PDA

View Full Version : Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz




Chaos123x
Mar 3, 2009, 03:20 PM
Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz

Which one would be faster for Final Cut Studio?

Which one would be better replacement for my 2008 2.8ghz Octo?

Does the octo go over the fact that the one chip is slower then the quad?



Jack Flash
Mar 3, 2009, 03:24 PM
Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz

Which one would be faster for Final Cut Studio?

Which one would be better replacement for my 2008 2.8ghz Octo?

Does the octo go over the fact that the one chip is slower then the quad?

10.64 Ghz vs 18.08 GHz

Salavat23
Mar 3, 2009, 03:27 PM
I say don't upgrade, keep what you have.

There is no point in upgrading from what you have right now.

Just add some more RAM, and maybe a faster hard drive.;)

Chaos123x
Mar 3, 2009, 03:30 PM
Thats what I was thinking.

But IF I did upgrade, which one is better?

NATO
Mar 3, 2009, 03:31 PM
10.64 Ghz vs 18.08 GHz

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

It's tricky though, if the apps you'll be using can use more than 4 cores, then you're maybe better off getting the lower clocked, 8-core CPU option. If your apps will only use 4 cores max, then the higher clocked 4-core option is better.

The benefit of 8-core vs 4-core is only apparent if you're using apps which will use more than 4 cores simultaneously, or if you're running multiple apps simultaneously to tax 5-8 cores.

Chaos123x
Mar 3, 2009, 03:33 PM
This update really feels like being stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

Makes really not want to upgrade after all.

If they had a quad 2.66 at a good price I would go for it.

But DAMN this so annoying, it's like they did it on purpose.

NATO
Mar 3, 2009, 03:37 PM
I'm not entirely convinced that you'd notice much of a difference between your current Mac Pro and the new model, I'd maybe wait for a little while until some benchmarks come in from the review sites.

thedarkhorse
Mar 3, 2009, 05:03 PM
I would think you would lose performance, especially for video rendering if you went with 4 cores.
Look at the performance page on apple's site http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html.
Look at the render speeds for prores and HDV, 1.2x and 1.1x speed increases from previous 8 core to new 8 core. Only a slight increase, if you lopped the cores in half I'm thinking performance would go down on a new 4 core vs 2008 8 core.

bearcatrp
Mar 3, 2009, 05:46 PM
Wait for snow leopard before deciding. That and real world application speed tests will tell the tale. If its less than 50% boost, I don't think its worth the money to upgrade.

Ljohnson72
Mar 3, 2009, 05:48 PM
Is the new 2.26 faster than the previous 2.66 or something? I'm just wondering why 2.26 --> 2.66 is now a $1,400 option. :confused::confused:

bumzo1
Mar 3, 2009, 06:03 PM
Is the new 2.26 faster than the previous 2.66 or something? I'm just wondering why 2.26 --> 2.66 is now a $1,400 option. :confused::confused:
the 2.26 is 2 processors while the 2.66 is only one (but you can get 2 2.66s if you choose for more $ of course)

Ljohnson72
Mar 3, 2009, 06:04 PM
the 2.26 is 2 processors while the 2.66 is only one (but you can get 2 2.66s if you choose for more $ of course)

Didn't the previous MP come standard with a 2.66 8 core?

Chaos123x
Mar 3, 2009, 06:08 PM
Didn't the previous MP come standard with a 2.66 8 core?

Nope it came with a 2.8ghz 8-core standard config.

Ljohnson72
Mar 3, 2009, 06:17 PM
Nope it came with a 2.8ghz 8-core standard config.

So why would the previous gen come with an 8 core at 2.8 and now it's an 8 core at 2.26? Just assuming the Nehalem is a lot more efficient at running tasks I would assume.

bntz313
Mar 3, 2009, 06:39 PM
Why would they limit the max ram to 8bg on the quad?

I just bought a quad 2.8ghz, I'm glad I did.

shokunin
Mar 3, 2009, 06:52 PM
Why would they limit the max ram to 8bg on the quad?

I just bought a quad 2.8ghz, I'm glad I did.

Because each processor has a direct memory link to a bank of 4 DIMM slots. So a single processor cannot access the other 4 slots dedicated to the second CPU socket.

So technically, it should be a max of 16gb (4x4GB).

nanofrog
Mar 3, 2009, 07:32 PM
So why would the previous gen come with an 8 core at 2.8 and now it's an 8 core at 2.26? Just assuming the Nehalem is a lot more efficient at running tasks I would assume.

Different architecture, so you can't make a 1:1 comparison by clock speed. Though I'm waiting for benchmarks to see how the 2.26 Octo compares to the '08 2.8GHz model.

Waiting for benchmarks on this one.

The 2.66Ghz X5550 would be able to outperform it, just as the 2.93 X5560 outperforms the '08 3.2GHz model.