Buying my Mac Pro on Monday! Should I pick Quad 2.93 or Octa 2.26?

[PowerPaw]

For the applications you intend to use, the length of time and the cost differential its academic - I really don't think you are going to notice the speed between the two until you end up upgrading to CS5 etc. within the next 18 months.

I'd also forget about the 'might' with RAM speeds and 16GB for now is going to cost you a small fortune. By the time the 4GB memory prices go down your apps will be faster on 8 core and you will have already upgraded to 16GBs had you gone with the 8 core.

 

[bobbydaz]

with the quad 2.93, what's the best memory config - 6 or 8 gb, taking into consideration that I will probably replace all with 4 gb chips when the price drops in the next 6-12 months.

 

[DrawingArt]

For the applications you intend to use, the length of time and the cost differential its academic - I really don't think you are going to notice the speed between the two until you end up upgrading to CS5 etc. within the next 18 months.

I'd also forget about the 'might' with RAM speeds and 16GB for now is going to cost you a small fortune. By the time the 4GB memory prices go down your apps will be faster on 8 core and you will have already upgraded to 16GBs had you gone with the 8 core.

I think difference speed in photoshop, flash, illustrator, ... between 2,26ghz and 2,93ghz is quite big atm in cs4 ... believe me I had opertunity to try it both ...

Might be true yes but do we know for sure that CS5 will use multicore ? If not then I think I'm ok for 2 years on quad for sure and then we see what will happen ...

 

[cmaier]

Might be true yes but do we know for sure that CS5 will use multicore ?

If they even bother to switch to cocoa you'll get a major speed bump by going to 64-bit, even w/o multicore.

If they bother.

I suspect that, instead, they'll just change the user interface again to make it more annoying and unusable.

 

[DrawingArt]

If they even bother to switch to cocoa you'll get a major speed bump by going to 64-bit, even w/o multicore.

If they bother.

I suspect that, instead, they'll just change the user interface again to make it more annoying and unusable.

I somehow supect the same

I decided 100% quad 2,93 is best choice for me since my work is based on 75% photoshop, 15% flash and 10% of other adobe software. And for some Premier and AfterEffects I think I'm ok few times in one year if it takes a bit longer to do video editing and special effects. 2-3 years I'll have a beast for sure if not longer with upgrade to 16gb ram in a year or even before.

 

[RemarkabLee]

with the quad 2.93, what's the best memory config - 6 or 8 gb, taking into consideration that I will probably replace all with 4 gb chips when the price drops in the next 6-12 months.

The first 3 slots will operate in triple channel mode and the forth will operate in dual or single channel mode, I can't recall which. Originally it was thought all the sticks will operate at the forth stick speed, but apparently this has been discounted now.

 

[hobes270]

I think i am going to go with the 2.66ghz quad. Although the 2.93 is still nagging me, jsut trying to decide if it is worth the extra money for the 2.93. Your so close to the octa pricing at that point though.

 

[Ploki]

I think i am going to go with the 2.66ghz quad. Although the 2.93 is still nagging me, jsut trying to decide if it is worth the extra money for the 2.93. Your so close to the octa pricing at that point though.

if you go that high just get an octo! but before adobe adopts multicore.. well...
2.66 are very capable machines, that 0.3 ghz isnt that much anyway.

especially if 2.66 means a 17" portable. if you are going to use portable much good portable = gold.

 

[Plutonius]

with the quad 2.93, what's the best memory config - 6 or 8 gb, taking into consideration that I will probably replace all with 4 gb chips when the price drops in the next 6-12 months.

The benchmarks show in the case of the Quad that 8 gb is faster then 6 gb. I didn't see any quad benchmarks with 4 gb modules but I imagine that 12 gb is best (like the octo).

 

[MasterM6]

The benchmarks show in the case of the Quad that 8 gb is faster then 6 gb. I didn't see any quad benchmarks with 4 gb modules but I imagine that 12 gb is best (like the octo).

Where did you find these benchmarks? Cant remember reading about 8 being bettter then 6.

 

[Plutonius]

Many people have been posting benchmarks on Macrumors (the search button is your friend )

The following is one posted benchmark highlighting memory availability / speed for the quad 2009.

 

[hobes270]

if you go that high just get an octo! but before adobe adopts multicore.. well...
2.66 are very capable machines, that 0.3 ghz isnt that much anyway.

especially if 2.66 means a 17" portable. if you are going to use portable much good portable = gold.

So you would go with a 2.66 quad and a 17" 2.93ghz rather than a 2.26 octa with a macbook 2.4ghz?

 

[Ploki]

So you would go with a 2.66 quad and a 17" 2.93ghz rather than a 2.26 octa with a macbook 2.4ghz?

it all depends on how much portable work you are going to do

 

[Mac Husky]

Might be true yes but do we know for sure that CS5 will use multicore ?

Who knows - right! And even if, you may not buy it if you have just owned CS4. To buy for the future has often been wrong talking about 3-4 years. Prices will come down so fast and multiple other chips will come along meanwhile.

I think i am going to go with the 2.66ghz quad. Although the 2.93 is still nagging me (...)

Sitting in the same boot. Depending on the money you want to spend in the system, the 2.66 quad seemes to be the best choice. Don´t care about the 10-15% plus of clockspead getting a 2.93. It´s a lot of money for a little bit of more speed. Could be better to invest it in RAM right now or later on.

The benchmarks show in the case of the Quad that 8 gb is faster then 6 gb.

Where did you find these benchmarks? Cant remember reading about 8 being bettter then 6.

It depends on the apps you are running. Using Photoshop for example, 8GB RAM will give you some more speed than 6GB RAM. Look at this barefeats article.
It is the other way round using other apps - right.

The big problem is, when you just convinced yourself of being reasonable and going for the 2.66 quad with 6GB RAM because of mainly using Photoshop and stuff like that instead of doing rendering work all day long, there comes this little man in your head, that is talking about 8-core again and again Hard decision - although I hit him several times a day

So not going for the 2.93 quad would mean to me either:

1) 4-Core 2.66 with 6GB for € 2.570
2) 8-Core 2.26 with 6GB for € 3.000 (maybe with 12GB RAM right now for € 3.270)

Reflecting my apps from today, the 8-core seams to be a waste of money.
But as I said abough: the little man in my head isn´t dead already

 

[MasterM6]

Who knows - right! And even if, you may not buy it if you have just owned CS4. To buy for the future has often been wrong talking about 3-4 years. Prices will come down so fast and multiple other chips will come along meanwhile.

Sitting in the same boot. Depending on the money you want to spend in the system, the 2.66 quad seemes to be the best choice. Don´t care about the 10-15% plus of clockspead getting a 2.93. It´s a lot of money for a little bit of more speed. Could be better to invest it in RAM right now or later on.


It depends on the apps you are running. Using Photoshop for example, 8GB RAM will give you some more speed than 6GB RAM. Look at this barefeats article.
It is the other way round using other apps - right.

The big problem is, when you just convinced yourself of being reasonable and going for the 2.66 quad with 6GB RAM because of mainly using Photoshop and stuff like that instead of doing rendering work all day long, there comes this little man in your head, that is talking about 8-core again and again Hard decision - although I hit him several times a day

So not going for the 2.93 quad would mean to me either:

1) 4-Core 2.66 with 6GB for € 2.570
2) 8-Core 2.26 with 6GB for € 3.000 (maybe with 12GB RAM right now for € 3.270)

Reflecting my apps from today, the 8-core seams to be a waste of money.
But as I said abough: the little man in my head isn´t dead already

I hate that little man! I just can´t get him out of my head... One second it is the 2,93 the other its the 2,26.... AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa I am going insane here....

 

[Marsil]

I hate that little man! I just can´t get him out of my head... One second it is the 2,93 the other its the 2,26.... AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa I am going insane here....

I went through the same .... I ended up with a 2x2.26GHz, 16GB, 2TB, ATI. I don't have to speculate on upgrades and the machine is just working out of the box (with a bit of reinstalling though) as I wanted it to (no thinking about upgrades). I guess it will be what I need the new few years.

I use it for Aperture, Photoshop, Illustrator - some times I shoot in RAW but mostly just in jpeg that is fine with even a Macbook Pro

 

[Mac Husky]

I use it for Aperture, Photoshop, Illustrator - some times I shoot in RAW but mostly just in jpeg that is fine with even a Macbook Pro

You are a lucky guy as you ended up already
But striktly speaking your system is totaly oversized for your apps, isn´t it

Having a look at the apps you are using, you could do the same work with a 2.66 quad with 6GB of RAM - possibly not beeing much slower, but spending lots and lots of bugs less into it And that´s the dilemma

I guess it will be what I need the new few years.

I think you are right...

Not having a look a the money, I would go for the 2.66 8-core. The 2.26 8-core is neither fish nore meat to me. Something in between a powerfull 8-core and a reasonable decision for my need with Photoshop and a litte bit of rendering using coming FCE 5.0 in the future.

But who says, that buing a Mac Pro is a reasonable decision only

 

[HDnut]

You are a lucky guy as you ended up already
But striktly speaking your system is totaly oversized for your apps, isn´t it

Having a look at the apps you are using, you could do the same work with a 2.66 quad with 6GB of RAM - possibly not beeing much slower, but spending lots and lots of bugs less into it And that´s the dilemma


I think you are right...

Not having a look a the money, I would go for the 2.66 8-core. The 2.26 8-core is neither fish nore meat to me. Something in between a powerfull 8-core and a reasonable decision for my need with Photoshop and a litte bit of rendering using coming FCE 5.0 in the future.

But who says, that buing a Mac Pro is a reasonable decision only

I am thinking of going to the 2.66 8 core. I do a ton of HD rendering using Final Cut Pro, Photoshop/CS etc.. The current test on my 2.26 aren't bad, just not sure how much more performance I am going to get stepping up the the 2.66 8 core is going to get me.

Here are my recent tests results:


HDnut System:

This is my Mac Pro 2 x 2.26 machine: General specs
Number of Cores 8
Memory 12gig
ATI Radeon HD 4870

Well newbie here and I just ran the Cinebench R10 test: Would do a copy and paste but it won't allow me.
Processor : 2 X 2.26
MHz : 2.26
Number of CPUs : 16
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4870
Resolution : 1920x1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 3340 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 20050 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 6.39

Shading (OpenGL Standard) :5778

 

[hobes270]

I am thinking of going to the 2.66 8 core. I do a ton of HD rendering using Final Cut Pro, Photoshop/CS etc.. The current test on my 2.26 aren't bad, just not sure how much more performance I am going to get stepping up the the 2.66 8 core is going to get me.

Here are my recent tests results:


HDnut System:

This is my Mac Pro 2 x 2.26 machine: General specs
Number of Cores 8
Memory 12gig
ATI Radeon HD 4870

Well newbie here and I just ran the Cinebench R10 test: Would do a copy and paste but it won't allow me.
Processor : 2 X 2.26
MHz : 2.26
Number of CPUs : 16
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4870
Resolution : 1920x1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 3340 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 20050 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 6.39

Shading (OpenGL Standard) :5778

I was thinking of doing the same, going with the 8 core 2.66ghz. But then I think, well maybe the quad 2.66 will be fine with me as I will not be benifiting from the number of cores but rather the clock speed. Ahhh!! I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO!!! This is getting frustrating.....

 

[hobes270]

This is a recent experience I had I thought I would share:

I would say that when using photoshop, you will get better performance out of the 2.93 quad. When using FC you will get better rendering times out of the 2.26 octo. I had a 2.26ghz octo for about 5 days, until it died! Well the short time I had it, I was not too impressed with the photoshop quality. I opened a photoshop file that was about 300mb and zoomed into it and stated messing with it, I noticed all the cores in my activity monitor was really high. I was not too happy with that considering that is not the biggest photoshop file I will be working with. I also had 8GB of ram in it. Then my hard drive totally crashed so i called Apple and they said I can return it free of charge.

I work for an apple company called macoutfitters. They have a MP 2.66 quad set up in the store, I went in and did the same thing as I did on my original 2.26 with photoshop and noticed the processor in activity monitor worked about 35% less than it did with the 2.26 octo.

I use mainly photoshop and other CS4 apps. I only use FCS2 about 10% of the time.

I am thinking that I just am going to get the 2.66 quad. I came to a conclusion that I just dont utilize all 8 cores so its better for me to get the higher clock speed. And hey if it is ever that apps that i use start utilizing all 8 cores, then I will sell and get a higher core machine, but for now I am going with the 2.66 quad and spending more money to get faster dives.

Just my experience.

 

[Mac Husky]

I am thinking of going to the 2.66 8 core. I do a ton of HD rendering (...)

No doubt, that this will be a good decision so far, when rendering characterizes the course of your work.
And I would have not half of the problems coming to a decision for my own, doing rendering predominantly.
Apart from thinking about spending the money into RAM and fast HDDs instead of 15% more clock speed and going for the 2.26.
But it depends. Not at least on the money you "want" to get rid of:

8-Core 2.26 6GB RAM € 3.000
8-Core 2.26 12GB RAM € 3.270
8-Core 2.26 16GB RAM € 3.450,-

8-Core 2.66 6 GB RAM € 4.260

This is a recent experience I had I thought I would share: (...)

Nothing to add. Right on the way to kill the little man in my head and beeing reasonable too

And - if mainly using Photoshop - you may benefit from 8 (later on 16) GB RAM instead of 6 (12) (barefeats). For most other apps I would go with 6 or 12 GB I think. What are you planning?!

 

[seer]

Just thought I would chip in with some real world info on the quads too.

I have the Q2.66 and I am very impressed with its video encoding.

38 minutes of 1920x1080 footage (.mts files) edited with Adobe Premiere very painlessly. Then to encoded to 720p mks on high quality settings in REAL TIME (i.e. 37 minutes) which to me is phenomemanal especially considering it had quite a few effects in places and titles. On my old core 2 duo it would have taken around 8-9 hours

And someone mentioned gaming .... no complaints there... playing the huge battles in Empire Total War with all the highest options except Ultra textures very smoothly indeed at 1680x1050.

 

[Mac Husky]

Sounds good to me. Especially as I am not going for "hardcore-encoding/rendering".
No doubt: the quad should fulfil all my needs concerning PS and some(!) FCE later on this year.

Of course, it always depends on what you compare the quad with to come to the conclusion that it runs like hell.
One using the 2.66 or 2.93 8-core might say: lame crutch. But that´s not the measure for everyone.

 

[bobbydaz]

Right, I am also about to place my order today. I will be leasing my mac so as cost is being spread means it's not such an issue. I have had a quote for a 2.93 Quad (8gb) and a 2.66 Octo (12gb). The difference in cost over 3 years is £1490. Even so I think I will still plump for the cheaper Quad as it will easily serve my needs for the next 3 years. I think paying the extra for the Octo isn't really going to make much difference to my everyday work (Quark, CS4 etc).

 

[HDnut]

Right, I am also about to place my order today. I will be leasing my mac so as cost is being spread means it's not such an issue. I have had a quote for a 2.93 Quad (8gb) and a 2.66 Octo (12gb). The difference in cost over 3 years is £1490. Even so I think I will still plump for the cheaper Quad as it will easily serve my needs for the next 3 years. I think paying the extra for the Octo isn't really going to make much difference to my everyday work (Quark, CS4 etc).

Well I am calling Apple today as this machine 2 X 2.26 8 core is going back because of a flaw in the casing so I need to see if I would be better off going to the 2.66 8 core or the 2.93 Quad. I rendering and do photoshop at the same time using two monitors, and one would think the 2.66 would handle that better, plus not sure what the limitations are on the memory on the Quad, I read that it will go up to 16gig of memory, which is good. My last 2006 Mac Pro sold for $2200 on ebay, so they do hold there value. Also, thinking about the going with 2 ATI cards in the 2.93, now that might be screaming fast especially on video applications..