Can we count the add of 8-core 3.0 as Mac Pro refresh

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Amethyst, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. Amethyst macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    for me It can't count as mac pro refresh

    because same price same spec and only add very ultra high end option

    all we need is

    same cost on all new spec
    or lower cost on same spec
     
  2. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #2
    It was just an additional option. While I think you can look at what Apple have done alot historically as to an insight into product lines, you can't ignore that things change and ways of doing so with them.
     
  3. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #3
    So you would call the current Mac Pro with lower prices a new refresh?

    I see the 8-core option as an update to the current line-up. It's a fantastic product with 8-cores chugging along at 3.0Ghz.
     
  4. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #4
    According to Intel, prices will be reduced so Clovertown (4 cores) will cost only $30-40 more per chip than Woodcrest (dual core) at the same hertz starting in July.

    Therefore, Apple should probably just move entirely to 8 core at the current price of the 4 cores.
     
  5. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #5
    Which is pretty much what I'm expecting as well. I wonder how refurbished quad prices will look. I'd take one of those to save on some cash. :D
     
  6. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    Don't see it happen though. Not everyone needs an 8-core system.
     
  7. Multimedia macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #7
    Not Everyone Needs 8 Cores But If Cost Is Same Will Want 8 Cores

    While that may be true according to experience, if the cost is almost the same, might as well do it and let life and clever developers deliver future reasons everyone may want 8 cores. :)
     
  8. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #8
    I agree. The price difference between Woodcrest and Clovertown is minuscule. Might as well just move the entire line to Clovertown.
     
  9. Multimedia macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #9
    Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard Likely By August

    This points to an August update with Stoakley-Seaburg on-board. Finally another reason to hope it happens before Summer's end. :)
     
  10. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #10
    4 is all you need

    The vast majority of users with current applications only need four cores. This is due to the fact that many applications can only receive a modest performance benefit from dividing up the work and many will receive none.

    In some cases there might even be a slight performance penalty as you increase the number of cores due to the system overhead involved with managing muliple cores.

    However, many applications do gain some benefit from having one additional core. Also several applications running simultaneously could utilize several cores.

    For most users though, four is enough to divide up all the work given to the CPU on a regular basis without leaving cores idle too often. Therefore investing in replacing current cores with four more powerful cores when available would probably deliver more performance benefit than just moving from four to eight cores without improving the performance of each core.

    In other words, an 8-core MacPro will run about just as fast as a 4-core MacPro with the same processsor type and frequency for most people most of the time.

    A better investment might be to push the thermal limits of a 4-core beyond 3GHz. I would rather have a 4-core @ 3.2 GHz than an 8-core @ 3.0 GHz even though the latter is technically the more powerful computer, assuming they would have similar heat and power characteristics.
     
  11. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #11
    Hopefully, Apple gets special treatment again from Intel.

    Very informative, thanks!
     
  12. dartzorichalcos macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #12
    Would a 8GB 3GHz Quad Core Mac Pro will be faster than a 4GB 3GHz Octo Core Mac Pro?
     
  13. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #13
    If you ran a lot of processes in parallel.

    http://barefeats.com/octopro5.html
     
  14. spaz8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #14
    I could see apple moving to 8 cores across the board not only because of the minuscule price difference but also because apple will want a clear; good, better, best choice in their lineup. Deciding if 8x2.66ghz is better than 4x3ghz can be confusing and is very task specific. Frankly apple dosen't like to give us that much choice :)
     
  15. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #15
    This would depend upon the type and number of applications used. For most users I would say yes - adding RAM will be more beneficial than adding more cores.

    However most users also will gain rapidly diminishing performance improvements as RAM is increased above 4GB. For most users more than 4GB of RAM is a waste of money.

    At that point it would be better to address the performance bottleneck in your system for your intended use. For most people this would be the hard drives and graphics card at this point. Investing in some type of RAID and a high end graphics card would be a better use of their money in most cases.
     
  16. spaz8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #16
    I understand the argument that to a lot of ppl 4 cores is lots, to a lot of ppl 2 cores is lots. But this is supposed to be a professional workstation. I run several apps that will max out 8, or even 16 cores, Zbrush 3 will see up to 256. I think a 24" imac is probably enough for a lot of graphic designers that make a living in photoshop. The mac pro is for multimedia production and scientific computation which ARE already heavily threaded apps that will make use of the processors. Perhaps if you don't run apps that will use 4 cores a mac pro isn't for u.
     
  17. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #17
    Yes, the 8-core will excel with applications that can take advantage of running many processes in parallel. Apple lists benchmarks for those Applications that may specifically benefit from the additional cores.

    http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html

    Mostly these involve applications that use a lot of rendering, encoding, or complex filters.
     
  18. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #18
    Again, it depends upon the type of work you do. I do a lot of work with applications that are more memory and storage bound than cpu bound. That means I would benefit more form a slightly larger or faster hard drive or more or faster RAM than an extra processor core. Both would be welcome, but my priorities are different based upon my needs.

    I am glad that we can both get what we need by build to order.
     
  19. Multimedia macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #19
    4GB 8 Core Mac Pros Populate Professional HD Video Editing In LA

    Yes the Multitasking Multithreaded situations always get lost in this debate.
    Zactly. Although PS 10 CS3 does use more cores than 2.
    Just back from Chicago HD Expo where a Los Angeles HD video editing operations manager said he just bought NINE 8 core Mac Pros and that they don't need more than 4GB each to reach top performance for rendering video in faster than real time. All 8 cores are used simultaneously to render video in Final Cut Pro 6. He couldn't be more delighted with the 8-core Mac Pro as it ships today. He said SS would help in compositing work. :)
     
  20. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #20
    In an increasingly more power efficient and ecological world I don't quite see it happen. Power saved is money saved, while putting less strain on the environment.

    Mainstream programs will and should require less because even the most modest computer today is capable of delivering enough performance for the vast majority of applications.

    Sure there are power users but they don't exactly dwarf the mainstream market and their needs. But then again, the Mac Pro is not their target crowd either heh. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the power house of a computer!
     
  21. statikcat macrumors 6502

    statikcat

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #21
    Apple should keep the DC 2.66 or 3.0 at a cheaper price point if they are smart. Like 1800$ or whatever would be reasonable depending on the pricecut.
     

Share This Page