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

djjaes

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 24, 2015
120
43
US South
As still being new to Mac Pro (since 2014, and glad I made the switch from PC), I have an upgraded 2.8 Quad to hex 3.33 single processor (I did the swop myself), and thus have a question for all of you experience fellows.

I want to go to 12-core. Being budget minded, I want to get a good, as fast as I can processor for video editing etc.

I have found on eBay, trays with 2.66-3.33 12-cores.

So to my question.


The 2.66 12-core is the most affordable, but will there be any real increase in performance?

Currently I have:
Genuine 2010 3.33 hex core
24 GB 1333 in slots 1, 2 & 3 (have total of 32 but using triple channel for increase speed)
Radeon R9 280X 3 GB flashed
PCIe SSD

I used the following video editing software
Hitfilm VFX
Final Cut Pro
Logic Pro

Any suggestions are appreciated!
 

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
15,663
7,864
Hong Kong
Without further CPU upgrade, you will have some performance improvement on the very heavy multi thread operations (e.g. video encoding). However, most normal task are still single thread limiting, and you will actually see some performance degradation.

You better check if all your 24GB RAM are used. I was using 32G, and realise the system can easily go beyond 24G. If you intentionally reduce from 32 to 24 for increasing RAM speed. Most likely you won't speed up anything but slow down. Because the system now have 12GB less to use as cache. Triple channel config is good for tuning benchmark, but not necessary better for real world.
 

djjaes

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 24, 2015
120
43
US South
Without further CPU upgrade, you will have some performance improvement on the very heavy multi thread operations (e.g. video encoding). However, most normal task are still single thread limiting, and you will actually see some performance degradation.

You better check if all your 24GB RAM are used. I was using 32G, and realise the system can easily go beyond 24G. If you intentionally reduce from 32 to 24 for increasing RAM speed. Most likely you won't speed up anything but slow down. Because the system now have 12GB less to use as cache. Triple channel config is good for tuning benchmark, but not necessary better for real world.


Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking that the lower speed of a 12-core would bring the overall performance down (after more searching on this forum, done after my initial post).

I did lower the ram, but can switch back. Usually there is no difference in video editing performance, as all the ram is not being used (as far as I can tell) to the limit.
 

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
15,663
7,864
Hong Kong
I rarely see the system running out of RAM. However, when using FCP X, my Mac can actually use all the remaining RAM as cache. The more I have, the more it can use.

When I have 32G RAM, it use the remaining RAM as cache, and in fact, compress it a bit.
27.8G RAM usage.jpg

When I have 48G of RAM, it can go further, and still able to use all the remaining RAM as cache to speed up the system. I didn't actually measure how much gain I have. But I am sure it's a better way to use the RAM, rather than let them idling at somewhere.
36.7+10.8.jpg

Of course, if your Memory used + Cache never reach 24G, then you better stay at 24 to enjoy the higher speed. But in my experience, video editing / encoding can really utilise the RAM, at least as cache.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ActionableMango

djjaes

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 24, 2015
120
43
US South
I rarely see the system running out of RAM. However, when using FCP X, my Mac can actually use all the remaining RAM as cache. The more I have, the more it can use.

When I have 32G RAM, it use the remaining RAM as cache, and in fact, compress it a bit.
View attachment 641696
When I have 48G of RAM, it can go further, and still able to use all the remaining RAM as cache to speed up the system. I didn't actually measure how much gain I have. But I am sure it's a better way to use the RAM, rather than let them idling at somewhere.
View attachment 641697
Of course, if your Memory used + Cache never reach 24G, then you better stay at 24 to enjoy the higher speed. But in my experience, video editing / encoding can really utilise the RAM, at least as cache.

I love ram too, and usually keep it pretty high, however. I started noticing some lag in regular applications, so I lowered it by 8 GB to increase the base performance to utilize the triple channel. When I get more video work (usually in the fall in my neck of the woods), I will bump it back up. Mostly I use Hitfilm (a good, AE like program, much cheaper and can be stored directly on the computer), so it uses processor and video ram. Most of my clip renders with lighting, keying and various other effects can be processed in under a minute. Larger works of coarse take some time.
 

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
15,663
7,864
Hong Kong
I see. Never think about that extra 8G RAM will cause some other apps lag. But if that happen on your Mac, and you can fix it by removing a RAM stick, then obviously either the RAM stick is bad, or triple channel helps.
 
Last edited:

djjaes

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 24, 2015
120
43
US South
I see. Never think about that extra 8G RAM will cause some other apps lag. But if that happen on your Mac, and you can fix it by remove a pair of RAM stick, then obviously either the RAM sticks are bad, or triple channel helps.

I hope its the triple channel and not the ram.

However, as I contemplate upgrading to a 12-core, I will get new ram as well.

I am thinking of getting a 2.66 12-core tray for 2010-12 Pros, and then get an extra 3.33 hex core and do the swopping myself. May save $$$ in the long run doing that.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.