Am about to spring for a new Mac Pro. Going for the 12-core but not sure whether to get the 2.66 or spring for the 2.93 (add'l $1200). My dealer says not worth it price-performance wise. Also which graphics card to get? I do a ton of InDesign work, and a fair amount of Photoshop & Aperture stuff too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Pro - 2.63 v. 2.9 Processor Choice
- Thread starter peterpica
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeh I think 3d rendering is the only time 12 cores are used. I may be wrong. I render a lot in Vray for rhino and all 8 cores are pegged.
I think the single CPU machine with 4 cores at 3.2 or 6 cores at 3.3 is probably the price/performance sweet spot. Then load up on Raptor and SSD disks.
As a 2008 MacPro owner (using it for Lightroom, some Photoshop, some FCP) I very rarely see all my 8 cores in use. I really think that 'straight line speed' would be more noticeable than lots of cores, plus the three apps you give in your example would seriously benefit from running off SSD.
Aperture also makes a lot of use of the graphics card, so possibly better to spend money here than on more cores.
As a 2008 MacPro owner (using it for Lightroom, some Photoshop, some FCP) I very rarely see all my 8 cores in use. I really think that 'straight line speed' would be more noticeable than lots of cores, plus the three apps you give in your example would seriously benefit from running off SSD.
Aperture also makes a lot of use of the graphics card, so possibly better to spend money here than on more cores.
Sounds like 6-core is a better buy for you. Photoshop and most apps in CS5 cannot take advantage of 12-core so it would actually be slower in those tasks, thus 6-core is a better buy.
How long a run are you expecting from this machine? As of now few programs utilize multiple cores so CPU speed trumps core numbers. Of course RAM and SSD will result in the greatest return on investment for speed. If you are planning on keeping this machine shy of, um 5 years or so, you'd be better with fewer cores and a faster processor.
Your dealer is correct. Listen to him (most want to sell you top of the line).
To answer your question, rather than give unsolicited advice about how many cores to get, I am planning a 12-core purchase and am leaning towards the cheaper clock option as it will save a lot of money for other bits and pieces.
I will run GridMathematica, which can use all 12 cores very effectively - in fact the question in my head is whether I can fire up just 12 kernels or go for the full 24 using the hyperthreading. Having found that a quad core Windows laptop (with the proper i7-720) can fire up 8 kernels and make good use of them I am now wondering if the big mac will do 24.
I think going for the 12 is sensible for future proofing. My 8-core 2008 Pro is still doing fantastically well running 8 kernels, and I have never regretted going for that over the four core nearly 3 years ago. Then again, I always knew I could use all 8 cores to the full.
I will run GridMathematica, which can use all 12 cores very effectively - in fact the question in my head is whether I can fire up just 12 kernels or go for the full 24 using the hyperthreading. Having found that a quad core Windows laptop (with the proper i7-720) can fire up 8 kernels and make good use of them I am now wondering if the big mac will do 24.
I think going for the 12 is sensible for future proofing. My 8-core 2008 Pro is still doing fantastically well running 8 kernels, and I have never regretted going for that over the four core nearly 3 years ago. Then again, I always knew I could use all 8 cores to the full.
