3.33 6core vs 2.66 12 core

[allupons]

I have a few quick questions. I am going to be buying 1 of these two machines tonight and I have been contemplating which to go with for nearly two weeks. I have been editing on a core 2 duo 2.2 Ghz mbp for 2 years now and I have been desperately waiting for the 2010 mac pro refresh. I plan on using them for editing hd video in final cut / premiere, after effects, photoshop, lightroom and some gaming. The cost difference before a 3rd party ram upgrade boils down to roughly $3800 for 6 core vs $5000 for the 12 core (i have the education discount as I work for a university). I also don't earn my living through these computers as of yet, but I have done more than a handful of freelance work over the last year outside of my fulltime job, as well as having recently finished a feature length film. (shameless plug of trailer can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Yg1I6h4lI)

Ok, having said all that, and understanding that neither 3800 or 5000 is an insignificant amount of money, I have a few questions on which investment makes the most sense for me. For starters, what is the turbo boosted speed of each of the two chips i am looking at, and how many cores can be turbo boosted on each. I haven't quite been able to figure that out yet on my own.

Secondly, I realize that only AE will really take advantage of 12 cores at this stage (although final cut may get an update soon enough that changes all of this) but what sort of performance difference should I expect if both systems have roughly the same amount of ram? I have read a bit on this on macperformanceguide.com but he doesnt spend a great deal of analysis on after effects or programs that may actually tax the entire system.

Mostly though, for this sort of purchase I just want overall opinions and advice, heh. Any thoughts are very welcome before I finally pull the trigger on one of these systems, and thanks in advance for any help.

[iRobertM]

I originally went with the 12 core but then updated my order to the 3.33. The higher clock speed will make a difference in most applications and with hyper-threading that 12 virtual CPUs.

You can always upgrade the CPU's in the DP version but I told myself when I got around to doing that there will be a "new" Mac Pro out.

[allupons]

Yea, with the cost of these CPUs I would doubt I would spend 2k+ on a cpu upgrade years from now as opposed to simply getting the newest overall machine.

[sboerup]

I personally think the 6-core is the fastest 2010 MP for most everyone. My logic is, that if you have to ask which one is for you, you're better off with the 6-core. You would know if the 12-core will be the better investment in the long run.

The macperformanceguide.com does attest to the fact that the previous 3.33ghz QUAD was faster than the 2.93 OCTO in almost all applications. If you're doing some heavy processing (you'd probably know), then the hexacore to me seems like the safest buy.

[300D]

60% more processing power, go for the 12.

[strausd]

If you plan on doing A LOT of work in AE, and I mean A LOT, then the 12-core might be worth it. Otherwise, you will notice a bigger speed increase with the 6-core. But if a majority of your apps will be able to take full advantage of all 24 virtual cores, go for that.

[skiffx]

Id also recommend 6 core 3.33. I also think that it might have a better resale value later on from the investment point of you, as it will have more demand than the dual cores.

[strausd]

Id also recommend 6 core 3.33. I also think that it might have a better resale value later on from the investment point of you, as it will have more demand than the dual cores.

Dual CPUs you mean :p

[skiffx]

Dual CPUs you mean :p

yeh ;)

[allupons]

Thanks for the advice. The unfortunate part is that I do plenty of AE and I would truly see a ton of benefit from the 12 core, but since it doesnt really pay for itself at all and is simply my passion the cost is tough to deal with. It is certainly within my budget to go that route, but then when the red scarlet comes out at either the end of this year or early next year, perhaps that lost 1.5k makes that purchase a much harder decision, etc. So while I am one of the rare users that would get the power out of 12 cores, the cost is hard to swallow in the face of also needing production funds. Such a tough call that I really am having a hard time deciding, heh.

[skiffx]

Thanks for the advice. The unfortunate part is that I do plenty of AE and I would truly see a ton of benefit from the 12 core, but since it doesnt really pay for itself at all and is simply my passion the cost is tough to deal with. It is certainly within my budget to go that route, but then when the red scarlet comes out at either the end of this year or early next year, perhaps that lost 1.5k makes that purchase a much harder decision, etc. So while I am one of the rare users that would get the power out of 12 cores, the cost is hard to swallow in the face of also needing production funds. Such a tough call that I really am having a hard time deciding, heh.

yeh but a 6core system isnt exactly pentium 1 either ;) Maybe makes sense to get it first, work with it for a few years as you start working more and more with movie making, and start earning from it, that $1.5K will definitely help out on top of price you'll fetch for a used 6core.

[THX1139]

12 cores is going to help you the most when it comes to rendering out a finished project. For basic editing and having fast previews, you're better off with faster cores and LOTS of ram.

Then there are apps that don't take advantage of multiple cores (ahem... Final Cut Pro?).

So, unless you are doing tons of finished rendering (3d, After Effects), you're better off with higher clock speeds. I think the hexacore 3.33 is the best of both worlds for most applications.

[harlem]

here's what i would do

"get the 6-core"

save the remaining money, in all honesty this macpro 2010 update is one huge disappointment. i'm "guessing" the next macpro update will be the comeback of the macpro...its definetly going to get a new design, its going to have newest CPU's, maybe lightpeak...newer technology all around. not saying its going to happen soon and it might take another 500+days before we see an update but in the mean time the 6-core should be enough to get you trough.

you could still get a good price for your 6-core in a year or two, take the money, put the 1500$ on top and get the latest and greatest.

in the end you will be glad you didn't pay so much money for the 12-core.

and like mentioned before, the 6-core is a good machine, 6-cores at 3.33 isn't bad, only bottleneck is the RAM here...

[allupons]

You all may have convinced me. I think i can sleep at night while ordering a 6 core mac pro. It certainly will murder my current core 2 duo setup, and will likely make upgrading to a new machine in the future less painfull than if i dropped 5k on the machine. Hopefully when the new final cut studio is released in the near future as 64 bit i dont eat my words, lol.

[barefeats]

After Effects CS5 needs the right combo of Memory and Cores to go fast.

When you enable multiprocessing, you need to specify how much memory per core. Once you do, AE tells you how many cores it will use to render.

Check out these results for a 12 core Westmere with 24G of RAM rendering a sample project created from Total Training:
.75G per core x 24 cores = 126 sec
1G x 17 = 34 sec
1.5G x 11 = 32 sec
2G x 8 = 34 sec

So in this case 11 cores x 1.5G each is the sweet spot. Can't wait to try this test on a 6 core Westmere -- though I will need three 8G memory sticks to reach 24G -- since it only has 4 memory slots.

[CaoCao]

go with the Hexacore and blow that saved cash on 3x8GB RAM and buy HDDs with the remaining $400

[SPeditor]

You all may have convinced me. I think i can sleep at night while ordering a 6 core mac pro. It certainly will murder my current core 2 duo setup, and will likely make upgrading to a new machine in the future less painfull than if i dropped 5k on the machine. Hopefully when the new final cut studio is released in the near future as 64 bit i dont eat my words, lol.

I went with the 8 core to prepare for the future release of a 64-bit FCP. I was told twice by Apple that the 6 core is a better buy now, but the 8 core with more memory will better handle the next FCP update.

[allupons]

Those are really interesting results barefeats. In the case of the 6 core it can easily match that 11 thread sweet spot. Although i presume that the 24 threads would then dominate again with 48gigs of ram, but at this point i think i can honestly say I dont see myself dropping the $3000 it would cost for that much ram. Given this new information, at least in regards to AE, i feel even better about the 6 core / 12 thread machine. Granted, the results may vary a great deal with the 64 bit final cut pro that is inevitable, but all the same. Just have to pray that the 6 core mac pro can accept 8 gig mem chips for the future.

ps. i love you site barefeats and thanks for all the great performance tests you report on. keep up the great work!

[allupons]

SPeditor, I basically refuse to acknowledge the 8 core as an option because the only advantage it has over the 6 core machine is more ram slots. That is it. At non-optimized multicore tasks, it will get slaughtered. Even with multicore tasks you are talking the 6 core = 20 Ghz of multitasking power and the 8 core = 19.2. Granted, if you actually plan on dropping 8x8 gig chips and then upgrading the processors in the future the dual chip board would be great, but the ram alone would cost you 3k and the chips upgrades would be a ton as well. At that point, might as well just buy a new machine when that day comes. I really think the only 2 machines people should be considering for the most part is the 6 core and the 12 cores, with price vs need settling which machine to pick.

[DoFoT9]

go with the Hexacore and blow that saved cash on 3x8GB RAM and buy HDDs with the remaining $400
8GB sticks are out? :confused:

[CaoCao]

8GB sticks are out? :confused:

Yes, they came out last year and are insanely expensive (like $400 a stick!)

[DoFoT9]

Yes, they came out last year and are insanely expensive (like $400 a stick!)
oh, DUH! :rolleyes: thus the 64GB max limit in 2009 MPs etc. $400 a stick isnt too bad.

[SPeditor]

SPeditor, I basically refuse to acknowledge the 8 core as an option because the only advantage it has over the 6 core machine is more ram slots. That is it. At non-optimized multicore tasks, it will get slaughtered. Even with multicore tasks you are talking the 6 core = 20 Ghz of multitasking power and the 8 core = 19.2. Granted, if you actually plan on dropping 8x8 gig chips and then upgrading the processors in the future the dual chip board would be great, but the ram alone would cost you 3k and the chips upgrades would be a ton as well. At that point, might as well just buy a new machine when that day comes. I really think the only 2 machines people should be considering for the most part is the 6 core and the 12 cores, with price vs need settling which machine to pick.

I totally see what you are saying. Everthing but the 3k to upgrade the ram. I was going to buy a 6 core. But after speaking to 2 Apple "specialist" this past week, they both convinced me to go 8 core for the 64bit FCP update.

Please call Apple and see if they say different, when comparing 6 core vs 8 core for a future 64bit FCP. Please post what they say.

[allupons]

Hey SPeditor, I have talked to many retailers and specialists before and the sad truth is that most of these people only have vague general advice. The reason they are telling you that the 8 core will be better for final cut pro 64 bit is because it has more ram slots. This however only makes a difference in the event you need more than 24gigs of ram (the max triple channel ram configuration of the 6 core mac pro). The reason the only difference is ram is because the 6 core machine literally has more processing power, with both single core AND even multicore. The processing power of the 6 core machine is simply faster under all circumstances. It can, however, hold twice as much ram. Myself personally, I dont plan on requiring more than 24 gigs of ram over the next few years, as going above that would cost an extreme amount of money.

So basically, if you honestly believe you require more than 24 gigs of ram the 8 core machine MIGHT be faster SOMETIMES in the 64 bit version of final cut. However, if you dont stock more than 24 gigs of ram, even then the 6 core will outperform it by a decent margain. Now, of course the 12 core machine will beat out the 6 core and 8 core by a healthy margain with a fully 64 bit app, but that also increases the price by $1500, so yea.

[sboerup]

Ya, I keep reading through a lot of posts in the last week about people speaking with an Apple "specialist". Sounds like they understand enough about the machines to sell it, but really are out of the loop as what is best for certain applications. There is a LOT more wisdom here on the forums.

[Greg Punzo]

all of you guys saying how current software won't take advantage of all the cores is true but its not like its giong to be like this forever lol. that's like saying back in the day instead of buying a dual core processor buy a single core because back then hardley any apps touched the 2nd core. in time software will catch up to hardware, it always does.

[allupons]

That is definitely true, and thus over time the 12 core will definitely best the 6 core. The thing that sucks about the 8 core is that even when the day comes that the software catches up, the 6 core will STILL best the 8 core as it has more overall processing power, even for multithreaded apps.

[VirtualRain]

all of you guys saying how current software won't take advantage of all the cores is true but its not like its giong to be like this forever lol. that's like saying back in the day instead of buying a dual core processor buy a single core because back then hardley any apps touched the 2nd core. in time software will catch up to hardware, it always does.

True. But by the time your app of choice can thread seamlessly across n cores, you may be able to buy a CPU with 16 cores or a GPU that can do the task on a dual core CPU 200x better with 3200 graphics cores. I think trying to buy a future proof computer is foolish. History has proven that whatever you buy now will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's the sad truth. I recommend you buy what you need now and then buy what you need in 3 years then.

@OP. Unless you are making money with it and every second is money saved or earned, OR, you are independently wealthy such that the cost is irrelevant, I cant imagine spending top dollar on a 12 core computer when precious few apps can actually use it.

[allupons]

Yea, I finished placing my order for the 6 core, and bought 12 gigs of 3rd party ram. My only real point of regret is that I wish apple put 6 dimm slots on single socket boards like basically every single other mobo manufacturer in the world, but oh well. The more I thought about it, the less sense it made to spend an extra $1500 for a machine that would actually be slower at almost everything I do for the next year or two. If / when these machines start paying for themselves I can/will buy the next and best thing 2-3 years from now.

For now I can finally look forward to doing these massively intense projects on a proper machine instead of my 4 year old macbook pro core 2 duo!

[Greg Punzo]

True. But by the time your app of choice can thread seamlessly across n cores, you may be able to buy a CPU with 16 cores or a GPU that can do the task on a dual core CPU 200x better with 3200 graphics cores. I think trying to buy a future proof computer is foolish. History has proven that whatever you buy now will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's the sad truth. I recommend you buy what you need now and then buy what you need in 3 years then.

@OP. Unless you are making money with it and every second is money saved or earned, OR, you are independently wealthy such that the cost is irrelevant, I cant imagine spending top dollar on a 12 core computer when precious few apps can actually use it.

i kind of disagree because if you would have gotten a quad core mac pro back in 06 that would still be pretty fast compared to today's standards. but if you would have gotten only a dual core then you probably would have needed an upgrade a while ago.

sure the quad core won't be the fastest thing anymore but u'd be able to do so much more with it now than only with a dual core

[mattmower]

Yea, I finished placing my order for the 6 core, and bought 12 gigs of 3rd party ram. My only real point of regret is that I wish apple put 6 dimm slots on single socket boards like basically every single other mobo manufacturer in the world, but oh well.

Yeah, this is my main complaint too.

I think it annoys because it smacks of lazy design and when I am paying over £3K for an Apple machine that kind of thing sticks in the throat.

Matt.

[skiffx]

Yeah, this is my main complaint too.

I think it annoys because it smacks of lazy design and when I am paying over £3K for an Apple machine that kind of thing sticks in the throat.

Matt.

Yep, kinda pathetic for a workstation.

[kaufman]

It shocks me how many people on here are going for the 6 core and 12 core.
Not because of the power of the machine but more that people seem to have the money to spend £3000 over here on a computer.

I've managed to persuade myself to just about afford the base quad core only for most people to say "nah spend £300 more on the 3.2 version" or "just go for the 6 core, you won't regret it."

Thing is as I've been using a 2006 core duo 2ghz macbook with 4gb ram maxed out.
I'm hoping that using logic (the only cpu hungry programme i use) with the quad core will fly. If it does not than I'll be sending it back completely put off mac pro's forever i think.

[Vylen]

Thing is as I've been using a 2006 core duo 2ghz macbook with 4gb ram maxed out.

Hey, you're doing better than me right now ;) 2006 Core Duo 1.83Ghz iMac with 2GB ram maxed :p

But... I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my 6-core.

I'm a Software Engineer with various hobbies and I opted for machine with the highest clockrate... and well, 12-cores is outside my budget :p

I'm currently writing an OpenGL game in my freetime - total pain in the ass on my current iMac. I figured I'd see what would happen if I debugged the application for memory leaks using Valgrind - sure was hilarious seeing both of my two measly cores maxed out and the game running at less than 1fps (running it normally without Valgrind gave ~70fps). I'm pretty sure the hexacore with a 5870 in it will solve that speed issue ;)

[allupons]

2006 core2duo macbook pro here, heh. Can't wait to get my new hex core machine!

[eponym]

Yeah, this is my main complaint too.

I think it annoys because it smacks of lazy design and when I am paying over £3K for an Apple machine that kind of thing sticks in the throat.

Matt.

Lazy design?

Perhaps you should consider that the (seemingly) only workstation/server board listed on Intel's site that supports the W3680 (6-core) has 4 slots (http://www.intel.com/Products/Workstation/Motherboards/WX58BP/WX58BP-overview.htm).

[Ryan P]

Lazy design?

Perhaps you should consider that the (seemingly) only workstation/server board listed on Intel's site that supports the W3680 (6-core) has 4 slots (http://www.intel.com/Products/Workstation/Motherboards/WX58BP/WX58BP-overview.htm).

Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!

[reel2reel]

Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!

Have you looked inside a Mac Pro? No innovation? Whatever.

[Vylen]

Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!

I fail to see adding extra slots to be "innovative" when "most other manufacturers do"

[Ryan P]

Yawn.

[iRobertM]

Yawn.

Yet another shinning example as to why MacRumors needs to have a waiting period before letting new accounts post.

[iDisk]

I went with the 8 core to prepare for the future release of a 64-bit FCP. I was told twice by Apple that the 6 core is a better buy now, but the 8 core with more memory will better handle the next FCP update.

Really? Why did they suggest that to you?

Who was your source if you dont mind me asking.:)

[reel2reel]

Really? Why did they suggest that to you?

Who was your source if you dont mind me asking.:)

I'll be so happy to have FCP even use my 6-cores. I'll be ecstatic, in fact. I hope you're right! :)

[SPeditor]

Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.

[Ryan P]

Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.


So assuming this is the case you have a max of 12 GB with triple channel support for the single processor vs 48 GB with triple channel for the dual processor. Triple Channel may not make much real world performance difference but it is something to think about.

It has me thinking about getting the entry 2.4 Octa and then replacing the processors over the next few months. There is a 3.46Ghz Hex Xeon 5690 due soon from Intel, although I'm not sure what the motherboard, heatsinks, and power supply in the Mac Pro are capable of. That would be some screaming performance if you could drop two of those in a new Mac Pro.

[macgeek18]

I'd get the 6 core,then you have a bit more left over for RAM and HDD's.

(Why am I posting in a MP sub-forum?I have no idea. ;)

[mattbatt]

Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.

All the more reason I am looking at building a hackintosh. From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.

Apple has really hurt us by the price point and limited RAM - not to mention not offering any nVidia cards - then again, FCP will probably tap in to OpenCL.

[skiffx]

Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.

A lot of those 'experts' know much, much less than people on these forums, so I certainly wouldnt take it as a solid fact. We shall have a definitive answer in another week or so however. :D

[deconstruct60]

All the more reason I am looking at building a hackintosh. From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.


Why is counting virtual cores at "full weighting" logical when they only deliver about 10-30% of the performance of a 'real' core? In other words 90%-70% of time virtual core isn't pragmatically getting any throughput. You are more so just trying to rationalize the end goal of wailing about adding an additional full rank of slots.

If count real cores, 6, then 6 * 2GB => 12GB . 2 x 4GB DIMMs sticks put you right at the peak power curve the top end single processor package offers. Ooops, that doesn't move the rant forward.... so it can't be true. <cough> ....

if add 1.8 "cores" (6 * .30 => 1.8 ) 1.8 * 2GB ==> 3.6GB ... just stick a another 4GB DIMM in the 4th slot. But again 16GB can't possibly be the answer since you can do that.

The answer just has to be 24GB ... the maximum that a 3680 can physically address. ( which could be done with 3 x 8GB but folks are trying to wave off that configuration. )

It is probably not absolutely necessary to have 6 slots to max out the 3680.



- not to mention not offering any nVidia cards - then again, FCP will probably tap in to OpenCL.

It is up to nVidia to offer cards. Why is it Apple's fault ? Apple has to do all the graphics vendors cards for them?

Even Adobe has said that OpenCL is a more natural fit with what they want to do long term. (re: future versions of these software will tap into it as it is deployed and get maturity). Over a year ago was the wrong timing to put OpenCL into the current Adobe product mix. Again this doesn't mean Apple has permanently locked in something that isn't aligned with Adobe's long term strategic directions. Short term there is a gap but a long term there is no big misalignment.

In fact if Apple OpenCL to get off the ground they won't push nVidia's proprietary CUDA solutions. In the longer term it is probably going to be an expensive hiccup for Adobe to unwind this CUDA based stuff. Don't see that as particularly innovative. AMD/ATI has a better fit with the GPGPU goals of Apple and with the design criteria of the Mac Pro ( higher performance/power ratio ) .

[eponym]

From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.


That logic is completely faulty though since 24 GB is the maximum that CPU supports. The technical maximum can't be (or shouldn't be anyway) "a must."

[mattbatt]

Why is counting virtual cores at "full weighting" logical when they only deliver about 10-30% of the performance of a 'real' core? In other words 90%-70% of time virtual core isn't pragmatically getting any throughput. You are more so just trying to rationalize the end goal of wailing about adding an additional full rank of slots.

If count real cores, 6, then 6 * 2GB => 12GB . 2 x 4GB DIMMs sticks put you right at the peak power curve the top end single processor package offers. Ooops, that doesn't move the rant forward.... so it can't be true. <cough> ....

if add 1.8 "cores" (6 * .30 => 1.8 ) 1.8 * 2GB ==> 3.6GB ... just stick a another 4GB DIMM in the 4th slot. But again 16GB can't possibly be the answer since you can do that.

The answer just has to be 24GB ... the maximum that a 3680 can physically address. ( which could be done with 3 x 8GB but folks are trying to wave off that configuration. )

It is probably not absolutely necessary to have 6 slots to max out the 3680.

I would say 12 GB is a great start for most pro users with photoshop and multimedia. My point was, if software WAS using all cores like AE can be set to, you would want 2 GB of RAM per core.

Don't get mad at me, I was talking to actual Senior programmers whose names appear when you launch CS5 photoshop. I don't get paid enough to argue this with you :)

Another real world photographer is Digillyd, who for himself, needs a minimum of 24GB of RAM. He compares 6 /16/32 here.
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-TestResults.html

Once again, AE just gobbles up any RAM you can give it in direct proportion to how you set up each core to render.

The more cores you have, the more RAM you should have.

As far as virtual cores, they need something, but I have no idea as to the extent. But if another thread is running, it needs it's own supply of RAM, pure and simple.

It is up to nVidia to offer cards. Why is it Apple's fault ? Apple has to do all the graphics vendors cards for them?

Even Adobe has said that OpenCL is a more natural fit with what they want to do long term. (re: future versions of these software will tap into it as it is deployed and get maturity). Over a year ago was the wrong timing to put OpenCL into the current Adobe product mix. Again this doesn't mean Apple has permanently locked in something that isn't aligned with Adobe's long term strategic directions. Short term there is a gap but a long term there is no big misalignment.

In fact if Apple OpenCL to get off the ground they won't push nVidia's proprietary CUDA solutions. In the longer term it is probably going to be an expensive hiccup for Adobe to unwind this CUDA based stuff. Don't see that as particularly innovative. AMD/ATI has a better fit with the GPGPU goals of Apple and with the design criteria of the Mac Pro ( higher performance/power ratio ) .

Um, nVidia makes the GTX 285 for mac, Apple until now has always had an option for them. So yes, it is Apple's fault.

Now hopefully nVidia will make the GTX 295 for mac and Apple will include that in the store, doubtful though.

I believe that the war between Apple and Adobe has crossed into GPU allegiance.

You may be right with Adobe's claim about OpenCL - but they are just 'talking the talk.'

Mercury engine has no support for ATI and Adobe has no timeline - if ever- for building support in.

From Apple's perspective, Premiere is a direct competitor to FCP, so why would they give their pro users an excuse to jump ship by proving MP's with highly accelerated cards that perform circles around FCP?

I believe Apple will revise FCP by early next year and those ATI cards will work beautifully. It is just, well, I need a computer now to do video editing and premiere + nvidia has the performance.

[deconstruct60]

Don't get mad at me, I was talking to actual Senior programmers whose names appear when you launch CS5 photoshop. I don't get paid enough to argue this with you :)


I'm not mad. I just simply stated that what you proposed is not based on logic, facts, or any pragmatic basis. If folks at Adobe told you to count cores then count them. If they meant count fake cores they probablywould have explicitly said fake cores. Without an adjective it means real ones.

Additionally, you don't understand the underlying reasons for the multiplier (you know because some told you. ) then throwing in fake cores is just a willy nilly act. There is no logic behind it since you admittedly don't understand the underlying factors.




Another real world photographer is Digillyd, who for himself, needs a minimum of 24GB of RAM. He compares 6 /16/32 here.
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-TestResults.html


What? can you read a graph?

In the medium file graph there is very little difference between 16GB and 32GB. The lines basically overlap. The increases in performance primarily come from making the RAID stripi bigger (i.e., increasing disk bandwidth not RAM bandwidth). Not sure how you deduce that you need (require) minimum of 24GB from that. It is clear in the graph that 8GB is too small, but no indication that more than 16GB is significantly buying you anything.


In the huge file graph, there is a gap but again the primary performance increase driver is better disk bandwidth. Going from stripe 2 to 3 is a bigger step than the distance between the 16GB and 32GB lines. A RAM disk is nice but "need" and nice are two different things.

At a later date, his entry for the Nehalem Pro states overtly:

"This is our new speed champ, and even though the test is still heavily dependent on disk speed, "

Again the dominating factor is disk not maximized RAM. Sinking doubling you budget on disks (perhaps going all SSD ) versus doubling budget on RAM is quite clear. The disk one gets you a bigger bang for the buck. You can get a highly performant Mac Pro that "only" has 16GB of RAM if you put your money in the right place.

Oh and I guess you missed this part in his analysis where only uses real cores versus the fake ones results in a speed increase:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-MoreIsLess.html

I assume that Adobe CS5 isn't quite so dumb out of the box to confuse the two.







Once again, AE just gobbles up any RAM you can give it in direct proportion to how you set up each core to render.


Overallocating number of cores isn't going to get you better results. Blaming that on DIMMs slots is a pure misdirection.




The more cores you have, the more RAM you should have.


Real one yes. Fake ones no.




As far as virtual cores, they need something, but I have no idea as to the extent.


Oh now you have no idea but previously logic dictated that they count 100%.



But if another thread is running, it needs it's own supply of RAM, pure and simple.


The virtual threads can only run if there are "spare" cycles on the execution units and their data is avaialble. if there are no spare cycles you don't get any added benefits to virtual. For example is there are only two multiplier units and on thread is constantly using both of them and the other "virtual" core want to also use the multiplier units then it is not going to run. You are not going to get any speed improvement. If the first "thread" stalls waiting for the floats to load then perhaps can make progress. However, you have have two very tight loops doing the exactly the same thing and all the pipeline delays are filled with code.... hyperthreading isn't going to buy you much.






You may be right with Adobe's claim about OpenCL - but they are just 'talking the talk.'

Mercury engine has no support for ATI


this blog entry clearly lays out why. It boils down to timing and maturity of OpenCL.

"Question: "Why didn't you use OpenCL then?"

Answer: OpenCL wasn't finished or ratified when this decision was made. Given a choice between doing it with CUDA or not doing it for a while because of OpenCL, we chose the former. "
http://blogs.adobe.com/genesisproject/2009/11/technology_sneek_peek_adobe_me.html




and Adobe has no timeline - if ever- for building support in.


The "if ever" is editorial comment by you, not Adobe.
In the same blog.

"Question: "Will you support OpenCL in the future?"

Answer: Clearly this is an answer for someone higher up to answer, but my hunch is that we'll certainly look at it in the future as it aligns with our goals of being open and non-propietary...... "

In another blog:
"Obviously we want Adobe apps to run as well as possible regardless of your configuration. Just as they used to optimize for both PowerPC and Intel/AMD chips, Adobe engineers continue to work closely with multiple manufacturers (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, and others) to wring the most out of their hardware. Again, this is where standardization will help, but it does take time."
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/11/adobe_sneak_peek_major_gpu_acceleration_fo.html


Historically Adobe has made efforts to be configuration neutral and has histoically used multiple platform frameworks to help ease the porting across platforms. Do they have a publically avallable timeline OpenCL? No. However, would it be uncharateristic for them to leverage the techonlogy? Again no.



From Apple's perspective, Premiere is a direct competitor to FCP, so why would they give their pro users an excuse to jump ship by proving MP's with highly accelerated cards that perform circles around FCP?


Because it means a profitable MP sale versus the customers walking off and buying a WindowsPC. Apple is out to make money. Sure they could make slightly more money buy selling a MP and FCP , but the MP profit is better than zero.

Besides more than few folks aren't going to move because they are defacto locked into the software. The real solution to the problem is ship a version of FCP that isn't a multicore dog in some situations. There is always going to be something competitive to FCP that is either faster or more expensive. That isn't the core market they are driving at with FCP.


It is just, well, I need a computer now to do video editing and premiere + nvidia has the performance.

So again this really is a small snapshot in time driven view of DIMMs slot number / nVidia cards ship times being an issue versus whether it really is one from a whole lifecycle of a 2010 box .

[sirnh]

I'm not mad. I just simply stated that what you proposed is not based on logic, facts, or any pragmatic basis. If folks at Adobe told you to count cores then count them. If they meant count fake cores they probablywould have explicitly said fake cores. Without an adjective it means real ones.

I agree with some of what you have to say... especially when it comes to photo editing, where most often, each thread is running the same instructions on different parts of the image. In that case, hyperthreading doesn't buy you as much.

I also agree that the sweet spot on that chart looked to be towards the center with just 16GB. I would suggest just getting an inexpensive 40GB SSD and use that as your scratch disk for photoshop.

If someone were doing video editing, I might argue that 24 cores can be a real benefit. In this day and age, you can spend most of your processing cycles just decoding - especially when you talk about multiple layers of video. Some of the newer codec types are very CPU intensive, taking advantage of the various processing units in the core. When you can interleave the instructions to the various units, that's when you see the biggest performance improvement with hyperthreading.

Other than video editing or 3D animation rendering, I am hard-pressed to find a need for more than the dual-quads or the single-hex. You might consider a dual-hex if you were doing scientific computing, but if you were that serious, you should look at OpenCL, instead.

[eponym]

I would suggest just getting an inexpensive 40GB SSD and use that as your scratch disk for photoshop.

Don't do this.

Boot drive? Sure. Scratch disk? Bad idea. Especially not a tiny SSD. The scratch disk is constantly being written to, over and over. That will quickly degrade the performance of the drive and waste your money. :(

[OptimusP83]

You guys just thank your lucky stars that they ditched FB-Dimms!

My 2006 is still ticking along though, DEFNINITELY not obsolete, though I am starting to get core envy! Contemplating upgrading to a couple of 5355s in the near future.

But I am a humble graphic designer, not a HDV Editor, so by the time illustrator or Indesign go multicore, please wake up my head which will probably be in cold storage by then (hint: its gonna be a while in case it wasn't obvious).

Does anyone know if Dreamweaver or Coda will be multi-threaded in the near future? :D

[deconstruct60]

Especially not a tiny SSD. The scratch disk is constantly being written to, over and over.

Tiny was not the problematical adjective; inexpensive was.

There are SSD drives now with decent garbage collection approaches that will work on a Mac Pro. (they do it internally so Mac OS X doesn't have to do anything special).

(since has been string of links back to this site might as well go again.... ) http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-SSD-OWC-Mercury_Extreme.html

Two 50GB in a RAID 0 config of the RE versions here would not be as subject to the problems you are outlining. Those versions have a significant (28%) amount of storage is set aside for problems like wearing reduction and have decent garbage collection. It is not cheapest speed, but reliability should be looking for They are about $209 each so two would be about $418. If could put in an 'extra' 12-16GB of RAM into your Mac Pro that would cost far more ( at OWC $500-700 with 4GB DIMMs, more if using 8's . ).

Replace every 2-3 years as would high usage hard drives and probably will be happy with the results.

Having two SSDs in RAID 0 is better than 4 large HDs where only really leveraging a small subset of the hard disk capacity (so using outer tracks on higher number of disks). Saves lots of space and energy to just use the SSDs. That decreases the need to jam SSDs and drives into the optical drive slots because only have a 2 drive RAID for scratch. That leaves two drive sleds for boot and whatever else want internal without going unconventional.

[VirtualRain]

Tiny was not the problematical adjective; inexpensive was.

There are SSD drives now with decent garbage collection approaches that will work on a Mac Pro. (they do it internally so Mac OS X doesn't have to do anything special).

(since has been string of links back to this site might as well go again.... ) http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-SSD-OWC-Mercury_Extreme.html

Two 50GB in a RAID 0 config of the RE versions here would not be as subject to the problems you are outlining. Those versions have a significant (28%) amount of storage is set aside for problems like wearing reduction and have decent garbage collection. It is not cheapest speed, but reliability should be looking for They are about $209 each so two would be about $418. If could put in an 'extra' 12-16GB of RAM into your Mac Pro that would cost far more ( at OWC $500-700 with 4GB DIMMs, more if using 8's . ).

Replace every 2-3 years as would high usage hard drives and probably will be happy with the results.

Having two SSDs in RAID 0 is better than 4 large HDs where only really leveraging a small subset of the hard disk capacity (so using outer tracks on higher number of disks). Saves lots of space and energy to just use the SSDs. That decreases the need to jam SSDs and drives into the optical drive slots because only have a 2 drive RAID for scratch. That leaves two drive sleds for boot and whatever else want internal without going unconventional.

Great post. I completely agree. Even if the SSD's used for scratch become dead in a couple of years, viewing it as a disposable resource in exchange for orders of magnitude better random read performance (which is vital every time you hit undo or step back in history) may be worth it for some.

[deconstruct60]

Even if the SSD's used for scratch become dead in a couple of years, viewing it as a disposable resource in exchange for orders of magnitude better random read performance (which is vital every time you hit undo or step back in history) may be worth it for some.

Disks die also if constantly beat on them hard with seek requests. :-) So it isn't really a new factor.

Forgot to mention those that large photo (and compressed ) data files will help shorten the SSDs lifetime though. So "tiny" can beome a factor. Likewise if have photoshop or other program set up to keep large scratch files. (so longer history/undo leads to scratch growth.) In the example, a 50GB pair would be good for a sub 50GB scratch space. If scratch space need to cover gets quite large then disks are better because $/GB is going to start to matter more. Folks you need > 100GB of scratch space are much closer to flipping over to using disks. At least until the next flash $/GB drop.


Compressed data (jpeg ,etc. ) presents a problem because many of the SSD controlers cheat the wearing limit by compressing data before storing it. So if can get a 50% compression rate can cut the number of writes in half.
You can compensate for that by allowing for more free space above your high water market on your SSD set up.

There is a variant of MLC flash now called "enterprise grade" MLC.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/19/microns_34nm_nand/

300,000 erase/write cycles allows you to do 300 erases of a single cell every day for about 2.7 years. Presuming you take off weekends from beating on scratch disk, that is about 3 years. ;)

[VirtualRain]

Compressed data (jpeg ,etc. ) presents a problem because many of the SSD controlers cheat the wearing limit by compressing data before storing it. So if can get a 50% compression rate can cut the number of writes in half.
You can compensate for that by allowing for more free space above your high water market on your SSD set up.



Right... I had read that recently... is it the OCZ drives that are using that technique? Is it a controller based feature or a vendor based implementation? Do we know what popular drives are using this technique?

[mattbatt]

What? can you read a graph?

In the medium file graph there is very little difference between 16GB and 32GB. The lines basically overlap. The increases in performance primarily come from making the RAID stripi bigger (i.e., increasing disk bandwidth not RAM bandwidth). Not sure how you deduce that you need (require) minimum of 24GB from that. It is clear in the graph that 8GB is too small, but no indication that more than 16GB is significantly buying you anything.


In the huge file graph, there is a gap but again the primary performance increase driver is better disk bandwidth. Going from stripe 2 to 3 is a bigger step than the distance between the 16GB and 32GB lines. A RAM disk is nice but "need" and nice are two different things.

At a later date, his entry for the Nehalem Pro states overtly:

"This is our new speed champ, and even though the test is still heavily dependent on disk speed, "

Again the dominating factor is disk not maximized RAM. Sinking doubling you budget on disks (perhaps going all SSD ) versus doubling budget on RAM is quite clear. The disk one gets you a bigger bang for the buck. You can get a highly performant Mac Pro that "only" has 16GB of RAM if you put your money in the right place.

Oh and I guess you missed this part in his analysis where only uses real cores versus the fake ones results in a speed increase:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-MoreIsLess.html

dude, you must be single with the way you argue by demeaning other people's points. Yes, I can read graphs, thanks.

About the RAM, ya of course, not much difference between 16 / 32 BUT for AE there would be. And AE allocates ram to virtual and real cores. And part of my entire argument was that Photoshop is NOT efficient with cores. AND that is what the programmers said too. It is simply not possible to split up tasks between cores as easily as it is for rendering.

Also, see what he said here (not sure if CS5 fixes this):

Photoshop CS4 blindly allocates 3 “threads” per CPU core. For a 16-core machine (dual CPU), this means that it’s allocating 48 threads, vs 24 threads for an 8-core machine (single CPU). Each of these threads requires memory of its own. That is our working theory at least.

Again, AfterEffects totally uses memory for virtual cores.

Sure Adobe may use OpenCL, I shouldn't say never. True. However, how long did it take for them to use Cocoa?

One of Job's points with arguing against Adobe with the flash issue was that Adobe was slow to adopt - sometimes never adopting - Apple's technology. We simply see this occurring again.

I am connected to Adobe for life probably because of graphic design but Apple wins my heart for video editing.

However, I'm jumping ship because Apple has let go of the ball with FCP for the time being. I will return when FCP gets revamped.

[Macinposh]

I would say 12 GB is a great start for most pro users with photoshop and multimedia.

Yes. Most if not for practically everybody,outside the realms of some really,really,really,really niche segments. Like...uuh...cant think of many,if any.




Another real world photographer is Digillyd, who for himself, needs a minimum of 24GB of RAM. He compares 6 /16/32 here.


No.

He dont need anything. As cool (and many times extremely usefull) tests he does,they have absolutely nothing to do with the real world photography,if they are even remotely connected to printing medium.

You can shove a hasselblad 50 file with 16 bits in you computer and start to work on it.
But the sad truth is that at the present,the difference wether you are working with a 06MP,09 iMac or 10MP is marginal.

If you work (unless it is 100+ layers sufferfest,after witch we all can wonder if you workflow is ok...) for print,let alone electronic media, you will finish you job about the same time. There is very small difference between the platforms you are working with.

Thanks to limitations of the programs itself.

[deconstruct60]

Right... I had read that recently... is it the OCZ drives that are using that technique? Is it a controller based feature or a vendor based implementation? Do we know what popular drives are using this technique?

Minimally the Sandforce controllers are doing it. (this page and the next.)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3690/the-impact-of-spare-area-on-sandforce-more-capacity-at-no-performance-loss

Not 100% about some of the others because some of them are more vague about what they are doing. This article says Sandforce have patented part of the process.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/13/sandforce_launches/

although a bit of a chuckle about compressing data as going to storage in a generic sense since mainframes were doing that 15-20 years ago. The patent office takes just about everything these days. Or perhaps better put the extremely narrowly differentiated. Cuts both ways I guess in that only need another slight differentiation to get around it.

I suspect the others are not because you have to throw silicon at a hardware based , real-time stream compression logic to make it work. The compression is going to have limitations since it is fixed. The "clever" parts where Sandforce is looking at all 1's or all 0's and doing no-op won't happen much in jpg.

In short, if you see someone who says their write lifetime is hugely different than others using the same kind of Flash ... take that will huge grain of salt if looking to use that as a scratch drive. Either the flash cells are way different/better or the over provision needs to be radically different.

[SCSnare]

After Effects CS5 needs the right combo of Memory and Cores to go fast.

When you enable multiprocessing, you need to specify how much memory per core. Once you do, AE tells you how many cores it will use to render.

Check out these results for a 12 core Westmere with 24G of RAM rendering a sample project created from Total Training:
.75G per core x 24 cores = 126 sec
1G x 17 = 34 sec
1.5G x 11 = 32 sec
2G x 8 = 34 sec

So in this case 11 cores x 1.5G each is the sweet spot. Can't wait to try this test on a 6 core Westmere -- though I will need three 8G memory sticks to reach 24G -- since it only has 4 memory slots.

I'm really looking forward to you testing the 6-core with 24GB RAM now that the 8GB sticks have been confirmed to work. I'm having a hard time deciding between the 6-core and the 12-core. If the 6-core beats the 12-core when they both have 24GB RAM, I'll get the 6-core.

Does anyone know if C4D can see hyperthreaded cores like AE can? That's also something that I need to take into consideration since the two applications I use the most are AE and C4D.

[Ryan P]

Does anyone know if C4D can see hyperthreaded cores like AE can? That's also something that I need to take into consideration since the two applications I use the most are AE and C4D.

Applications are going to see the hyper threaded cores as real cores so you will be able to use them as such. I've used C4D and AE on Intel processors since they reintroduced hyper threading.

[mattbatt]

No.

He dont need anything.

Ya, you are right I suppose. I was using my dual 2.0 G5 with 3.5 GB ram for doing:
3d animation (I'm not good or anything, but I was rendering stuff in Strata)
CS4 suite
Final Cut pro

I was batching 100's of 5dmkII 21 MP RAW images and also converting the 5d's h.264 HD footage.

It did fine. My PC quad work computer running windows 7 with 4 GB RAM faired much worse than my G5 for the footage. Slightly faster in RAW conversion.

7.5 year old G5 compared to a 2 year old PC quad.

The main thing is, I got a lot of work done and wasn't annoyed too much. FCP just always needed to render, but that's why I'm gonna try CS5

[reel2reel]

Yes. Most if not for practically everybody,outside the realms of some really,really,really,really niche segments. Like...uuh...cant think of many,if any.





No.

He dont need anything. As cool (and many times extremely usefull) tests he does,they have absolutely nothing to do with the real world photography,if they are even remotely connected to printing medium.

You can shove a hasselblad 50 file with 16 bits in you computer and start to work on it.
But the sad truth is that at the present,the difference wether you are working with a 06MP,09 iMac or 10MP is marginal.

If you work (unless it is 100+ layers sufferfest,after witch we all can wonder if you workflow is ok...) for print,let alone electronic media, you will finish you job about the same time. There is very small difference between the platforms you are working with.

Thanks to limitations of the programs itself.

Maybe I'm not 100% clear on the points you're making (confused, actually) but I'm a Nikon D90 shooter and I can't wait to get my Hex with 16 GB memory. At home, I've got a core duo iMac and that thing chokes in Lightroom and Aperture. Chokes. I don't even bother anymore, which pi$$3s me off b/c I love photography. Lightroom and Aperture (I was trying both at one point) have left my old iMac in the dust.

For Final Cut Pro and Color (which I use everyday and have been for years), I'd recommend *no less* than 12 GB RAM if you're doing real work. Any less than that, start bouncing between Color, FCP and MPEG STreamclip and watch the wheel spin as your RAM gets eaten up.

In other words, I'm getting 16GB RAM for my HEX and yes I'm going to need it. I might even go up to 24GB if I can scrape up a few more bucks.

[reel2reel]

Ya, you are right I suppose. I was using my dual 2.0 G5 with 3.5 GB ram for doing:
3d animation (I'm not good or anything, but I was rendering stuff in Strata)
CS4 suite
Final Cut pro

I was batching 100's of 5dmkII 21 MP RAW images and also converting the 5d's h.264 HD footage.

It did fine. My PC quad work computer running windows 7 with 4 GB RAM faired much worse than my G5 for the footage. Slightly faster in RAW conversion.

7.5 year old G5 compared to a 2 year old PC quad.

The main thing is, I got a lot of work done and wasn't annoyed too much. FCP just always needed to render, but that's why I'm gonna try CS5

I don't think rendering and batch processing is anywhere comparable to real workflows in video or photography. For example, I'm doing complicated cutting, keying and Color roundtripping in Final Cut Studio. The 2008 Mac Pro I work on really starts to bog down after a few hours of this work and I need to reboot frequently. I wouldn't want to try that on a G5.

I understand what you're saying, though. Just making a point about ways you can really push a system to its limits, despite what some will tell you about who needs what in order use certain programs. They're not seeing the big picture. Kind of like photographers who take pictures of brick walls and proclaim themselves experts on cameras and photography.

[Macinposh]

Maybe I'm not 100% clear on the points you're making (confused, actually) but I'm a Nikon D90 shooter and I can't wait to get my Hex with 16 GB memory. At home, I've got a core duo iMac and that thing chokes in Lightroom and Aperture. Chokes. I don't even bother anymore, which pi$$3s me off b/c I love photography. Lightroom and Aperture (I was trying both at one point) have left my old iMac in the dust.

For Final Cut Pro and Color (which I use everyday and have been for years), I'd recommend *no less* than 12 GB RAM if you're doing real work. Any less than that, start bouncing between Color, FCP and MPEG STreamclip and watch the wheel spin as your RAM gets eaten up.

In other words, I'm getting 16GB RAM for my HEX and yes I'm going to need it. I might even go up to 24GB if I can scrape up a few more bucks.

Let´s try again then.

At present,with current iteration of FCS+LR+PS,speed differences between 06MPs,09iMacs and 10MPs are marginal in everyday video & photo production. Ok?
Small. Almost non existant.

Why?

PS still sucks at multithreading. Most of the normal actions still utilize 1-2 cores,very few scale up to 4+ cores. Fast clock speeds count here,where 4x3.00 MP,4x3.33 iMac hold their ground against 10MPs.

LR scales a bit better,but is very poorly threaded as well. It can utilize 4 cores (while peaking from time to time to 6) but,in general, meh.
The program just dont scale beyond 4 cores properly.
So again,no matter if you use older MP/iMac.

FCS. Hmm.How to put this?
It is even WORSE than the previous programs.
FCP uses max 2 threads,as Shake,Color the same,motion a bit more(?).
Thats it.
You can tune the Compressor to allocate all aviable cores when exporting,but the program is so damn buggy,that if you manage to export something out of it,pfffew.
AND FCS is memory wise capped to 4gibs,so the "minimum 12GBs!!" is a moot,as well.



So in short : It is in the programs where you have your underlying problems,and no amount of throwing away your cash to get some new,fancy,blingbling 2010 Macpro will change that.
That and that you might have some constraints with your iMacs I/O bandwidth if you are solely operating your lightroom library with your internal drive. Wich would be...dumb.
Hell, LRs speed difference between a macbook & 8 core nehalem MP is about 1.5-2.5x...
Get external fast disks (fw800,raid box) for 300$ bucks and you would be sorted untill the developers wake up and gets us properly done programs.
Untill that,save your money.

[CyCoPaTh]

[post moved to a new thread - apologies]

[jwestpro]

Although i presume that the 24 threads would then dominate again with 48gigs of ram, but at this point i think i can honestly say I dont see myself dropping the $3000 it would cost for that much ram.

Just have to pray that the 6 core mac pro can accept 8 gig mem chips for the future.


A. OWC has confirmed already that 8gb modules work fine in the 4/6 core machines

B. why do you keep saying it would cost $3000 ?? the only package that even comes close to that on owc is 64gb while 48 costs $2160 and you don't even need that much.

C. while you may be up and coming in terms of motion, until you are SOOO busy the seconds matter or billing out for all your time or projects, you do not "need" any of these new machines and the cost associated with them. Spending over $4000 in your case would be silly.

Everyone on here endlessly discussing how many seconds faster this or that machine is has apparently got more time than sense unless they are clearing over $100k/yr in work that requires the machine to begin with.

Either you are super busy really working, and then you can afford whatever you like, or you are not so busy and you have the time to deal with a slower machine. Personally, I am very busy but I also don't like blowing money that could instead keep me in the latest top canon model, new other gear, new car, etc.

What's more important, a few seconds faster, even minutes, or no problem having the latest lenses, lighting, misc, and budget to stay on site extra days, drive dependable vehicles, enough cards to not "need" to download any of them for a week or two?

Only last year did I opt to replace my 2003 era dual 2 G5. I did however several years ago get a lot more out of it by wiping it clean, and starting over using a 15k os/boot drive plus a 10k work drive. Moving all archive outside the machine and only running up to cs3 on it because the newer versions aren't designed for the old ppc.

Only 18 months ago running into 1gb+ psd files became a big issue on the g5. This is due in part to the larger 1dsmk3 and 5dmk2 files in 16 bit. However I use the mpp for all raw processing, further allowing the g5 to just do it's cs3 thing. Our play camera is a the fun little 7d so I don't risk dropping the work camera into the ocean or off a cliff. The 5dmk2 is my own fun stuff camera and back up for work.

I have an 8 core on one coast that is the primary machine when there and a 30" on each coast for each work environment. Now it looks like a 3.3 6 core makes the most sense to replace the dual2 g5. If the 12 were also 3.33, then I might go for that just because, but I also know that in three years, something for $4000 will be better and a few thousand now, earning interest, will be smarter use of the $ long term.

I think it's more important to spread your budget than dump it all into one machine. Instead a powerful up to date mac book pro is money well spent in case you need a backup or ability to work on the road.

Anyway, good luck, but keep your desires in line with realistic needs. I know it's tough.

[CaptFlushgarden]

Does anyone know what's the better pick between the 2,93 mhz 12 core and the 3,33 hexacore? If one would use Photoshop, that uses mostly just one core , would the 2,93 12 core still be faster?

According to cpubenchmark.net http://cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
the 2,93 X5670 is about 1000 points faster than the 3,33 W3680 , would this mean the 12 core is still faster than the 3,33 hexacore in single threaded apps also?

[eponym]

No.

You need complicated, multi-threaded apps to really leverage the the 12 cores.

By the sounds of it, 12 cores would be a waste of money for you (unless you really need the RAM slots).

[deconstruct60]

No.

You need complicated, multi-threaded apps to really leverage the the 12 cores.


No you don't. You can also have 12 single threaded apps running at the same time. Or you can have 1 app in the foreground and 1-2 batch jobs going at the same time on a workstation. This happens all the time on servers because there are multiple users. Each one of those users is trying to do something different. Ta da! lots of concurrent workload.

Yes there is big problems if primary workstation usage is one application at a time in serial.

What happens is that folks don't want to run compressor in the background while they edit. Or batch encoding job while compose something.
Usually because run into either Memory or disk bandwidth problems. That is just all the more likely if have spent huge fraction of budget buying max GHz and gone cheap on the disk I/O .

[deconstruct60]

Does anyone know what's the better pick between the 2,93 mhz 12 core and the 3,33 hexacore? If one would use Photoshop, that uses mostly just one core , would the 2,93 12 core still be faster?

There is a giant price gap between the two. Large enough to max out the RAM in the hex with Apple RAM prices and put in a much faster disk system and still have money left over. (hex with Apple 4x4GB and 4x1TB CTO cheaper than 2,93. with just 6GB and 1x 1TB standard config. )




According to cpubenchmark.net http://cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
the 2,93 X5670 is about 1000 points faster than the 3,33 W3680


Kind of hard to find the quickly find the configs that were used for benchmarking but suspect this is somewhat an apples to oranges comparison.
The memory and disk configs probably very across the samples and it isn't really illustrative of "CPU" only differences.




, would this mean the 12 core is still faster than the 3,33 hexacore in single threaded apps also?

It can be if left at the standard out of the box configs. There are lots of times where having 6GB of RAM is better than just 3GB. However, with the extra money you can fix that.

A more sensible comparison would be the 2.66 12 core vs. the 3.33 hex.
With the lower price gap not going to be able to pack quite as much RAM into the hex to where the 2.66 won't be able to over take it once get up over the 16-24GB range. 32 and over it is over.


However, the real comparison if look at total overall system costs is more so the 2.4 8 versus the hex. Since the 2.4 starts out lower can throw more memory and disk (or GPU) at it for the same total system price. If your workload requires more than 3GB to work well then the 2.4 works out better. If it is 12GB then the 2.4 not hitting a slow disk is faster than 3.33 that is hitting the disk much harder.


In short both the 12 x 2.93 and 6 x 3.33 models are priced out of the $/performance market and squarely in the max spend bucket.

If seriously want to optimize the box to running single threaded apps and get more value for money would get the quad 3.2 GHz model and drop the difference between hex and it on more RAM and better disks. If you only want one core.... buy fewer of them.

[CaptFlushgarden]

Thanks for the reply, but I think I might have been unclear , I am not interested about the price difference, I am wondering what CPU is fastest in single threaded apps like Photoshop the 2,93 12 core or te 3.33 6 core?

If the price would have been exactly the same, if both CPUs were one dollar each, what CPU would be fastest in Photoshop doing single threaded stuff ? Is it as simple as the ghz? I suspect not.


There is a giant price gap between the two. Large enough to max out the RAM in the hex with Apple RAM prices and put in a much faster disk system and still have money left over. (hex with Apple 4x4GB and 4x1TB CTO cheaper than 2,93. with just 6GB and 1x 1TB standard config. )





Kind of hard to find the quickly find the configs that were used for benchmarking but suspect this is somewhat an apples to oranges comparison.
The memory and disk configs probably very across the samples and it isn't really illustrative of "CPU" only differences.





It can be if left at the standard out of the box configs. There are lots of times where having 6GB of RAM is better than just 3GB. However, with the extra money you can fix that.

A more sensible comparison would be the 2.66 12 core vs. the 3.33 hex.
With the lower price gap not going to be able to pack quite as much RAM into the hex to where the 2.66 won't be able to over take it once get up over the 16-24GB range. 32 and over it is over.


However, the real comparison if look at total overall system costs is more so the 2.4 8 versus the hex. Since the 2.4 starts out lower can throw more memory and disk (or GPU) at it for the same total system price. If your workload requires more than 3GB to work well then the 2.4 works out better. If it is 12GB then the 2.4 not hitting a slow disk is faster than 3.33 that is hitting the disk much harder.


In short both the 12 x 2.93 and 6 x 3.33 models are priced out of the $/performance market and squarely in the max spend bucket.

If seriously want to optimize the box to running single threaded apps and get more value for money would get the quad 3.2 GHz model and drop the difference between hex and it on more RAM and better disks. If you only want one core.... buy fewer of them.

[thunng8]

Thanks for the reply, but I think I might have been unclear , I am not interested about the price difference, I am wondering what CPU is fastest in single threaded apps like Photoshop the 2,93 12 core or te 3.33 6 core?

If the price would have been exactly the same, if both CPUs were one dollar each, what CPU would be fastest in Photoshop doing single threaded stuff ? Is it as simple as the ghz? I suspect not.

Yes, it is that simple. For single threaded applications the 3.33Ghz 6 core will turbo up to 3.6Ghz and the 2.93Ghz 12 core model will only go to 3.46Ghz. The 3.33Ghz 6 core will be faster if the application is using only one core.

[CaptFlushgarden]

Yes, it is that simple. For single threaded applications the 3.33Ghz 6 core will turbo up to 3.6Ghz and the 2.93Ghz 12 core model will only go to 3.46Ghz. The 3.33Ghz 6 core will be faster if the application is using only one core.

Thanks a lot! Well that's good news for my wallet, haha :) it's time to switch to a Mac it's been 16 years I had one, the good old 100mhz Mac performa 6300

[allupons]

Taking my thread back for a second. So I did order the 6 core with a 5870 gpu upgrade last sunday night and it is still marked as not yet shipped. There were some annoying issues with my card's security limits, but we added a second card and the authorizations seemed to go well at that point. However, I believe that most people that ordered 6 core machines AFTER me have had theirs start shipping by the end of this week. I gave apple a call to see if anything weird was preventing shipping and the guy I talked to said everything looked fine on his end. I am basically curious how many that ordered earlier this week have had theirs ship or not.

[jwestpro]

Yes, it is that simple. For single threaded applications the 3.33Ghz 6 core will turbo up to 3.6Ghz and the 2.93Ghz 12 core model will only go to 3.46Ghz. The 3.33Ghz 6 core will be faster if the application is using only one core.


Where can you verify this "turbo" information? If it is true, then when in turbo mode, the difference in speed between them actually reduces significantly from .4 to .14

Still, while this is interesting stuff, most people are not going to realize any noticeable difference during use of software so most of this banter is pointless academics at best.

[Ryan P]

Where can you verify this "turbo" information? If it is true, then when in turbo mode, the difference in speed between them actually reduces significantly from .4 to .14


Just look up the intel page on each processor for example http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47920 . Btw the 2.93 will only go up to 3.33 not 3.46

[jwestpro]

in keeping with the thread topics, will dual multi core be better than single multi core for running more than one application at the same time?

I understand that photoshop does not benefit from the 12 core, and that Final Cut Pro doesn't so much, yet, either but should I assume that running a raw processor such as Capture One Pro on the same machine, going back and forth between it and cs4 or cs5 would make use of the split core banks?

I like using the mbp for raw processing, on the side, but am curious about the options.

If all you do is photoshop and video, how is the 12 core really even useful, let alone "necessary".

[Ryan P]

If you are a heavy After Effects user that would be one reason to go all out as it can take full advantage of as many cores as you have. 3D Rendering, heavy virtualization, and Xcode compilation of large programs would be other reasons.

Photoshop isn't a good reason for a 12 core. :-)

[jwestpro]

For me the difference is only a tax deductible $2500 so if it gives me more freedom for the next three years, then it's worth it but I do think I'll read up on this more before choosing.

[deconstruct60]

Is it as simple as the ghz? I suspect not.

It is not. There are plenty around here that will say it is but it isn't. If you looking at overall system preformance the other elements of the system play a role.

Implicit in those that say it does are the assumptions that you have enough RAM and disk I/O speed allocated to the system where they aren't playing a major factor. That is typically easily done if run some older software on relatively small sized problems.


If you turn into a problem that can load up into the respective L3 caches and run a single core at then yeah you will see a marginal difference. The problem is that doesn't happen in real world when folks run multiple applications at the same time and have bigger than L3 cache problems.

[barefeats]

I just posted Cinebench 11.5 and Geekbench 64 bit results for various Mac Pros including the 2.8 4-core, 3.33 6-core, 2.4 8-core, and 2.66 12-core:
http://barefeats.com/wst10.html
I'll add more permutations to the page as I receive them from "remote mad scientists."

I also recommend Lloyd Chambers page comparing the 3.33 6-core to three other Macs running Photoshop, After Effects, and several other apps. He also has memory bandwidth tests.
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere.html

Meanwhile, I'm compiling comparative results for Compressor, After Effects, iMovie, X-Plane, Portal, etc. Stay tuned.

[SCSnare]

I just posted Cinebench 11.5 and Geekbench 64 bit results for various Mac Pros including the 2.8 4-core, 3.33 6-core, 2.4 8-core, and 2.66 12-core:
http://barefeats.com/wst10.html
I'll add more permutations to the page as I receive them from "remote mad scientists."

I also recommend Lloyd Chambers page comparing the 3.33 6-core to three other Macs running Photoshop, After Effects, and several other apps. He also has memory bandwidth tests.
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere.html

Meanwhile, I'm compiling comparative results for Compressor, After Effects, iMovie, X-Plane, Portal, etc. Stay tuned.

Thanks a bunch!

[DoFoT9]

Meanwhile, I'm compiling comparative results for Compressor, After Effects, iMovie, X-Plane, Portal, etc. Stay tuned.
brilliant job as always bare! thanks very much. is it possible for handbrake benchmarks?

cant wait for the compressor updates :)

[milo]

Lazy design?

Perhaps you should consider that the (seemingly) only workstation/server board listed on Intel's site that supports the W3680 (6-core) has 4 slots (http://www.intel.com/Products/Workstation/Motherboards/WX58BP/WX58BP-overview.htm).

And tons of other companies have workstation boards with 6-12 or more ram slots. Sticking with a limitation of intel's reference board instead of doing what the other companies are doing and coming up with a design that has more? Yeah, that's lazy. Not to mention that apple has eight slots on the 8/12 mobo so it's not like it's that outlandish of an idea (but even that should be 9 or 12 since it's triple channel memory).

[eponym]

I just posted Cinebench 11.5 and Geekbench 64 bit results for various Mac Pros including the 2.8 4-core, 3.33 6-core, 2.4 8-core, and 2.66 12-core:

Meanwhile, I'm compiling comparative results for Compressor, After Effects, iMovie, X-Plane, Portal, etc. Stay tuned.


What kind of benchmark is used for After Effects? I don't use AE (have it though) and I'd like to try one on my 8-core.

[merneric]

Taking my thread back for a second. So I did order the 6 core with a 5870 gpu upgrade last sunday night and it is still marked as not yet shipped. There were some annoying issues with my card's security limits, but we added a second card and the authorizations seemed to go well at that point. However, I believe that most people that ordered 6 core machines AFTER me have had theirs start shipping by the end of this week. I gave apple a call to see if anything weird was preventing shipping and the guy I talked to said everything looked fine on his end. I am basically curious how many that ordered earlier this week have had theirs ship or not.

I am in exactly the same boat as you...I had originally ordered 8-core, dual cpu on 9 Aug. Then changed my mind and cancelled. I had to wait a few days for apple to release the hold on my cc which they finally did on sun (15 Aug). I promptly re-odered the six-core, and as of today STILL have the "Not yet shipped" on the status page. I also called, and was treated like, "why are you calling us, its on the website?" and was also told that the order looks ok, but since it is BTO (I ordered standard config with the 5870), that it takes awhile. Yeah right. Its says delivery date from 24-30 Aug so right now I'm pretty much thinking its going to be closer to 30 Aug. :mad:

[barefeats]

brilliant job as always bare! thanks very much. is it possible for handbrake benchmarks?

cant wait for the compressor updates :)

HandBrake and Compressor are definitely on the "to do" list.

[barefeats]

What kind of benchmark is used for After Effects? I don't use AE (have it though) and I'd like to try one on my 8-core.

Send me a forum private message and I'll send you the test project and test instructions. BTW, even if you don't have After Effects, you can download a 30 day trial from Adobe.

[barefeats]

Here's a Portal 'appetizer' for the 4-core 2010 Mac Pro with Radeon HD 5870 versus other Macs:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html

I'm going to be adding other game results including X-Plane, WoW, ETQW, CoD4, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft, Bioshock, etc. And I'll be posting results for the 5870 on previous generation Mac Pros.

[Macinposh]

Here's a Portal 'appetizer' for the 4-core 2010 Mac Pro with Radeon HD 5870 versus other Macs:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html

I'm going to be adding other game results including X-Plane, WoW, ETQW, CoD4, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft, Bioshock, etc. And I'll be posting results for the 5870 on previous generation Mac Pros.


Barefoots,I am very,very happy that you have the time and patience to post us all this info.
Appreciated.
A lot!

[barefeats]

I plugged the HD 5870 into the 2008 Mac Pro 8-core 3.2GHz. Works like a charm.

Here's an appetizer. I'm benchmarking Portal First Slice (which all my remote testers are using).

At 1920x1200 with these settings:
Model Detail = High, Texture Detail = High, Shader Detail = High
Water Detail = Reflect All, Shadow Detail = High, Color Correction = Enabled
Antialiasing Mode = None, Filtering Mode = Anisotropic 4X
Vertical Sync = Disabled, Motion Blur = Enabled

The 6-core Westmere 3.33 (2010) with Radeon HD 5870 = 233 FPS avg
The 8-core Harpertown 3.2 (2008) with Radeon HD 5870 = 250 FPS avg
The 2008 model is faster!!

[barefeats]

More Radeon HD 5870 results in Mac Pro 2008 vs 2010:

World of Warcraft "Narache Totem to Tree Run"
1920x1200 Ultra with 4X Multisampling
2010 Hexacore = 140 FPS avg
2008 Octocore = 153 FPS avg

2560x1600 Ultra with 4X Multisampling
2010 Hexacore = 110 FPS avg
2008 Octocore = 114 FPS avg

In fairness, not all 3D Games are faster on the 2008.
X-Plane 9.6 at 2560x1600 with High Quality and 2X AA
2010 Hexacore = 173 FPS avg
2008 Octocore = 105 FPS avg

That's all the appetizers for now. Back to testing.

[barefeats]

There is a caveat when using the Radeon HD 5870 on the 2006-2008 Mac Pro. The two Mini DisplayPorts are "negative function" no matter what adapter you have. Only the dual-link DVI port can be used on the older Mac Pros.

The 2009 and 2010 Mac Pros do support the Mini DisplayPort with or without a Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter (for displays with DVI connectors). That's probably why Apple officially supports the 5870 and 5770 only on the 2009 and 2010.

[DoFoT9]

The 6-core Westmere 3.33 (2010) with Radeon HD 5870 = 233 FPS avg
The 8-core Harpertown 3.2 (2008) with Radeon HD 5870 = 250 FPS avg
The 2008 model is faster!!

]
In fairness, not all 3D Games are faster on the 2008.
X-Plane 9.6 at 2560x1600 with High Quality and 2X AA
2010 Hexacore = 173 FPS avg
2008 Octocore = 105 FPS avg

That's all the appetizers for now. Back to testing.

these are very interesting results - such massive differences! goes to show exactly how much the coding of the game/software comes into play, and how much 2 cores can make such big differences :)

thanks very much for these results.

[jwestpro]

Here's a Portal 'appetizer' for the 4-core 2010 Mac Pro with Radeon HD 5870 versus other Macs:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html

I'm going to be adding other game results including X-Plane, WoW, ETQW, CoD4, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft, Bioshock, etc. And I'll be posting results for the 5870 on previous generation Mac Pros.


So, along this video card tangent, is anyone familiar with this? :
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 for Mac by PNY / Part number: TW386LL/A $1800
1.5GB GDDR3 GPU memory, 192 cuda
http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW386LL/A?mco=MTQxMTc4NDg

I found that the fx 4800 above has, besides 50% more ram:
# 384-bit memory interface (higher than the 256 of the 5870)
# 76.8 GB/sec memory bandwidth (1/2 the 5870)

Is this any better than the "new" 5870, or not as good? It's certainly more expensive.

I noticed on some software, like After Effects, that "open gl 2.0" is a requirement - how does one be sure which cards have that feature?

Further about cards, and actual FCP type video work, would the 6 core 3.33 be "enough for now" or is the 12 core "substantially" faster? I am not too concerned about a couple seconds here or there but rather real appreciable speed difference.

From the sounds of this thread info, photoshop work is "faster" on the fastest ghz not so much number of cores, but is that even so much different to worry about? My idea is if the 12 core is better for some things, and will be better for more rewritten software in the years to come, what's the point of going 6 core except for cost?

If video work will be "plenty fast enough" on a 6 core, then it seems that is a fine route to go. I suppose I'd rather invest $2500 to become more money in a few years, than spend it unnecessarily on a 12 core if it's not really all that much better.

Lastly, what the heck was the 12 core really designed for is the 6 is so close?

-more lastly ;) is the 12 core inherently "better" because long term, for ram intensive uses, you can get a lot more inside which outweighs the ghz aspect?

I have to read up, does cs5 finally "use" more ram thus functioning faster and not needing scratch disk? On my old g5 the functions I see super slow are saving the layered file as a psd (1gb+ most often) but also complex lasso with max feather and huge brush size mask painting. I realize some of these may be the old dual 2.0 and it's agp video card ? nvidia gforce 6800 w/ 256mb ram. machine has 6.5 gb running cs3.

[jwestpro]

Don't do this.

Boot drive? Sure. Scratch disk? Bad idea. Especially not a tiny SSD. The scratch disk is constantly being written to, over and over. That will quickly degrade the performance of the drive and waste your money. :(

Can't the ssd simply be "hard erased" or reformatted back to original integrity/performance?

[300D]

The scratch disk is constantly being written to, over and over. That will quickly degrade the performance of the drive and waste your money.

Its far worse on a hard drive due to the mechanical head that must move to locate data.

An SSD is better than a hard drive in every way except cost.

[jwestpro]

Its far worse on a hard drive due to the mechanical head that must move to locate data.

An SSD is better than a hard drive in every way except cost.

When a person presents something as if to sound "like" a fact, you should be prepared to seriously back up your claims. While it may seem simply intuitive to make the assumption you did above, your statement smells a lot like someone who thinks they know stuff but in fact does not.

[300D]

When a person presents something as if to sound "like" a fact, you should be prepared to seriously back up your claims.
Then please do. As of yet you've only spouted typical SSD myth ignorance.

Come back when you've actually tried it. :)

[jwestpro]

"spouted"? no, I referred directly to the diglloyd testing being done.

"tried it", how about "try" making a more inane comment? No kidding initial use appears to be better, that's not what is being discussed and is therefor irrelevant. It being super fantastic in the first phase of use is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You come in here sounding like a know it all with zero sensibility in your approach - and you have been using one for how long and how intensively?

I do not doubt the actual tests that have read about. If you want to be useful then supply the proof as well as what I had asked above rather than what sounds like a basic "just trust me, in know" response.

-
and did you even read the thread?

[300D]

"tried it", how about "try" making a more inane comment?
Ah, such as your worthless ignorance driven drivel?

No kidding initial use appears to be better
ALL use. The only disadvantage an SSD has is in $/gb.

You come in here sounding like a know it all with zero sensibility in your approach - and you have been using one for how long and how intensively?
3 years in daily use. I started with a 25GB Samsung MCBQE25G5MPQ and I still use it as my primary drive to this day without the need for a wipe.

Due to it being an older SSD, my much newer Barracuda 7200.12 outspeeds it in sequential writes. But in random reads and writes, the SSD still rapes it in every category.

Drive Type SAMSUNG MCBQE25G5MPQ-0VAD3
Disk Test 120.87
Sequential 117.90
Uncached Write 92.21 56.61 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 113.97 64.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 104.67 30.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 210.41 105.75 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 123.98
Uncached Write 47.85 5.07 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 109.14 34.94 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2572.93 18.23 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 551.11 102.26 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Drive Type ST31000528AS
Disk Test 60.51
Sequential 179.58
Uncached Write 188.55 115.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 205.00 115.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 123.29 36.08 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 251.15 126.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 36.39
Uncached Write 10.78 1.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 266.93 85.45 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 119.09 0.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 198.07 36.75 MB/sec [256K blocks]

A modern SSD would do far better in sequential testing and wipe the hard drive off the map.

and did you even read the thread?
If you had actually read this thread, you'd have seen I've been a part of this thread 65 posts before you even came along.

[jwestpro]

60% more processing power, go for the 12.

One other off hand comment apparently without serious regard for the situation or even the various ways 6 vs 12 can be compared, hardly constitutes "part of this thread".

However, 3 years of ssd use sounds like a great test of time ....Why do you have to be pushed so ***** hard to speak up?

So if you have been using these for so long, that's great, but it still says nothing about how intensively.

I'm sorry if it bothers you to be questioned but my business depends partially on the work that has to go through my computer so I am not just going to take the word of anyone who just claims this or that.

I don't get paid to know what random reads/writes are vs sequential, and I couldn't care less either. I am not a computer geek and do not have time to be but I want to learn about the components that are important for my work.

This is specifically reliability first and performance second. Compared to most people, I probably don't care so much about the cost, to me, quality warrants the cost because it supports my work.

Let me ask then, if you are so certain about the ssd, why are established folks going on and on about the ssd degradation issues? Furthermore, why can't anyone answer my simple question, "who cares if they get slower over time, can't you just reformat / swipe them and start fresh and fast again?" -every month if necessary?

Is there any way the ssd reliability is less than the best hdd? in terms of file integrity but also failure rates?

As for performance, I thought I read that tests of 4 fast drives would easily yield better results do to the limits of the ssd - currently. How about an array of 10k rpm drives either in sata or sas type? Doesn't the controller for them have a lot to do with ultimate speed limitations?

[Honumaui]

As for performance, I thought I read that tests of 4 fast drives would easily yield better results do to the limits of the ssd - currently. How about an array of 10k rpm drives either in sata or sas type? Doesn't the controller for them have a lot to do with ultimate speed limitations?

I should stay away :)

the 4 disc tests ? head over to digilloyd mac performance guide and look up his scratch disc stuff

s

[300D]

Why do you have to be pushed so ***** hard to speak up?
Because trolls like yourself lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the point the first time.

I don't get paid to know what random reads/writes are vs sequential, and I couldn't care less either.
Wow, you're pushing for "proof" yet you don't even understand the subject you're talking about.

This is specifically reliability first and performance second. An SSD is supreme at this. It has no moving parts, makes no heat (relatively) and isn't affected by movement/vibration or magnetism.

Let me ask then, if you are so certain about the ssd, why are established folks going on and on about the ssd degradation issues?
They don't know what they're talking about. The TRIM feature, once supported by OSX, will eliminate the small write penalty.

Furthermore, why can't anyone answer my simple question, "who cares if they get slower over time, can't you just reformat / swipe them and start fresh and fast again?"
It doesn't work that way. Nobody answered because a quick goggle search will answer for you.

Is there any way the ssd reliability is less than the best hdd? Being more compact and tightly integrated, hitting an SSD with a hammer will destroy it easier. A hard drive could have its platters installed into another drive for data retrieval.

How about an array of 10k rpm drives either in sata or sas type?
It doesn't matter if you have 100 drives in RAID, they all have mechanical heads that must physically move to retrieve data. That means the RAID will be faster in raw throughput but an SSD will still wipe the floor with them in random read response.

Thats how an SSD makes any machine feel faster, they have a 0.01s seek time vs 0.1s.

[alphaod]

Being more compact and tightly integrated, hitting an SSD with a hammer will destroy it easier. A hard drive could have its platters installed into another drive for data retrieval.


I should point out hitting a spinning HDD with a hammer will destroy it as well. I'm talking shattering into magnetic dust! I'm speaking from experience here. :p

[jwestpro]

Because trolls like yourself lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the point the first time.


For the record a troll is not someone trying to learn more.

Secondly you continue to spout your opinions as if they are the gospel, thus my reason for questioning your accuracy. Other folks here with more credibility than yourself will post references to claims, etc. You just expect people to think you know it all because you say you do. Which makes you sound even more like a regular dork.

None of this stuff is even slightly hard to understand, the issue is more that you are clearly just a total jerk.

[Ryan P]

Furthermore, why can't anyone answer my simple question, "who cares if they get slower over time, can't you just reformat / swipe them and start fresh and fast again?" -every month if necessary?

not really wanting in on this thread...but diglloyd's disktester has a "Recondition SSD", command. He does state that it isn't needed for drives such as OWC as they don't show performance degradation overtime. (This may or may not be true but probably is true for most use cases.)

http://diglloydtools.com/manual/disktester-recondition.html

I think this is a different issue to simply wearing the SSD out, which could happen if you are constantly writing a high percentage of the SSD's capacity.

[VirtualRain]

not really wanting in on this thread...but diglloyd's disktester has a "Recondition SSD", command. He does state that it isn't needed for drives such as OWC as they don't show performance degradation overtime. (This may or may not be true but probably is true for most use cases.)

http://diglloydtools.com/manual/disktester-recondition.html

I think this is a different issue to simply wearing the SSD out, which could happen if you are constantly writing a high percentage of the SSD's capacity.

I wouldn't use diglloyd's recondition tool... I'm not sure what exactly it's doing but he says "The recondition command helps restore solid state drive performance by rewriting free space on the drive in very large chunks."

This is, in fact, the opposite of what you want to do to recondition an SSD. When all the nand blocks on a drive get full, which is what this method assures, drive performance starts to deteriorate because of the write amplification... writing just 8 bytes (for example) will require the reading and writing of a full 512K byte block of NAND.

Here's the correct process using the ATA command that all SSD drive controllers recognize:
https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase

Unfortunately, this is not trivial to perform on a Mac so myself and others have found a few ways to do this successfully:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182

The key to the process is the issuing of the ATA command that instructs the drives controller to mark all NAND blocks as free. Which means that writing a small amount of data will no longer require the reading and writing of a full 512K block... thus performance returns to factory values.

But don't take my word for it... here are some reputable sources:

Intel:

An alternative method (faster) is to use a tool to perform a SECURE ERASE command on the drive. This command will release all of the user LBA locations internally in the drive and result in all of the NAND locations being reset to an erased state. This is equivalent to resetting the drive to the factory shipped condition, and will provide the optimum performance

AnandTech:

Based on my explanation there’s one sure-fire way to make your drive fast again. Formatting/deleting everything on the drive won’t work because those pages on the drive will remain full of data.

If you are doing a clean setup of your machine and want to restore your drive to its native state you’ll have to perform a secure erase. Intel distributed a tool with the first X25-M review kits called HDD ERASE. This tool will take any SSD and free every last page on the drive. Obviously you’ll lose all of your data but your drive will be super fast again!

[Ryan P]

Unfortunately, this is not trivial to perform on a Mac so myself and others have found a few ways to do this successfully:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182


Bookmarked that for future use. Thanks!

[sethschorr]

I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions regarding the purchase of a 6-Core 3.33 GHZ Mac Pro vs. a 12-Core 2.66 GHZ Mac Pro. From what I gather it seems like the consensus of the posts leans towards the 6-Core 3.33 GHZ.

I will mostly be using this machine for Final Cut Express and Photoshop CS5. I don't waiting for that final render, but appreciate when a machine is super fast during the editing process.

I don't mind spending up to $5,000 on a new machine, but I would rather put the money into more RAM, solid state HD or other components and not unnecessary cores. I realize this thread is a few months old, but if anyone has any last minute advise for a fellow Mac enthusiast I would appreciate it!

Thank you!

Seth

[Mac Hammer Fan]

That's a good choice. I would do the same! Good luck.

[Bernard1985]

I just went through that (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1061276) ... got my 6-core just over a week ago and its awesome. 24GB memory, and my two 2TB Caviar Green will arrive tomorrow. And that external 2TB drive for backup.