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.
Can we count the add of 8-core 3.0 as Mac Pro refresh
- Thread starter Amethyst
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you would call the current Mac Pro with lower prices a new refresh?
I see the 8-core option as an update to the current line-up. It's a fantastic product with 8-cores chugging along at 3.0Ghz.
According to Intel, prices will be reduced so Clovertown (4 cores) will cost only $30-40 more per chip than Woodcrest (dual core) at the same hertz starting in July.
Therefore, Apple should probably just move entirely to 8 core at the current price of the 4 cores.
Therefore, Apple should probably just move entirely to 8 core at the current price of the 4 cores.
Which is pretty much what I'm expecting as well. I wonder how refurbished quad prices will look. I'd take one of those to save on some cash.
Which is pretty much what I'm expecting as well. I wonder how refurbished quad prices will look. I'd take one of those to save on some cash.
Don't see it happen though. Not everyone needs an 8-core system.
Not Everyone Needs 8 Cores But If Cost Is Same Will Want 8 Cores
While that may be true according to experience, if the cost is almost the same, might as well do it and let life and clever developers deliver future reasons everyone may want 8 cores.
I agree. The price difference between Woodcrest and Clovertown is minuscule. Might as well just move the entire line to Clovertown.While that may be true according to experience, if the cost is almost the same, might as well do it and let life and clever developers deliver future reasons everyone may want 8 cores.
Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard Likely By August
This points to an August update with Stoakley-Seaburg on-board. Finally another reason to hope it happens before Summer's end.
4 is all you need
The vast majority of users with current applications only need four cores. This is due to the fact that many applications can only receive a modest performance benefit from dividing up the work and many will receive none.
In some cases there might even be a slight performance penalty as you increase the number of cores due to the system overhead involved with managing muliple cores.
However, many applications do gain some benefit from having one additional core. Also several applications running simultaneously could utilize several cores.
For most users though, four is enough to divide up all the work given to the CPU on a regular basis without leaving cores idle too often. Therefore investing in replacing current cores with four more powerful cores when available would probably deliver more performance benefit than just moving from four to eight cores without improving the performance of each core.
In other words, an 8-core MacPro will run about just as fast as a 4-core MacPro with the same processsor type and frequency for most people most of the time.
A better investment might be to push the thermal limits of a 4-core beyond 3GHz. I would rather have a 4-core @ 3.2 GHz than an 8-core @ 3.0 GHz even though the latter is technically the more powerful computer, assuming they would have similar heat and power characteristics.
The vast majority of users with current applications only need four cores. This is due to the fact that many applications can only receive a modest performance benefit from dividing up the work and many will receive none.
In some cases there might even be a slight performance penalty as you increase the number of cores due to the system overhead involved with managing muliple cores.
However, many applications do gain some benefit from having one additional core. Also several applications running simultaneously could utilize several cores.
For most users though, four is enough to divide up all the work given to the CPU on a regular basis without leaving cores idle too often. Therefore investing in replacing current cores with four more powerful cores when available would probably deliver more performance benefit than just moving from four to eight cores without improving the performance of each core.
In other words, an 8-core MacPro will run about just as fast as a 4-core MacPro with the same processsor type and frequency for most people most of the time.
A better investment might be to push the thermal limits of a 4-core beyond 3GHz. I would rather have a 4-core @ 3.2 GHz than an 8-core @ 3.0 GHz even though the latter is technically the more powerful computer, assuming they would have similar heat and power characteristics.
Hopefully, Apple gets special treatment again from Intel.This points to an August update with Stoakley-Seaburg on-board. Finally another reason to hope it happens before Summer's end.
Very informative, thanks!
I could see apple moving to 8 cores across the board not only because of the minuscule price difference but also because apple will want a clear; good, better, best choice in their lineup. Deciding if 8x2.66ghz is better than 4x3ghz can be confusing and is very task specific. Frankly apple dosen't like to give us that much choice
This would depend upon the type and number of applications used. For most users I would say yes - adding RAM will be more beneficial than adding more cores.
However most users also will gain rapidly diminishing performance improvements as RAM is increased above 4GB. For most users more than 4GB of RAM is a waste of money.
At that point it would be better to address the performance bottleneck in your system for your intended use. For most people this would be the hard drives and graphics card at this point. Investing in some type of RAID and a high end graphics card would be a better use of their money in most cases.
I understand the argument that to a lot of ppl 4 cores is lots, to a lot of ppl 2 cores is lots. But this is supposed to be a professional workstation. I run several apps that will max out 8, or even 16 cores, Zbrush 3 will see up to 256. I think a 24" imac is probably enough for a lot of graphic designers that make a living in photoshop. The mac pro is for multimedia production and scientific computation which ARE already heavily threaded apps that will make use of the processors. Perhaps if you don't run apps that will use 4 cores a mac pro isn't for u.
Yes, the 8-core will excel with applications that can take advantage of running many processes in parallel. Apple lists benchmarks for those Applications that may specifically benefit from the additional cores.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
Mostly these involve applications that use a lot of rendering, encoding, or complex filters.
Again, it depends upon the type of work you do. I do a lot of work with applications that are more memory and storage bound than cpu bound. That means I would benefit more form a slightly larger or faster hard drive or more or faster RAM than an extra processor core. Both would be welcome, but my priorities are different based upon my needs.
I am glad that we can both get what we need by build to order.
4GB 8 Core Mac Pros Populate Professional HD Video Editing In LA
Yes the Multitasking Multithreaded situations always get lost in this debate.
Zactly. Although PS 10 CS3 does use more cores than 2.
Just back from Chicago HD Expo where a Los Angeles HD video editing operations manager said he just bought NINE 8 core Mac Pros and that they don't need more than 4GB each to reach top performance for rendering video in faster than real time. All 8 cores are used simultaneously to render video in Final Cut Pro 6. He couldn't be more delighted with the 8-core Mac Pro as it ships today. He said SS would help in compositing work.
While that may be true according to experience, if the cost is almost the same, might as well do it and let life and clever developers deliver future reasons everyone may want 8 cores.
In an increasingly more power efficient and ecological world I don't quite see it happen. Power saved is money saved, while putting less strain on the environment.
Mainstream programs will and should require less because even the most modest computer today is capable of delivering enough performance for the vast majority of applications.
Sure there are power users but they don't exactly dwarf the mainstream market and their needs. But then again, the Mac Pro is not their target crowd either heh. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the power house of a computer!
