all the quad core penryn people...

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by fluidedge, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. fluidedge macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #1
    ...say yeh!

    but seriously, are you all happy with this and do any of you wish you had the 8 core instead? I have to return a dodgy iMac to Apple this week and was thinking to myself when i was using it that i could have done with a 'bit' more power than the 2.4 dual core. (Not really looking at the 2.8GHz dual though, same price as the MP!)

    I'd have to buy a screen with it though.

    I'll be editing film (some HDV) and doing some heavyish rendering with Maya. So i was thinking 4 core might be enough.

    I was also wondering if i could pick up a quad 2.66 for about the price of my iMac anywhere? Would this be a good option for a guy on a fairly tight budget?
     
  2. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    You know you'll always regret it if you don't go Octo for video editing.
     
  3. fluidedge thread starter macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #3
    video editing will not be my main task on this machine, i would rather save the money and get 4 core to be honest. If something takes 20 mins to render instead of 15 mins i'm not going to loose any sleep.
     
  4. darthraige macrumors 68000

    darthraige

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Coruscant, but Boston will do.
    #4
    Well, to be exact. On my current MacPro, for a 1 hour video, it took 1 hour to encode using 1 Core. Using all 8 Cores it took 10 minutes. So yea, you'd be saving like 10 minutes on the 8 Core. Most of my encoding is done over night too. So you wouldn't really be losing anything.
     
  5. Gloor macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    #5
    rendering in maya will cut the time in half. Get 8 core. You will not regret it. If you get 4 then you probably will.
     
  6. MIDI_EVIL macrumors 65816

    MIDI_EVIL

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Go 8 Core.

    As someone pointed out in my thread here, for longevity and value, it's so worth it.

    These chips are worth a lot more than the upgrade from 4 to 8.

    Go 8 Core!
     
  7. fluidedge thread starter macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #7
    i love your blue jam avatar!! Chris morris is a ledge!

    I will play around with the specs tonight and see what i can do. I was editing ok on a 2.4GHz dual iMac this week. I didn't fly but it worked well. I'd imagine 4 core would be much quicker.

    Who do you think the 4 core machine is aimed at then if everyone is saying go for the 8 core? Why would apple bother to make a 4 core that is cheaper than the 2.8GHz iMac?
     
  8. MIDI_EVIL macrumors 65816

    MIDI_EVIL

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Probably to cater for the people who complained about not having a headless iMac that is upgradeable?

    I'm very happy that someone recognises the avatar!
     
  9. fluidedge thread starter macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #9
    people like me :D

    blue jam rocks! I haven't listened to it for years i'll have to dig out my CD of it somewhere. I might even have it on cassette! Not sure i've got anyway of playing tapes anymore though.
     
  10. iAmRod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    #10
    I'd say that this is probably a fair assessment. However, fluidedge, you need to decide for yourself which one fits your needs within a budget you can afford. It's sooooo easy for others to spend *your* money for you, eh?

    I would LOVE to have an 8-core (who the heck wouldn't?), but for my usage-level-to-cost ratio I think the 4-core would fit very nicely. I've seen people on these forums saying things like, "these chips are worth a lot more than the upgrade from 4 to 8", but you're not getting some kind of break... you're paying for that chip. And I don't know what you do for a living, but to me $500 is a LOT of money?!

    If you're a professional who makes his/her money off this I can see where the extra $$$ is totally justified. But if you're an enthusiast on a budget, I'm pretty sure the 4-core will serve you very well!
     
  11. kdb31 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #11
    I think the 8 core was made standard so Apple's marketing could brag about the new MP having double the cores and imply that it meant double the power... we all know how much Apple loves to gloat ;)

    Having the octo as the base machine gives them the ability to say they have 8cores standard across the board, for those concerned with cost the quad is still there so they'ved covered their bases; its a win-win.

    Anyways, I think the 8 is realistically targeted towards video editing and 3d rendering. The macworld benchmarks demonstrate this quite nicely - Photoshop runs 2% faster (or 1 second). Considering most photoshop tasks are at most a few minutes anyways and rendering/video easily takes hours, even if the octo could cut down photoshop filter times by 50%, it'd be less appreciated imo than cutting down several hour renders.

    As far as the depreciation argumenent goes... I think theres a lot more to consider than that, like how long you intend to keep your machine. If the mac pro depreciates like other things, then upgrades (ie quad to octo) will never retain their original value. I think the previous generation octo displays that quite nicely, it certainly isnt worth anywhere near the $1200 premium for that second core anymore so I doubt you're going to get $500 back from that upgrade. If you were to keep the $500 and set it aside and then sell your MP in lets say 2 years time when its worth around $1500, and add that $500 back in, you'd be nicely on your way to a machine thats much more powerful than what you previously had, and if things keep up, it might even have 32 cores :D Long story short, buy what you need.
     
  12. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #12
    If you are using it in a professional capacity, I say you're crazy not to go for the OCTO.

    What's your time worth?

    Even if a task goes from 60 seconds to 45 seconds, keep in mind that with video editing especially, you make about a thousand tiny decisions every day on a project in post. Imagine, at, say $100/hour, how long it would take to recoup your investment in productive work? Or how many additional gigs you could accept in a month because you're more efficient?

    If it's for occasional professional or home use, okay. But if you have your plate full of projects, a 4-proc machine will cost you more in the long run.

    It's all TCO and productive work flow.

    Go OCTO!
     
  13. Mr.PS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #13
    I got a single quad core Mac Pro. I don't think I will ever need another 4 cores in this box for what I do. If I do, I will most likely get another Mac Pro or add another 2.8 into this one and find a heat sink somewhere.
     
  14. Hitch macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    #14
    I got a single quad core on order and here's why I went for the single CPU:
    - Yes, I'm one of "those" who has been wishing for an upgradable headless iMac.
    - The (early 2008) single quad is faster than the standard config MacPro of a month ago.
    - I make a living with these machines but I waste more time on websites like this or just getting coffee than the couple of minutes that I would save on a daily basis with and 8-core MacPro.
    - The extra CPU does cost more than the $500 difference but you are paying 22% more to get 6% more performance according to the benchmarks (your mileage may vary depending on what you are doing)
    - It really won't make your machine last longer. It would only so so if technology stays the same and all that changes are the CPU clock speeds. Within 3-5 years some newfangled technology would be in the new Macs and it won't matter how many CPUs you paid for, it will all be obsolete. For example my current Mac, a dual 1GHz MDD purchased at $2,500 is now valued $10 less than the 1.25 GZz model which sold for $3,500.

    But it is a hard decision, it all depends where you want to spend your money.
     
  15. AmericanScience macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    #15
    I just ordered a quad core as well. For some reason I personally spent more time thinking about this purchase than any other computer purchase in my life.

    When I first joined the Apple foray, it was Aug 2002 and I wanted a proper computer at home to:
    * do MS Word and Excel, my beloved programs, at home
    * surf the magic interwebs
    * manage the magic iPod I'd just bought back then (2nd gen, 20GB)
    * expand ability of my hobby to record music at home (I'd selected MOTU Digital Performer and the 828 hardware platform, along with the very fun Propellerheads Reason).

    It's been 5-1/2 years, I fell in love with the Mac and OSX, and nearly lost my faith in home music recording, as it was too tough for me to get into the swing of Digital Performer.

    Along the way, GarageBand was released, and was easy enough for even this part time guy to do things at home and make sense of it.

    My NEW goals for a computer:
    * surf the magic interwebs
    * manage my menagerie of iPods and iPhones
    * record music at home with Logic Studio, as a hobby (very impressed with the layout, I've probably spent 2 hours at various Apple stores across the country trying to find things to test how intuitive it is)
    * I'm finally comfortable (and this was the hardest thing) to ditch MS Word and Excel. They've been such mainstays for my job. Word just doesn't do it for me anymore, and I'm ready to give the Apple iWork programs a try. Plus, Keynote looks fantastic.
    * Having Airport and Bluetooth integrated will be nice as well.

    That said, it makes me extremely envious that the Mac Pro doesn't come with an Apple Remote or Front Row. That thing is sweet, and I use my Mac Pro all the time at home to watch stuff.

    I just placed my order for a quad-core, only real add ons were iWork, Airport Extreme, and I'm trying .mac for the first time. Not sure who I'd always ordered memory from before, but I added 2 1GB memory chips from OWC, and another 500GB hard drive from them as well.

    My video needs are not very demanding, and the bump from my dual 1GHz G4 to the Quad Xeon will be nice. The lag in time for Logic between 4 and 8 cores I'll manage to hobble by with for a few years... ;)

    I'm not sure if this is my first post on here or not, but if it IS, be nice! Long time reader....
     
  16. MIDI_EVIL macrumors 65816

    MIDI_EVIL

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    This thread has helped me change my mind, from 8 Core to 4 Core.

    Thanks all.

    ...and to AmericanScience, welcome and please keep posting with your great input!
     
  17. Mr.PS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #17
    The Quad core chip is still extremly fast. Unless you do video or 3d the 8 core is pretty much just a novelty. If you will absolutly need the power down the line, consider selling your Pro, or find a way to add a second Quad.
     
  18. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #18
    I'm going to do the opposite and have the same result:

    Buy an 8-core and sell one of the processors on ebay for 850 dollars to someone who needs a new PC server processor upgrade.

    With the extra 350 dollars, I'll just buy some more RAM and another hard drive...

    in 2 years, if things warrant 8 cores all outside of the video/3d realm, I'll just buy a replacement processor for 1/3 or less of the price I sell it for, and get that "new computer" feeling again.
     
  19. Mr.PS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #19
    That sounds absolutely idiotic to me. You're either really cheap or just bored. Why bother taking apart a new Mac Pro, removing the processor, then going through the hassle of putting it up on eBay and shipping it - just to make $350. I doubt you will even make that back, people will just wait for the chips to drop, or buy a Quad Core core 2 duo and overclock it for same or better performance.
     
  20. fluidedge thread starter macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #20
    Great posts.

    I'm going for a 4 core. I thought i could use the 8 core. But 22% cost for 6% performance struck a chord with me. If i need much more power in a couple of years, i'll sell the machine and get the next best thing from apple, 64 cores i predict!

    I actually saw a video from some guy at intel who was talking about multi core chips and he said something like "now we're making chips with 2 and 4 cores and soon we'll be making them with 8 cores" So i guess it is a real possibility we'll see 8/16 cores before the end of the decade.

    A 4 core xeon chip is still a staggeringly quick little 4 brained monster!

    I'll hit the buy button once Apple have sorted out the refund/return on my iMac.

    Quick Q: Is the 2600 card good enough for 99.9% of people. I don't game so i know i won't need the 8800GT for that, but the 2600 will be fine for video and maya work, wont it?

    oh and fatso, i found my blue jam CDs I recorded them off the radio years ago!! Very Very funny, i could talk about how misunderstood chris morris is for hours, he'll be seen as one of the great comics in a few years, but thats for another discussion, the music is awesome too!
     
  21. thagomizer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    I ordered the single quad.

    There are a lot of people who buy these towers not for their multiprocessing capability, but for their expandability. Mac Pro is the only Mac you can buy that'll take a high-powered graphics card and hold more than 1 SATA hard drive internally. I'll spend maybe 1% of my time on this machine doing tasks that use more than 2 cpu cores, and for that, I'm happy to wait the extra few seconds it takes.
     
  22. Rowlander macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    #22
    I have an 30 minute HDV-project on my 5-year-old PC. If I want to export it as a Windows Media Video in 1080p, the encoding would take over 24 hours! At some point in your life you get tired of looking at progress-bars. ;)

    I wonder how long it will take on my new Mac Pro.

    Still: If you don´t render/export much (in HD), chances are, you won´t really get your money´s worth. As far as I know, the extra cores especially speed up these tasks. My guess is you won´t feel that much difference while actually working.
    If the money is that big of a deal, then you can go quad as long as you can live with the thought that you could have gotten 8 cores for only 400$ extra. ;)
     
  23. fluidedge thread starter macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #23
    and of course you'll have forgotten to de-intelace it so you'd have to do it again! :p
     
  24. kdb31 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #24
    fluidedge:
    I'm not sure about this but I thought I recall FCP users saying that it was pretty dependant on the gpu. In aperture the program offloads all of its real time edits off to the gpu, so if you had lets say a 7300 and the octo it'd crawl until you were ready to do the final export, then it'd be amazingly fast. In that instance, your gpu would be severely holding your system back. Conversely if you use lightroom that isn't the case at all... just something to keep in mind :)
     
  25. 9Charms macrumors regular

    9Charms

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #25
    100% agree.

    Save the $500 and put it towards the new 32-core machine in 4 years time.

    Remember, your computer is a depreciating asset. It will not hold it's value overtime, nor will it get faster over time. Don't buy more than what you actually need right now. You can't accurately predict your own future, so don't try to buy a computer with more horse power "just in case."

    New, more powerful machines come out at cheaper prices all the time.
     

Share This Page