A lot of the system internals in Snow Leopard can use all 8 cores. It's not a must have reason for the 8 cores, but it does make for a bit smoother of an experience.
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.
Why 4 core is better - back of the envelope
- Thread starter zeigerpuppy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of the system internals in Snow Leopard can use all 8 cores. It's not a must have reason for the 8 cores, but it does make for a bit smoother of an experience.
If you need it you need it. I would not give up my 8 cores for anything. To me, they are most useful for virtualization (but still really useful for many other things).
You are correct that things like rendering could be distributed, but it is a lot more efficient to have everything in one box...
You are correct that things like rendering could be distributed, but it is a lot more efficient to have everything in one box...
I totally agree, if you need it you need it. But at the rate technology is moving, it doesn't make financial sense to buy into an 8-core machine simply to "future proof" yourself when most software can't currently utilize the additional cores. I run Windows Vista in a virtualized environment as well as Mac OS X Snow Leopard simultaneously. I have Windows software multitasking alongside my Mac applications. All on a Quad. Everything is snappy and fast. Four CPU cores are still underutilized. Eight cores not required.
Definitely.
Figuring out what you need is the hardest part of the equation, but unfortunately, even if it could be useful (more than the minimum cores in a single processor system), the software is always behind, and isn't able to utilize the second CPU, let alone all the cores in the first one.
The argument about 8 vs 4 core machines keeps coming back to whether software is optimised for so many cores.
There's another side which seldom gets mentioned, which is being able to run more than a few apps at once. I'm not talking about surfing whilst iTunes is playing, I'm thinking more along the lines of AfterEffects rendering whilst working in Logic Audio, or setting Modo to render out a sequence using four cores whilst using the other 4 to work in photoshop, whilst also running numerous background apps.
8 Cores don't all have to be used by one app to justify having them. If you use any apps that have a rendering or processing aspect to their workflow like 3d apps, FCP, After Effects or even just DVD ripping, 8 cores is very useful indeed.
Having said that, I agree that the 8 core Nehalems are nothing like the same value for money as the 2008 MacPro's. if I was in the market for a new machine now, I doubt I'd pay for an Octo unless I had a project lined up that was going to pay for it. Eight cores would still be my preference though
There's another side which seldom gets mentioned, which is being able to run more than a few apps at once. I'm not talking about surfing whilst iTunes is playing, I'm thinking more along the lines of AfterEffects rendering whilst working in Logic Audio, or setting Modo to render out a sequence using four cores whilst using the other 4 to work in photoshop, whilst also running numerous background apps.
8 Cores don't all have to be used by one app to justify having them. If you use any apps that have a rendering or processing aspect to their workflow like 3d apps, FCP, After Effects or even just DVD ripping, 8 cores is very useful indeed.
Having said that, I agree that the 8 core Nehalems are nothing like the same value for money as the 2008 MacPro's. if I was in the market for a new machine now, I doubt I'd pay for an Octo unless I had a project lined up that was going to pay for it. Eight cores would still be my preference though
You have a point, but it does come down to the frequency that the multi-threaded applications are running. And only the user can answer that.
Also, don't forget, that if a process isn't active, the core will work on something else that is. Adequate memory would be more important in these situations (quite common btw), as it will reduce the page outs to some extent (depends on the software, as some still seems rather high with page outs, given the age of the code), as the programs can remain active in RAM.
Sure. There are no right or wrong answers here, it's down to how a machine is used and what for. I was just pointing out that 8 core machines can still demonstrate advantages in certain situations, even with non multi-threaded applications.
The other day I had Modo rendering out an animation using four cores whilst working on other stuff in Lightwave. Added to that, I had a web browser open, iTunes playing, email application open, Skype and so on. I remember times not so long ago when rendering meant that a machine was tied up for the duration and you couldn't do anything else unless you had a second machine.
I could probably do this on a Quad but the render would have taken longer and I imagine the threshold for maxing the machine out would have been closer.
Totally agree with your point about RAM. It's often overlooked how important a decent amount of RAM is in a system, especially with multiple cores.
The other day I had Modo rendering out an animation using four cores whilst working on other stuff in Lightwave. Added to that, I had a web browser open, iTunes playing, email application open, Skype and so on. I remember times not so long ago when rendering meant that a machine was tied up for the duration and you couldn't do anything else unless you had a second machine.
I could probably do this on a Quad but the render would have taken longer and I imagine the threshold for maxing the machine out would have been closer.
Totally agree with your point about RAM. It's often overlooked how important a decent amount of RAM is in a system, especially with multiple cores.
The major problem is that a single Gainestown 2.93Ghz is going for $1,286 (1k Unit Price).
You need two so the final price for the processors alone are $2,572. Newegg lists them at $1,440 for a total of $2,880. Intel is surely not selling them for cheap.
That doesn't, however, mean it is a waste of money if you can use the extra cores and speed.
You need two so the final price for the processors alone are $2,572. Newegg lists them at $1,440 for a total of $2,880. Intel is surely not selling them for cheap.
That doesn't, however, mean it is a waste of money if you can use the extra cores and speed.
Where is your pricing from?
In the US, Intel lists the W3540 (SP 2.93GHz part) is $562USD for 1k quantity pricing. The E5540 (DP version of 2.93GHz) is going for $744USD for 1k quantity pricing. So the pair of E5540's would be $1488USD.
The Nehalem parts are actually cheaper than those used in the '08 models (respective of level of MP - base, mid, best; not clocks due to the differences in clock availability in the different architectures).
Oops.You've got the wrong part
Intel's ark site is listing them at $1386 ea in 1k quantity, so a pair is a tad more stiff than you listed ($2772USD per pair). Definitely a tad steep. At least the link to the SP part was right.
I toiled over the 4-core vs. 8-core decision. Who wouldn't want the top of the line? My last Mac was a dual processor 2.5 GHz PowerMac G5 (single core per CPU). That baby lasted me 5 years. Looking at the pricing, I had to ask myself what do I really use the computer for? The heaviest duty apps I use are in the CS4 Suite Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator. I also needed the ability to run Windows in a virtualized environment to give me access to certain MLS software that won't run on Mac. None of the software I would be using on a regular basis would utilize 8 cores, let alone 4. Some Photoshop filters might, but that's a hit and miss type of thing.
So I decided to go with the Quad. I had the money to go 8-core, but I realized it would be smarter for me to take the money I've saved and apply that to my next upgrade once SL's technologies have proven themselves and we have software that utilizes the new features. By then, the money I've saved today will buy me a Mac Pro at least twice as fast. I'm getting older, I think more about money now... it's not pretty.
So I decided to go with the Quad. I had the money to go 8-core, but I realized it would be smarter for me to take the money I've saved and apply that to my next upgrade once SL's technologies have proven themselves and we have software that utilizes the new features. By then, the money I've saved today will buy me a Mac Pro at least twice as fast. I'm getting older, I think more about money now... it's not pretty.
I had to do the same thing. What it came down to, is out of all the "heavy lifting" software I use, only one application was actually multi-threaded. So the second CPU would have been a waste for me, as the software just hasn't caught up yet.
But getting smarter with funds isn't a bad thing. We have to grow up sometime.