4-core vs. 8-core 09 MP

[c2g]

I've been trying to purchase an 8-core '09 MP for a few months now. My IT dept, citing budget concerns, keeps coming back to me trying to trim cost. Now they're actually suggesting going from our original base purchase of an 8-core to a 4-core to save even more $.

Waiting for the new (more expensive) MP release it out of the question, but please... can anyone point me to a good link explaining why it wouldn't be a good idea to go backwards at this point? I've found some comparisons, but mostly using CS3 in their benchmarks. I'm assuming CS4 (PShop, Premiere, AE) takes better advantage of multiple cores now, and it would seem logical that FCP would do so, given the obvious connection between hardware/software development. So if anyone can point me to a good, recent comparison link to help justify the purchase of the octo, I would really appreciate it! Thanks.

[alent1234]

this will depend on your OS and the version of the software you use. if you use old versions of software that aren't optimized for parallel operations, you're just wasting your employer's money

[AZREOSpecialist]

You should verify that the software you plan on using heavily even makes use of 8 cores. Most software, including CS4 (Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver) do not effectively utilize more than 2-4 cores. I don't know about Premier, FCP, etc.

[rickvanr]

All depends on what applications you're running.

If it were my money, I get the quickest 4-core MP.

That said, I received an 8-core MP as a replacement from Apple and it kicks serious balls.

Barefeats is a great resource for benchmarks

Nehalem 4-core versus 8-core:
What's the Real World Difference?
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal08.html

Pro Apps on the Nehalem Mac Pro:
How many cores do you need?
How much memory is best?
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html

[gotzero]

It is useful to think beyond single tasks. If you want to do virtualization, or run intensive apps in the background, the advantage of 8 cores gets huge.

[AZREOSpecialist]

I suppose if you want to run a virtualized Windows environment while doing serious work in Photoshop, transcoding a bunch of audio files, and running a web or mail server in the background an 8-core may be the way to go. However, with my Quad and 16 GB of RAM, I can run a virtualized Windows environment and do all of my other work, including Photoshop, without any hit to performance. But then again, I'm not doing any transcoding or rendering either.

[mif]

I purchased a 2,93 gHz 8-core and it rocks with my naive ray-tracer and dances with my 3d virtual human. No regrets.

Happy with audio-decoding fix too. Many thanks to Apple and this forum.

mif from Finland.

[Transporteur]

It all depends on your applications and the way you use them.
If you're mainly using FCP and the Adobe suite, go Quad. None of these applications gain any speed from more than 4 cores. Some Adobe filters can use 4 cores, not more.
FCP too runs better on higher clocked processors and can't take any advantage of an 8 core model.

Rendering though is significantly faster on an 8 core. Compressor and Premiere actually can make use of all cores but unless you're rendering the whole day, the Quad will be better for your tasks.

There is no doubt that future software will run better and better with more cores, I doubt that we see that in the next Adobe generation though.

[c2g]

this will depend on your OS and the version of the software you use. if you use old versions of software that aren't optimized for parallel operations, you're just wasting your employer's money

This will be my machine until 2013, so I have to plan ahead. When it's deployed I will be using PShop, Premiere, AE CS4. Going to transition from Premiere to FCP (never used it before). Purchasing the latest version of FCS, so I'll be using the other apps from that when needed. Otherwise, I'll be the only Mac in an all-Windows environment. I'll need to communicate with everyone else on Office 2007 as well as run some proprietary Win apps via Parallels.

[nanofrog]

This will be my machine until 2013, so I have to plan ahead. When it's deployed I will be using PShop, Premiere, AE CS4. Going to transition from Premiere to FCP (never used it before). Purchasing the latest version of FCS, so I'll be using the other apps from that when needed. Otherwise, I'll be the only Mac in an all-Windows environment. I'll need to communicate with everyone else on Office 2007 as well as run some proprietary Win apps via Parallels.
Professional software doesn't get new versions annually like consumer software typically does, as it's far more complicated.

Current versions of the applications you've listed have implemented their multi-threading via their own tools. Now with SL, it includes things like Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL, which will likely force Adobe to re-write a substantial chunk of code to make it compliant with the new underpinnings in OS X. That will take time (and resource management = experienced people, not just money), and I'm not sure they'll have it ready by 2013. I can't help but think it's going to be a major undertaking for software developers with existing products.

Then take into account that Apple and Adobe don't have the best working relationship (could cause Adobe to drag their heels).

[c2g]

Then take into account that Apple and Adobe don't have the best working relationship (could cause Adobe to drag their heels).

Adobe aside, assuming I can effectively transition to Final Cut Studio, would you say going 8-core is worth the extra $800?

[nanofrog]

Adobe aside, assuming I can effectively transition to Final Cut Studio, would you say going 8-core is worth the extra $800?
How heavy are you into multi-tasking?

The software you've listed doesn't have the ability to utilize any more than 4 cores, and most of the time it will only be 2 cores IMO (it will depend on the libraries loaded as I understand it).

If you're running Virtual Machines, then it would be a good idea to use an Octad.

But if you're not able to multi-task or run VM's, then put the funds into a faster clock speed or upgrades (solve the system bottlenecks such as RAM and HDD throughput = some sort of RAID). The latter would give you more bang for you're companies buck, as it helps no matter the clock or core count.

[c2g]

How heavy are you into multi-tasking?

The software you've listed doesn't have the ability to utilize any more than 4 cores, and most of the time it will only be 2 cores IMO (it will depend on the libraries loaded as I understand it).

If you're running Virtual Machines, then it would be a good idea to use an Octad.

But if you're not able to multi-task or run VM's, then put the funds into a faster clock speed or upgrades (solve the system bottlenecks such as RAM and HDD throughput = some sort of RAID). The latter would give you more bang for you're companies buck, as it helps no matter the clock or core count.

That gives me a different perspective to think about. Thanks for the input!

[alent1234]

Professional software doesn't get new versions annually like consumer software typically does, as it's far more complicated.

Current versions of the applications you've listed have implemented their multi-threading via their own tools. Now with SL, it includes things like Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL, which will likely force Adobe to re-write a substantial chunk of code to make it compliant with the new underpinnings in OS X. That will take time (and resource management = experienced people, not just money), and I'm not sure they'll have it ready by 2013. I can't help but think it's going to be a major undertaking for software developers with existing products.

Then take into account that Apple and Adobe don't have the best working relationship (could cause Adobe to drag their heels).

don't know about Apple's software, but a lot of professional apps including Adobe have rent a software agreements. you pay support annually and get "free" upgrades to any new version as they come out. we do this with Veritas Netbackup

[PeterQVenkman]

Adobe aside, assuming I can effectively transition to Final Cut Studio, would you say going 8-core is worth the extra $800?

Final Cut Studio is not going to utilize the 8 cores the way we dream about. If you are running a program like Maya or Cinema 4d that will eat up any core it can get it's hands on, the 8 core advantage is massive.

Otherwise just get an iMac 27 inch core i7, or spend extra to get the slower Mac Pro single socket 4 core. If you max out Apple's single socket MacPro, I believe you are paying way too much for the power you're getting. Apple doesn't offer the options many people want in this area.

[CCK]

One thing to consider also is the amount of ram you think that you'll need, as the 4 core only has 4 slots verses 8 in the 8 core.

If 6 Gbs is good enough for starters, then you'd be okay right from the start with the 8 core, but you'd have to drop another $200 in the quad, as the 3 Gbs is not acceptable IMO. Then you'd have to trash that ram if you wanted to increase it, or just add another 2 Gbs to max it out at 8. Going with the 4 & 8 Gb modules gets pretty expensive, so figure that into the cost.

[telequest]

One thing to consider also is the amount of ram you think that you'll need, as the 4 core only has 4 slots verses 8 in the 8 core.

If 6 Gbs is good enough for starters, then you'd be okay right from the start with the 8 core, but you'd have to drop another $200 in the quad, as the 3 Gbs is not acceptable IMO. Then you'd have to trash that ram if you wanted to increase it, or just add another 2 Gbs to max it out at 8. Going with the 4 & 8 Gb modules gets pretty expensive, so figure that into the cost.

The 4GB modules for the 2009s from Crucial right now are $230 each, vs. $75 each for the 2GB units - about a 50% premium per GB for the higher capacity. I don't see any 8GB units at Crucial.

Interesting: The OWC 2GB modules are $70, just $5 cheaper than Crucial. But OWC's 4GB modules are only $160 ($70 cheaper than Crucial), showing only a small per-GB premium for their larger units.

But no matter how you look at it, a mere 4 RAM slots for the 2009 Quads is a real weakness. Limits how much you can add and forces you to pay a premium per GB for the RAM you do add - at least if you go with a better supplier (I've had iffy results from OWC's RAM).

[nanofrog]

That gives me a different perspective to think about. Thanks for the input!
:cool: NP. :)

don't know about Apple's software, but a lot of professional apps including Adobe have rent a software agreements. you pay support annually and get "free" upgrades to any new version as they come out. we do this with Veritas Netbackup
I'm quite familiar with this, as the software I use takes the same approach (National Instruments). But it's also rather expensive software (can exceed $10k per user, depending on the specifics; particularly the add-ons). So keeping up with the annual fee makes much more sense financially IMO.

[DoFoT9]

How heavy are you into multi-tasking?

The software you've listed doesn't have the ability to utilize any more than 4 cores, and most of the time it will only be 2 cores IMO (it will depend on the libraries loaded as I understand it).
hmmm. odd. whenever i have used Compressor to export videos it has used >2 cores from what i can remember. infact it completely maxed out all 8 threads on my iMac i7.

If you're running Virtual Machines, then it would be a good idea to use an Octad.

use the saved money for more RAM if that is the case!

[nanofrog]

hmmm. odd. whenever i have used Compressor to export videos it has used >2 cores from what i can remember. infact it completely maxed out all 8 threads on my iMac i7.
Compressor can, but I'm left with the impression most of the time spent would be in other applications (content development), not compression (i.e. can be run at night in a batch - keeps the system working without forcing a DP system if it's not really necessary).

Ultimately, it comes down to the specific usage, and each user has to spend time figuring this out. The system cost difference is increasing between SP and DP systems (I consider add-ons as part of this, such as RAM, RAID,... to be included in the price). Given budgets are essentially always an issue, striking a balance between cost/performance is critical (and it may not be easy to figure out). Otherwise, bottlenecks can make a system drag, and wasted funds could have been used to solve such issues (i.e. bought more cores than needed, but sacrificed RAM,... to get them).

[CCK]

But no matter how you look at it, a mere 4 RAM slots for the 2009 Quads is a real weakness. Limits how much you can add and forces you to pay a premium per GB for the RAM you do add - at least if you go with a better supplier (I've had iffy results from OWC's RAM).

To me the real issue is that you have to decide what route you are going to take with ram from day one. If the different modules were compatible, this wouldn't be a problem (if you could put a 4 Gb in the 4th slot)

I think it is interesting to see that a large % of people have a $2500 budget for a comp. This makes the ram choice difficult.

[c2g]

We were probably looking at 8-12 GB of RAM for the 8-core config. Now I'm thinking if we drop to the 4-core and increase the RAM for the same price, this might be a better option?

Note - I won't use any 3D animation apps or do any gaming with this machine.

Another Note - Most of the time, I'll be using the machine for my daily duties as a webmaster - coding, image manip., all tasks that are carried out quite well by the rest of my department on cheap, base model Dells. When I do get a video project, I store everything locally and back it all up on external HDs. When I'm finished I completely remove everything from my machine. Considering this, they RAID option was the first thing to get shaved from the config to save $.

Thanks again for everyone's help.

[c2g]

Just realized this quick comparison:

Base model 8-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $3799.
Base model 4-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $4349.

May not take advantage of 8 cores right now, but if I can't get more RAM with the 4-core, it doesn't seem to be a viable option.

[telequest]

Just realized this quick comparison:

Base model 8-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $3799.
Base model 4-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $4349.

May not take advantage of 8 cores right now, but if I can't get more RAM with the 4-core, it doesn't seem to be a viable option.

Apple's pricing on RAM is insane. Get the minimum from Apple and upgrade with modules from Crucial (or OWC if you're willing to take a chance). But it's true that the smaller number of slots on the Quad force you to spend more bucks per gig on 4GB modules to reach 16GB (4x4GB) than on much-cheaper 2GB modules (8x2GB) possible on the 8-core, thus erasing some of the price difference between the base 2009 Mac Pros.

[nanofrog]

Apple's pricing on RAM is insane. Get the minimum from Apple and upgrade with modules from Crucial (or OWC if you're willing to take a chance). But it's true that the smaller number of slots on the Quad force you to spend more bucks per gig on 4GB modules to reach 16GB (4x4GB) than on much-cheaper 2GB modules (8x2GB) possible on the 8-core, thus erasing some of the price difference between the base 2009 Mac Pros.
There is a notable difference in clock speed though, and it will certainly be reflected in single threaded performance, and even multi-threaded performance, given the applications the OP's previously listed (2 - 4 cores for most of it; Compressor is an exception; it can use all that's available).

[VirtualRain]

Just realized this quick comparison:

Base model 8-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $3799.
Base model 4-core with only upgrade being 16 GB RAM = $4349.

May not take advantage of 8 cores right now, but if I can't get more RAM with the 4-core, it doesn't seem to be a viable option.

If you can "make do" with just 12GB of RAM then you could get a Quad core with OWC memory for under $3K.

[DoFoT9]

Compressor can, but I'm left with the impression most of the time spent would be in other applications (content development), not compression (i.e. can be run at night in a batch - keeps the system working without forcing a DP system if it's not really necessary).
hmmm.. i just rendered a movie in FCP and it used 75% of each core, and 25% of each thread (see attached screen shot) for a total of about 400% CPU (of 800%). that, to me, indicates that it is multithreaded to some extent - and rendering is where a lot of the time is spent too.

Ultimately, it comes down to the specific usage, and each user has to spend time figuring this out. The system cost difference is increasing between SP and DP systems (I consider add-ons as part of this, such as RAM, RAID,... to be included in the price). Given budgets are essentially always an issue, striking a balance between cost/performance is critical (and it may not be easy to figure out). Otherwise, bottlenecks can make a system drag, and wasted funds could have been used to solve such issues (i.e. bought more cores than needed, but sacrificed RAM,... to get them).

kind of a tough one video editing.. a lot of the time HDD speed will be the bottle neck, but once you start playing with hi-def video then the CPU might become the bottleneck too (in some regards). but if pro-res is being used then the HDD would more be the bottleneck. i dont really see RAM as such a large contributor, sure its there but not as prominent.

[nanofrog]

hmmm.. i just rendered a movie in FCP and it used 75% of each core, and 25% of each thread (see attached screen shot) for a total of about 400% CPU (of 800%). that, to me, indicates that it is multithreaded to some extent - and rendering is where a lot of the time is spent too.

kind of a tough one video editing.. a lot of the time HDD speed will be the bottle neck, but once you start playing with hi-def video then the CPU might become the bottleneck too (in some regards). but if pro-res is being used then the HDD would more be the bottleneck. i dont really see RAM as such a large contributor, sure its there but not as prominent.
Video/graphics work does seem to be the one area that an Octad can make more sense (especially for 3D work) from what I've seen posted.

But no matter the system used, graphics work does need the system bottlenecks to be addressed if at all possible, and that's where RAID as well as additional RAM come in (it's RAM requirements are modest, and HDD throughputs seem to have the biggest impact from what I can tell).

[DoFoT9]

Video/graphics work does seem to be the one area that an Octad can make more sense (especially for 3D work) from what I've seen posted.

But no matter the system used, graphics work does need the system bottlenecks to be addressed if at all possible, and that's where RAID as well as additional RAM come in (it's RAM requirements are modest, and HDD throughputs seem to have the biggest impact from what I can tell).

agreed on that, but we need to drill-down on the actual bottle neck for the particular OP. CPU usage would be pretty important in this case.. ive never really had any first hand experience with RAM usage with FCP applications.

what sort of files/file sizes are we talking here OP?

[VirtualRain]

FCP can only use 2.5GB of RAM... http://support.apple.com/kb/TA27734

Based on my experience with FCP, the best thing you can do is move your working files to an SSD... fine if you're working on a 5 minute project... not so good if you are trying to edit a 1 or 2 hour feature.

[DoFoT9]

FCP can only use 2.5GB of RAM... http://support.apple.com/kb/TA27734

Based on my experience with FCP, the best thing you can do is move your working files to an SSD... fine if you're working on a 5 minute project... not so good if you are trying to edit a 1 or 2 hour feature.

thats why i was a bit sceptical about the RAM requirements, im not sure about motion etc wrt RAM.

id opt for more/faster HDD space (esp for video production!). CPU i think is most important.

[c2g]

OK, here's the config they have drawn up for me:

- 2.66 Quad-core
- GeForce GTX 285 (to run 2x24" monitors I already own)
- GT 120 (to run preview monitor)
- 8 GB (4 x 2 GB)
- 4 x 640GB 7200 HDDs (why they want to go with overpriced Mac HDDs, I have no idea)
- No RAID
- 3 yr protection plan

$4K

Like I said, most of the time, I'm just doing web development. Photoshop CS4 will be open every day. We're supposedly going to run Windows (Office 07 plus proprietary apps) on Parallels on it, but no one knows what that entails (again, all PC environment with no internal support). When the last video project came my way, I would (try to) run Premiere, AE, and PShop at the same time, as well as keep Outlook open, etc. - which didn't work too well. The last video I did was about a little over an hour long. All SD. Will we be HD next year? Not sure. All I know is that I'll have this machine for 3 years, and I'm pushing for more video projects.

My problem is that I will be the only Mac in an all PC environment, not to mention the only user who uses video apps. Because of this, I had to do a lot of self-support with my current nightmare of a PC. Now we're headed into uncharted waters with the Mac (I haven't used since OS 8.6). I really, really don't want to run into the same situation with a new Mac. Will I be OK for 3 years with this setup? Are we being pennywise and pound foolish? If so, what one area would you upgrade???

[CCK]

OK, here's the config they have drawn up for me:

- 2.66 Quad-core
- GeForce GTX 285 (to run 2x24" monitors I already own)
- GT 120 (to run preview monitor)
- 8 GB (4 x 2 GB)
- 4 x 640GB 7200 HDDs (why they want to go with overpriced Mac HDDs, I have no idea)
- No RAID
- 3 yr protection plan
-$4K
Are we being pennywise and pound foolish? If so, what one area would you upgrade???

First of all I'd at least wait till this Tuesday to see if the 16th is the date.

With 3 1 TB Cav Black drives The refurbished comp & everything else listed (which are all simple installations) I get less than $3500. For the 2.93 refurb, I still get just under $4k.

If your going to get it before the 16th, & your budget is $4k, I'd go for the 2.93.

[rickvanr]

OK, here's the config they have drawn up for me:

- 2.66 Quad-core
- GeForce GTX 285 (to run 2x24" monitors I already own)
- GT 120 (to run preview monitor)
- 8 GB (4 x 2 GB)
- 4 x 640GB 7200 HDDs (why they want to go with overpriced Mac HDDs, I have no idea)
- No RAID
- 3 yr protection plan

$4K

That's kind of ridiculous. They're willing to buy a GTX285 and put it in yourself, but not the HDs? They do realize they can buy a 2TB drive for less then Apple charges for the 640GB. Save that money and upgrade the processor. Same goes with the RAM.

Good call on the AppleCare though

[c2g]

That's kind of ridiculous. They're willing to buy a GTX285 and put it in yourself, but not the HDs? They do realize they can buy a 2TB drive for less then Apple charges for the 640GB. Save that money and upgrade the processor. Same goes with the RAM.

Good call on the AppleCare though

Actually the Apple rep mentioned we could buy the GTX285 as an upgrade and would be covered and installed part of the initial build. They're pretty unwavering about getting everything covered under the apple care plan. It just seems to me that we could get a little more in the way of memory and HDs if we went outside of apple. From what I understand, it may take a bit of work to find a bad stick of memory, but a HD - especially one that's not part of a RAID? Am I wrong to think that's a pretty basic level of support the we shouldn't be worried about calling Apple when a drive goes bad?

[Fomaphone]

Actually the Apple rep mentioned we could buy the GTX285 as an upgrade and would be covered and installed part of the initial build. They're pretty unwavering about getting everything covered under the apple care plan. It just seems to me that we could get a little more in the way of memory and HDs if we went outside of apple. From what I understand, it may take a bit of work to find a bad stick of memory, but a HD - especially one that's not part of a RAID? Am I wrong to think that's a pretty basic level of support the we shouldn't be worried about calling Apple when a drive goes bad?


haha, you should know right away which drive has failed if it does. if it's that much of a concern, name your drives 'bay1' 'bay2' 'bay3' and 'bay4'

and you're right about getting more outside of apple... i've spent $4k on what is a $6600 machine from apple.

even applecare is better to get 3rd party... i paid $79 for the EXACT SAME APPLE COVERAGE, FROM APPLE, by getting it 3rd party on ebay (it's $249 in the store, i think).

[nanofrog]

They're pretty unwavering about getting everything covered under the apple care plan.
In the business world, they want a single point of contact in the event of a problem, and they pay for it.

Unfortunately, it does have the side effect of gaining less system for the money, as others have indicated. I'd try to work on them about this. Worth a shot, as HDD failures mean you have to buy them anyway, and RAM failures are rare comparatively speaking (hint: memory from a reputable supplier typically has a lifetime warranty).

[iamcheerful]

Something interesting from the latest testing at BareFeats. This may be of interest to you.

For reasons that remain a mystery for the moment, the newest version of Final Cut Studio (7) is significanty slower than previous version (6) -- at least where Compressor and Motion are concerned. Hopefully, this will be addressed by Apple's software engineers in a future point release.

http://www.barefeats.com/fcp7.html

[Phantom Gremlin]

even applecare is better to get 3rd party... i paid $79 for the EXACT SAME APPLE COVERAGE, FROM APPLE, by getting it 3rd party on ebay (it's $249 in the store, i think).

I would read all the horror stories on Macrumors before I bought Applecare on Ebay.

Hint for Google search term: site:macrumors.com applecare ebay

First hit is a 26 page thread of woe.

How can anyone think that 70% off isn't a scam? Especially from Fleabay?

Also, this guy's purchasing department is placing the order. Do you seriously expect them to buy everything from Apple and then go out to Ebay for the warranty?

Seriously?

[DoFoT9]

I would read all the horror stories on Macrumors before I bought Applecare on Ebay.

Hint for Google search term: site:macrumors.com applecare ebay

First hit is a 26 page thread of woe.

How can anyone think that 70% off isn't a scam? Especially from Fleabay?

Also, this guy's purchasing department is placing the order. Do you seriously expect them to buy everything from Apple and then go out to Ebay for the warranty?

Seriously?

hmmmm. that was my plans. get apple care off of ebay. i still might, ill just be super careful ;)

[nanofrog]

Something interesting from the latest testing at BareFeats. This may be of interest to you.

For reasons that remain a mystery for the moment, the newest version of Final Cut Studio (7) is significanty slower than previous version (6) -- at least where Compressor and Motion are concerned. Hopefully, this will be addressed by Apple's software engineers in a future point release.

http://www.barefeats.com/fcp7.html
It sounds like the software though, not the system. Other applications (benchmarks as well, such as Cinebench) follow the information I posted previously.

[DoFoT9]

It sounds like the software though, not the system. Other applications (benchmarks as well, such as Cinebench) follow the information I posted previously.

there would be reasoning behind the performance loss. some sort of format update? apple NEVER brings out a product that performs less then the previous model.... (i think).

[nanofrog]

there would be reasoning behind the performance loss. some sort of format update? apple NEVER brings out a product that performs less then the previous model.... (i think).
They screwed up, and an update is needed. The "audio bug" comes to mind, and that took quite a bit of time (present from day one, even if it took some time to be noticed/observed).

It's leaving me with the distinct impression Apple's in too much of a hurry to get the Pro products out the door (i.e. not enough people or just flat out greed; either has the same effect = premature crap).

[DoFoT9]

They screwed up, and an update is needed. The "audio bug" comes to mind, and that took quite a bit of time (present from day one, even if it took some time to be noticed/observed).

It's leaving me with the distinct impression Apple's in too much of a hurry to get the Pro products out the door (i.e. not enough people or just flat out greed; either has the same effect = premature crap).

you reckon? they need to hire some more professional staff. then. must be getting bloated :(

the audio bug had nothing to do with the FCP suite, but i see your point - quality (or quality control/effort) is going down!

[nanofrog]

you reckon? they need to hire some more professional staff. then. must be getting bloated :(

the audio bug had nothing to do with the FCP suite, but i see your point - quality (or quality control/effort) is going down!
Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway. :rolleyes: :(

As per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form. ;)

[DoFoT9]

Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway. :rolleyes: :(
the old FCP2 wasnt that old, im surprised that they did bring it out! im not that impressed by its features, there really isnt that much new.

As per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form. ;)
yup i see what you did there :D thats why most of apples 1st gen products are crap! (eg quad core imacs), ipods, iphone etc.

[nanofrog]

yup i see what you did there :D thats why most of apples 1st gen products are crap! (eg quad core imacs), ipods, iphone etc.
This has become far too common with consumer electronics from my experience and observations, as well as software. And the problems are persisting even after the 1st generation (subsequent revisions - both hardware and software; not just updates for software).

[DoFoT9]

This has become far too common with consumer electronics from my experience and observations, as well as software. And the problems are persisting even after the 1st generation (subsequent revisions - both hardware and software; not just updates for software).

oh yea for sure. no objection there. i experienced that with my time capsule! i have a replacement now, but the problem still persists!

it exists with software too. all you have to do is look at how many cores the software can handle! its terrible.

[iamcheerful]

It sounds like the software though, not the system. Other applications (benchmarks as well, such as Cinebench) follow the information I posted previously.

I, too, believe it is very likely software related. I wonder if anyone brought up this discussion on Apple Discussion Forums yet.

[VirtualRain]

Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway. :rolleyes: :(

As per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form. ;)

I'm not making excuses, but in all fairness, the audio bug is not something that was even really discovered in the wild for about 6 months and the severity was limited in impact. There was also a simple work-around... DDT in the world of QA (Don't do that). I know this wasn't palatable to many, but it had to be triaged against the myriad of other issues that are all demanding resources on any given day.

In general, it's just not economical to test every possible use case. In addition, there's often insufficient business case to justify a fix for some defects (eg. suitable work-arounds exist or the negative consequences are insignificant compared to the cost of fixing). All software (and therefore most hardware) ships with bugs, it's just a question of the number, severity, and the use cases which trigger them that determines the perceived quality. Most QA departments establish benchmarks which must be met (eg. no sev 1 defects, less than X sev 2 defects, etc.). There's likely hundreds of known bugs in OSX 10.6.2 and likely just as many unknown bugs, but the majority are of insignificant severity or take unusual circumstances to invoke.

Given Apple's fairly liberal warranty (and the costs associated with it) and discerning user base (aka picky), I'd say they are probably very sensitive to the risks of poor QA and probably take more measures than most to minimize their after sales support and warranty costs and therefore invest more than average in QA.

[DoFoT9]

In general, it's just not economical to test every possible use case. In addition, there's often insufficient business case to justify a fix for some defects (eg. suitable work-arounds exist or the negative consequences are insignificant compared to the cost of fixing). All software (and therefore most hardware) ships with bugs, it's just a question of the number, severity, and the use cases which trigger them that determines the perceived quality.

point taken. but how hard is it to run a comparative benchmark from this version to the version it is super-seeding?

the coders/devs should have built it in such a way that the software can be improved each time, not the reverse!

i only hope that the bad benchmarks are because some sort of new programming techniques (or anything) has been used and it needs more work to fully bring out the true quality. /dream

[nanofrog]

I'm not making excuses, but in all fairness, the audio bug is not something that was even really discovered in the wild for about 6 months and the severity was limited in impact. There was also a simple work-around... DDT in the world of QA (Don't do that). I know this wasn't palatable to many, but it had to be triaged against the myriad of other issues that are all demanding resources on any given day.
That issue should have been caught during testing IMO. Thermal testing is a big one, as is testing the board's components, including with the software. In this case, Macs are a closed system and it really should have been caught.

Even other board makers will test with Windows before releasing a board, and more are also beginning to test with some versions of UNIX (typically well known Linux distros, particularly enterprise boards). It's not always perfect, but is that way for the same reasons the failure occurred with the MP's this time around. Too few resources and pushed out the door too quickly (went short on validation testing to make the deadline).

There's also the liberal use of improper components (too cheap = substandard specifications for the design that tends to occur during production by some moronic accountant). But that wasn't the case here.

I could perhaps see the issue with external audio devices (i.e. 3rd party hardware not tested), but not the audio chip on the logic board.

[Gonk42]

the version it is super-seeding?


Sounds a bit agricultural! Perhaps "superseding" is what you meant to type.:)

(Please don't take offence, I often produce typos and that one made me smile.)

[DoFoT9]

Sounds a bit agricultural! Perhaps "superseding" is what you meant to type.:)

(Please don't take offence, I often produce typos and that one made me smile.)

lol you caught me! i really had no idea how to type it but you know what i meant :cool: :p

[iamcheerful]

I'm not making excuses, but in all fairness, the audio bug is not something that was even really discovered in the wild for about 6 months and the severity was limited in impact. There was also a simple work-around... DDT in the world of QA (Don't do that). I know this wasn't palatable to many, but it had to be triaged against the myriad of other issues that are all demanding resources on any given day.

In general, it's just not economical to test every possible use case. In addition, there's often insufficient business case to justify a fix for some defects (eg. suitable work-arounds exist or the negative consequences are insignificant compared to the cost of fixing). All software (and therefore most hardware) ships with bugs, it's just a question of the number, severity, and the use cases which trigger them that determines the perceived quality. Most QA departments establish benchmarks which must be met (eg. no sev 1 defects, less than X sev 2 defects, etc.). There's likely hundreds of known bugs in OSX 10.6.2 and likely just as many unknown bugs, but the majority are of insignificant severity or take unusual circumstances to invoke.

Given Apple's fairly liberal warranty (and the costs associated with it) and discerning user base (aka picky), I'd say they are probably very sensitive to the risks of poor QA and probably take more measures than most to minimize their after sales support and warranty costs and therefore invest more than average in QA.

To be more accurate, these are two independent reported incidents on the issue - about 3 months and 5 months after the Mac Pro was announced. It may be worth noting that both users discovered it within 3 weeks of use. It is reasonable for one to question how Apple Testers could've missed it.


1) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=710682
(3 weeks into using the Mac Pro when gsdesign uncovered the infamous heat issue)

2) http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2112526&start=0&tstart=0
(3 weeks into using the Mac Pro when Mike Hume noticed the audio impact on the CPU tempeature)

VirtualRain's detailed testing - http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8952814&postcount=306 - made a pretty strong case.

All said, I think it is very reasonable to assume that Apple uses/tests machine with applications that users tend to rely on. Besides, Apple pride herself with her iApps. iTunes is pretty much a major asset. To let this issue to drag for almost a year speaks volume ...

Kinda off topic thus I'll cut off here.

I'll round up by saying glad that Apple resolved this issue but we will appreciate if such bugs be ironed out before sales. Or maybe resolve such issues in a more timely fashion.

[CCK]

Something interesting from the latest testing at BareFeats. This may be of interest to you.

For reasons that remain a mystery for the moment, the newest version of Final Cut Studio (7) is significanty slower than previous version (6) -- at least where Compressor and Motion are concerned. Hopefully, this will be addressed by Apple's software engineers in a future point release.

http://www.barefeats.com/fcp7.html

Sounds like we have the reason that 40 FC employees have been laid off??

[Max(IT)]

hmmmm. that was my plans. get apple care off of ebay. i still might, ill just be super careful ;)

I would avoid eBay for Applecare, when you are going to spend 3000$ for a Mac Pro. Search Amazon for a discounted Applecare

[VirtualRain]

I would avoid eBay for Applecare, when you are going to spend 3000$ for a Mac Pro. Search Amazon for a discounted Applecare

WTF?! Perhaps advising someone to avoid unreputable sellers on ebay is good advice, but to avoid it altogether? Ebay and Paypal both offer guarantees from bad transactions. The feedback system is also a good indicator of who you are dealing with. There are a lot of very reputable sellers of AppleCare on ebay. While I'm not one of them, I just purchased a perfectly legitimate AppleCare warranty for my 2009 Mac Pro for $60 off ebay.

[DoFoT9]

I would avoid eBay for Applecare, when you are going to spend 3000$ for a Mac Pro. Search Amazon for a discounted Applecare
i only have an imac :p it cost $2800aus :p

WTF?! Perhaps advising someone to avoid unreputable sellers on ebay is good advice, but to avoid it altogether? Ebay and Paypal both offer guarantees from bad transactions. The feedback system is also a good indicator of who you are dealing with. There are a lot of very reputable sellers of AppleCare on ebay. While I'm not one of them, I just purchased a perfectly legitimate AppleCare warranty for my 2009 Mac Pro for $60 off ebay.
wow now that is cheap! im of the same opinion as you are. if you do the research then you are fine! i normally only buy from sellers with 100% satisfaction, or 99% (if they sell thousands of items, you're bound to have an unhappy buyer somewhere).

[Max(IT)]

WTF?! Perhaps advising someone to avoid unreputable sellers on ebay is good advice, but to avoid it altogether? Ebay and Paypal both offer guarantees from bad transactions. The feedback system is also a good indicator of who you are dealing with. There are a lot of very reputable sellers of AppleCare on ebay. While I'm not one of them, I just purchased a perfectly legitimate AppleCare warranty for my 2009 Mac Pro for $60 off ebay.

There is a 26 pages long thread about that, on this very forum.
I bought several AppleCares on eBay, from a seller with 100% satisfaction.
Nevertheless I know that if I eventually sell one of my Mac and want to transfer the Applecare to the new owner, Apple is going to ask me proof of purchase, and a Paypal or eBay receipt IS NOT a valid proof for Apple.
It's a gamble ...



wow now that is cheap! im of the same opinion as you are. if you do the research then you are fine! i normally only buy from sellers with 100% satisfaction, or 99% (if they sell thousands of items, you're bound to have an unhappy buyer somewhere).

If you buy a code-only Applecare, you could have problems ...

[DoFoT9]

If you buy a code-only Applecare, you could have problems ...

its illegal for them to email you the code. it is to come in the original casing according to ebay. id only buy one thats in the original wrapping.

[Max(IT)]

its illegal for them to email you the code. it is to come in the original casing according to ebay. id only buy one thats in the original wrapping.

they are selling a lot of code-only Applecares ....

[DoFoT9]

they are selling a lot of code-only Applecares ....

i know. and its illegal and you're stupid if you buy them in that form. because you wont be covered by insurence etc if you get in the ******* (eg code doesnt work)

[Max(IT)]

i know. and its illegal and you're stupid if you buy them in that form. because you wont be covered by insurence etc if you get in the ******* (eg code doesnt work)

I discovered it after the purchase ... :rolleyes:
Never do again ...

[VirtualRain]

I discovered it after the purchase ... :rolleyes:
Never do again ...

What happened to you?

I bought an Applecare code off eBay for my Macbook Air and Apple replaced my sloppy hinge (which necessitates replacing the whole top clam shell portion with the display) and never questioned my AC status despite this being a questionable and contentious repair.

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)

I discovered it after the purchase ... :rolleyes:
Never do again ...

What happened to you?

I bought an Applecare code off eBay for my Macbook Air and Apple replaced my sloppy hinge (which necessitates replacing the whole top clam shell portion with the display) and never questioned my AC status despite this being a questionable and contentious repair.

I'm guessing that his code didn't work lol

[Max(IT)]

What happened to you?

I bought an Applecare code off eBay for my Macbook Air and Apple replaced my sloppy hinge (which necessitates replacing the whole top clam shell portion with the display) and never questioned my AC status despite this being a questionable and contentious repair.

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



I'm guessing that his code didn't work lol

Actually I have 5 ACPPs bought from eBay (Macman), all of them still active. And I used two of them twice.
One is from 2007 ...

That's not the point. If I sell one of my Macs, I simply can't transfer the ACPP to the new owner because Apple is gonna ask me a proof of purchase I cannot have.
I don't know if I'm going to buy again an ACPP from eBay ....

[DoFoT9]

Actually I have 5 ACPPs bought from eBay (Macman), all of them still active. And I used two of them twice.
One is from 2007 ...

That's not the point. If I sell one of my Macs, I simply can't transfer the ACPP to the new owner because Apple is gonna ask me a proof of purchase I cannot have.
I don't know if I'm going to buy again an ACPP from eBay ....

thats fair enough if you plan on selling. my imac was/is a long term purchase. i will have it for at least 10 years! (the screen can be re-used even if the processor gets outdated)

[iamcheerful]

thats fair enough if you plan on selling. my imac was/is a long term purchase. i will have it for at least 10 years! (the screen can be re-used even if the processor gets outdated)

that's indeed a long time given the pace we're moving.

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)

thats fair enough if you plan on selling. my imac was/is a long term purchase. i will have it for at least 10 years! (the screen can be re-used even if the processor gets outdated)

that's indeed a long time given the pace we're moving.

it really is but like I said, monitor size over that time frame won't really change. The resolution of the monitors might Haha. 2560x1440 will be the same as 640x480 in 10years time lol!

[Max(IT)]

thats fair enough if you plan on selling. my imac was/is a long term purchase. i will have it for at least 10 years! (the screen can be re-used even if the processor gets outdated)

No way I can keep a computer for such a long time :D
I change notebook every 2 years, while I keep my desktop for about 3 years (so it should be ok for my Mini but the problem is a real pain in the ass for my MacBook Pro).

[DoFoT9]

No way I can keep a computer for such a long time :D
I change notebook every 2 years, while I keep my desktop for about 3 years (so it should be ok for my Mini but the problem is a real pain in the ass for my MacBook Pro).

wow ok haha. my MBP is nearly 4 years old and its getting on now :( very slow but since ive gotten my imac i can just offload the CPU intensive work to it. no problems there. i think this imac will last me a good while, ill keep it as my primary machine until
1) i can afford the latest macpro and can upgrade each time a new one comes out
2) the intel quad i7 cpu is no longer supported by apple for the latest 10.x upgrade
3) i need more RAM (im preying to god that it supports 32GB and even 64GB).

[Max(IT)]

wow ok haha. my MBP is nearly 4 years old and its getting on now :( very slow but since ive gotten my imac i can just offload the CPU intensive work to it. no problems there. i think this imac will last me a good while, ill keep it as my primary machine until
1) i can afford the latest macpro and can upgrade each time a new one comes out
2) the intel quad i7 cpu is no longer supported by apple for the latest 10.x upgrade
3) i need more RAM (im preying to god that it supports 32GB and even 64GB).

C'mon, your MBP it's not so slow ;)

[DoFoT9]

C'mon, your MBP it's not so slow ;)

trust me, it is :(

Core Duo @ 2.16ghz = slow, hot, and power hungry!

not to mention that i only have 2GB of RAM in it!

[Max(IT)]

trust me, it is :(

Core Duo @ 2.16ghz = slow, hot, and power hungry!

not to mention that i only have 2GB of RAM in it!

We still have 4 MBPs like your: they are not so slow in normal office automation duties.
I agree: they are hot.

[DoFoT9]

We still have 4 MBPs like your: they are not so slow in normal office automation duties.
I agree: they are hot.

oh yea no arguement there. its fine for word processing and whatnot, so long as its plugged in ;)

but for say, VM use + 20tabs in safari + mail + adium + itunes + 2 monitors + project management software + FCP, its not so fast ;)

[Max(IT)]

oh yea no arguement there. its fine for word processing and whatnot, so long as its plugged in ;)

but for say, VM use + 20tabs in safari + mail + adium + itunes + 2 monitors + project management software + FCP, its not so fast ;)

Definitely ;)