2.8 vs, 3.2

[rdsii64]

Hello all, the countdown clock is getting closer to zero for my new mac pro 8 core, so here is another question. The differences between a 2.8 Ghtz and 3.2 ghtz is only 400 megahertz. Assuming everything else is equal. how much difference will 400 megahertz make? I am of the mind that with all else being equal, 400 megahertz won't amount to much at all.

Also. other thant clockspeed, are there any other differences between a 2.8 harpertown processor and a 3.2?


New owners will be taking delivery of two more puppies next week. Once I have an empty nest (LOL) I am headed to the apple store.

 

[CWallace]

Honestly, unless you consistently work in something that is very dependent on the CPU - and you get paid for that work - I tend to think the 2.8GHz unit should be plenty fast and the extra cash could be used for more memory and HDD space or other ancillaries.

 

[shfreelance]

Correct me if I am wrong. I thought you could not get build to order macs from the Apple store??? But to answer your question. Yes, its only a 400 MHz increase. But there's 4 cores per cpu. So added up it the clockspeed will be allot faster. But everything else is the same such as FSB and Cache. I don't think it is really worth the extra money for the faster clockspeed. I would put the money toward more ram. But you would see the increase in Adobe Photoshop.

But in the end, it's up to you.

~Steven

edit:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/488660/

 

[Lord Zedd]

Its only 400x8 or 3200mhz (not accounting for multi-cpu overhead or software). It would be about the equivalent of having a 9-core 2.8ghz MacPro instead of an 8-core.

 

[Chundles]

Guys, adding the cores together does not indicate the speed increase.

If your software can access 8 cores it will be a bit faster, if it can only access one core it will be a bit faster. It's an incremental speed boost which would only really help people who are using it for number crunching where the efficiency of the slightly higher content output from the machine would outweigh the cost of the upgrade.

Unless you're getting paid for the stuff you do on a Mac Pro I don't think it's really necessary.

 

[zmttoxics]

Ya, I hate to burst your bubbles but you can't add the cores together like that. Especially concidering most of what the average user does is single threaded and is only going to use 1 of those 8 cores at time. Where it will make a difference is when you have 8 heavy load processes running where you can dedicate a core to a process to balance the system.

Are you planning on running quake 3 8 times?

I am getting the Single 2.8 (4 core) when I get my mac pro because I am not stupid - I know I will never ever use those extra 4 cores and I can use the 500 bucks for the better video card and more ram instead.

 

[Lord Zedd]

Ya, I hate to burst your bubbles but you can't add the cores together like that. Especially considering most of what the average user does is single threaded and is only going to use 1 of those 8 cores at time. Where it will make a difference is when you have 8 heavy load processes running where you can dedicate a core to a process to balance the system.

Thats why I said its like having a 9 core system instead of saying its like having a 25.6GHz system.

I am not stupid

Except that your system will have a shorter lifespan, a far lower resale value and you will not be able to take full advantage of new programs as they are adapted.

There are MANY more multi-CPU programs than you think you know.

 

[zmttoxics]

Thats why I said its like having a 9 core system instead of saying its like having a 25.6GHz system.


Except that your system will have a shorter lifespan, a far lower resale value and you will not be able to take full advantage of new programs as they are adapted.

There are MANY more multi-CPU programs than you think you know.

Shorter life span? I highly doubt it. 2.8ghrz quad core, ill get at least 4 years out of it before I get bored. Its going to be my workstation - it won't be for resell. I still use Sun Ultra 5s which are 11 years old.

In reality, it will break before I am "done" with it. From what I gather it should be supported with OS X for at least 6 years, and if that becomes an issue - it becomes a Solaris box.

Also, you still can't say its like having a 9th 2.8 core. A 9th core would operate completely differently then faster 8 cores.

 

[Lord Zedd]

I give up, there is no reasoning with closed minded people like you.

 

[phalewhale]

Except that your system will have a shorter lifespan, a far lower resale value...

I suppose it doesn't really matter if he plans on keeping it for a long while...

...and you will not be able to take full advantage of new programs as they are adapted. There are MANY more multi-CPU programs than you think you know.

Please list them. I'm thinking of upgrading to a Mac Pro but I'm afraid the software on offer at the moment won't take full advantage of the multi-cores. I'm also leaning towards getting the single processor to save money and use it elsewhere like RAM.

 

[Firefly2002]

Think about it. It's a 14.4% increase in speed, possibly closer to 12% real-world. Most people can't tell the difference.. perhaps no one. I know I couldn't.

It's like something taking one minute, then it taking maybe 53 seconds. Could you tell the difference? Probably not. Would you even care? Probably not. Is it worth the extra $1,000+? No.