will last you a lot longer, as applications become more and more multi threaded.

[zmttoxics]

The rule of thumb is, if you have to ask - the answer is no.

I can do all of that on my MacBook which is dual core.

[pprior]

Yes it's worth it.

You'll be able to add more ram later, you can add more hard drives, but the processor speed and cores are fixed without major hassle. Everything in computers today is going multi-core and video editing, encoding and sound editing are hugely impacted by having more cores.

Better to buy once, cry once than cheap out and cry many times.

[group09]

Yes it's worth it.

Better to buy once, cry once than cheap out and cry many times.

That's good advice, and I like it! I've been torn between the 256 and 512 MB video card in the MBP, and this quote makes sense. Thanks.

[odinsride]

FWIW I have been doing all of the above on my 2.4ghz MBP without too many problems.

As I run out of HD space from all the photography I do, I would like to have a more expandable system. Even the 4 core Mac Pro would be twice the cores as what I have now, so I think this would probably be plenty for my needs. My only worry is having to buy something better in the next 3 years.

[chrono1081]

I use every program you do on the MBP in my signature with great results. No slowdown....

That being said.....

I would go for the 8 cores. Why? Cause its better to spend a little extra and not have to upgrade for awhile thats why. And, like a previous user posted, everything is going multiple core. I always buy the best I can afford when I buy a new computer.

[mchalebk]

How long do you plan to keep the computer? Also, is there any chance you'll start working on video projects (iMovie, Final Cut, iDVD, etc)?

If you plan to keep the computer for only two or three years and you don't think you'll be getting into video editing/rendering, even the quad-core is probably overkill. As someone already mentioned, an iMac would do just fine for the apps you mentioned.

If you plan to keep the computer for 4 or more years or think you might get into video work, the extra cores will probably come in handy.

[voxnj]

Why wait? Just get into digital photogaphy. The 8 cores run Lightroom processes at the speed of ummm light!

[OlBlueHair]

So I have configured a Mac Pro with the following specs:

One Quad Core 2.8ghz CPU
2gb RAM (will buy 3rd party memory to upgrade)
1x500gb HD
8800gt
23" ACD
Airport card

Total price is $3172 (through my employer's EPP)

If I bump it up to 2x CPUs it goes up to $3632.

My question is if it's worth the extra $460 for 8 cores for the following usage:

Aperture
Light Photoshop
Logic Pro
Light Gaming (mostly WoW)
VMware (maybe 1-2 VMs running at once)
And all the other usual programs (itunes, firefox, etc)

Thanks

I'd get the base 8 core model with the stock 320 hard drive and stock ram. The stock video card is fine for what you list here, as well.

Then, use the money you'd save for extra ram (149 for 4 gigs) and an internal SATA 1tb drive (200). As it is now, bumping up for that 500 hard drive is not as economical as buying another one later.

[mortimor]

Logic Pro needs all the cores it can handle. Snow Leopard will use them more efficiently next year (hopefully).

[nanofrog]

FWIW I have been doing all of the above on my 2.4ghz MBP without too many problems.

As I run out of HD space from all the photography I do, I would like to have a more expandable system. Even the 4 core Mac Pro would be twice the cores as what I have now, so I think this would probably be plenty for my needs. My only worry is having to buy something better in the next 3 years.
The same dilemma we all face I should think. :p
Of course, if computer technology moved slower, we'd complain about that too. :D

On a serious note, if an iMac can get you three years, get it. Worry about the future when the iMac no longer serves your needs. It seems in your case, a Mac Pro is overkill for now, and a waste of money. ;)

[kabunaru]

Buy an iMac instead.
Save your money so that you can buy a new computer in 2.5/3.5 years and sell your current one that you have at that time.

[UltraNEO*]

If you don't need the extra processing power, then it's kinda waste of money to buy them. Therefore a cheaper all-in-one solution can cover all your tasks, probably have enough room for you grow and stretch without breaking the bank..

Also, the experts here will tell you that the currently MacPros range are end of the road products, mainly due to new advances in technology. Intel's next processor won't physically fit into existing sockets... so processor upgrades will be unlikely.

[dukebound85]

id build a hackintosh!

seriously, i have a quad core 2.91ghz, 8800gt 512 , 4 gig ram 500gig hd set up that cost me 900 back in feb

[nanofrog]

id build a hackintosh!

seriously, i have a quad core 2.91ghz, 8800gt 512 , 4 gig ram 500gig hd set up that cost me 900 back in feb
Nice way to go, for those interested and the technical prowess to do so. :)
That said, others haven't the time, inclination,... and just want a ready built machine. ;)

[Willis]

Its always best to buy what you can afford as long as you intend to use its full potential.

If money isnt that much of an issue and its going to have a long lifespan, then go for the 8 core.

[zmttoxics]

id build a hackintosh!

seriously, i have a quad core 2.91ghz, 8800gt 512 , 4 gig ram 500gig hd set up that cost me 900 back in feb

Illegal.

It seriously bothers me these days when people recommend that as a serious replacement to a new Mac. If you can't afford it, then save your pennies.

[dukebound85]

Illegal.

It seriously bothers me these days when people recommend that as a serious replacement to a new Mac. If you can't afford it, then save your pennies.

it is not illegal

check your facts. it is a violation of the eula but is not illegal.

there are even ways now so that you can use the retail leopard disk to install leopard on a hackintosh

if you dont like it dont do it, but dont tell me what i can or can not do:rolleyes:

[Catch Them]

Illegal.

It seriously bothers me these days when people recommend that as a serious replacement to a new Mac. If you can't afford it, then save your pennies.

It seriously bothers me when people get so bent out of shape on something so trivial.
its not like theyre reselling them or marketing them as whole solutions.
hardware is hardware; sure apple does a better job of integrating hardware with their software; but geez, alot of interesting things came from tapping into things like that...

So I have configured a Mac Pro with the following specs:

One Quad Core 2.8ghz CPU
2gb RAM (will buy 3rd party memory to upgrade)
1x500gb HD
8800gt
23" ACD
Airport card

Total price is $3172 (through my employer's EPP)

If I bump it up to 2x CPUs it goes up to $3632.

My question is if it's worth the extra $460 for 8 cores for the following usage:

Aperture
Light Photoshop
Logic Pro
Light Gaming (mostly WoW)
VMware (maybe 1-2 VMs running at once)
And all the other usual programs (itunes, firefox, etc)

Thanks

I say get the 4-core option; seriously who needs 8 cores?!
Who really even needs 4 cores?

even if Snow Leopard does take advantage of multicore architecture, it shouldnt matter how many cores you have, it should still be proficient enough to use the speed of a dual core or quad or even eight core system.

I run an 8 core at work and a 4 core at home.
the 4 core is blazingly fast, essentially if your running the same applications against both machines it wont really make a huge impact it iwll enhance the performance a bit but i think you should be lasting for quite sometime with the 4 core machine; saving 400-500$ is nice and getting a quality built machine like that for a little less is great.

I say get the 500GB drive as well because with the EPP and Apple Add-on and the price of OEM drives nowadays it evens out essentially. so no big loss there and the 8800 is cheaper the BTO way so thats a plus (besides its covered under apple care as opposed to buying afterwards and it not being covered)


so i think you got an ideal perfect solution set.

[CWallace]

It is cheaper to buy the two CPUs now then it is to buy one now and the other later. Also, buying them together means both are covered under your warranty.

[bigbird]

As said before, with Snow Leopard coming, more and more apps will be able to take advantage of more and more cores. So, for the future, get 8 cores. For the present, 4 cores is overkill.

[zmttoxics]

it is not illegal

check your facts. it is a violation of the eula but is not illegal.

there are even ways now so that you can use the retail leopard disk to install leopard on a hackintosh

if you dont like it dont do it, but dont tell me what i can or can not do:rolleyes:

The EULA is a contract. On agreement with the EULA when installing OS X, you are agreeing to the contract. By breaking the EULA, you are in breach of contract which you can be prosecuted for it.

It seriously bothers me when people get so bent out of shape on something so trivial.
its not like theyre reselling them or marketing them as whole solutions.
hardware is hardware; sure apple does a better job of integrating hardware with their software; but geez, alot of interesting things came from tapping into things like that...

It's principle. Doing that is the same as downloading games and applications. You get what you want sure, but you aren't supporting the developers, you aren't supporting Apple. If you believe in Apple and their products, you wouldn't be downloading hacked osx86 isos, you would be saving your dollars for a real mac.

If you don't want to spend the money to run that platform, then choose a different platform.

[Catch Them]

Its not the same.
In order for developers to gain more experience with various hardware/software support. it could be very helpful actually. i know a few developers who build their own hackintoshes, who cares.



at any rate...

[sukanas]

you probably wont be needing it now

but imagine how much longer that computer will last you...

[eXan]

4 core is more than enough for you. 8 core is used to its full potential mostly by guys using Maya and After Effects. Or DVDStudio Pro, Motion, FCP, Livetype, Soundtrack, Handbrake at once.

[dukebound85]

The EULA is a contract. On agreement with the EULA when installing OS X, you are agreeing to the contract. By breaking the EULA, you are in breach of contract which you can be prosecuted for it.


regardless what you think, this is what macrumors has to say on the matter

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4958453&postcount=6

[osin]

for now quad core is plenty enough for you, but with all electronics is always the good idea to buy the best configuration that you can afford - you will see a profit in the future. and the future look bright for multi core processors - Snow Leopard etc.

[zmttoxics]

regardless what you think, this is what macrumors has to say on the matter

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4958453&postcount=6

I don't see your point. It says pretty much what I said. In all cases it breaks the EULA, and 9 times out of 10 its a pirated copy of leopard.

[odinsride]

I didn't mean for you guys to start going back and forth about hackintoshes. I won't be building a hackintosh so you can just drop the conversation on that anyway because it doesn't matter to me.

You guys have given me some great advice and I really don't think I would need the 8 cores. Regardless, I'll be waiting until the next refresh of the Mac Pro to see if they upgrade the video card options (I like WoW a little too much sometimes :D)

[zmttoxics]

I didn't mean for you guys to start going back and forth about hackintoshes. I won't be building a hackintosh so you can just drop the conversation on that anyway because it doesn't matter to me.

You guys have given me some great advice and I really don't think I would need the 8 cores. Regardless, I'll be waiting until the next refresh of the Mac Pro to see if they upgrade the video card options (I like WoW a little too much sometimes :D)

Sorry about that!!! It was my fault for mentioning the legality of a hackintosh.

Something to think about though, is that the 8800 and 3870 video cards for the Mac Pro are super capable for WoW. When the next refresh comes out, you should be able to just upgrade your video card to the latest and greatest.

[Rickeo]

An 8800GT is more then enough for WoW. Hell, the old 3870 will run it at 2560x1600 perfectly fine. Not by any means a graphically intensive game...:D

[odinsride]

An 8800GT is more then enough for WoW. Hell, the old 3870 will run it at 2560x1600 perfectly fine. Not by any means a graphically intensive game...:D

Well I'm just used to running it maxed out @1920x1200 on my PC (8800gts) under Vista 64-bit with 100+ fps most of the time. 8800gt would be a little bit of a step down, plus running it under OS X brings the framerate down quite a bit too due to running in Open GL mode.

Also, Good point about the upgrading the video card in the future (didn't even think about this :p)

[nanofrog]

Also, Good point about the upgrading the video card in the future (didn't even think about this :p)
Forgot?!? About one of the most useful features of the Mac Pro? :eek:
Shame on you. :D :p

[Razzerman]

If you're planning on keeping the machine for 5 years or so, don't nerf yourself now - spend the extra dollars and sleep well. Personally, I'm waiting for this here Nehalem when it comes out. Good luck. :)

[nick9191]

it is not illegal

check your facts. it is a violation of the eula but is not illegal.

there are even ways now so that you can use the retail leopard disk to install leopard on a hackintosh

if you dont like it dont do it, but dont tell me what i can or can not do:rolleyes:

Yes it is illegal, regardless of the fact that you wont get arrested for it. I'm betting you didn't pay for your copy of Leopard either.

We are not trying to tell you what to do, we are pointing out that it is a stupid thing to do.

[fernmeister]

The Mac Pro is a good investment if you are going to run big sessions in Logic Pro. EXS24 can access RAM above the basic allotment per app, it's nice to be able to keep your big sample libraries (VSL, etc) inside the machine and the cores can be used by native plugs. Moreover, the trend in plug and libraries is towards more direct memory access, hard disk streaming and native processing (well for some makers!).

Of course, if none of that makes any sense - get an iMac.

[CaptainChunk]

I say get the 4-core option; seriously who needs 8 cores?!
Who really even needs 4 cores?

Hmmmm.... Well, I do. :)

But I do professional video editing and post production work. Having additional processing power helps tremendously with rendering, effects, etc. There are applications out there (few, but still) that take advantage of multiple CPU cores.

Now as far as less demanding work is concerned, you would think that there's no logical reason to own a Mac Pro. But, a lot of people I know that own Mac Pros bought them because they needed hardware expandability of some kind that you can't get on an iMac. Yet, they don't necessarily need 4 or 8 cores of processing power. It's a Catch-22, really.

And the problem exists simply because Apple doesn't have a TRUE midrange solution in their product lineup. They fill this slot with the iMac, which is really a lifestyle product more than anything else. It has relatively midrange hardware under the hood, but lacks what midrange PCs do in expansion.

I think that a Core 2 Extreme desktop machine with a discrete graphics card and a bit of expandability in the $1,500 range (without a display, of course) would fit this segment perfectly. I rather see this in Apple's product lineup than their dated Mac Mini. But then again, what do I know about marketing? Apple sells a lot of iMacs (and Mac Pros at a large price premium for those who need more) and from a marketing standpoint, they have very little reason to change.

[TXFinanceGuy]

Everyone has been commenting about the technical issues, which are informative and great. However, from a purely financial investment, if the less costly iMac will serve your basic needs, one would not unnecessairly load up their balance sheet with highly depreciable items like computer hardware - and that is assuming that you will be paying with cash. If you are going to finance the acquisition, you most definitely do not want to acquire more than you require.

[eXan]

Everyone has been commenting about the technical issues, which are informative and great. However, from a purely financial investment, if the less costly iMac will serve your basic needs, one would not unnecessairly load up their balance sheet with highly depreciable items like computer hardware - and that is assuming that you will be paying with cash. If you are going to finance the acquisition, you most definitely do not want to acquire more than you require.

O_O

[madamimadam]

Something to consider for the future, for Maximum performance you should have 512MB RAM per core plus a bit extra.

So a 4-core machine should have at least 3GB RAM and an 8-core machine should have at least 6GB RAM

I am going to buy an 8-core model but I would suggest that you are better off putting that money into more, third-party, RAM than in the CPU. A 4-core machine will have plenty of power for years to come

[dukebound85]

Something to consider for the future, for Maximum performance you should have 512MB RAM per core plus a bit extra.

So a 4-core machine should have at least 3GB RAM and an 8-core machine should have at least 6GB RAM

I am going to buy an 8-core model but I would suggest that you are better off putting that money into more, third-party, RAM than in the CPU. A 4-core machine will have plenty of power for years to come

from what are you basing off the memory per core? just curious

[madamimadam]

from what are you basing off the memory per core? just curious

My local Apple Systems Engineer said it came from an internal Apple training session on server technology.

He was studying Xserve and the Promise RAID but, given that the processor is the same in the Xserve and Mac Pro, the concept works with the Mac Pro as well.

I'm told it has something to do with how the memory is managed across the cores but I won't begin to pretend that I understand it

[ChrisA]

I'd look at it this way. You have to spend $460 more to buy the second CPU. In your case does spending $460 on a CPU prevent you from buying something else. If buying the second CPU prevents you from buying the RAM you need or prevents you from being able to set up an off-site backup scheme (likely a pair of 1TB external drives) then don't buy the second CPU because those other things are things you need. But if buying that second CPU does not prevent the purchase of other stuff buy it.

From my point of view as a photographer I'd much rather put the money into a new lens or lighting equipment then a second CPU for a Mac Pro. But then maybe you can simply buy "all of the above".

[bigbird]

My son has a 20" iMac Core 2. I cringe when I think what happens when he needs to replace the hard drive, optical drive, or even backup battery. I have already added 3 more hard drives and an additional optical drive to my MP. It probably took all of 10 minutes for those additions. Forget the core issues. I would never buy any Mac that I couldn't easily access the components for upgrading/replacing. That includes laptops, mini's, iMacs, and any other box that Apple comes up with. But I could afford the 8 cores, so I got the best of both worlds. Cores coming out the ying-yang, and very easy upgradeability.

[dukebound85]

My son has a 20" iMac Core 2. I cringe when I think what happens when he needs to replace the hard drive, optical drive, or even backup battery. I have already added 3 more hard drives and an additional optical drive to my MP. It probably took all of 10 minutes for those additions. Forget the core issues. I would never buy any Mac that I couldn't easily access the components for upgrading/replacing. That includes laptops, mini's, iMacs, and any other box that Apple comes up with. But I could afford the 8 cores, so I got the best of both worlds. Cores coming out the ying-yang, and very easy upgradeability.

do imacs have back up batteries?


but everything else i agree. the ability to swap parts out as you need them is so nice. i mean if my hd dies, ill buy a new one, or if i want to swap out optical media or add usb ports, etc

the ability to add on and specifically target issues is so worth it to me. thats why i will only build my computers from now on (meantime will be hackintoshes) and will get laptops f necessary

[nightfly13]

Since this thread is never dying and any and all opinions seem welcome - I'll toss mine in.

If you encode video regularly, go for 8; they'll only become more useful as others have said with Snow Leopard.

I use a first-gen Mac Pro with 4 cores total (2x2.66 dual core). Right now I'm traveling with my dual-core MacBook Pro with 2.0 dual core. Wow it feels slow. I'm unzipping and copying and encoding lots of big files (4-9gb) and it's painful.

I know there are many differences beyond 4 vs 2 cores between the two machines (probably chief is the 2gb memory limit on laptop followed by slower laptop hard drive) but I constantly watch my MenuMeters processor display and when things slow down, both cores are at 100% and performance sucks.

Hope that helps - someone :)

[ceres]

I sold my MP last week as I am looking to buy the i7 successor in Jan.
Right now, I am sitting in front of a overclocked Penryn Quad PC at 3.4 Ghz.
Reencoding a 13 mbit blueray ts stream and resizing it just a bit so that it is playable as a avchd disc takes more than 4 hours at 100% load on all cores throughout the process. There is always need for cpu power, even for the home user.

[dchen720]

u only need a imac
but the answer depends on how long u expect the machine to last u