Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3.33 6core vs 2.66 12 core

don't buy a computer based on current software

all of you guys saying how current software won't take advantage of all the cores is true but its not like its giong to be like this forever lol. that's like saying back in the day instead of buying a dual core processor buy a single core because back then hardley any apps touched the 2nd core. in time software will catch up to hardware, it always does.
 
That is definitely true, and thus over time the 12 core will definitely best the 6 core. The thing that sucks about the 8 core is that even when the day comes that the software catches up, the 6 core will STILL best the 8 core as it has more overall processing power, even for multithreaded apps.
 
Greg Punzo said:
all of you guys saying how current software won't take advantage of all the cores is true but its not like its giong to be like this forever lol. that's like saying back in the day instead of buying a dual core processor buy a single core because back then hardley any apps touched the 2nd core. in time software will catch up to hardware, it always does.
Click to expand...

True. But by the time your app of choice can thread seamlessly across n cores, you may be able to buy a CPU with 16 cores or a GPU that can do the task on a dual core CPU 200x better with 3200 graphics cores. I think trying to buy a future proof computer is foolish. History has proven that whatever you buy now will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's the sad truth. I recommend you buy what you need now and then buy what you need in 3 years then.

@OP. Unless you are making money with it and every second is money saved or earned, OR, you are independently wealthy such that the cost is irrelevant, I cant imagine spending top dollar on a 12 core computer when precious few apps can actually use it.
 
Yea, I finished placing my order for the 6 core, and bought 12 gigs of 3rd party ram. My only real point of regret is that I wish apple put 6 dimm slots on single socket boards like basically every single other mobo manufacturer in the world, but oh well. The more I thought about it, the less sense it made to spend an extra $1500 for a machine that would actually be slower at almost everything I do for the next year or two. If / when these machines start paying for themselves I can/will buy the next and best thing 2-3 years from now.

For now I can finally look forward to doing these massively intense projects on a proper machine instead of my 4 year old macbook pro core 2 duo!
 
VirtualRain said:
True. But by the time your app of choice can thread seamlessly across n cores, you may be able to buy a CPU with 16 cores or a GPU that can do the task on a dual core CPU 200x better with 3200 graphics cores. I think trying to buy a future proof computer is foolish. History has proven that whatever you buy now will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's the sad truth. I recommend you buy what you need now and then buy what you need in 3 years then.

@OP. Unless you are making money with it and every second is money saved or earned, OR, you are independently wealthy such that the cost is irrelevant, I cant imagine spending top dollar on a 12 core computer when precious few apps can actually use it.
Click to expand...

i kind of disagree because if you would have gotten a quad core mac pro back in 06 that would still be pretty fast compared to today's standards. but if you would have gotten only a dual core then you probably would have needed an upgrade a while ago.

sure the quad core won't be the fastest thing anymore but u'd be able to do so much more with it now than only with a dual core
 
allupons said:
Yea, I finished placing my order for the 6 core, and bought 12 gigs of 3rd party ram. My only real point of regret is that I wish apple put 6 dimm slots on single socket boards like basically every single other mobo manufacturer in the world, but oh well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is my main complaint too.

I think it annoys because it smacks of lazy design and when I am paying over £3K for an Apple machine that kind of thing sticks in the throat.

Matt.
 
mattmower said:
Yeah, this is my main complaint too.

I think it annoys because it smacks of lazy design and when I am paying over £3K for an Apple machine that kind of thing sticks in the throat.

Matt.
Click to expand...

Yep, kinda pathetic for a workstation.
 
It shocks me how many people on here are going for the 6 core and 12 core.
Not because of the power of the machine but more that people seem to have the money to spend £3000 over here on a computer.

I've managed to persuade myself to just about afford the base quad core only for most people to say "nah spend £300 more on the 3.2 version" or "just go for the 6 core, you won't regret it."

Thing is as I've been using a 2006 core duo 2ghz macbook with 4gb ram maxed out.
I'm hoping that using logic (the only cpu hungry programme i use) with the quad core will fly. If it does not than I'll be sending it back completely put off mac pro's forever i think.
 
kaufman said:
Thing is as I've been using a 2006 core duo 2ghz macbook with 4gb ram maxed out.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're doing better than me right now ;) 2006 Core Duo 1.83Ghz iMac with 2GB ram maxed :p

But... I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my 6-core.

I'm a Software Engineer with various hobbies and I opted for machine with the highest clockrate... and well, 12-cores is outside my budget :p

I'm currently writing an OpenGL game in my freetime - total pain in the ass on my current iMac. I figured I'd see what would happen if I debugged the application for memory leaks using Valgrind - sure was hilarious seeing both of my two measly cores maxed out and the game running at less than 1fps (running it normally without Valgrind gave ~70fps). I'm pretty sure the hexacore with a 5870 in it will solve that speed issue ;)
 
2006 core2duo macbook pro here, heh. Can't wait to get my new hex core machine!
 
eponym said:
Lazy design?

Perhaps you should consider that the (seemingly) only workstation/server board listed on Intel's site that supports the W3680 (6-core) has 4 slots.
Click to expand...

Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!
 
Ryan P said:
Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!
Click to expand...

Have you looked inside a Mac Pro? No innovation? Whatever.
 
Ryan P said:
Yes lazy design in that they likely went with Intel's reference board instead of innovating a little and adding extra slots like most other manufacturers do. If they put even 10% of the innovation they are pouring into iPads/iPhones into Mac Pros we would have some pretty amazing workstations!
Click to expand...

I fail to see adding extra slots to be "innovative" when "most other manufacturers do"
 
SPeditor said:
I went with the 8 core to prepare for the future release of a 64-bit FCP. I was told twice by Apple that the 6 core is a better buy now, but the 8 core with more memory will better handle the next FCP update.
Click to expand...

Really? Why did they suggest that to you?

Who was your source if you dont mind me asking.:)
 
Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.
 
SPeditor said:
Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.
Click to expand...

So assuming this is the case you have a max of 12 GB with triple channel support for the single processor vs 48 GB with triple channel for the dual processor. Triple Channel may not make much real world performance difference but it is something to think about.

It has me thinking about getting the entry 2.4 Octa and then replacing the processors over the next few months. There is a 3.46Ghz Hex Xeon 5690 due soon from Intel, although I'm not sure what the motherboard, heatsinks, and power supply in the Mac Pro are capable of. That would be some screaming performance if you could drop two of those in a new Mac Pro.
 
SPeditor said:
Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.
Click to expand...

All the more reason I am looking at building a hackintosh. From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.

Apple has really hurt us by the price point and limited RAM - not to mention not offering any nVidia cards - then again, FCP will probably tap in to OpenCL.
 
SPeditor said:
Ok, I just spoke with Apple again. They say the 6 core will not take the 8gb ram sticks. The max ram for the 6 core is 16gb. Thus there could be limitations with future applications, such as a 64bit FCP.

I don't just speak with the sales people at Apple. I speak to the experts that work there. The ones that the sales people ask questions.

My opinion, just from the 3 times I spoke with Apple, the 6 core is a great purchase to use now. Especially if you are going to upgrade in a couple years. However if you want your computer to last at least 5 years, being able to handle the upcoming applications, the 8 core is the better choice.
Click to expand...

A lot of those 'experts' know much, much less than people on these forums, so I certainly wouldnt take it as a solid fact. We shall have a definitive answer in another week or so however. :D
 
mattbatt said:
All the more reason I am looking at building a hackintosh. From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.
Click to expand...

Why is counting virtual cores at "full weighting" logical when they only deliver about 10-30% of the performance of a 'real' core? In other words 90%-70% of time virtual core isn't pragmatically getting any throughput. You are more so just trying to rationalize the end goal of wailing about adding an additional full rank of slots.

If count real cores, 6, then 6 * 2GB => 12GB . 2 x 4GB DIMMs sticks put you right at the peak power curve the top end single processor package offers. Ooops, that doesn't move the rant forward.... so it can't be true. <cough> ....

if add 1.8 "cores" (6 * .30 => 1.8 ) 1.8 * 2GB ==> 3.6GB ... just stick a another 4GB DIMM in the 4th slot. But again 16GB can't possibly be the answer since you can do that.

The answer just has to be 24GB ... the maximum that a 3680 can physically address. ( which could be done with 3 x 8GB but folks are trying to wave off that configuration. )

It is probably not absolutely necessary to have 6 slots to max out the 3680.



- not to mention not offering any nVidia cards - then again, FCP will probably tap in to OpenCL.
Click to expand...

It is up to nVidia to offer cards. Why is it Apple's fault ? Apple has to do all the graphics vendors cards for them?

Even Adobe has said that OpenCL is a more natural fit with what they want to do long term. (re: future versions of these software will tap into it as it is deployed and get maturity). Over a year ago was the wrong timing to put OpenCL into the current Adobe product mix. Again this doesn't mean Apple has permanently locked in something that isn't aligned with Adobe's long term strategic directions. Short term there is a gap but a long term there is no big misalignment.

In fact if Apple OpenCL to get off the ground they won't push nVidia's proprietary CUDA solutions. In the longer term it is probably going to be an expensive hiccup for Adobe to unwind this CUDA based stuff. Don't see that as particularly innovative. AMD/ATI has a better fit with the GPGPU goals of Apple and with the design criteria of the Mac Pro ( higher performance/power ratio ) .
 
mattbatt said:
From talking with programmers at Adobe, 2 GB per core is a must. Counting virtual cores, which I believe is logical, the 6 core should have 24GB of RAM to run smoothly with true multicore applications like rendering in AE.
Click to expand...

That logic is completely faulty though since 24 GB is the maximum that CPU supports. The technical maximum can't be (or shouldn't be anyway) "a must."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back