6-core at 3.33GHz or 8-core at 2.4GHz?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by KeaneJas, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. KeaneJas, Feb 12, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011

    KeaneJas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    #1
    Been pondering a new machine for a while now and soon to move from the UK to NY, Apple hardware becomes even more appetising considering the uplift in FX/tax etc they charge in the UK.

    So my questions is if should I go for a 6 Core at 3.33 or 8 core at 2.4Ghz? My budget is about $4K with 8GB of ram included. Understand the dual CPU boxes have 8 memory slots but is that the real only difference between the 2 towers?
     
  2. mrt209 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    #2
    Really depends on what you are going to use it for. I personally have the 6-core and love it :) (except for a problem withe gpu)

    If you go for the 6-core, get the 5870, 12gb ram and a SSD. It cost me around $4,500 for that, but well worth it.
     
  3. KeaneJas thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    #3
    SSD and additional memory will be bought separately and not from Apple. Its mainly going to be used for Aperture, Photoshop and video encoding, maybe some editing but very light.
     
  4. mrt209 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    #4
    Not an expert, but I'd go for the 6-core then. But, prob better to wait and see what the other people say.

    And yeah Apple SSD is a ripoff ;) Get a OWC SSD and RAM from superbiiz.
     
  5. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
  6. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #6
    Searching will turn up a lot on this, been discussed and discussed.
     
  7. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #7
  8. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #8

    I disagree on the apple ssd being a ripoff but the ram should be superbiiz.
     
  9. mdgm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #9
    The Apple SSD is 512GB. If you don't need an SSD with that much capacity then buying an Apple SSD is a waste when you can buy 3rd party SSDs with smaller capacity at a significantly lower cost.
     
  10. ejosepha macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    #10
    Could you tell me what problem you have had with the gpu? thanks.
     
  11. KeaneJas thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
  12. no3tic888 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    #12
    I'd get the 6 core. More bang for your buck. That's what I have been reading.
     
  13. DeeEss, Feb 13, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011

    DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #13
    For your uses the 6 core would be the best choice. The 8 Core would be a step down in performance as Photoshop is not written to deal with multiple processors but can handle as many cores as you can throw at it. The lower clock speed is going to rule your uses here. 6 core in a lot of PS tasks is quicker than even the 12 core apparently.

    As a general rule it seems 6 core for photographers, 12 core for motion editing and 3D rendering. The 8 cores seem forgettable for alot of tasks.

    I bought the 6 core for PS, LR, C1, Final Cut use and it screams. Well recommended.

    I went with 24gb OWC RAM (works best in matched triple sets ie 8GBx3) and a dual SSD Raid 0 for boot/app/scratch and a 4x3tb Hitachi Raid 0 for data.

    Consider an Apple refurb. I went this way, saved £500 and It's indistinguishable from new and has the same warranty. The money I saved allowed me to push the RAM and storage.

    Apparently the 2.93 Quad is still a good choice for photographers, you can find them at Apple Refurb or new at Amazon. The 2.8 Quad new is still suppose to be good a choice as well.
     
  14. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #14
    I would point out also that hyperthreading means your 6 core machine will have 12 logical cores for software prepared to deal with it.

    You probably don't need more.

    At this point, I would say only video editors can really get more mileage out of the lower-clocked 8 core machine.
     
  15. Bwa macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Location:
    Boston & San Jose
    #15
    One big minus of the single CPU systems is only 4 memory slots vs 8 in the dual socket systems.
     
  16. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #16
    I agree with this.
     
  17. mulo macrumors 68020

    mulo

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Behind you
    #17
    i'd go ith the 8 core, you can upgrade it manually to 12 core if you want, and it ships with 6gb ram rather then 3gb.
     
  18. derbothaus, Feb 13, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #18
    The OP is using Photoshop and Aperture. The 2.4GHz is the absolute slowest model for these apps. Upgrading to a 12-core down the road is very expensive. min $2000.00 just for the procs with low clocks, 2x3.33 6-cores will set you back $3200.00. Not too cost effective to buy the slowest machine available for your tasks at 3499.00 just to drop 3200.00 more for procs. In the end you'll have a $6700.00 machine (with no warranty) that will perform in Photoshop no faster than the 6-core at $3699.00. IMO bad idea.
    Also you can upgrade any 2010 Mac Pro with new trays if you want, my single socket can have a dual socket upgrade by swapping out the processor tray.
     
  19. MattDSLR macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
    #19
    i was in the same dilemma about a month ago
    went with 8 core
    reason
    more memory slots
    8 cores you run run easily 8 exports out of LR at the same time where 6 core struggles right now, especially when you are resizing all the exports at the same time, to achieve that on 6 core you will need to go beyond its capabilities of ram
    capable of upgrading to 64 gig of ram
    very quiet as it runs much cooler than 6 core
    easily upgraded to 6 or even 10 core dual chips when they come out this year
    you will already have memory that is tested on your 8 core
    but yes 6 core 3.33 may be a bit faster now, well at least till tiger comes out and new LR4 and CS6 next year
    and no need to upgrade video card for any photography work
     
  20. mdgm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #20
    There are 10-Core Westmere chips coming out? Do you have a link? This would be interesting to read about.
    I think you mean Mac OS X 10.7 Lion. Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger is old.
     
  21. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #21
    Aperture is nicely threaded, but Photoshop is not.

    Given that the raw ghz score between the two is extremely close, I'd only consider the 8 core if you were planning on upgrading the dual CPU's later (as the 3.33 ghz only has one CPU socket.)
     
  22. aaaaaaron macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #22
  23. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #23
    Fascinating. OWC's upgrade options get more and more intriguing each year.
     
  24. MattDSLR macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
    #24
    Sorry Lion

    And yes intel is working on
    Westmere-EX MP Server 10 cores (20 threads) be available 2011-Q2
     
  25. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #25
    Not for any current socket you'll find in a Mac Pro...
     

Share This Page