6 core mac pro faster than 12 core mac pro??

[minifridge1138]

Well, you can't "officially" upgrade the processors in a Mac Pro. Unofficially, yes (and it isn't that hard).

Apple just won't cover problems caused by an unsupported upgrade under warranty. Therefore, an Apple Store employee is going to tell you "no".

Absolutely correct.

Apple does not consider the CPU to be a user-serviceable part. It is also not a part that they will upgrade for you at the genius bar. So the official word from Apple is "no".

As for which Mac Pro is best for you, only you can answer that. Look at what you do on a daily basis and try it on both machines.

As for ram being a bottleneck, take a look at the activity monitor and see if you're using any swap space. If you're not, then you don't need any more RAM.

 

[dmax35]

What is the max amount of ram I can install in my 3.3mhz 6 core?

Apple says 32GB (4x8) thou I'm seeing single 16GB SIMMS on eBay with 4 of these obviously it would be 64GB, would my system see it?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320952245313?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

 

[CaptainChunk]

What is the max amount of ram I can install in my 3.3mhz 6 core?

Apple says 32GB (4x8) thou I'm seeing single 16GB SIMMS on eBay with 4 of these obviously it would be 64GB, would my system see it?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320952245313?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

On the single-CPU hex-core, I believe the max is 48GB (3x16GB modules) that Mac OS X will actually be able to see and use (96GB on dual-CPU machines).

 

[macguy93]

That makes absolutely no sense.

The only thing that matters in that regard is the actual resolution of the render, which is configured via the "Width" and "Height" options under Render Settings. The size of the picture viewer window is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the resolution that your scene renders out at, and therefore plays no role in the time each machine would take to complete a job.

As weird as it sounds i have done a second test this afternoon. Again i scaled each window to the exact same demetions (using a ruler) in each render preview viewer and sure enough the 12 core beat the 6 core (as it should) however it took the 12-core 23 seconds to complete it where as the 6-core took 27 seconds. Pretty close if you ask me, but the 12 core still got it. I again scaled up the size to the whole window of each monitor and again the smaller screen on the 6 core was quicker. (the way i was able to determine this, was the 24 inch had more area of the scene in the preview, whereas the 6 core had the edges chopped off, therefore making the computer do less work since its not the entire image)

I dont know if it should be completely night and day faster, but those are the results im getting. If those still don't sound right i guess a trip into the apple store would have to do.

 

[macguy93]

I just did a test with both computers using adobe after effects. For some reason, once again, the 6-core beat my 12 core! i included a screen shot (same settings on both computers) and it says that only 3 CPUs are being used.. Of course 3 CPUs at 3.33ghz will be faster than 3 CPUs at 2.4GHz. the question is, how do i change that settings to utilize more cores on the 12 core?

IGNORE THAT PICTURE! i was able to find out how to set it to utilize more cores. however, i was only able to set it to 10 cores only on both the 12 core and 6 core. BUT the 12 core was able to render faster, no longer does the 6 core beat my 12 core anymore..Is there anyway i can set it so it can use more cores??

 

[CaptainChunk]

I just did a test with both computers using adobe after effects. For some reason, once again, the 6-core beat my 12 core! i included a screen shot (same settings on both computers) and it says that only 3 CPUs are being used.. Of course 3 CPUs at 3.33ghz will be faster than 3 CPUs at 2.4GHz. the question is, how do i change that settings to utilize more cores on the 12 core?

IGNORE THAT PICTURE! i was able to find out how to set it to utilize more cores. however, i was only able to set it to 10 cores only on both the 12 core and 6 core. BUT the 12 core was able to render faster, no longer does the 6 core beat my 12 core anymore..Is there anyway i can set it so it can use more cores??

You won't be able to assign more cores to AE until you add more RAM. Explanation:

1. AE requires that you assign 2GB of RAM to background processes. Therefore, on machines with 12GB of RAM (like the two you have), there would only be 10GB available for use. There's no way around that.

2. AE treats every logical core as a physical one. So, a hex-core machine would appear as 12 cores to AE and a 12-core machine would appear as 24. AE needs at least 1GB of RAM, PER core and preferably, you'd want at least 2GB per core if you're working with large compositions. And this is exactly why AE will only allow you to assign 10 cores (with 1GB of RAM each) on both machines. 2GB of RAM to the background and 10GB to AE, totaling your 12GB of installed RAM.

In short, AE is a memory pig. Assuming you'd want 2GB per logical core assigned to a hex-core Mac Pro for rendering, you would need at least 26GB of RAM. 12 threads at 2GB each, plus 2GB to background - and you would have to double that figure to get all 24 threads working the same way on your 12-core.

If upgrading RAM isn't an option, it's very likely you that you'll get better performance using less cores, but with more RAM assigned to each. That's been my experience with 64-bit AE, anyway. I have 16GB of RAM (not going any further on this machine because the FB-DIMMs that 3,1s use are too expensive) and I have AE set to 6 cores at 2GB each, which is notably faster than telling it to use 8 cores at 1GB each. But YMMV.

 

[CIA]

In short, AE is a memory pig. Assuming you'd want 2GB per logical core assigned to a hex-core Mac Pro for rendering, you would need at least 26GB of RAM. 12 threads at 2GB each, plus 2GB to background - and you would have to double that figure to get all 24 threads working the same way on your 12-core..

THIS. Adobe apps LOVE ram, f*ckin' love it. It's the single best thing (and cheapest) you can do to speed this up. If you are using Adobe apps on a current Mac, put as much RAM as possible into that machine. I'd say 32GB min on dual proc systems. Ram is so cheap right now (32GB for under $300? Nuts!). Then max those settings out from the picture above and watch it fly.

 

[macmesser]

That can be addressed to a very high degree with ram too these days as long as you assign PS to use it via its preferences.

32GB is the least I'd put in a dual package machine these days. It sounds large, but I don't see it that way when it's being distributed across many physical cores.

Is memory simply allocated equally to each core or is there a ram pool from which a core can access memory based on need? Probably some complex in-between.

I have an 8 core 2.93 GHz with 16 GBs RAM and wondering how much I should put in. Unfortunately it has 8 2GB modules so if I upgrade it will be expensive if I want to put in more than 32GB.

 

[macguy93]

You won't be able to assign more cores to AE until you add more RAM. Explanation:

1. AE requires that you assign 2GB of RAM to background processes. Therefore, on machines with 12GB of RAM (like the two you have), there would only be 10GB available for use. There's no way around that.

2. AE treats every logical core as a physical one. So, a hex-core machine would appear as 12 cores to AE and a 12-core machine would appear as 24. AE needs at least 1GB of RAM, PER core and preferably, you'd want at least 2GB per core if you're working with large compositions. And this is exactly why AE will only allow you to assign 10 cores (with 1GB of RAM each) on both machines. 2GB of RAM to the background and 10GB to AE, totaling your 12GB of installed RAM.

In short, AE is a memory pig. Assuming you'd want 2GB per logical core assigned to a hex-core Mac Pro for rendering, you would need at least 26GB of RAM. 12 threads at 2GB each, plus 2GB to background - and you would have to double that figure to get all 24 threads working the same way on your 12-core.

If upgrading RAM isn't an option, it's very likely you that you'll get better performance using less cores, but with more RAM assigned to each. That's been my experience with 64-bit AE, anyway. I have 16GB of RAM (not going any further on this machine because the FB-DIMMs that 3,1s use are too expensive) and I have AE set to 6 cores at 2GB each, which is notably faster than telling it to use 8 cores at 1GB each. But YMMV.

Right now i have it set like this: (picture) It probably is not the best configuration at the moment. However, I am buying 32gigs of DDR3 1333mhz ram as soon as i can. Im hoping i will see a much better improvement! Right now with the 12 core and 6 core are set at the same settings, the 12 core still beats the 6 core already, i cant imagine what the 12 core will do with 32gigs of ram!

 

[CIA]

Right now i have it set like this: (picture) It probably is not the best configuration at the moment. However, I am buying 32gigs of DDR3 1333mhz ram as soon as i can. Im hoping i will see a much better improvement! Right now with the 12 core and 6 core are set at the same settings, the 12 core still beats the 6 core already, i cant imagine what the 12 core will do with 32gigs of ram!

We run AE on a 2009 8 Core (16 virtual) with 32GB of RAM. Watching all 16 cores redline in activity monitor while watching 32GB of RAM get gobbled up by the processes AE spans is awesome. That machine is rarely "Maxed" out but AE does use it to it's full potential. (Adobe CS6)

 

[macguy93]

We run AE on a 2009 8 Core (16 virtual) with 32GB of RAM. Watching all 16 cores redline in activity monitor while watching 32GB of RAM get gobbled up by the processes AE spans is awesome. That machine is rarely "Maxed" out but AE does use it to it's full potential. (Adobe CS6)

Im anxious to see how much faster after effects renders will be using 10 or more cores (total of 22, and leave 2 for background)! Glad to hear that CS6 uses the computers full potential! What type of graphics card are you using? because i was reading up that after effects also utilizes the GPU for rendering as well.

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...dfs/adobe-hardware-performance-whitepaper.pdf

 

[CIA]

Im anxious to see how much faster after effects renders will be using 10 or more cores (total of 22, and leave 2 for background)! Glad to hear that CS6 uses the computers full potential! What type of graphics card are you using? because i was reading up that after effects also utilizes the GPU for rendering as well.

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...dfs/adobe-hardware-performance-whitepaper.pdf

That machine runs the stock 5770. I have a 5870 in another machine I could pop in to test but I think the CS series seems to like Nvidia cards more then Radeon in general.

(8 Core 2.4Ghz, 32 GB 1066 Ram. Scratch disk is a 7200 RPM WD 2TB black.)

 

[macguy93]

Is anyone familiar with the settings for cinema 4d? I cant seem to find where i can adjust the amount of cores its utilizing. I know C4D utilizes hyper threading so i can only assume that its using them all. But still when rendering out on the 12 core and the 6 core, the 6 core keeps beating the 12 core.. still confused why this keeps occurring.(one day i think the 12 core is faster and than the other day i think the 6 core is faster, regardless it shouldn't even be close in my opinion)

 

[CaptainChunk]

Is memory simply allocated equally to each core or is there a ram pool from which a core can access memory based on need? Probably some complex in-between.

In AE, yes, it will allocate the amount of RAM you specify on a per-core basis. The way it handles multiprocessing is by rendering multiple frames simultaneously and putting those frames onto separate cores, each with their own RAM. Unfortunately, it will not dynamically adjust, like many multithreaded applications will.

Right now i have it set like this: (picture) It probably is not the best configuration at the moment. However, I am buying 32gigs of DDR3 1333mhz ram as soon as i can. Im hoping i will see a much better improvement! Right now with the 12 core and 6 core are set at the same settings, the 12 core still beats the 6 core already, i cant imagine what the 12 core will do with 32gigs of ram!

Interesting. But how complicated are the comps you're rendering? 0.75GB per core is barely usable on my machine when I'm rendering out stuff in HD (and larger) frames sizes and my 6 core at 2GB each setting wins every time, versus trying to use all 8 cores on less allocated RAM (on 16GB of installed RAM).

I think that if your hex-core had more RAM than your 12-core in this same scenario, the tables would probably turn based on raw clock-speed alone. But yeah, definitely get more RAM in that 12-core, stat. 🙂

 

[macguy93]

But if I had 32 gigs in the 12-core compared to 12 gigs in the 6-core. The 12 core would smoke it right? (Sounds like a rhetorical question to me, but thought I'd ask before going out and buying) also keep in mind I'm only keeping one if these machines, I only have a few more days to decide. I'm kinda leaning towards the 12-core..

 

[CaptainChunk]

But if I had 32 gigs in the 12-core compared to 12 gigs in the 6-core. The 12 core would smoke it right? (Sounds like a rhetorical question to me, but thought I'd ask before going out and buying) also keep in mind I'm only keeping one if these machines, I only have a few more days to decide. I'm kinda leaning towards the 12-core..

I would think so.

With 32GB of RAM, your ideal setting will probably be 12 cores active, at 2GB each. That would leave you with 6GB of free RAM (factoring in the 2GB that has to be reserved) to run other stuff in the background without AE bogging the system down.

On my Mac Pro (2008 2.8 8-core), I would love to be maxed out on RAM (32GB for me). But it's about $1,000 worth of FB-DIMMs and I'd better off selling my current one and putting that $1,000 towards a newer Mac Pro that uses cheaper RAM and better CPU architecture.

 

[thekev]

On my Mac Pro (2008 2.8 8-core), I would love to be maxed out on RAM (32GB for me). But it's about $1,000 worth of FB-DIMMs and I'd better off selling my current one and putting that $1,000 towards a newer Mac Pro that uses cheaper RAM and better CPU architecture.

That's especially true now. Ram for the newer ones has fallen off a cliff in price compared to last year, yet fb-dimms remain expensive. I wouldn't put that much money into older hardware either.

 

[macguy93]

I would think so.

With 32GB of RAM, your ideal setting will probably be 12 cores active, at 2GB each. That would leave you with 6GB of free RAM (factoring in the 2GB that has to be reserved) to run other stuff in the background without AE bogging the system down.

On my Mac Pro (2008 2.8 8-core), I would love to be maxed out on RAM (32GB for me). But it's about $1,000 worth of FB-DIMMs and I'd better off selling my current one and putting that $1,000 towards a newer Mac Pro that uses cheaper RAM and better CPU architecture.

Am i able to assign more than 3 gigs per core once i upgrade the ram? or will it always be a max of 3gigs per core?

 

[CaptainChunk]

Am i able to assign more than 3 gigs per core once i upgrade the ram? or will it always be a max of 3gigs per core?

That I'm not quite sure of because my machine doesn't have enough RAM to assign that much. 3GB could be the max...