Why is no one going for the octo ?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by gabicava83, Sep 16, 2010.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    #1
    Looking at all the threads, it seems that most people are going for the hex or the 12 core, but none for the base 8 core and say it's by far the slowest?

    Is the difference that great?

    Been offered one brand new, for £2100, but now after reading all this, thinking of possibly getting the hex.

    Main use will be for virtualisation using vmware and citrix - will obviously purchase more RAM.

    Any thoughts ?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    The 2.4 8 cores just arent that great of a deal. Compared to the 2009 base octo model, they got a 6% speed increase, and a 6% price increase. They also come with a better graphics card, wireless card, and a slightly bigger hard drive, but that's it.



    The other important bit is that multicore support sucks for most software at the moment, so sacrificing speed for cores is a bit silly.
     
  3. macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #3
    Clock speed is just so much lower than many of the other options (including even the quad).
     
  4. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #4
    Search the forum - there are actually several folks who have gone with the octo (myself included - arrives tomorrow!!).

    It's not the right system for everyone, but it was right for me. Unlike many in this forum, I don't do any Photoshop or serious video/audio encoding. I do web development and have multiple VMWare instances running concurrently. Having the ability to assign actual CPU cores to each instance makes a difference for what I need. Won't lie though - kept waffling between this one and the single hex.

    In the end, I saw B&H Photo had it for $200 off normal price (plus no tax!!) which translated to a $400 savings versus the hex. I'll be adding more RAM with the savings :)

    The 2.4 octo doesn't make sense for everyone, but it made sense for my needs. Thought I'd share a different perspective.
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #5
    Who wants a 2.4GHz 8-core when you get get a 3.33GHz 6-core that can wipe the floor with it in most applications, except those that fully take advantage of 8-cores....your applications that do a ton of crunching and compressing like Handbrake might benefit from the two extra cores, but your whole machine is going to feel much faster with a processor that is nearly 1000MHz faster.

    In my opinion, Apple should have offered a 3.33GHz 8-core Nehalem option with two W5590 chips which would be a jump over what they offered before. That machine could do some serious damage all-around.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    #6
    You do pretty much the same as myself.

    That is a good saving you got yourself.

    Thanks for all the replies.

    The clock speed is rather different, but the good thing it's how upgradable it is.

    Still unsure, I wonder how the hex compares with the octo with vmware, specially vsphere.

    WardC - do you really reckon the machine as a whole is going to feel much faster? I mean generally loading applications, speed in regards to virtualisation and so on?

    Thanks for all the replies.

    G.



     
  7. Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    Cost vs. performance, is probably the biggest reason why many people have shied away from the octo model.

    If people need a serious multi-core machine, they'll probably spend go with the 12 core machine given that its only a grand more.

    Many people who opt for the MacPro don't do it just for the number of cores, but other reasons, like drive bays, or the GPU and given that fact, it makes little sense to spend more $$ on cores that won't be fully utilized.

    When building my Core i7 machine I was faced with this dilemma, spend a little more for a hex-core cpu or go with the i7-930 quad core. I opted for the quad core because my needs are such that I'll really not get to realize the benefit of the 2 other cores.
     
  8. macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #8
    That would be $1500 more (at least in the USA).
     
  9. Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    You're right, I mis-typed the amount
     
  10. Moderator emeritus

    Hellhammer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #10
    3.33GHz 6-core offers more raw processing power and it's a lot faster in single-threaded tasks due its clock speed but only 200$ more. The only downside is less RAM slots but now that 8GB modules are widely available, it can take 32GB just fine.

    If you want an 8-core, get a refurb. For 3649$, you can get 2.93GHz 8-core
     
  11. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    #11
    I thought it could only take 16? That is what I read somewhere else.

    No new 2010's in the UK as refurbs just yet.

    :(

    Thanks,

     
  12. macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #12
    32GB has been CONFIRMED by multiple sources.

    You won't see the latest MP's in the refurb stores until ~ months post release. For example, the latest 2.93GHz i7 imac just appeared in the US refurb store.

    cheers
    JohnG
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    Hellhammer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #13
    Apple states 16GB as maximum but 32GB can be achieved with 8GB modules while Apple only offers 4GB modules

    I meant 2009 Mac Pro refurbs. There are several in US store but seems to be none in UK store
     

Share This Page