3.2GHz Quad-Core “Nehalem” vs 3.33GHz 6-Core “Westmere”

[BrenMyster]

ahhhhhh, I'm one of the many many people who are juggling mac pro options in my head.

is the 3.33GHz Westmere worth the extra £640? Probably not, but now much faster will be it? 20%....30%?

I think I'm set on either of these two options, mainly using FCP and photoshop and a bit of motion. maybe a bit of gaming :)

Also I can max out them four RAM slots and get a 5870 with the extra cash:)

What you guys think?

[eponym]

I'm in the same boat. I really don't know which way to go.

cpubenchmark is showing a significant difference in performance scores (but I'm not sure how reflective of the real world these numbers are):

6-Core (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3680+%40+3.33GHz)
vs
3.2 Quad (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3565+%40+3.20GHz)

[eponym]

And looking at Geekbench scores, the 6-core is consistently getting scores 50% higher than the quad 3.2.

Hmmm...

[bzollinger]

I'm going to wait until I see some more benchmarks, perferrably some "real world" applications. Although the difference between the two in post #2 is HUGE!! :eek:

[ghostchild]

And looking at Geekbench scores, the 6-core is consistently getting scores 50% higher than the quad 3.2.

Hmmm...

no way.

[eponym]

no way.


Sorry. That wasn't entirely accurate. There's a lot of W3680 scores, but PC builders can apparently overclock it pretty easily into the 4+ GHz range.

[BrenMyster]

I know, it's a hard choice, but I think I have made my mind up, going for the 3.33 with the 5870 and I'm going to throw on 8gb of RAM to start (not apple's)

I'm about 400 over budget but I will kick myself for the next 4-5 years if I don't go for it.

[johnnymg]

I'm in the same boat. I really don't know which way to go.

cpubenchmark is showing a significant difference in performance scores (but I'm not sure how reflective of the real world these numbers are):

6-Core (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3680+%40+3.33GHz)
vs
3.2 Quad (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3565+%40+3.20GHz)

I'm quite surprised at the difference in those scores. I wouldn't have thought there would be a 50% boost from the hex. Are these synthetic benchmarks?

Makes me wonder if I should reconsider my 3.2 Quad order. :confused:

cheers
JohnG

[reel2reel]

I know, it's a hard choice, but I think I have made my mind up, going for the 3.33 with the 5870 and I'm going to throw on 8gb of RAM to start (not apple's)

I'm about 400 over budget but I will kick myself for the next 4-5 years if I don't go for it.

I don't think you can go wrong and that extra $400 will be money very well spent. Congrat's.

[Hellhammer]

6 is 50% bigger than 4 is plus W3680 has 133MHz higher frequency so ~50% sounds reasonable. That's just a theoretical difference which can be achieved when all 6 cores can be used. For OP, quad seems to be just fine, even the 2.8GHz. The CPU can later on be upgraded to faster one and even for less $ than Apple offers it

[reel2reel]

I'm quite surprised at the difference in those scores. I wouldn't have thought there would be a 50% boost from the hex. Are these synthetic benchmarks?

Makes me wonder if I should reconsider my 3.2 Quad order. :confused:

cheers
JohnG

I wonder how much difference the increase in L3 Cache makes.

[BrenMyster]

I'm doing a bit of editing on my 2008 2.5 MBP and this dam beach ball is driving my insane, one cure for that.....

just put the order though :)

One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” 065-9538
Magic Mouse 1E065-9589
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive 065-9557
3 GB (3 x 1 GB) 065-9542
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) & User's Guide (English) B065-9593
ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB 065-9573

[bzollinger]

Nice purchase!!

I'm torn between these two as well. Anyone care to speculate on the speed difference between the 3.2GHz Quad Nehalem, and the i7 Core iMac?

[Hellhammer]

Anyone care to speculate on the speed difference between the 3.2GHz Quad Nehalem, and the i7 Core iMac?

~9%, just a raw mathematical difference (3.2GHz divided by 2.93GHz). Xeon has just support for ECC, otherwise they should be the same and only clock speed is different

[bzollinger]

~14%, just a raw mathematical difference (3.2GHz divided by 2.8GHz). Xeon has just support for ECC, otherwise they should be the same and only clock speed is different

What if the turbo boost feature is taken into effect?

That's one very inticing thing with the hexcore, 3.33GHz to start is nice, but boosting to 3.6GHz is pretty awesome! While the 3.2GHd quad can boost to 3.4GHz....

[jjahshik32]

I'm torn between the two as well!!!!

One of my logic is that once Sandy Bridge is out next year and if I go ahead with the 3.2GHz I would be glad that I saved the extra $1000. But on the other hand, if the 3.33GHz Westmere is THAT much faster, I would be glad that I went with the 3.33GHz when Sandy Bridge is out. :mad:

[Hellhammer]

What if the turbo boost feature is taken into effect?

i7 has more aggressive Turbo, up to 3.6GHz while 3.2GHz quad has only 3.46GHz.

That's one very inticing thing with the hexcore, 3.33GHz to start is nice, but boosting to 3.6GHz is pretty awesome! While the 3.2GHd quad can boost to 3.4GHz....

3.6GHz divided by 3.46GHz is ~4% so both can boost by two multipliers (266MHz), no huge difference.

Oh and one thing, I miscalculated in my post above as I was thinking about the OLD iMac with 2.8GHz i7, the real difference is ~9% (3.2GHz vs 2.93GHz)

[jjahshik32]

i7 has more aggressive Turbo, up to 3.6GHz while 3.2GHz quad has only 3.46GHz.



3.6GHz divided by 3.46GHz is ~4% so both can boost by two multipliers (266MHz), no huge difference.

Oh and one thing, I miscalculated in my post above as I was thinking about the OLD iMac with 2.8GHz i7, the real difference is ~9% (3.2GHz vs 2.93GHz)

Man even though its only 9% difference between the 2.93GHz and 3.2GHz, that 3.2GHz by default without turbo boosting looks sweet.

I remember when I had the 2.8GHz 8 core 2008 Mac Pro, everyone was using some tool to overclock their 2.8GHz to 3.0-3.2GHz and that was a big deal lol.

[Hellhammer]

Man even though its only 9% difference between the 2.93GHz and 3.2GHz, that 3.2GHz by default without turbo boosting looks sweet.

I remember when I had the 2.8GHz 8 core 2008 Mac Pro, everyone was using some tool to overclock their 2.8GHz to 3.0-3.2GHz and that was a big deal lol.

i7-870 has Turbo which can overclock ALL four cores to 3.2GHz when needed so theoretically it's 3.2GHz if needed and the system is relatively cool. W3565 also has that kind of feature but it's not as aggressive, only 3.33GHz for all four cores. I don't think these minor differences in CPUs are the deal-breakers when choosing iMac vs Mac Pro. If you really want something faster than iMac, get the six or eight core...

[bzollinger]

Good information and good point. The real motivation for me to go w/ an MP is the 4 internal drives, and PCI slots. When it comes to CPU power, when talking about the quad or hex, and comparing it to the iMac i7, you're right it shouldn't be a big part of the decision process.....Just trying to justify the extra $$.:D:(

[jjahshik32]

i7-870 has Turbo which can overclock ALL four cores to 3.2GHz when needed so theoretically it's 3.2GHz if needed and the system is relatively cool. W3565 also has that kind of feature but it's not as aggressive, only 3.33GHz for all four cores. I don't think these minor differences in CPUs are the deal-breakers when choosing iMac vs Mac Pro. If you really want something faster than iMac, get the six or eight core...

For me the reason I have my eye on the Mac Pro is because I dont like the all in one thing with the iMacs. I dont doubt that the iMac has the best value but for me the all in one thing is driving me away.

Also aesthetically, I love the way the Mac Pro looks on top of a big desk but the other big reason is due to the hard drive bays which I could really use. I suppose the XEON grade helps a bit in the long run as theoretically, its supposed to be built to last a long time.

Hopefully when Sandy Bridge is out, the 08', 09', 10' Mac Pros can use whatever GPU is coming up next. Thats one of the big thing that worries me. A small voice in the back of my mind is telling me to chug along on my mac mini until sometime next year when Sandy Bridge is out.

Now I'm at the point of get the 6 core Westmere now or wait for Sandy Bridge next year.

[Hellhammer]

Good information and good point. The real motivation for me to go w/ an MP is the 4 internal drives, and PCI slots. When it comes to CPU power, when talking about the quad or hex, and comparing it to the iMac i7, you're right it shouldn't be a big part of the decision process.....Just trying to justify the extra $$.:D:(

Well, the good thing about Mac Pro is upgradeability. Even if you bought the 2.8GHz quad core, you should be able to (not sure yet do they use the same EFI that supports B1 stepping that W3680 uses but they should) upgrade to W3680 later on and even cheaper than from Apple. W3680 goes for around 1100$ and W3530 goes for ~300$ so if you bought W3680 and sold the W3530 that came with your Mac Pro, it would cost you about 800$, 400$ less than from Apple.

Don't quote me on this as we don't know does the 2010 quad support B1 stepping but I can't see why they would not.

[bzollinger]

For me the reason I have my eye on the Mac Pro is because I dont like the all in one thing with the iMacs. I dont doubt that the iMac has the best value but for me the all in one thing is driving me away.

Also aesthetically, I love the way the Mac Pro looks on top of a big desk but the other big reason is due to the hard drive bays which I could really use. I suppose the XEON grade helps a bit in the long run as theoretically, its supposed to be built to last a long time.

Hopefully when Sandy Bridge is out, the 08', 09', 10' Mac Pros can use whatever GPU is coming up next. Thats one of the big thing that worries me. A small voice in the back of my mind is telling me to chug along on my mac mini until sometime next year when Sandy Bridge is out.

Now I'm at the point of get the 6 core Westmere now or wait for Sandy Bridge next year.

I'm in this same boat too. I was waiting for the 2010 MPs, then had to buy something so I picked up the 2.53 late 09 mini and stuck a Momentus XT in it. For the most part is working great! I love it compared to my G5. But I'm still maxing it out when doing heavy LR2, CS4, and Photomatix work.

SandyBridge will be great, but is it going to be another 500+ day wait? If so I don't think I can wait that long especially if I upgrade my DSLR to the next 5D MarkXXX full frame camera.

In that case pulling the trigger on one of the 2010 models now, is a good idea because as we know, in a year or more from now the price will be the same!

[xgman]

I'm torn between the two as well!!!!

One of my logic is that once Sandy Bridge is out next year and if I go ahead with the 3.2GHz I would be glad that I saved the extra $1000. But on the other hand, if the 3.33GHz Westmere is THAT much faster, I would be glad that I went with the 3.33GHz when Sandy Bridge is out. :mad:

Judging by how long it too to get this modest update out the door, you should have plenty of time and then some to save up the extra dough.

[Macinposh]

SandyBridge will be great, but is it going to be another 500+ day wait? If so I don't think I can wait that long especially if I upgrade my DSLR to the next 5D MarkXXX full frame camera.



It is not worth a toss to upgrade if you are solely using it for photo processing.


The speed differencies in pure photoshopping (even 1-2Gb pics) are still constrained by performance of the programs,be it PS CS3,CS4 or CS5.
Some obscure filters might benefit from the speedups,but in general,dont bother.

You will gain much larger benefits by using keyboard shortcuts,reading the manual,taking a course,buying a wacom and learning properly automation than any computer upgrade.


Lightroom / Aperture will show some speedup (sometimes even significant if processing large libraries) with the newer machines but as a generalized you wouldnt notice difference in everyday work between MP 06,08,09 or 10
if doing day-to-day photoshopping for print.

[bzollinger]

It is not worth a toss to upgrade if you are solely using it for photo processing.


The speed differencies in pure photoshopping (even 1-2Gb pics) are still constrained by performance of the programs,be it PS CS3,CS4 or CS5.
Some obscure filters might benefit from the speedups,but in general,dont bother.

You will gain much larger benefits by using keyboard shortcuts,reading the manual,taking a course,buying a wacom and learning properly automation than any computer upgrade.


Lightroom / Aperture will show some speedup (sometimes even significant if processing large libraries) with the newer machines but as a generalized you wouldnt notice difference in everyday work between MP 06,08,09 or 10
if doing day-to-day photoshopping for print.

That's good do know! That makes the $720 price difference (education store), easier to forego.

So CS5 and LR3 (I plan on upgrading) can't really use the extra turbo boost and two extra cores of the 3.33GHz Hexcore vs. the 3.2GHz Quad? If that's the case the I'll save some $$ and get the quad.

Can anyone else put thier two cents in on this?

[PenguinMac]

Can anyone else put their two cents in on this?

I'm just a hobbyist prosumer, but I do have 28 years of home movies to edit (I started with a VHS camera in 1982, and all were copied to DVD and on my Dell waiting for the Mac Pro) and 11 years of digital photos to edit and organize (I started with a 2MP Olympus in 1999). I can't see getting a slower computer then having to go through this upgrade process again in a few years. So the cost of a 6-core now may save you cost and headaches later.

[eponym]

I'd wait for some benchmarks. My gut tells me the hexacore will mop the floor with the 3.2 quad with memory intensive tasks like big PS files. The L3 cache and extra cores are too much to ignore.

If it was CS4, I doubt it would matter as much. But CS5 harnesses the power so much butter.

[adjuster]

The wild card is the possibility of future programs being capable of dealing with multiple cores.

[Macinposh]

That's good do know! That makes the $720 price difference (education store), easier to forego.

So CS5 and LR3 (I plan on upgrading) can't really use the extra turbo boost and two extra cores of the 3.33GHz Hexcore vs. the 3.2GHz Quad? If that's the case the I'll save some $$ and get the quad.

Can anyone else put thier two cents in on this?

Well,you could try to pimp your mini : ssd,external FW disk but it will get you only so far. And as Adjuster below said,wildly optimistacally ( :D ) , some day the photo apps might get up to speed... But that still is at least 18 months (normal adobe cycle) away,and what we have read,it might be even further away or even impossible that we would get the same performance that the video/music/math/etc progs are getting.

So,imho,if you are not doing it for living,suck it up,get other gizmos to help speed you up and buy are nice espresso machine AND a minibar to make all the waiting worthwhile.
Or if you are a serous hobbyist/aspiring get the new iMac.A lot of peeps in ad agencies use it,and hackysack, a lot of photogs use it with hasselblad 39s and do just fine.
Or. If you are loaded,need to compensate or just want a expandable computer that doubles up as a good space heater in those long,cold winter nights,get a macpro of your choice and enjoy.

[bzollinger]

Well,you could try to pimp your mini : ssd,external FW disk but it will get you only so far. And as Adjuster below said,wildly optimistacally ( :D ) , some day the photo apps might get up to speed... But that still is at least 18 months (normal adobe cycle) away,and what we have read,it might be even further away or even impossible that we would get the same performance that the video/music/math/etc progs are getting.

So,imho,if you are not doing it for living,suck it up,get other gizmos to help speed you up and buy are nice espresso machine AND a minibar to make all the waiting worthwhile.
Or if you are a serous hobbyist/aspiring get the new iMac.A lot of peeps in ad agencies use it,and hackysack, a lot of photogs use it with hasselblad 39s and do just fine.
Or. If you are loaded,need to compensate or just want a expandable computer that doubles up as a good space heater in those long,cold winter nights,get a macpro of your choice and enjoy.


Pimping out the Mini was what I was planning on doing and have more or less done. It's a great little machine for sure! I love it.

I'm not sure how long it'll be useful while my photography ramps up and I have to get up and walk away while it processes (at full CPU load) the tasks that I have queued up.

Besides the 4 drive bay and expandibility is a needed feature, in addition to the high clock speeds and quad + core setup...

[johnnymg]

I'd wait for some benchmarks. My gut tells me the hexacore will mop the floor with the 3.2 quad with memory intensive tasks like big PS files. The L3 cache and extra cores are too much to ignore.

If it was CS4, I doubt it would matter as much. But CS5 harnesses the power so much butter.

I guess I'm in the wait for benchmarks group now. Canceled the 3.2 GHz MP and will wait to see some comparisons. :(. I'm actually hoping the benchmarks come in much closer than what has been hinted at in this thread. :o

regards
JohnG

[thunng8]

I guess I'm in the wait for benchmarks group now. Canceled the 3.2 GHz MP and will wait to see some comparisons. :(. I'm actually hoping the benchmarks come in much closer than what has been hinted at in this thread. :o

regards
JohnG

This site does a massive amount of performance benchmarks on macs on photoshop and other photo related software:

http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html

specifically you might want to check this out:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Shootout-MacPro-Intro.html

in the majority of tests the 4 core 3.33Ghz MacPro beat out the 8 core 2.93Ghz Macpro. Lloyd just ordered the 6 core MacPro and the results should be posted near the end of the month.

[johnnymg]

This site does a massive amount of performance benchmarks on macs on photoshop and other photo related software:

http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html

specifically you might want to check this out:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Shootout-MacPro-Intro.html

in the majority of tests the 4 core 3.33Ghz MacPro beat out the 8 core 2.93Ghz Macpro. Lloyd just ordered the 6 core MacPro and the results should be posted near the end of the month.

Thanks for the link. I saw a similar link posted yesterday and checked out his site. He does have a plethora of info and I'm quite eager to see his hex review. The good news is that the order-wait allowed me to gracefully cancel my 3.2 order.

I'll probably condition a hex order on aapl hitting a new ATH. :D
cheers
JohnG

[Eastend]

Since People have already posted their Geekbench scores of the new 6 core, it would be nice to see a Geekbench of the 2010 Mac Pro 3.2 GHz Quad, because the one score that's posted in this thread is no Mac Pro.

[Fiete5401]

Since People have already posted their Geekbench scores of the new 6 core, it would be nice to see a Geekbench of the 2010 Mac Pro 3.2 GHz Quad, because the one score that's posted in this thread is no Mac Pro.

Yepp, we need a 64-bit Geekbench score for a 3.2 quad. I still have the feeling that the 3.2 GHz quad and the 2.66 dodeca will be the "sweet spots".

[Quash]

Since People have already posted their Geekbench scores of the new 6 core, it would be nice to see a Geekbench of the 2010 Mac Pro 3.2 GHz Quad, because the one score that's posted in this thread is no Mac Pro.

Not too hard to guess that score , take the 2009 2.93 quad score add 9% for the clock difference. Same architecture so that should be the approximate geekbench score (give or take 100 points)

[philipma1957]

Pimping out the Mini was what I was planning on doing and have more or less done. It's a great little machine for sure! I love it.

I'm not sure how long it'll be useful while my photography ramps up and I have to get up and walk away while it processes (at full CPU load) the tasks that I have queued up.

Besides the 4 drive bay and expandibility is a needed feature, in addition to the high clock speeds and quad + core setup...

here is my mini pimp out this is a long thread showing how a 2.0ghz early 2009 1 hdd mac mini has become a 2.66ghz late mac min with an esata hack and access to 14tb of hdd and a dvd rom drive via esata. this why I need a mac pro

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?p=1664831#post1664831

[Eastend]

Yepp, we need a 64-bit Geekbench score for a 3.2 quad. I still have the feeling that the 3.2 GHz quad and the 2.66 dodeca will be the "sweet spots".

Why I said what I did is this, I own the low end Mac Pro 2009, I had a 32 bit Geekbench score of around 7800. Then I did a clean install and doubled the memory and I also put a ssd (page ins and page outs this is important) as my boot drive. So, the Geekbench went up to 8504 and all around me was the top end 2009 iMac. (it consistently gave me around that score) Now you know a 3.2GHz machine is going to beat that, especially doubling the memory it should be at least around 9000 to 9300 in 32 bit mode. Since the new machines start in 64 bit mode it will be higher. Still cannot find Geekbench scores of the 3.2GHz Mac Pro.

[Woodgrove@macla]

Yepp, we need a 64-bit Geekbench score for a 3.2 quad. I still have the feeling that the 3.2 GHz quad and the 2.66 dodeca will be the "sweet spots".

I've also considered the 3.2 Quad since the 6-Core cost so much more. I get the feeling though that people say that's a bad move and that the 6-Core is more future proof. Also the faster RAM Speed is something I'm worried about. The iMac has 1333, why can't the 3.2? I know it's a hardware limitation, it's just very irritating. Is that rational? I've heard RAM speed is important for intensive games which I'd like to be able to play at times.

If I order the 3.2 Quad will I get 1066-Memory installed or will it be the same 1333-Memory? My guess is it's the same but we don't know. Not a big issue i guess since I will probably upgrade all RAM by that time. Which brings me to the next question: Can you install a 6-Core CPU in a 3.2 Quad-machine years from now? If so, that CPU might be, let's say 3.8 Ghz 6-Core. If that works it would be a nice way to upgrade in maybe 4 years with more Mhz, two more cores, double the RAM and the latest graphics card by then.

These things would be nice to know, so i hope we will soon. My feeling now is that the 6-Core is the one that most people want and Apple knows this, therefore the huge price gap. I've always wanted to get the best out there but hey, That's A LOT of money for 2 more cores and 133 Mhz. I can almost buy the 3.2 Quad and a Mac mini, or the new 27" screen for the same amount of money.

My biggest consideration is not what i do daily. I'm worried about if the 3.2 is future proof and upgradable. If it is, will those upgrades be worth it and easy to install? I'm not sure I can (or want to) pull off a CPU switch myself. I've installed a Gigadesigns 2x1.6 Ghz G4 in my Quicksilver a few years ago and I didn't like it. It felt like a life or death situation ;)

Give me more 3.2 vs 3.33 reasons if you can!

[VideoFreek]

I've also considered the 3.2 Quad since the 6-Core cost so much more. I get the feeling though that people say that's a bad move and that the 6-Core is more future proof.

<snip>

Give me more 3.2 vs 3.33 reasons if you can!Yeah, I'm having the same debate with myself. I'm leaning toward the Hexa mainly because of "future-proofing" considerations, but one has to wonder how quickly software will be rewritten to exploit all the cores. The faster memory is nice, but again how much of an impact will that actually have on real-world usage? The $800 price difference is not insignificant--for $800 there is a lot you could do to the Quad (max out RAM, add an SSD, etc.) that would most likely enable it to outperform the stock Hexa in everyday use. So, as always, it's a question of bang for the buck for the intended use of the machine. I will wait to see more benchmarks before deciding. Good luck with your decision!

[Chad H]

Just ordered my Mac Pro setup. I'll be doing some light video editing, hand brake, and gaming.

2010 Mac Pro
3.2 Ghz Quad Core "Nehalem"
16GB RAM(OWC Computing not Apple)
2TB HDD(iTunes)
120GB OWC SSD
500GB HDD (scratch disk)
ATI Radeo 5870
2 Superdrives
Magic Trackpad
Apple Care

[hoj]

The wild card is the possibility of future programs being capable of dealing with multiple cores.

...and on the many cores on GPUs with OpenCL. :)

[bzollinger]

I just pulled the trigger on the 3.2GHz quad, with everything. I'm going to upgrade the RAM to 10GB with two 4GB DIMMS from transintl.com for $248. I'll pull one of the 1GB sticks and hopefully run in dual channel mode at 10GB. Then drop another $250 to go up to 16GB if I need it down the road.

All of my research says that for the work I do (Photoshop5 & Lightroom3) the extra two cores and 133MHz wasn't worth it.

I understand the future proof idea, but from the time I bought my G5, multicore supported software really hasn't done SQUAT! Sure it's getting better but is still really limited on what you use. I'll be surprised if my software can peg all 4 cores or 8 threads on the 3.2 quad before I replace it in 5+ years.

[johnnymg]

I just pulled the trigger on the 3.2GHz quad, with everything. I'm going to upgrade the RAM to 10GB with two 4GB DIMMS from transintl.com for $248. I'll pull one of the 1GB sticks and hopefully run in dual channel mode at 10GB. Then drop another $250 to go up to 16GB if I need it down the road.

All of my research says that for the work I do (Photoshop5 & Lightroom3) the extra two cores and 133MHz wasn't worth it.

I understand the future proof idea, but from the time I bought my G5, multicore supported software really hasn't done SQUAT! Sure it's getting better but is still really limited on what you use. I'll be surprised if my software can peg all 4 cores or 8 threads on the 3.2 quad before I replace it in 5+ years.

Congrats on the purchase.

JMO, but "future proof" shouldn't be used in any computer desktop discussion. :p

Diglloyd has done a number of real world benchmarks and the preliminary results indicate the 3.33 Quad (pretty similar to the 2010 3.2 Quad) is ~20% slower than the hex. He will be posting a full report sometime this weekend. I highly suspect geekbench's synthetic benchmarks are a bit misleading from a real world perspective.
edit: link to diglloyds preliminary comparisons: http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-RAW.html

cheers to the 2010 Quad and Hex buyers
Johng

[Woodgrove@macla]

I'm still in the middle of this 3.2 Quad vs 3.3 Hexacore decision. I realize that if you compare with the 8-Core and 12-Core models, the 6-Core is the sweet spot. But let's say you've planned to buy the 3.2 Quad and that fits your budget perfectly, then the 6-Core is very expensive in comparison. At least that's my view.

I could consider wait one more month and maybe aim for the 6-core. I just wanna know why? Why is the 6-Core better than the Quad and is it really worth it? I'm goin from iMac C2D 2.16 Ghz so any Mac Pro will be an awesome upgrade, but I just don't wanna regret either not getting the 6-Core when I had the chance, or get the 6-Core and realize I could have saved that money for more RAM or SSD etc. Why should I get the 6-core? I read somewhere here that the 6-core is 20% faster than the 3.2 Quad Core but that must be the cores talking right? In everyday use, is the 6-core really faster? Where do Cache make difference? Help plz :)

[VirtualRain]

Get the Quad and get an SSD or two and some RAM with the money you save. Those upgrades will probably serve you much better than a couple of extra CPU cores. Very few tasks will stress the quad, never mind a Hex core, and even if you have software that does, is your time that valuable that you need to shave precious seconds off a rendering task or a filter application? Perhaps time is money for you and it makes sense. You didn't indicate what you do.

BTW, Synthetic benchmarks are coded to be multi-threaded and cannot be used to judge real-world performance. All they can do is confirm that the hardware is performing as designed. Look at benchmarks or user reports of people using the same applications as you on similar hardware to see where their bottlenecks are to determine if they are acceptable to you.

[bzollinger]

I'm still in the middle of this 3.2 Quad vs 3.3 Hexacore decision. I realize that if you compare with the 8-Core and 12-Core models, the 6-Core is the sweet spot. But let's say you've planned to buy the 3.2 Quad and that fits your budget perfectly, then the 6-Core is very expensive in comparison. At least that's my view.

I could consider wait one more month and maybe aim for the 6-core. I just wanna know why? Why is the 6-Core better than the Quad and is it really worth it? I'm goin from iMac C2D 2.16 Ghz so any Mac Pro will be an awesome upgrade, but I just don't wanna regret either not getting the 6-Core when I had the chance, or get the 6-Core and realize I could have saved that money for more RAM or SSD etc. Why should I get the 6-core? I read somewhere here that the 6-core is 20% faster than the 3.2 Quad Core but that must be the cores talking right? In everyday use, is the 6-core really faster? Where do Cache make difference? Help plz :)

Tell us what you're planning on using it for as more people can help you decide.

In my case using CS5 and LR3 mostly, the extra two cores and 133MHz just wouldn't be used. $700 is a huge premium for braggin' rights!

If I could keep those 6 cores busy I would have justified it. Don't get caught up in the memory bandwidth difference. Because in the real world or more accuratly in everyday use there really isn't a significant advantage generally.

[Woodgrove@macla]

Tell us what you're planning on using it for as more people can help you decide.

In my case using CS5 and LR3 mostly, the extra two cores and 133MHz just wouldn't be used. $700 is a huge premium for braggin' rights!

If I could keep those 6 cores busy I would have justified it. Don't get caught up in the memory bandwidth difference. Because in the real world or more accuratly in everyday use there really isn't a significant advantage generally.

Thanks you two, this was helpful. I'm leaning towards the 3.2 Quad. I don't use any real PRO apps on a daily basis yet except Photoshop once i a while. I'm gonna start moving from iMovie to FCP soon since I do a lot of movie editing. I also want to be able to play graphic intensive games and therefore I'm getting the 5870. My biggest concern wasn't really the loss om Mhz or the 2 more cores but rather the difference in cache memory and RAM speed. I've heard from hardcore gamers that RAM speed is important.

Though I also learned that more RAM is better than fast RAM so the next question is how much should I get? I'm thinking about starting with 2x4 GB. Sounds good? This Dual/Triple channel I've not figured out yet. Someone said that 2x4 GB will give you single channel mode. Should'nt it be dual channel? If I get 3x2 GB will it be triple channel then? If I get 3x1 GB and remove 1GB and insert 2x4GB to reach 10 GB, then it would be single channel mode cause of difference in RAM size? and manufacturer maybe? Sorry for all the confusion :)

[Honumaui]

the question of I cant decide what to get would be simple for me as a business owner :)

do you do work with PS or video or design etc.. for a living even part time ?
if so buy the 3.3 divide out that $800 upgrade figure you keep the computer for 3 years divide out your working days you end up with $1 a day ?
take what you charge per hour do your math !
if that computer is only %10 faster and you work 6 hours in the aps 2 hours doing stupid email stuff that wont push the machine ?
out of that 6 hours you might only push the machine 2 hours that %10 is about 12 minutes maybe at the end of the day ?
that for me would be worth it easy if I can save 1 minute it would pay for itself


if I just enjoyed the computer and used it a lot as a hobby or whatever ? I am the kind that would buy the S class Porsche :) or the M series BMW though :)


do you have the money ? if so go for it why not enjoy the bragging rights thats why I work to buy things I enjoy !
if things are tight ? then dont buy the better machine put the money into something else like savings !!! and hope to use that next time around or better yet in a year or so update the storage to something new and fast which gives your machine new life

[brentsg]

Yepp, we need a 64-bit Geekbench score for a 3.2 quad. I still have the feeling that the 3.2 GHz quad and the 2.66 dodeca will be the "sweet spots".

It's not a perfect comparison.. but I took my i7-980X and dropped it down to 3.2GHz and 4 cores in BIOS.

In Win7 I get 9670 on 64 bit Geekbench with 6GB RAM.

[Fiete5401]

It's not a perfect comparison.. but I took my i7-980X and dropped it down to 3.2GHz and 4 cores in BIOS.

In Win7 I get 9670 on 64 bit Geekbench with 6GB RAM.

I just noticed that somebody posted a 64-bit result of a 3.2 quad to the database. The MP scored 11097.
I expected something between 11300 and 11400 but as more results will be uploaded we'll get a better picture. 11097 seems to be too low in my eyes as the 3.2 quad reaches 10111 in 32-bit testing already.

[brentsg]

I just noticed that somebody posted a 64-bit result of a 3.2 quad to the database. The MP scored 11097.
I expected something between 11300 and 11400 but as more results will be uploaded we'll get a better picture. 11097 seems to be too low in my eyes as the 3.2 quad reaches 10111 in 32-bit testing already.

It's possible that shutting down 2 cores in BIOS isn't a good replication of a true quad I suppose. That's interesting. My 6 core results fall right in line.

[CaoCao]

It's possible that shutting down 2 cores in BIOS isn't a good replication of a true quad I suppose. That's interesting. My 6 core results fall right in line.

if there is an overclock step at that point it may try to turbo, though I don't think it does