On the 2009 quads, the OS will "see" 8 CPUs due to hyperthreading... that's a big reason I went with the Quad... that, and that I should be able to upgrade to 16GB at a reasonable price in the not too distant future.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2009 quad 2.66 or Octo 2.8 for iMovie + Photoshop?
- Thread starter dnadrifter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On the 2009 quads, the OS will "see" 8 CPUs due to hyperthreading... that's a big reason I went with the Quad... that, and that I should be able to upgrade to 16GB at a reasonable price in the not too distant future.
Wow I see your dilemma then. Just personal experience though I have used both systems and I think the Quad 2.66 is just as fast. 8 cores is awesome though, but if you know you aren't going to need 8 cores then just go with the Quad. No matter what machine you pick I think you will be happy. I think with Snow Leopard both machines will get a performance boost. It is all preference. Good luck with your decision.
The handbrake times show that the 09 quad is about as fast as the 2.8 Octo on encoding. And Yes the hyperthreading is cool. I ripped a movie with Handbrake last night and it was showing me bw 700-800% CPU
The handbrake times show that the 09 quad is about as fast as the 2.8 Octo on encoding. And Yes the hyperthreading is cool. I ripped a movie with Handbrake last night and it was showing me bw 700-800% CPU
Thanks for understanding and your experience.
For those of you recommending the 09 quad:
Since the two machines are likely to be fairly similar in speed for PS and iMovie (09 quad may be a little faster), and you can put alot more cheap ram in the 2008 octo, why would you choose the 2009 quad.
What are its advantages besides it is just being "newer"?
I am really having a hard time deciding here and my 30 day return window is approaching quickly.
Thanks....
Purely hypothetically, the 2009 quad has less... but faster RAM. No front side bus bottleneck either. If you don't need much RAM it is techincally faster.
Also, for anything single theaded the 2.93 quad is faster than the 3.2 octo (actually clocks to 3.33 I believe). So if pure speed were your main consern then the 2009 machines are again a better option. Plus a new quad 2.93 is cheaper than a used 3.2 octo.
Then there is the fact that it comes with a bigger HD standard (650 vs 320) and 1 GB more RAM standard. It is also supposed to use less power than previous models. Those are pretty minor points though.
It really depends on what you think and what you are happy with. A couple bucks more for a newer slightly faster machine that has a lower (and more expensive) RAM limit... or save a few bucks with a slightly slower machine with more and cheaper RAM. I don`t see myself needing more than 8GB for a long while so thats why I went with the 2009. Also the fact that I could get a much faster processor without buying 4 extra cores for nothing.
Also, for anything single theaded the 2.93 quad is faster than the 3.2 octo (actually clocks to 3.33 I believe). So if pure speed were your main consern then the 2009 machines are again a better option. Plus a new quad 2.93 is cheaper than a used 3.2 octo.
Then there is the fact that it comes with a bigger HD standard (650 vs 320) and 1 GB more RAM standard. It is also supposed to use less power than previous models. Those are pretty minor points though.
It really depends on what you think and what you are happy with. A couple bucks more for a newer slightly faster machine that has a lower (and more expensive) RAM limit... or save a few bucks with a slightly slower machine with more and cheaper RAM. I don`t see myself needing more than 8GB for a long while so thats why I went with the 2009. Also the fact that I could get a much faster processor without buying 4 extra cores for nothing.
Maybe that is the thing...I really don't know how much RAM I am going to need or will make a difference. I know I will be happy with either system, especially compared to what I am using now...but I would still like to get the best value for my needs.
I know there are alot of variables, but typically I would be working with multiple layered 150-300 MB photoshop files and opening hundreds of RAW files in PS Bridge and then editing files in PS Raw converter. I also plan to edit AVCHD video in iMovie.
Any opinions on whether 8 Gb is adequate and how much performance increase I would get with more RAM in the octo.
8GB should be plenty. Obviously 16GB is better but 8GB will do if you do just photoshop and imovie. An 8 GB kit (4X2GB) at OWC is $144 I believe.
That is pretty cheap for 8GB of memory. Just do that and then wait for the 4GB sticks to go down in price. That is what I am going to do. I bought the machine with 6GB already installed and I am getting one more 2GB stick from OWC. From their Memory Tests though it do not show performance boosts from having 6GB of memory to 8GB. Their Tech support told me that triple memory configurations will not be taken advantage of until Snow Leopard.
That is pretty cheap for 8GB of memory. Just do that and then wait for the 4GB sticks to go down in price. That is what I am going to do. I bought the machine with 6GB already installed and I am getting one more 2GB stick from OWC. From their Memory Tests though it do not show performance boosts from having 6GB of memory to 8GB. Their Tech support told me that triple memory configurations will not be taken advantage of until Snow Leopard.
'09 Quad... definitely.
The Quad can accept 16GB of RAM, I confirmed it a month back with OWC...
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7359152#post7359152
The Quad can accept 16GB of RAM, I confirmed it a month back with OWC...
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7359152#post7359152
I don't believe that for a second. Maybe the OS itself - could be... But as you introduce more and more support for 64-bit apps then more and more apps will use them. And that means a document or algorithm that used to occupy X•1 MB/GB will occupy X•2 MB/GB ± alpha.
Ya can't have your cake and eat it too.
Also the reduced "footprint" they're talking about is it's footprint on disk. Who knows what affect this will have on those few specific application's memory usage profiles.
If OS X is anything like ALL other OS's including 64-bit linux, then 8GB is the new 4GB and 16GB is the new 8GB. Especially for apps like PhotoShop - memory usage should just about double when it goes 64-bit.
.
That would be bad news if a quad with 8 GB suffered or was less "usable" with Snow Leopard when it comes out.
Yeah, but in real world usage it will likely affect the quad more because it will cost more to get into the 16-32 Gb range which will likely result in less people actually upgrading to get into that range.
good point, and if you plan on keeping the machine for more than 2 or 3 years you are probably better off getting the octad...
however, todays $2,000 savings (6gb octad 2.6 vs 6gb quad 2.6) will buy a machine in 1 or 2 years that blows away todays 8-core, right when you'll really need it.
At least, that's my logic behind getting the quad and saving some money now.
however, todays $2,000 savings (6gb octad 2.6 vs 6gb quad 2.6) will buy a machine in 1 or 2 years that blows away todays 8-core, right when you'll really need it.
At least, that's my logic behind getting the quad and saving some money now.
This is a noob question probably, but are the logic boards in the quads and octos different? As in, if you buy a quad, can you purchase a second processor and put it in at a later date?
The 2009 Quad and Octo use different processor tray "daughter-boards." I don't remember reading if anyone has tried swapping the trays between models yet to see if they still work.