Anyone Know the Speed Increase of Harpertown vs. Woodcrest?

astrostu

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2007
378
15
What's the supposed or reported speed increase of, say, a 2.66 GHz Harpertown over 2.66 GHz Woodcrest? 3.0? Etc.?

I seem to recall it's been posted, but I can't find it via searching and the Harpertown thread is way too huge to search.

I'm in one of those moods (after my 6-year-old desktop thermally shut down after overheating again last night) where I really want my new Mac Pro and I'm thinking to he|| with waiting ... but I know I'll regret it later.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
It's around 5-15% on most things, much higher on certain SSE4 tasks according to some reviews. It's likely that Mac pros will offer faster processors than before though, 2.8GHz or 2.83GHz could replace the current 2.66GHz (extra 5% or so) and of course we should be seeing 8 rather than 4 cores.
 

Multimedia

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2001
5,212
0
Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
I Can Hose It Immediately. Can You?

I read it quite a bit. But as I said in my initial post, the actual substance of that thread is few and far between - if you're actually looking for specific information, as I am, it's buried in those 1.5k posts.
OK. Well it depends on what you're multitasking or multithreaded workflow is. I use Toast which uses all 8 cores as well as Handbrake 0.9.1 ditto. So I will be able to hose it on day one.

Top will be 3.2 GHz 8 core for about $3,999 plus $999 for the 16GB RAM kit. So figure about $5,000 and more including sales tax and Hard Drives. Very reasonable for that much power - 25.6GHz total. $625 per core. $195 per GHz. Pretty damn cheap from where I sit.

Still, why didn't you ask this question at the end of the 1,551 posts as post #1,552? It's really counter productive to split up the 8 core Mac Pro threads. Fragmentation makes it hard on everyone. I won't reply here any more. Please join us over there.
 

astrostu

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2007
378
15
Still, why didn't you ask this question at the end of the 1,551 posts as post #1,552? It's really counter productive to split up the 8 core Mac Pro threads. Fragmentation makes it hard on everyone. I won't reply here any more. Please join us over there.
Thanks for the reply. And I realize you say you won't respond here anymore, but I want to reply to this. The reason I started a separate thread is that I believe a thread with over a few hundred posts - let alone 1500 - is unmanageable and you simply can't find anything within it. I understand the purpose of lumping things together, but there comes a point of diminishing returns where, as is the case with that thread at the moment, digressions are such that you can't find any information, and the search feature is useless since it just links to that thread and not a specific post. I was unwilling to spend a few hours searching through nearly 40 pages of posts to try to find the one I was looking for.
 

irishgrizzly

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2006
1,462
1
Still, why didn't you ask this question at the end of the 1,551 posts as post #1,552? It's really counter productive to split up the 8 core Mac Pro threads. Fragmentation makes it hard on everyone. I won't reply here any more. Please join us over there.
eh? You'd rather have just one thread about everything related to the new machine. Surely you'd rather we multithreaded? :p
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.