2009 quad 2.66 or Octo 2.8 for iMovie + Photoshop?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dnadrifter, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. dnadrifter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #1
    Hi Everybody,

    If possible, I would like some specific advice regarding the different applications I plan on using with respect to a decision between the new Nehalem quad 2.66 vs. the 2008 octo 2.8 from all of the very informed folks here.

    Both barefeats and the macworld article suggest the quad 2.66 would run a bit faster (10-20%) than the octo 2.8....although it seems a lot of folks may be leaning toward the octo 2.8 based on other things I have read, and I am not sure I understand this. If they were close to the same price (biggest difference $300)...which would you recommend?

    In PS I would be doing photo editing in RAW files in addition to using bridge and to view and sort 100-200 raw images at a time. Layered PS files I work with are typically about 150-200 MB and occasionally larger if I upscale them.

    I plan on using iMovie to edit AVCHD files.

    I would put 8GB RAM in the 2.66 and start out with 10GB RAM in the 2.8 initially and maybe up it to 16GB later.

    I would really appreciate any specific advice anyone can give. I have to admit I don't really understand everything everyone talks about here such as overclocking etc. I do plan on getting two new drives set up in a striped raid array for cache and then use the remainder for data.

    Thanks...
     
  2. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #2
    Definitely go for the current Quad. I just can't recommend anyone buy dated technology... FB-DIMMS, FSB, (greek to you I'm sure) = DEAD! :D

    Honestly, buy a quad... if you can afford the extra $500 go for the 2.93GHz Quad... you probably won't regret it... but even the 2.66GHz is a very nice machine! :cool:
     
  3. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #3
    Yeah, go for the 2.93GHz Quad. The new 2.66 will be same or slower than the 2.8 and more expensive I guess too.
     
  4. Abidubi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal
    #4
    I second the 2.93 Quad. I was using iMovie last night and even with the fastest processor available you can still feel that the machine is working when moving clips around and applying transitions/effects. More cores do not help that kind of thing at all, processor speed does. When I exported the movie to h.264 the most I saw the processor jump was about 250-300% CPU (800% is available on the quad). I don't think iMovie would run any faster on an 8 core machine.

    The only problem is the RAM limitation. But you can up it to 16GB if you have the money, or for now 8 GB. If you are working with lots of photoshop files, you probably want to grab as much RAM as you can.

    Getting the fastest quad will give you the same kind of performance as the ridiculously expensive octo 2.93 in 90% of the applications you use on a daily basis. The octo is only useful if you need 32GB of RAM or do heavy rendering or use other programs that make use of more than 4 cores, and the job would otherwise take more than 5 minutes on the quad.
     
  5. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #5
    Thanks for all the advice...I appreciate it.

    I don't think I am willing to spend the extra $500 on the 2.93GHz. Although I would like a mac pro, I am not really enough of a power user to need the fastest machine. My photography work is just a hobby and the video editing will just be for the family. Plus the extra $500 would represent a $600-800 difference from the cheapest option which will be the 2.8 octo.

    Mainly, I am trying to decide between two similarly priced machines. If the 2.8 octo goes down and I am able to get it for $300+ less than I get the 2.66, it may make the decision a little harder.

    At the very least, it is good to know that some don't consider the 2.66 a waste of money.

    Thanks again.
     
  6. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #6
    Any other new opinions on this.

    I am trying to decide between:

    $2200 for a 2008 2.8 Octo

    $2300 for a 2009 2.66 Quad


    Benchmarks I looked at a few weeks ago suggested that the 2.66 quad would be faster for PS and iMovie. 2.93 quad is not an option....I am already at the limit of what I want to spend.

    Thanks for any additional opinions
     
  7. GodWhomIsMike macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
  8. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
  9. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  10. superscientific macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Location:
    Spring Hill, TN
    #10
    Get the 09 Quad. I have the 2.66 and it is very quick. You will not regret it. iMovie and Photoshop run lovely on the machine. Just get some more memory for it and get some fast HDD's.
     
  11. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #11
    I would definitely get more memory. First purchase would be 8 GB of memory and then a few more HDs.

    I know I will like the new one...the only thing in my mind is that I know if I take back the 2008 I got for $2200, someone would likely snatch it up, which makes me think why would I want to give it up when I got it for a reasonably good price. (what does that person know that I don't)

    I am definitely leaning towards the 09.... I am a bit curious why most are recommending the 09. Is is just the benchmarks I listed in the original post.

    By the way, Frys Electronics had the 08s on clearance and I happened to find a new unopened one at the time.
     
  12. phantomsd macrumors 6502

    phantomsd

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #12
    Hey dnadrifter...

    I'm currently deciding on the same thing. 2009 2.6 Quad vs. 2008 2.8 Octo.

    The 8GB ram limit on the 2009 quad is sort of a bummer... I'm not sure if I will need more down the road???

    My uses: CS4, web/print design, maybe some video editing and after effects.
     
  13. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #13
    Yeah...I keep on wondering if I will regret not having 8 cores, if new programs and grand central (which admittedly I know nothing about) take big advantage of it.

    I wonder about the ram also. I would never put more than 16 in the 2008 though, and I am somewhat hopeful the 4GB chips for the 09 quad would come down in price in a year or so if I really wanted 16 in the 09 quad.
     
  14. Mac Husky macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Location:
    Bavaria, Germany
    #14
    There is NO 8GB RAM limit for the quad at all !!!
     
  15. phantomsd macrumors 6502

    phantomsd

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #15
    OIC why now. Thanks.
     
  16. Coyote2006 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    #16
    I'm a web professional and I've ordered:

    MacPro 2.66/Quad
    6 GB RAM
    640 MB
    4870
    Wireless card
    and
    2x 1TB Spinpoints HD
    24" Samsung 2443BW monitor

    There is no need for the 2.93 model, nor the 8-cores for this kind of work. I hope all of it will arrived tomorrow... :)
     
  17. soldierblue macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    #17
    Buy. The. Octo. Why is this even a question around here? I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a refurb octo over any of the 2009 models to anyone. They're a fantastic deal.
     
  18. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #18
    no, but there is a 16GB ram limit (if you are willing to pay that much for 4x4 gb.)
     
  19. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #19
    This is VERY true! And right now (with Snow Leopard) is when we start seeing 64-bit apps. And I do believe 8GB in Snow Leopard will be about like 4GB in Leopard. And that's just barely enough.

    It's true that you don't 8-cores for most web work unless you're rendering 3D sequences for making flash animations and banners of course. iMovie too. When iMovie is working it's VERY hardest I see ~13% on each of all 8 cores. And that's about %100. So nothing I do (so far) in iMovie is multi-threaded.
    But I can tell you from vast experience that iMovie is NOT a very good tool and iMovie 09 is additionally unstable as well. It's not suitable for actual work of any kind really. ​
    For Photoshop about 20% of the application is multithreaded. So if you happen to use those specific tools and filters often then the 8-core will be better. 3rd party plug-ins are also a mixed bag.

    For iMovie and Photoshop you won't be (honestly) able to tell any difference in speed between the '09 2.66 and the '08 2.8 except where PS is treaded and then the '08 2.8 will be 50% faster. If you're adjusting many large images at once in CameraRAW the '08 2.8 will also be faster at that too.
     
  20. clownjuggles macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #20
    Get the 09 octo. Spend once than wishing you had when applications can take advantage of the power later this year. Stuff will catch up. Thank your professional users for their making sure stuff is working on a timely basis as time is money for them.
     
  21. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #21
    I think it might be a question, or keep coming up because of the varying responses.

    In this thread, recommendations in order just between the 08 2.8 and 09 2.66 go:

    09 quad
    09 quad
    09 quad
    09 quad
    09 quad
    08 octo
    08 octo

    It seems like part of it comes down to how much ram folks might think is needed.
     
  22. superscientific macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Location:
    Spring Hill, TN
    #22
    I was mistaken on the initial thread. If you already have the octo then stick with that. I thought it was a "what to buy" situation.
    I did buy the 2.66 Quad Nehalem but because I got a smokin price on the computer plus 24" LED. If I didn't then I would of gone for the Octo 2.8.
    If you already have that machine, then buy 16GB of OWC RAM and enjoy it because it is a great computer. I am sure the 8 core will be worth more than the 4 Core Nehalem in re-sales anyway so use it for now and then sell it later to get a new Mac Pro later when/if they redesign the case. You got it or a great price anyways so enjoy your productivity now.
     
  23. dnadrifter thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #23
    It pretty much is a what to buy situation. The 2.8 octo is sitting unopened and unused. I just have to return it locally which should be very easy.

    The two options are pretty much identical in price, because I am guessing I will likely have to purchase iLife09 for the octo 2.8.
     
  24. chelsel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #24
    I believe one of the goals of Snow Leopard is to *reduce* the memory footprint of the OS, not increase it... therefore you'll actually get more bang for your 4GB with Snow Leopard than you're getting right now.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9975602-37.html

    Cliff
     
  25. polaris20 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #25
    EDIT Everybody already beat me to it.
     

Share This Page