Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do I really need 8 cores?
- Thread starter odinsride
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
regardless what you think, this is what macrumors has to say on the matter
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4958453/
for now quad core is plenty enough for you, but with all electronics is always the good idea to buy the best configuration that you can afford - you will see a profit in the future. and the future look bright for multi core processors - Snow Leopard etc.
I don't see your point. It says pretty much what I said. In all cases it breaks the EULA, and 9 times out of 10 its a pirated copy of leopard.
I didn't mean for you guys to start going back and forth about hackintoshes. I won't be building a hackintosh so you can just drop the conversation on that anyway because it doesn't matter to me.
You guys have given me some great advice and I really don't think I would need the 8 cores. Regardless, I'll be waiting until the next refresh of the Mac Pro to see if they upgrade the video card options (I like WoW a little too much sometimes
)
You guys have given me some great advice and I really don't think I would need the 8 cores. Regardless, I'll be waiting until the next refresh of the Mac Pro to see if they upgrade the video card options (I like WoW a little too much sometimes
)
I didn't mean for you guys to start going back and forth about hackintoshes. I won't be building a hackintosh so you can just drop the conversation on that anyway because it doesn't matter to me.
You guys have given me some great advice and I really don't think I would need the 8 cores. Regardless, I'll be waiting until the next refresh of the Mac Pro to see if they upgrade the video card options (I like WoW a little too much sometimes
Sorry about that!!! It was my fault for mentioning the legality of a hackintosh.
Something to think about though, is that the 8800 and 3870 video cards for the Mac Pro are super capable for WoW. When the next refresh comes out, you should be able to just upgrade your video card to the latest and greatest.
An 8800GT is more then enough for WoW. Hell, the old 3870 will run it at 2560x1600 perfectly fine. Not by any means a graphically intensive game...
Well I'm just used to running it maxed out @1920x1200 on my PC (8800gts) under Vista 64-bit with 100+ fps most of the time. 8800gt would be a little bit of a step down, plus running it under OS X brings the framerate down quite a bit too due to running in Open GL mode.
Also, Good point about the upgrading the video card in the future (didn't even think about this
)Forgot?!? About one of the most useful features of the Mac Pro?Also, Good point about the upgrading the video card in the future (didn't even think about this
Shame on you.
it is not illegal
check your facts. it is a violation of the eula but is not illegal.
there are even ways now so that you can use the retail leopard disk to install leopard on a hackintosh
if you dont like it dont do it, but dont tell me what i can or can not do
Yes it is illegal, regardless of the fact that you wont get arrested for it. I'm betting you didn't pay for your copy of Leopard either.
We are not trying to tell you what to do, we are pointing out that it is a stupid thing to do.
The Mac Pro is a good investment if you are going to run big sessions in Logic Pro. EXS24 can access RAM above the basic allotment per app, it's nice to be able to keep your big sample libraries (VSL, etc) inside the machine and the cores can be used by native plugs. Moreover, the trend in plug and libraries is towards more direct memory access, hard disk streaming and native processing (well for some makers!).
Of course, if none of that makes any sense - get an iMac.
Of course, if none of that makes any sense - get an iMac.
Hmmmm.... Well, I do.
But I do professional video editing and post production work. Having additional processing power helps tremendously with rendering, effects, etc. There are applications out there (few, but still) that take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
Now as far as less demanding work is concerned, you would think that there's no logical reason to own a Mac Pro. But, a lot of people I know that own Mac Pros bought them because they needed hardware expandability of some kind that you can't get on an iMac. Yet, they don't necessarily need 4 or 8 cores of processing power. It's a Catch-22, really.
And the problem exists simply because Apple doesn't have a TRUE midrange solution in their product lineup. They fill this slot with the iMac, which is really a lifestyle product more than anything else. It has relatively midrange hardware under the hood, but lacks what midrange PCs do in expansion.
I think that a Core 2 Extreme desktop machine with a discrete graphics card and a bit of expandability in the $1,500 range (without a display, of course) would fit this segment perfectly. I rather see this in Apple's product lineup than their dated Mac Mini. But then again, what do I know about marketing? Apple sells a lot of iMacs (and Mac Pros at a large price premium for those who need more) and from a marketing standpoint, they have very little reason to change.
Finance vs. Tech input
Everyone has been commenting about the technical issues, which are informative and great. However, from a purely financial investment, if the less costly iMac will serve your basic needs, one would not unnecessairly load up their balance sheet with highly depreciable items like computer hardware - and that is assuming that you will be paying with cash. If you are going to finance the acquisition, you most definitely do not want to acquire more than you require.
Everyone has been commenting about the technical issues, which are informative and great. However, from a purely financial investment, if the less costly iMac will serve your basic needs, one would not unnecessairly load up their balance sheet with highly depreciable items like computer hardware - and that is assuming that you will be paying with cash. If you are going to finance the acquisition, you most definitely do not want to acquire more than you require.
Something to consider for the future, for Maximum performance you should have 512MB RAM per core plus a bit extra.
So a 4-core machine should have at least 3GB RAM and an 8-core machine should have at least 6GB RAM
I am going to buy an 8-core model but I would suggest that you are better off putting that money into more, third-party, RAM than in the CPU. A 4-core machine will have plenty of power for years to come
So a 4-core machine should have at least 3GB RAM and an 8-core machine should have at least 6GB RAM
I am going to buy an 8-core model but I would suggest that you are better off putting that money into more, third-party, RAM than in the CPU. A 4-core machine will have plenty of power for years to come
My local Apple Systems Engineer said it came from an internal Apple training session on server technology.
He was studying Xserve and the Promise RAID but, given that the processor is the same in the Xserve and Mac Pro, the concept works with the Mac Pro as well.
I'm told it has something to do with how the memory is managed across the cores but I won't begin to pretend that I understand it
I'd look at it this way. You have to spend $460 more to buy the second CPU. In your case does spending $460 on a CPU prevent you from buying something else. If buying the second CPU prevents you from buying the RAM you need or prevents you from being able to set up an off-site backup scheme (likely a pair of 1TB external drives) then don't buy the second CPU because those other things are things you need. But if buying that second CPU does not prevent the purchase of other stuff buy it.
From my point of view as a photographer I'd much rather put the money into a new lens or lighting equipment then a second CPU for a Mac Pro. But then maybe you can simply buy "all of the above".
From my point of view as a photographer I'd much rather put the money into a new lens or lighting equipment then a second CPU for a Mac Pro. But then maybe you can simply buy "all of the above".
My son has a 20" iMac Core 2. I cringe when I think what happens when he needs to replace the hard drive, optical drive, or even backup battery. I have already added 3 more hard drives and an additional optical drive to my MP. It probably took all of 10 minutes for those additions. Forget the core issues. I would never buy any Mac that I couldn't easily access the components for upgrading/replacing. That includes laptops, mini's, iMacs, and any other box that Apple comes up with. But I could afford the 8 cores, so I got the best of both worlds. Cores coming out the ying-yang, and very easy upgradeability.
do imacs have back up batteries?
but everything else i agree. the ability to swap parts out as you need them is so nice. i mean if my hd dies, ill buy a new one, or if i want to swap out optical media or add usb ports, etc
the ability to add on and specifically target issues is so worth it to me. thats why i will only build my computers from now on (meantime will be hackintoshes) and will get laptops f necessary
Since this thread is never dying and any and all opinions seem welcome - I'll toss mine in.
If you encode video regularly, go for 8; they'll only become more useful as others have said with Snow Leopard.
I use a first-gen Mac Pro with 4 cores total (2x2.66 dual core). Right now I'm traveling with my dual-core MacBook Pro with 2.0 dual core. Wow it feels slow. I'm unzipping and copying and encoding lots of big files (4-9gb) and it's painful.
I know there are many differences beyond 4 vs 2 cores between the two machines (probably chief is the 2gb memory limit on laptop followed by slower laptop hard drive) but I constantly watch my MenuMeters processor display and when things slow down, both cores are at 100% and performance sucks.
Hope that helps - someone
If you encode video regularly, go for 8; they'll only become more useful as others have said with Snow Leopard.
I use a first-gen Mac Pro with 4 cores total (2x2.66 dual core). Right now I'm traveling with my dual-core MacBook Pro with 2.0 dual core. Wow it feels slow. I'm unzipping and copying and encoding lots of big files (4-9gb) and it's painful.
I know there are many differences beyond 4 vs 2 cores between the two machines (probably chief is the 2gb memory limit on laptop followed by slower laptop hard drive) but I constantly watch my MenuMeters processor display and when things slow down, both cores are at 100% and performance sucks.
Hope that helps - someone
I sold my MP last week as I am looking to buy the i7 successor in Jan.
Right now, I am sitting in front of a overclocked Penryn Quad PC at 3.4 Ghz.
Reencoding a 13 mbit blueray ts stream and resizing it just a bit so that it is playable as a avchd disc takes more than 4 hours at 100% load on all cores throughout the process. There is always need for cpu power, even for the home user.
Right now, I am sitting in front of a overclocked Penryn Quad PC at 3.4 Ghz.
Reencoding a 13 mbit blueray ts stream and resizing it just a bit so that it is playable as a avchd disc takes more than 4 hours at 100% load on all cores throughout the process. There is always need for cpu power, even for the home user.