6-core or 8-core MacPro

[The Beatles]

what a difficult choice

so if i get i correct: 8-core is better towards the future than the 6-core in the long run.

i have read somewhere in a previous post (cant find it) that the 6-core's speed wil put the 8-core 2.4 to shame. is this true or just exaggerating at its best?

also 6-core comes with only 3GB while the 8-core comes with 6. isn't this going to make up for the speed.

Isn't future software, maybe adobe even) going to make sure all cores will be used..if this would be the case, than again the 8-core is a better choice wright?

sorry for all the questions guys but i really don't knwo a thing about hardware.

the people that are buying these machines for power arent making their decision based on the stock Ram options. The first thing their going to do is rip out all that ram and install their own.

So. If your saying you need an 8-core system over a 6-core, but your not even maxing out the ram in the 6-core to begin with...then i wonder if you need an 8-core at all?

 

[eponym]

My conclusion is, that unless you are doing a lot of multi-threaded applications, the 3.2 Quad core is the best value: It is 30% faster than the Octo at single-threaded tasks which means even with half the cores, it should only be slightly slower at multi-threaded tasks... all for less money..

I don't think that's a realistic assumption. You're completing ignoring the Westmere cache benefits. I'd wager that the octo is much faster at memory intensive tasks.

 

[eponym]

the people that are buying these machines for power arent making their decision based on the stock Ram options. The first thing their going to do is rip out all that ram and install their own.

So. If your saying you need an 8-core system over a 6-core, but your not even maxing out the ram in the 6-core to begin with...then i wonder if you need an 8-core at all?

That's a load of crap.

Just because a power user will probably upgrade the RAM doesn't mean they want to right away (nor have the funds). 6GB is nothing to scoff at and is very usable amount for a LOT of pro users. 3 GB is useless and pretty much forces the buyer to factor in the RAM as part of the price.

It's rather frustrating too. Apple knows nobody will want those 3 GB. But instead of starting it at 6 GB and being fair with a tiny price increase, they include what is essentially throw-away components.

 

[iClique.com]

...and leave me with a little extra cash so I can buy software upgrades and the like.

D

I don't get your point. You keep saying it's going to save you some cash when in fact the 6 core w/8gb of RAM is more $425 expensive than the 8 core w/8gb of RAM, which is what the debate is about here.

 

[harlem]

i'm totally confused now...

also the guy i talked to from the Apple store made the mistake by saying that "all" westmere machines use a 1333 mhz bus. Now i noticed that the 2.4 8-core uses a 1066MHz bus.

is this a big issue towards the future?or what exactly does this mean?

 

[Mhkobe]

What would be the best deal/most bang for buck/ fastest machine...etc
Since its a big investment this purchase should last 4-5 years.

[...]

Indesign CS5
Photoshop CS5
Illustrator CS5
After Effects CS5
Final Cut Pro
Cubase/music editing software

I would look at it this way:
Most of the software you use isn't massively multithreaded 6 core +1
Most of the software you use uses tons of RAM (8 core has 8 slots, 6 core has 4) 8 core +1
Most of the software you uses the GPU intensively so you should go for the 5870 over the 5770 (if your budget is limited: 8 core +1)
Most of the software you use would benefit from the higher clock speed over the extra cores 6 core +1

The scores are tied, so i guess it comes down to what you value, I would go 8 core with 12gb RAM, and a 5870.

 

[Icaras]

I don't think there's much to add that hasn't been said already, but here's my analysis...

For 6GB of RAM (from Apple):
Quad 3.2 = $3124
Hex 3.3 = $3924
Octo 2.4 = $3500

With 12GB of RAM from OWC the gap between the Hex/Octo decreases...

$2900 + $457 = $3357
$3700 + $457 = $4157
$3500 + $424 = $3924

In addition, the max turbo boost for each is...

3.2GHz > 3.46GHz
3.3GHz > 3.6HGHz
2.4GHz > 2.66GHz

My conclusion is, that unless you are doing a lot of multi-threaded applications, the 3.2 Quad core is the best value: It is 30% faster than the Octo at single-threaded tasks which means even with half the cores, it should only be slightly slower at multi-threaded tasks... all for less money.

If you need higher levels of multi-threading, the Hex core is king because it has nearly a 40% clock advantage on the Octo with 25% fewer cores. It will finish multi-threaded tasks faster than the Octo. PLUS it will finish single threaded tasks 40% faster. It will beat the Octo at every work load, for less than $200 more for 12GB of RAM.

Again this year, it seems the entry level Octo is an odd choice. Running more than 16GB of RAM is the only use I can see for it, but I wouldn't make the other compromises in performance necessary to just get those RAM slots. I'd either try to make do with 12GB or 16GB, or go for the gusto with the 12 Core.

Nice analysis and breakdown. Interesting read.

 

[Mhkobe]

i'm totally confused now...

also the guy i talked to from the Apple store made the mistake by saying that "all" westmere machines use a 1333 mhz bus. Now i noticed that the 2.4 8-core uses a 1066MHz bus.

is this a big issue towards the future?or what exactly does this mean?

Thats just the RAM speed, which will make more of a difference in physics intensive games than anything else, but it's not too important.

 

[eponym]

i'm totally confused now...

also the guy i talked to from the Apple store made the mistake by saying that "all" westmere machines use a 1333 mhz bus. Now i noticed that the 2.4 8-core uses a 1066MHz bus.

is this a big issue towards the future?or what exactly does this mean?

Anandtech did some benchmarks so that you can see the difference RAM speed makes (in short: very little)

 

[VirtualRain]

I don't think that's a realistic assumption. You're completing ignoring the Westmere cache benefits. I'd wager that the octo is much faster at memory intensive tasks.

Good point, but Intel's cache sizes are already rediculous at 2MB/core such that the added 1MB/Core L3 in the Octo is almost irrelevant.

What I don't know is the impact that moving data across the QPI bus between processors has on latency and memory bandwidth.

It could be the case that memory intensive applications is a situation where the Hex core might also beat the Octo core... since all the memory is local to the (only) CPU and the 5620 in the Octo is running 1066 memory compared to the 1333 in the Hex.

At any rate, I stand by my conclusion that the Hex is ideal for demanding multi-threaded workloads and the Quad is good for everyone else, with the entry level Octo offering no real benefit to most.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

I don't get your point.

My savings comes from not buying a 12 core

D

 

[eponym]

It could be the case that memory intensive applications is a situation where the Hex core might also beat the Octo core... since all the memory is local to the (only) CPU and the 5620 in the Octo is running 1066 memory compared to the 1333 in the Hex.

I suspect that this will be the case. Which makes the 4 memory slots all the more painful

 

[Ravich]

I don't think that's a realistic assumption. You're completing ignoring the Westmere cache benefits. I'd wager that the octo is much faster at memory intensive tasks.

What are the westmere cache benefits?

 

[Magaman]

Would it be a good thought to compare these stats 6 core http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3680+@+3.33GHz

Dual 4 core
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=[Dual+CPU]+Intel+Xeon+E5620+@+2.40GHz

As per them the 6 core is ranked 4th and the Dual 4 cores ranked 26th

 

[jjahshik32]

I came to the same conclusion as well that the 3.2GHz Quad seems to be the best price/performance this time around.

Thats the model that I'm heavily eyeing but at the same time I always keep looking at the 6 core as the 12 core is out of my reach in terms of pricing.

Personally, I'm going to play the waiting game a bit longer and wait until the local Apple stores have them in stock.

So roughly a week to 2 weeks I'll be deciding on the pros and cons of which model to buy. Probably next week I'll stop by the Apple store to see if the older Nehalem Mac Pros will be sold at a discount. I'm hoping the 2.66GHz Nehalem QUAD can be had for $1799 at the local apple store.

But I really want that 6 core but damn a $1000 more just for 4mb more of L3 cache (it is alot), 130MHz more than the 3.2GHz quad, built in with 32nm process. It seems that that isnt worth $1000 more imo.

I guess by the time the local Apple stores carry the Mac Pros, I'm hoping barefeats has the performance tested. It would make the decision so much easier but I have a feeling that the 3.2GHz quad is the sweet spot in terms of performance/price.

 

[Magaman]

Alright I went 6 cores after so reading and some talking with people. Firstly the majority of stuff won't need all cores, so more speed would be better. Second since the major intense stuff I'll be doing is compressor, the higher speed 6 cores, and then my plan of using Qmaster between it and my MBP, I'll be in real good shape. I'm a little worried about RAM, but as is my MBP with Core Duo and 4 gigs of RAM does a solid job at 1080p Pro Res editing, it's just the compressor times driving me nuts.
I did order with the 3x2gig sticks, and I'll see how it works, and get a 4th 2gig stick if I need it. With the education discount the RAM upgrade form apple was a couple bucks cheaper getting 2gig sticks from them and an extra 2 gig stick from OCW in the future, then buying RAM from Apple or from OCW.
I can't wait, now I need to get some hard drives.

 

[mattbatt]

I'm really eying the 6 core, but it makes me want to build a hackintosh with the i7 980x. I've never ventured off into that arena, but for 2k vs 4k, maybe I should. I'm gonna toss that idea around in my head a little.

Here are some of my thoughts:

RAW POWER:
6 core takes the cake. 19.98 Ghz > 19.2. More importantly, 3.33 Ghz > 2.4, so in the OS, photoshop, everyday tasks, the 6 core is going to SMOKE the 8 core. Especially for photographers.

I know what you are thinking, but it is true. Look what Diglloyd found when comparing the quad 3.33 vs the octo 2.93 (and we can all agree the six core 3.33 vs the octo 2.4 is a much wider gap)

http://macperformanceguide.com/Shootout-MacPro-RAW-processing.html

The 8 core was up to 40% slower when batch processing RAW files (which uses more cores than FCP and regular photoshop work, let alone OS tasks!)

So, with the slower new 8 core vs the faster new 6 core, I predict up to 60% faster performance for certain tasks on the 6 core!

diglloyd will be testing soon, so will barefeats.

PRICE PER POWER
As much as I love the 6 core, $800 for two more cores and a total of 260 mhz is not reasonable. The performance between the quad 3.2 and 6 core 3.33 will be much closer in these everyday tasks than my previous comparison between the 6 and 8 core models.

EXPANDABILITY
Until we truly find out if these machines can take 8 GB dimms, 16GB RAM limits may hinder your future outlook. Coupled with the fact that you will be able to replace the Octo's processors down the line in a year for something that will be faster than the 6 core for less money than the difference today, with added expandability, may be an option for you.

GEEKBENCH
6 core 17 980x
(not overclocked [overclocked are around 18k mark])
17595

8 core 2.66
15615

 

[rajbonham]

Wow, that's some great info right there! Unfortunately, I'm still on the fence between a 6 or 8 Core model...

 

[johnnymg]

snip.............
PRICE PER POWER
As much as I love the 6 core, $800 for two more cores and a total of 260 mhz is not reasonable. The performance between the quad 3.2 and 6 core 3.33 will be much closer in these everyday tasks than my previous comparison between the 6 and 8 core models.

snip............

That's sort of the "conclusion" I came to also. Apple surprisingly made the 3.2 a pretty good "buy" compared to the other options. JMO, and with more emphasis in getting the best buy and not letting spec creep over-rule fiscal sanity.

cheers to us all
JohnG

 

[VirtualRain]

That's sort of the "conclusion" I came to also. Apple surprisingly made the 3.2 a pretty good "buy" compared to the other options. JMO, and with more emphasis in getting the best buy and not letting spec creep over-rule fiscal sanity.

cheers to us all
JohnG

Yeah, just yesterday (or the day before?) a 3.3GHz Quad cost $3700, now you can buy a 3.2GHz variant $2900... that's a nice price drop! Even the 2009, 2.93GHz refurb is going for $3K!

 

[nanofrog]

It could be the case that memory intensive applications is a situation where the Hex core might also beat the Octo core... since all the memory is local to the (only) CPU and the 5620 in the Octo is running 1066 memory compared to the 1333 in the Hex.

This should hold true, and in terms of clock speed, the SP Hex will be a better performer for single threaded performance, and as well as multi-threaded applications (faster clocks - includes the memory subsystem if applicable - will make up for the lack of 2 cores v. the Octad).

At any rate, I stand by my conclusion that the Hex is ideal for demanding multi-threaded workloads and the Quad is good for everyone else, with the entry level Octo offering no real benefit to most.

This is pretty much as I see it. The Hex core offers a nice balance of single and multi-threaded performance, but for those that can't utilize more than 4 cores, it's a waste of funds v. the 3.2Gz Quad.

The Octad's only advantage is the additional DIMM slots and lower cost v. the SP Hex core IMO (relevant if capacity exceeds what may be possible in the SP systems, or the budget is limited).

What are the westmere cache benefits?

It will depend on your software. If it's not able to utilize the memory system at or near it's bandwidth limits, it's not going to help much, if at all.

If it does however, it keeps the cores working as much as possible (reduces or eliminates core starvation).

 

[alphaod]

8-core model gives your 8 RAM slots instead of the 4 on the 6-core model. God forbid, you could also blow a few grand on a 2x 6-core DIY upgrade in the future should you want.

Of course for most tasks, the 6-core would be faster with it's faster clock and boost.

 

[tamvly]

Folks, a couple of thoughts here ...

First for any given computing thread, a faster processor clock cycle is always an advantage. That's pretty obvious.

From another perspective, consider how much you'll use the machine every day and divide - my sense (play on words definitely intended) is that it's pennies a day difference, regardless of which model you choose.

 

[harlem]

maybe a stupid question:

say if i'd buy the 8-core 2.4 system now and in a few more years when prices drop on the cpu's, is it possible to just replace the 8-core cpu's with two 6-core westmere cpu's and turn it into a 12-core machine? or do the 12-cores use different motherboards or whatever.

 

[rajbonham]

After spending a day hearing everyone's opinion, etc. and learning that the 6 core CPU's will most likely allow for 24+ GB of RAM, I'm pretty much set on getting the 6 core model.