How much better is the 6-core than the quad?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dexum175, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. dexum175 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    United States
    #1
    So how much better is the 6-core than the quad? Would you pay the extra $500 for the 6-core or just buy the quad. Desicions.. :rolleyes:
     
  2. xraydoc, Jan 2, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2014

    xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #2
    You might not like the answer, but it really depends on what you do with it.

    If you use apps that take advantage of multiple cores, it could be a good bit faster. If you don't, then the $500 would be better spent on RAM, a larger SSD, a better monitor, etc., since those expensive cores will be sitting idle.

    And if you don't use such apps (or apps that can take advantage of the powerful GPUs - games don't count), then you might even be better off with a top of the line iMac. The i7 in the top of the line 27" iMac is faster on single threads than the new Mac Pro and its graphics chip is better suited for games.

    This is the boat I'm in. I don't do major video editing (and when I do, I use iMovie, not Final Cut Pro), so I'm seriously having seconds thoughts about the 6-core new Mac Pro I have on order. I might be better off with an iMac then upgrading again sooner instead of spending twice as much on a Mac Pro. Or even buying a fully-loaded Mac mini and replace it annually.
     
  3. mpantone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    #3
    And yet that's the correct answer.
     
  4. td2243 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
  5. Quash macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #6
    0-50% faster. (if you have to ask probably more likely to be 0 then 50 ;) )

    What software do you run?
     
  6. Varmann macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    #7
    It also depends on your normal workflow.
    Do you only use one application at a time? Or do you usually have something more or less heavy running in the background, while doing something else until it is ready? Like working in Photoshop while making a large job in Lightroom in the background.

    It all depends on you!
     
  7. dexum175 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    I use Logic. But I also have mozilla open with at least 10+ tabs open.. Don't know if a 6 core would make Logic run even smoother since my sessions are absolutely eating my CPU on my iMac. I also need 32GB ram, I have 16GB now.
     
  8. QuakeProd macrumors member

    QuakeProd

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Location:
    KC
    #9
    What kind of imac do you have [specs]?
    How in-depth do you get with Logic?
     
  9. AndyUnderscoreR macrumors regular

    AndyUnderscoreR

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #10
    -5% to 43% faster due to lower clock speed... on certain very specific CPU-bound tasks :)
     
  10. Quash macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #11
    Fair enough, this is more accurate.

    Sorry i have no experience with logic, but if you currently own a quad core iMac and stress all the cores i would not go with a quad core again.
     
  11. AndyUnderscoreR macrumors regular

    AndyUnderscoreR

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #12
    Logic itself shouldn't be taxing any modern Mac, it's probably the AU plugins (Logic's own and ones you've added) that are the real processor hogs. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about how much of this workload can be moved to GPUs, and if you run a lot of obscure plug-ins it's likely that many of their the developers won't move them across anytime soon.

    My advice would be to spend your money on more cores and stick with the D300 if you have to buy now, but if you can wait for the next update of Logic before buying, then do. Apple might have shifted it's heavier AUs to the GPU, heralding a golden age of GPU audio... or they might have moved none of them across, signalling that it's something that 3rd party developers are unlikely to bother with.

    To tide yourself over, take a look at which plugins you have that are processor hogs, and see if you can use something that sounds as good but soaks up less CPU.
     

Share This Page