3.2 quadcore or 3.33 6-core for Photoshop

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by citizenal, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. citizenal macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #1
    Hi everyone, I know this is a silly question, but how big of a difference is the 3.2 to the 3.33 when doing photoshop with files less than 5 gb. I can purchase either one, but I was thinking maybe I would benefit with the 3.2 and 16 gb of ram instead of getting the 3.33 and getting 8gb. Mostly I will be using photoshop with files smaller than 5 gb and imovie. I would like to upgrade to more complex software that will tax my machine more, but in the meantime it's pretty standard stuff.

    So what do you think? 3.2 or 3.33, would I see that much of a difference?
    Is it better to just save that money and get ssd drive for scratch?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Photoshop cannot take advantage of more than four cores so you would only be paying for the extra 133MHz that 6-core offers and IMO that is not worth 800$. If you use some other apps that can take advantage of the extra cores, then it would be worth it but IMO quad is fine for Photoshop. Besides, you can upgrade it to 6-core later on and that costs less than from Apple.

    SSD should offer greater performance increase than the 6-core
     
  3. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #3
    Thanks for the info, I guess I'll get the 3.2 and save that money for more ram and ssd drives. What programs utilize 6 core function? Just curious, incase I get into that in the next few years or so. :D
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    Well, video editing, encoding and rendering comes to my mind. Apps like After Effects, HandBrake and Maya can and will take advantage of the extra horsepower.

    Not all video editing nor rendering apps can though. Very infamous example is Apple's Final Cut which is single-threaded
     
  5. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    The cutting itself might be single threaded, rendering using Compressor, however, uses every single core available.
     
  6. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #6
    I see, so I should be good with a 3.2. Can you recommend a setup so I can get the best performance out of a 3.2 for photoshop and imovie. Say, 256 ssd for osx and 64 ssd for scratch and 2 tb for time capsule.
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    That is true. I was referring to the Final Cut app, not to the whole suite. All other apps besides Compressor are single-threaded though. Hopefully the next version will be better optimized for multicore.

    Do you really need 256GB for OS X and apps? IMO 120GB is fine for OS X and apps, then save your other files such as music and videos in HDs (maybe RAID 0 for increases bandwidth).
     
  8. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #8
    To be honest, I don't know what I need when it comes to a Mac Pro. I have been reading threads about what is a good setup and have come to the conclusion that ssd for OS X and ssd for scratch is a good start. I really don't know how to do a raid 0, or any raid for that matter, so I will do alot more research on that before trying to include it in my initial purchase and upgrades. I appreciate your help! Thank you
     
  9. khollister macrumors 6502a

    khollister

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #9
    Just went through this and went with the 3.2 quad rather than the 3.3 hex for price/performance reasons. THe extra $800 will buy you basically nothing for CS5. It might be different down the road somewhere, but not today. Get a SSd for boot+apps and a small (40-50GB) SSD for scratch and you're set. I'm going with 12GB RAM right now (I rarely get PS files over 500MB) and can always add the 4GB to get to 16. Using 8 GB DIMMS for 24 or 32 is just not cost efective right now either.
     
  10. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #10
    Thanks for the info. Guess I'll go the 3.2 route. :D
     
  11. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #11
    You could always upgrade the processor in a year or so.............. probably a lot cheaper than doing it now.

    FWIW, I went 3.2 due to the crap SW available right now.'

    good luck with whatever you go for.......... you won't be sorry either way.
    JohnG
     
  12. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #12
    Oh really? I didn't know you can upgrade the processor to the 6 core. I though I read somewhere about doing that but some problem with ecc and non ecc ram?
     
  13. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #13
    The Hex is a drop-in replacement in the 2010 (5,1) Quad release. :D

    It will even use the slower Quad delivered ram no-problemo!

    cheers
    JohnG
     
  14. citizenal thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #14
    Nice! That's music to my ears. :) Thanks
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    • i7-980X needs non ECC RAM
    • W3680 can use either ECC (Unbuffered or Registered) or non-ECC. You just can't mix the types.
    Both are drop-in CPU's for the 2010 systems, but you have to pay attention to the memory issues. As using the consumer version (i7-980X) would also mean changing out the memory, it's a better idea to stick with the W3680 financially speaking given what I've seen for CPU price differences, unless you can get the consumer version + non ECC memory cheaper, and your usage does not require ECC memory.
     

Share This Page