2.26 8-core Nehalem vs 2.4 8-core Westmere

[Desmo1098]

I had to pull the trigger today at the retail store and could not wait any longer. Can someone tell me what I will really be missing between these two systems:

2.26 8-core Nehalem vs 2.4 8-core Westmere

Besides the obvious 12MB L3 Cache, 1 TB HD, 1 GB GPU and built-in WI-FI...

What about the 2.26 to 2.4 GHz bump? Anything there?

I am using CS5, FCP, XCode, and performing some data analysis.

Do I need to be concerned about this anything at all I am missing out on?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[VirtualRain]

I assume you purchased the 2.26? If so, other than being core rich and clock poor, I think you covered it.

Why did you choose this config? Was it a smokin deal?

 

[Desmo1098]

I chose this machine because I needed to get work done... I could not wait another 7-10 days. I do get a business discount of 7% off because I spend a lot of money at Apple each year.

I mean it was either this machine or the Westmere 2.4 8-core. I just wanted to be sure I really am not missing anything. I mean I tear the machine down basically anyways and add:

- Intel 160 GB SSD for boot and applications
- 2 x WD 1 TB RE3 in Raid 0 for Data
- 1 x WD Green for Time Machine
- 16 GB RAM

I will upgrade the video card to the GTX 285 if I can still find them if not then 2 x ATI 5770. So I guess it really is a moot point seeing that I add a lot of aftermarket stuff anyways.

I just did not know if the main board or the chipset used in the 2010 Mac Pro is better or anything else. I cannot really return it so I do not want to discuss that option.

 

[VirtualRain]

There are no differences in the main board or the chassis... you nailed the differences in your original post.

 

[Desmo1098]

@VirtualRain

I see you have a quad core in your signature... At what speed are you running and what applications are you using?

How much of a difference is the clock speed going to make versus number of cores in the long run? Should I be leaning one way or the other for future purchases?

 

[VirtualRain]

@VirtualRain

I see you have a quad core in your signature... At what speed are you running and what applications are you using?

How much of a difference is the clock speed going to make versus number of cores in the long run? Should I be leaning one way or the other for future purchases?

I'm using a 2009 2.93 Quad. I'm primarily using Aperture these days, with some FCP HD video editing, and CS and Office. If I was buying a rig this year, it would be the 3.2GHz Quad.

I'm not a big fan of the entry level octo machines. I think there are too few applications that can take advantage of the parallelism you're banking on when you buy one. In fact, very few apps can fully utilize a quad. But every app can perform better with higher clock speeds. The 2.26 Octo is a machine that never should have been in my opinion... it goes too far in trading clocks for cores. Yet a lot of people buy it - I'm not sure why though.

I recently posted my views on now vs. future here... https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/987397/

 

[Transporteur]

The 2.26 Octo is a machine that never should have been in my opinion... it goes too far in trading clocks for cores. Yet a lot of people buy it - I'm not sure why though.

Multitasking. Personally that machine suits me perfectly (software dev).

Bear in mind that 2.26GHz aren't slow. Single threaded apps run almost as fast as on the 2.8GHz 2008 machine and yet no one complains about the speed of that machine.
The 2.4GHz is only 6% faster, should beat the 2.8GHz 2008 in all concerns though. Unless you're rendering day and night, 6% should be completely negligible.

However, for the so called "Pro apps" like FCP and whatever they are called, a higher clock speed is better than more cores, so a 3.33GHz Quad is definitely the better choice than a 2.26GHz octad.

 

[Ted Witcher]

However, for the so called "Pro apps" like FCP and whatever they are called, a higher clock speed is better than more cores, so a 3.33GHz Quad is definitely the better choice than a 2.26GHz octad.

Is this likely to change? Or can your statement be considered a reliable rule of thumb?

 

[Transporteur]

Is this likely to change? Or can your statement be considered a reliable rule of thumb?

Sooner or later this will probably change, the current version of FC, however, doesn't benefit from 8 or even 12 cores. Compressor can use all available cores, but the actual editing is still more or less single threaded.

AFAIK CS5 also can't use more than 4 cores (except for the render processes of Premiere).

 

[Ted Witcher]

Thanks.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain View Post
The 2.26 Octo is a machine that never should have been in my opinion... it goes too far in trading clocks for cores. Yet a lot of people buy it - I'm not sure why though.

Multitasking. Personally that machine suits me perfectly (software dev).

Thats what I was thinking, multitasking
While most people who mention running just one application that won't support multi-cores, what about someone running many applications at the same time? Perhaps in audio production?

 

[Sepp]

edit*

 

[Sepp]

However, for the so called "Pro apps" like FCP and whatever they are called, a higher clock speed is better than more cores, so a 3.33GHz Quad is definitely the better choice than a 2.26GHz octad.

I am currently on a 1.1 mp (2X 2.66 DC) - while that rig served me well for picture editing, Illustrator, I find it slow on FCP, which I started working with two months ago.

Would I expect any noticeable differences between a top end iMac, and the new 3.2 Quad MP (performance wise)?

 

[Desmo1098]

@VirtualRain

I really gave some thought to your comments about being core rich and clock poor. I also did some research and found that I would be better off with a different machine. I ordered a 3.33 GHz Hexacore 2010 Mac Pro. I think for the price this offers the best balance. I get 6 cores, fastest clock speed available, and 1333 MHz memory. I know I am limited to 4 DIMM slots, but I think with the clock speed, memory speed, and SSD as boot and application drive I will have a powerful machine well into the future. I also ordered 2 x ATI 5770.

Thanks again for the input!

 

[VirtualRain]

@VirtualRain

I really gave some thought to your comments about being core rich and clock poor. I also did some research and found that I would be better off with a different machine. I ordered a 3.33 GHz Hexacore 2010 Mac Pro. I think for the price this offers the best balance. I get 6 cores, fastest clock speed available, and 1333 MHz memory. I know I am limited to 4 DIMM slots, but I think with the clock speed, memory speed, and SSD as boot and application drive I will have a powerful machine well into the future. I also ordered 2 x ATI 5770.

Thanks again for the input!

No problem... Nice... it should destroy any work load you can throw at it.

 

[Desmo1098]

@Sepp

Sorry I would not be the one to help you... I did read a lot of posts between this forum and the iMac forum. My main motivations were to have a machine that was modular. Such that I could upgrade the graphics card, hard drives, etc... on my own. I do not like the iMac for several reasons such as you are limited to do what I mentioned above. Everyone's needs and wants are different. I would just do as much research as you can. Go to an Apple retail store also, there are some educated people there as well. Plus you can play with the different machines.

 

[Tutor]

Clean up