2.26GHz "Nehalem" 8 core vs. 2.4GHz "Westmere" 8 core

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jjahshik32, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #1
    So, besides the 140MHz difference, 4mb more L3 cache, 32nm, new AES instruction set what else is different?

    It seems that there is no real big advantage over the 2.26GHz 8 core model especially since it utilizes the 1066mhz RAM.
     
  2. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #2
    Think you've got it covered there. With the Mac Pros using those you of course gain the better graphics card, built in airport and larger hard drive too.
     
  3. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #3
    Its so dissapointing on the 8 core. I wished at least it was a 2.66GHz 8 core Westmere.

    In the back of my mind, I had a feeling Apple would pull something like this.
     
  4. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #4
    And the much better GPU ;)

    Don't underestimate the impact the of the 50% larger L3. 4MB is a lot when it comes to caches (afaik). And 1066 vs 1333 for RAM makes very little difference. It won't be adding much more than a 5 or 6% boost in performance.
     
  5. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    The problem of using a 2.66GHz 8-core Westmere is the added cost. Also it would be more difficult to up sell folks to the 2.66GHz 12-core model.

    You buy the GPU for the older model as well.
     
  6. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #6
    At this point I keep going to the 3.2GHz QUAD + ATI 5870.
     
  7. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Well that would most certainly be one hell of a machine nonetheless.
     
  8. superpalmtree macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #8
    I have a chance to upgrade to the 6 core for $640.00, I wonder if on resell I would get an extra $500 having the 6 core vs. Quad 3.2

    One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” [Subtract $320.00]
    One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
    One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” [Add $640.00]


    What would you guys pick at this price?
     
  9. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #9
    I think the 6 core will be very good on resell.

    The 3.33GHz clock speed is pretty high, and the 6 cores makes it a serious competitor for a lot of the duals released to this point.
     
  10. skiffx macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #10
    I think so as well.
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    Unfortunately, it won't be an acceptable machine for anyone that actually requires more than 16GB (based off of actual data, not anything to do with OWC).

    Intel limited the 36xx parts to 24GB, and it's based on 6x DIMM slots (4GB DIMM = max capacity per slot). Since the SP MP's only have 4x slots, that produces 16GB as a max. capacity.

    This will still mean the system is usable for a fair number of users, but those that will require more than 16GB, will be required to go with a DP system (Intel's limit = 192GB, but the slot configs on the MP mean it's less, @ 128GB when using 16GB DIMM's <which do exist, at least in 1066MHz versions; 1333 are only available at a max capacity of 8GB currently>).
     
  12. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #12
    I just got 8GB in my MacBook Pro. My main PC has 12GB. So, if I put 16GB in the 6 core, that would be the most ram of any computer I've had to this point.

    Yes, it's a serious bummer about 4 ram slots in a computer that costs as much as a small car, but 16GB is a useful amount of ram for a lot of people. If you need dual sockets and you need a ton of ram, then, that's what you need, but for a lot of folks and tasks, the 16GB will suffice.

    Does it limit the awesomeness of the six core or its resale? Some, but not enough for it not to be the rockstar Mac Pro of the next 3-5 years.
     
  13. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #13
    Actually, I wasn't saying differently.

    The key word was REQUIRED, which is a big IF. Most users will be just fine with 16GB or less RAM.

    I thought I'd made that clear in the post.

    At any rate, those that must have more than 16GB won't have a choice but go to a DP system (i.e. 16GB or less is not an option). But this will be rare.
     
  14. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #14
    Yea for me I dont need more than 16GB of RAM so either the 6 core or QUAD will be ok.
     
  15. superpalmtree macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #15
    Same here. I know the 3.2 Quad is sufficient for what I do. It really is a hard decision though because the 6 core seems to be the best bang. So you're getting a 3.2 or 6 core too?
     
  16. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #16
    At this point I'm leaning more towards the 3.2GHz model as the clock speed isnt that much lower than the 3.33GHz. I know the 6 core has 2 more cores, 4mb more L3 cache (but then it does have 2 more cores so the 4mb L3 cache might not really matter), new AES instruction sets and its built on the 32nm process. I'm sure in real life usage, I wont be able to tell a big difference or if any at all but I'm sure in certain situations the 2 extra cores will make a bigger impact (which is probably rare in my case for my usages).

    $750 dollar difference is pretty big (could almost buy a 13" macbook or the new 27" cinema display thats about to be released) but I'm going to wait and see the barefeats benchmark first.

    I have a feeling on paper though the 6 core will trump the 3.2GHz QUAD but in real life usages its going to be very negligible.
     
  17. Murray M macrumors regular

    Murray M

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #17
    The 3.2 Quad seems like the best bang for the buck to me. An extra $360-$400 to get into the 3ghz spectrum seems reasonable.

    The extra $720-$800 for what really amounts more to bragging rights than anything else seems too high. For most tasks, the extra two cores won't even be useable for several years the way Apple has traditionally worked. Why pay a premium for un-useful features?

    Anyone who pays extra for "future-proofing" is a sucker. This is how Apple (and all savy tech companies) make their money. Since tech is always getting cheaper, it rarely makes financial sense to buy more than you need. Wait till you need it and then get much more for your money.

    However,
    It's a safe guess that FCP is about to go multi-core. Video people should consider the 3.3 hex (and animators should consider even more).
     
  18. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #18
    Yeah, I was not not at all disagreeing with you, I just think that group is pretty small, and if that's the case, then it's a non-issue, they get a dual cpu.

    But, in general, the 6 core will be on every digital art school kid's wish list for 5 years. It will be a resale darling.

    I have no idea why apple puts the hurt on in the pricing, and then does not even throw some ****ing revolutionary magic on the ram slots and just make 6 and 9 slots appear. wtf
     
  19. TennisandMusic

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #19
    Or they could not purposefully gimp the boards and just leave the six ram slots in there, unfettered.
     
  20. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #20
    iMac

    Also, if you are looking at the 2.8 or 3.2GHz Mac Pro you really need to see if you could make do with a 27 inch i7 2.93 iMac.

    Not at ALL saying that those users are leppers or anything, I just mean, based on CPU power and ram capability, the i7 iMac starts to look pretty nice and you do get a very nice, although shiny, high res screen. $2199 for the i7.

    I can't do the all-in-one, but, if you could, the current iMacs are the best buy they've ever been.
     
  21. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #21
    yeah, or that...

    just disgusting when you think about it. Like all of the sudden, the evening news makes sense, the fires, murders, knife attacks, people hitting each other with planks of wood, the thin veneer of a civil society is laid bare and for a brief moment pandemonium seems possible.
     
  22. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #22
    This was the same point I was trying to make, so our thinking wasn't off at all. :D Just how we went about wording it caused some :confused: I guess... ;)

    16GB will be sufficient for the majority of users with SP systems (going by the posts here on MR at any rate), and the pricing on the SP Hex will be a "sweet spot" in the price/peformance analysis, since SP systems use cheaper CPU's and chipsets (same core count and clock) due to the single QPI.

    :eek: How dare we expect Apple to stick to Intel's intended designs instead of cutting out 2x DIMM slots. :D That'd be much more useful and easier for users. :p
     

Share This Page