1 x Six Core or 2 x Quad Core?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dcordes, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. dcordes macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #1
    I'm ready to update to a new Mac Pro, I'm using the Mac Pro 1,1 at the moment and I'm wondering if you would recommend the single six core over two quad cores. I'm a Web designer and developer so I don't push the CPUs that hard most of the time. On a daily basis I use Dreamweaver, Eclipse, Photoshop, Transmit, VMWare Fusion and some others like Web browsers, iTunes, etc. I also game quite a bit with World of Warcraft and StarCraft II. What processor configuration would you recommend for me?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Definitely 6-core as the apps you mentioned aren't that well multithreaded (e.g. PS) so a higher clock speed with give bigger performance boost than two extra cores.
     
  3. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #3
    You will see more performance out of the 6 core at the higher clock speeds. Load up on as much memory as you can afford and preferably a ssd for the boot drive.
     
  4. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #4
    Sounds like you may want to consider the single quad models. If you don't push the CPU that often, it really isn't necessary to have so much processing power. However, if you are set on one of the two you mentioned, 100% go with the 6-core. The faster clock speed will definitely provide better overall performance. Personally, I'd go with the 3.2GHz quad model.
     
  5. Jbgloss macrumors member

    Jbgloss

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    #5
    Ordering my 6 Core today

    Hellhammer based on your suggestions and others - order went in today for the 3.33 and 2 displays - looking forward to next week!

    Grabbed another 16GB Ram and an SSD from MacSales and some extension cables for the displays.

    I am running Carbon Copy Clone for my Apps and Boot to put on my 120GB SSD.

    All total going to come in around $6300

    3.33 - 16GB Ram - 120GB SSD - 1TB 7200 for Home (May Upgrade this soon) 5770 video card - and 2 Displays...

    For me - this will be a warrior for years to come - THANK YOU to everyone for the suggestions!!!

    JB
     
  6. myosh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    #6
    I think you'll be very happy with the 6-core 3.33 GHz MacPro.:D

    I just upgraded from a 2006 MacPro 1,1 to the 6-core 2010 MacPro. Like the OP, I do quite a bit of web development (Dreamweaver and Photoshop) and I'm also running Windows 7 through Boot Camp/Parallels VM for a couple of Windows-only apps I need to run.

    I'm running with 12 GB of RAM (from OWC), a 120 GB SSD boot drive, a 1 TB HDD for Windows thru Boot Camp or Parallels, a 2 TB HDD for data and a 2 TB HDD for backups and time machine. Total cost came to around $4400 but I'm getting $1020 from SellYourMac.com for my old 2006 MacPro so the net cost of this upgrade comes to around $3400.
     
  7. rmitchell248 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Liebsthal, Germany
    #7
    I agree that 6 core will be the way to go for you as of now
     
  8. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
  9. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #9
    I guess every performance benchmark is wrong then.
     
  10. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #10
    Synthetic benchmarks don't relate to real-world use.
     
  11. mjsmke macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    From what i understand having 6 cores at 3.33GHz will be faster than 8 cores at 2.4GHz wether the app is single or multi threaded.
     
  12. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #12
    If you're willing to pay a LOT more for the same power, yes.
     
  13. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #13
  14. mjsmke macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    I didnt say the same power, i said faster. Also for tasks that require clock speed over cores (for example CS5) the 3.33 would be so much better than the 2.4.
     
  15. meptik, Feb 27, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2011

    meptik macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #15
    I've seen you post similar one-line comments in other threads comparing the 3.33Ghz 6-core to the 2.4Ghz 8-core. Care to provide some support for your claims, or at least explain your reasoning?

    I personally can't imagine any realistic scenario in which the additional 2 cores would outweigh the much, much higher clock speed of the 6-core. Have you even read OP's post describing what he'll be using the machine for? :confused:
     
  16. DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #16
    Hellhammer is right. 6 core - cs5 is all about clock speed.

    get the 8 core if you wanna cd render or motion edit.

    8 and 12 cores wil be slower than the 6 core 3.3 for a lot of tasks depending on what software you are using.
     
  17. rmitchell248 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Liebsthal, Germany
    #17
    sorry man. This is not about bench marks or synthetic tests. In the real world with current apps 8x2.4 wont touch 6x3.33.
     
  18. MattDSLR macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
    #18
    This is an ongoing discussion that will end at the next revision of MP and then is will start again

    Cores do matter on the multicore programs
    I have posted in the past somewhere that 8 core crashes 6 core in export in lightroom multi folders
    Reason
    It allows for more memory where 48 gig is very beneficial and extra 2 cores will allow for 4 extra threads to be run

    My test showed that 60 gig plus exports including resize and re-compress take at least 20 % less time than on 6 core
    Even the 2.26 will be faster with 64 gig of ram than 32 gig in a 6 core

    yes single thread may be a bit fast
    but if I want to work with single export I would of stick with my iMac

    with more multi threads programs coming out and lion being the first true multi core OS coming out followed by FC , Aperture and photoshop core and ram will matter
     
  19. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #19
  20. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #20
    No. But as in science, they relate to themselves. That is all that is needed.
    I think the new test method should be "gut". I feel it so it is.
     
  21. timbloom macrumors 6502a

    timbloom

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    #21
    About 3 months ango I purchased the 6-core setup, and I've been extremely pleased. The 2 processor configuration allows for more RAM but most people won't need more than the max RAM of the single processor configuration even 5 years from now (barring huge, unexpected leaps in RAM use). I still have just 6 gigs in the machine and have only maxed that out when running 4 virtual machines simultaneously. The 6-core machines also have the newer architecture and faster ram than the base quads.
     
  22. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #22
    Lightroom is only one piece of software, it does not mean that it applies to every app. RAM isn't free either, 48GB will set you back over 1000$. I'm pretty sure 6-core crushes 8-core when they have similar amounts of RAM. Most of us don't need more than 32GB of RAM anyway.
     
  23. FluJunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #23

    The 3.2 GHz quad is what I settled on, with similar requirements (slightly more science apps, less graphics apps, same games). I took the money saved from the drop down to 4 cores from 6 and spent it on good drives, an SSD, a better video card and more RAM.

    I miss the extra cores on a few applications that do multithreading well - Mathematica, SAS, etc., but generally speaking, I'm over the moon.
     
  24. DeeEss, Feb 27, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2011

    DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #24
    I think it will be 2-3 years at least before software catches up, on the whole, with current hardware.

    16GB RAM sticks are now available and when prices drop 64GB will be a viable option for the 6 core. You can do it now if you like.

    A mass export may be quicker, i'll have to take your word on that, but that's about 5% of my workflow, if that. The majority of my work - Capture One, retouching in CS5 is quicker with the 6 core's 3.3 Clock speed and still generous cores. The large majority of my workflow is working on large files in Photoshop and my 6 core smokes it, from all my research it smokes the 8 and 12 cores too and I've zero problems with mass exports also. Can't say that i've ever been kept waiting around for it and I work with P65+ files.

    6 Core makes sense for the next 3-4 years. 64GB RAM in the near future will make it a screamer, that's if you even need it, and gives it some head room for future-proofing
     
  25. Jbgloss macrumors member

    Jbgloss

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    #25
    Thank you!

    It is amazing these forums are great and scary at the same time.

    I am an Apple guy, but and appreciate their products. I have never bought into the marketing of the next thing. Meaning not wanting to bump up to be fashionable. I was getting a little worried on the 6K I just spent as I sit here waiting till next week on the 3.33....:eek:

    This thread has helped me fell good to know it will be well worth the investment for the next 3-4 years...

    Feeling a lot better, thanks everyone... should be here next week!!!

    Thank you
     

Share This Page