Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Chaos123x, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #1
    Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz

    Which one would be faster for Final Cut Studio?

    Which one would be better replacement for my 2008 2.8ghz Octo?

    Does the octo go over the fact that the one chip is slower then the quad?
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #2
    10.64 Ghz vs 18.08 GHz
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    #3
    I say don't upgrade, keep what you have.

    There is no point in upgrading from what you have right now.

    Just add some more RAM, and maybe a faster hard drive.;)
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #4
    Thats what I was thinking.

    But IF I did upgrade, which one is better?
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #5
    Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

    It's tricky though, if the apps you'll be using can use more than 4 cores, then you're maybe better off getting the lower clocked, 8-core CPU option. If your apps will only use 4 cores max, then the higher clocked 4-core option is better.

    The benefit of 8-core vs 4-core is only apparent if you're using apps which will use more than 4 cores simultaneously, or if you're running multiple apps simultaneously to tax 5-8 cores.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #6
    This update really feels like being stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

    Makes really not want to upgrade after all.

    If they had a quad 2.66 at a good price I would go for it.

    But DAMN this so annoying, it's like they did it on purpose.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #7
    I'm not entirely convinced that you'd notice much of a difference between your current Mac Pro and the new model, I'd maybe wait for a little while until some benchmarks come in from the review sites.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    I would think you would lose performance, especially for video rendering if you went with 4 cores.
    Look at the performance page on apple's site http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html.
    Look at the render speeds for prores and HDV, 1.2x and 1.1x speed increases from previous 8 core to new 8 core. Only a slight increase, if you lopped the cores in half I'm thinking performance would go down on a new 4 core vs 2008 8 core.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    Boon Docks USA
    #9
    Wait for snow leopard before deciding. That and real world application speed tests will tell the tale. If its less than 50% boost, I don't think its worth the money to upgrade.
     
  10. macrumors demi-god

    Ljohnson72

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    #10
    Is the new 2.26 faster than the previous 2.66 or something? I'm just wondering why 2.26 --> 2.66 is now a $1,400 option. :confused::confused:
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #11
    the 2.26 is 2 processors while the 2.66 is only one (but you can get 2 2.66s if you choose for more $ of course)
     
  12. macrumors demi-god

    Ljohnson72

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    #12
    Didn't the previous MP come standard with a 2.66 8 core?
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #13
    Nope it came with a 2.8ghz 8-core standard config.
     
  14. macrumors demi-god

    Ljohnson72

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    #14
    So why would the previous gen come with an 8 core at 2.8 and now it's an 8 core at 2.26? Just assuming the Nehalem is a lot more efficient at running tasks I would assume.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    #15
    Why would they limit the max ram to 8bg on the quad?

    I just bought a quad 2.8ghz, I'm glad I did.
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #16
    Because each processor has a direct memory link to a bank of 4 DIMM slots. So a single processor cannot access the other 4 slots dedicated to the second CPU socket.

    So technically, it should be a max of 16gb (4x4GB).
     
  17. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    Different architecture, so you can't make a 1:1 comparison by clock speed. Though I'm waiting for benchmarks to see how the 2.26 Octo compares to the '08 2.8GHz model.

    Waiting for benchmarks on this one.

    The 2.66Ghz X5550 would be able to outperform it, just as the 2.93 X5560 outperforms the '08 3.2GHz model.
     

Share This Page