Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.8ghz 8-Core or the new 2.66ghz Quad Nehalem?

N

nomotivs

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Hi Everyone, I'm buying my first mac and it will be used for photo processing, audio recording, and general multitasking. I've narrowed it down to two choices which will be about the same price (roughly $2000). Which would you choose?

2.8ghz 8-Core
500GB HD, 4GB DDR2 800mhz
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Used, about a year old with 2 years of warranty left

or

New 2.66ghz Nehalem Quad Core
640GB, 3GB DDR3 1066mhz
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB GDDR3
Full warranty that I could extend to 3 years.

I'm sure both will work fine for my needs but which will have the better performance now and which do you think will have the better resale after 2 years? Any other factors that I should consider? Thanks in advance for your help.
 
nomotivs said:
Hi Everyone, I'm buying my first mac and it will be used for photo processing, audio recording, and general multitasking. I've narrowed it down to two choices which will be about the same price (roughly $2000). Which would you choose?

2.8ghz 8-Core
500GB HD, 4GB DDR2 800mhz
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Used, about a year old with 2 years of warranty left

or

New 2.66ghz Nehalem Quad Core
640GB, 3GB DDR3 1066mhz
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB GDDR3
Full warranty that I could extend to 3 years.

I'm sure both will work fine for my needs but which will have the better performance now and which do you think will have the better resale after 2 years? Any other factors that I should consider? Thanks in advance for your help.
Click to expand...

No reason to get the quad core. It is too crippled but so is the ability to stay up to date with your equipment if you use it professionally.
 
go the 2.66GHz Nehalem. it will last you MUCH longer than the older 2.8GHz (which is already older technology). longevity is the key. 🙂
 
If you're using Pro Tools get the old model, seems that the new mac pros play up with Pro Tools, and digidesign take an age to update their software.

As a side note, last years model should work with everything right now, it can hold more Ram, and in some tasks it has repotadely been seen to be more powerful than the quad 2.6. The quad, being new tech will have problems with some software, of that I've no doubt, but fixes will come and may make it work better than on the octo 2.8.

If I was in your shoes I'd go for last years model, and I think the quad won't keep it's value as well as the octo 2.8, especially if Apples next update the Mac Pros are all 8 core, and they actually include either 9 or 12 Ram slots for proper triple channel memory, after all 8 isn't a multiple of 3 😕
 
DoFoT9 said:
go the 2.66GHz Nehalem. it will last you MUCH longer than the older 2.8GHz (which is already older technology). longevity is the key. 🙂
Click to expand...

longetivity of having one whole CPU (not cpu core, one whole CPU) less, and 8GB ram limit :S id say think twice

despite everything audio does use multicore
 
Ploki said:
longetivity of having one whole CPU (not cpu core, one whole CPU) less, and 8GB ram limit :S id say think twice

despite everything audio does use multicore
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the quad nehalem can act as an 8 core, can't it? And owc offers up to 16gb ram on the quad, so given these figures, still the old 8 core?
 
Amethyst said:
8GB vs. 32GB Barrier
Click to expand...
4GB DIMM's are being offered by OWC, so it's currently 16GB vs. 32GB. As larger DIMM's drop, it will get even better for the Quads in respect to memory. Unfortunately, it's a little expensive ATM, as no other vendors have been spotted yet.

Perhaps others are waiting for a simultaneous release with Intel's Xeon line. 😉 So perhaps the wait won't be long at all. 😀
 
I had the same choice earlier today. Went for the 2.8GHz Octo.

The new quad only beats it in single-threaded tasks, but for multi-tasking, multi-threading etc the octo is better.

plus for me was $700 cheaper (damn the aussie dollar)
 
Genghis Khan said:
I had the same choice earlier today. Went for the 2.8GHz Octo.

The new quad only beats it in single-threaded tasks, but for multi-tasking, multi-threading etc the octo is better.

plus for me was $700 cheaper (damn the aussie dollar)
Click to expand...

But do we really know it's better? Shouldn't it be the same when the quad utilizes it's 2 threads per core technology?
 
Two threads on one core aren't as good as two physical cores. Generally I believe the 8-core Harpertown beats the 4-core Gainestown on tasks that use 8 cores. And the quad-core 2009 Mac Pros have 4 slots of RAM as opposed to the 8 on the octo-core 2009s and previous Mac Pros.
 
So if OWC are offering 4GB Dimms for the Quad, does this 'confirm' that they've tried it with 16GB?

Is there an article published by OWC stating this?
 
MIDI_EVIL said:
So if OWC are offering 4GB Dimms for the Quad, does this 'confirm' that they've tried it with 16GB?

Is there an article published by OWC stating this?
Click to expand...
They specialize in Mac components, but I didn't see a specific page, link, etc.

But I did stumble on this:

All OWC Memory is further backed by 15 Day Money Back Guarantee and Lifetime Advance Replacement Warranty.
Click to expand...
It helps reduce the risk of trying it, but given their business revolves around Macs, it's highly likely they'll work. 😉
 
nicolasmasset said:
But do we really know it's better? Shouldn't it be the same when the quad utilizes it's 2 threads per core technology?
Click to expand...

The few tests that compare the octo 2.8 against the quad 2.66 on barefeats show that the 2.8 out performs it by some margin at times, and the old 2.8 gets quite close to the new octo 2.26.

So as far as price/performance goes at this moment in time the octo 2.8 seems a much better deal.

Waiting for software to get updated that may take advantage of the new quads hyper threading properly is a bit hit and miss, you never know when it's gonna be released, or whether you'll have to pay for the new features. You could be waiting six weeks, six months or more.

There is also an argument that real cores will beat the virtual cores performance, so the octo 2.8 was a good deal last year, at refurb prices it's a steal IMHO.
 
myca said:
The few tests that compare the octo 2.8 against the quad 2.66 on barefeats show that the 2.8 out performs it by some margin at times, and the old 2.8 gets quite close to the new octo 2.26.

So as far as price/performance goes at this moment in time the octo 2.8 seems a much better deal.

Waiting for software to get updated that may take advantage of the new quads hyper threading properly is a bit hit and miss, you never know when it's gonna be released, or whether you'll have to pay for the new features. You could be waiting six weeks, six months or more.

There is also an argument that real cores will beat the virtual cores performance, so the octo 2.8 was a good deal last year, at refurb prices it's a steal IMHO.
Click to expand...
If a user's needs can utilize the memory throughput capability of the new models, it may be well worth getting one. If not, it's a much harder call. The new machines are quite nice, and have a good deal to offer performance wise, but the pricing structures are a sticking point for many.

When looked at from a price/performance POV, the '09 models are a hard pill to swallow, and makes the used/refurb '08's really attractive.
 
nanofrog said:
If a user's needs can utilize the memory throughput capability of the new models, it may be well worth getting one. If not, it's a much harder call.
Click to expand...

When is the memory throughput capability beneficial? I would use it for electronic music with ableton and some pop/rock with logic. Nothing with massive orchestral libraries or such..
 
nicolasmasset said:
When is the memory throughput capability beneficial? I would use it for electronic music with ableton and some pop/rock with logic. Nothing with massive orchestral libraries or such..
Click to expand...
Apps that use large amounts of memory. Simulations, 3D rendering,...are applications that can, and hopefully, actually do. 😉

I'm not familiar enough with Ableton, as I've never had the opportunity to use it. But I'm under the impression that it can, if enough libraries are used.

Hopefully, another member can chime in, and give you some details that pertain to your situation. 🙂
 
nanofrog said:
Apps that use large amounts of memory. Simulations, 3D rendering,...are applications that can, and hopefully, actually do. 😉

I'm not familiar enough with Ableton, as I've never had the opportunity to use it. But I'm under the impression that it can, if enough libraries are used.

Hopefully, another member can chime in, and give you some details that pertain to your situation. 🙂
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll just lay out my options. These are the business prices I can get:
What do you guys think? Again, logic or ableton live, with vst plugins etc. Perhaps a bit of vacation foto importing, but no RAW, and no video editing! Just the music apps with some cpu hungry plugs and audio!

- octo 2.8 with stock 2gb ram for 1680€
- quad 2.6 with stock 3gb ram for 1900€
- octo 2.26 with stock 6gb ram for 2450€

And by the way, what's up with the amount of RAM you should put in a machine? Right now I have a macbook with 3gb, and only sometimes do I ever go above 2.5gb usage, so why should I put 16gb's in a mac pro like all the benchmark units do?
 
nicolasmasset said:
Thanks, I'll just lay out my options. These are the business prices I can get:
What do you guys think? Again, logic or ableton live, with vst plugins etc. Perhaps a bit of vacation foto importing, but no RAW, and no video editing! Just the music apps with some cpu hungry plugs and audio!

- octo 2.8 with stock 2gb ram for 1680€
- quad 2.6 with stock 3gb ram for 1900€
- octo 2.26 with stock 6gb ram for 2450€

And by the way, what's up with the amount of RAM you should put in a machine? Right now I have a macbook with 3gb, and only sometimes do I ever go above 2.5gb usage, so why should I put 16gb's in a mac pro like all the benchmark units do?
Click to expand...
Do you use the macbook the same way you plan to use the new machine?
How well does it run?

I'm just trying to get a sense of how hard you'll run it, before offering up an opinion. 😉
 
nanofrog said:
Do you use the macbook the same way you plan to use the new machine?
How well does it run?

I'm just trying to get a sense of how hard you'll run it, before offering up an opinion. 😉
Click to expand...

Jup, I will use it the same way. Although there is a pretty cpu hungry plugin that I'm going to buy.. Currently, these are the apps I use almost daily:

- safari, itunes, mail, firefox, adium, skype, dreamweaver, fireworks (all simultaneous. The macbook handles this quite alright)
- and then the apps that need the pro computer are ableton live, logic and a bunch of processing plugins. When I switch to these apps, I usually quit the ones from the first list because ...

... when I launch my audio apps, the macbook really doesn't need that big of a project to start up it's annoying fans. It's really frustrating to make music with a zooming laptop beside you. It doesn't always slow down the mac per se, but it does crash the app quite often when it's being pushed. You can "hear" on almost every project that the macbook's jogging at steady heart rate, and often times running. I want a mac that's walking for the most part. But it doesn't have to have a 50cm shoesize, you know? Just comfy walking, no running!

That's why I'm kinda thinking that any mac pro will be way better than my macbook, so I might as well get the cheapest one, and just upgrade every 3-4 years instead of shelling out 1000€ more now.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 2152 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 3629 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.69
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 1109 CB-GFX
****************************************************
 
nicolasmasset said:
Jup, I will use it the same way. Although there is a pretty cpu hungry plugin that I'm going to buy.. Currently, these are the apps I use almost daily:

- safari, itunes, mail, firefox, adium, skype, dreamweaver, fireworks (all simultaneous. The macbook handles this quite alright)
- and then the apps that need the pro computer are ableton live, logic and a bunch of processing plugins. When I switch to these apps, I usually quit the ones from the first list because ...

... when I launch my audio apps, the macbook really doesn't need that big of a project to start up it's annoying fans. It's really frustrating to make music with a zooming laptop beside you. It doesn't always slow down the mac per se, but it does crash the app quite often when it's being pushed. You can "hear" on almost every project that the macbook's jogging at steady heart rate, and often times running. I want a mac that's walking for the most part. But it doesn't have to have a 50cm shoesize, you know? Just comfy walking, no running!

That's why I'm kinda thinking that any mac pro will be way better than my macbook, so I might as well get the cheapest one, and just upgrade every 3-4 years instead of shelling out 1000€ more now.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 2152 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 3629 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.69
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 1109 CB-GFX
****************************************************
Click to expand...
It looks like you'd benefit from an MP. 🙂 If budget is a concern, one of the Quads would serve you well. If you can spring for an Octo, you'd be able to have more stuff open, but closing things isn't a big deal. 😉 😛

Personally, I think you'd be happy with the Quad. Let budget dictate which clock speed (include any upgrades in cost analysis you may need), as either would be an improvement over what you're using now. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back