Just ordered 6 core, was this a mistake??

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by 4dtough, Jan 17, 2011.

  1. 4dtough macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #1
    Hello All
    I just ordered a 6 core MP
    It will be used with
    Aperture
    LR3
    CS5
    would the 8 core be better for that?
    I work with 30mb or larger RAW files
    THX
     
  2. wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #2
    I'd get the 6-core 3.33 myself. The speed + cores = best of both worlds. No mistake was made, unless you got CS5 mainly for Premiere, because now you have to deal with the CUDA issue. PCs have an advantage when it comes to the Mercury Playback Engine technology.
     
  3. ECUpirate44 macrumors 603

    ECUpirate44

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    NC
    #3
    Awesome machine! It will work great for your use!
     
  4. nerdo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    #4
    Advantage as in getting cheaper CUDA cards? Got the Quadro 4000 for the same price as PC version :cool: But it isn't doing much more then a 5770 does.
    As for the 6 core: nice. Got the 8 core, thinking I might upgrade to the two 5690's when they are released / cheaper. High speed 6 core = good machine, only got my octo because they had it in stock.
     
  5. 4dtough thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #5
    THX
    so did I do good, or would the 8 core be better in the long run
    Just want the computer to last me at least 3 years
    THX
     
  6. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #6
    Nobody can answer that question for you.

    Enjoy the new machine!
    JohnG
     
  7. cjoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    #7
    it will take adobe at least 3 years to make full use of the 12 threads.
    if you feel the urge to spec up the system some day, forget the cpu and look at SSD / dedicated scratch disk / ram first ...
     
  8. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #8
    More cores does not necessarily equal a faster computer. For most uses, the 6 core will be considerably faster.
     
  9. 4dtough thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #9
    THX
    what will be the best amount of ram for this baby?
    and would 12 be enough or should I go with 16?
     
  10. wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #10
    Right now, 32GB is the best amount.
     
  11. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #11
  12. DeeEss, Jan 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2011

    DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #12
    relax, you totally made the right decision. My research for the same reasons found the 6 core is best for retouching, photoshop etc. It's seems the 8 cores are good, but not amazing and even the 12 cores for retouching are often slower than the 3.3 6 core. 12 core will blitz in 3D and video editing though where the software is set up to use all processors and cores.

    Unless you need 32GB of RAM 24GB (3x 8gb) is actually faster. In any case 3 lots of 8 or 4 is better. 2x 8gb (16GB) is actually slower than 3x 4gb (12GB). Apparently best is 12, 24. Apparently works best in triple and matched sets.

    Best upgrades for it are SSD, like an OWC and maybe a RAID0 Working Drive internally.

    This site helped me no end http://macperformanceguide.com/ there's a tonne of info on the 6 core and why it's being called the "sweet spot"
     
  13. cjoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    #13
    thats a great blog indeed... just make sure to look up other sources as well. the author has a strong affiliation with a certain hardware firm :)
     
  14. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #14
    Since photoshop doesn't know how to utilize that many cores yet, it doesn't really matter.
    Im running PS and Premiere CS5 on my 2.4 quad core pc with 3GB ram and even that doesn't hang.
    Besides 30mb raws ain't that much...

    If I was to speculate on the future and what's to come, I doubt that we're gonna see steps in software development like 2 cores > 4 cores > 6 core> etc.
    They will probably try to write it take greater steps. I would think that being able to utilize at least 8 cores would be the next logical step.

    So imo, you should have gone with the 8 cores, base config, and the jam it up with custom memory to save a bundle.

    But enjoy your new pro :) I envy you just a bit still
     
  15. AdeFowler macrumors 68020

    AdeFowler

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #15
    I have the same machine running CS5. You'll love it. ;)
     
  16. Vantage Point macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Location:
    New Jersey
  17. Kissaragi macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #17
    youll love it, the money you saved can go towards extra ram or other upgrades.
     
  18. 4dtough thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #18
    Thank you
    I was just told that the package has been ordered :)
    so my 3.33 will arrive in 5 to 10 days
    looking forward to playing with a mac pro again
     
  19. DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #19
    I just did the same! I scored a refurb 6 core saving £500. Can't wait!
     
  20. 4dtough thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #20
    I'm glad I didn't make a mistake
    I almost called them back to 2x2.4
    I just want to be a good system
    THX
     
  21. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #21
    The only upgrade worthy from the 6c is the 12c DP system; the 8c DP system is not a worthy upgrade as it will almost be slower in every operation.
     
  22. DeeEss macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #22
    Mine arrived today, Im so thrilled with it. I bought it refurb, saved £500 and somehow scored a 2GB HD and 6GB of RAM! The thing is flawless except for one tiny 2mm scratch that you can only really see with a magnifying glass. I don't know why you'd buy new to be honest!

    The service is great. I ordered the computer yesterday and it arrived 7:30 am this morning.

    Just waiting on SSD's and RAM from OWC now.

    Happy Days.

    :D
     
  23. austinted macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #23
    I think you did good for the applications that you run - real good.

    I just went through the same thing myself and went with the dual quad. Aperture can't drive it past 30% CPU utilization on raw conversion. However, it is plenty fast enough.

    I tortured myself over the single hex versus dual quad decision and primarily went with the dual quad for two reasons:

    1) I was targeting the machine at where my real performance issues were and that was in the area of video processing. My laptop runs Aperture just fine, but video encode jobs that run for 24 hours + on the laptop just aren't acceptable. The dual quad will run very well on video encode. For other workloads like Aperture it is fast enough. Granted, the hex will also do well here and very often even better. However, for my primary performance needs, the Hex wasn't enough better to compromise on #2.

    2) I also wanted to maximize my future upgrade possibilities. In addition to more memory options, the dual quad has a cheaper path to future CPU upgrades to 12 core. Whether you do it yourself (which I understand is much easier on the 2010), or use OWC, the dual socket CPU upgrade path is going to more cost effective on the dual quad than the hex. I'll only pursue this when I am beyond warranty concerns. But, I really wanted to make sure that I got a machine that already had the dual socket processor tray.

    The dual quad also has some other performance attributes that should theoretically be a good thing, but that doesn't seem to be bearing out in todays software. The dual quad has more aggregate memory bandwidth than the hex. However, that doesn't seem to be bearing any fruit yet - at least not enough to make up for multiprocessor overhead. Perhaps this will get better over time as the OS gets more sophisticated.

    So that was my decision rationale for good or bad. It compromises some performance now on some applications on a hope for the future. We'll see how that works out in the end. Either way, the dual quad is a powerful machine and will get the job done for me.

    I think you did just fine going with the hex core. It is really an awesome machine. By many measures it is more powerful than the dual quad. It will work great - especially for your applications.






     
  24. 4dtough thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #24
    Thank you everybody, this was the best feedback ever, and a great discussion
    Thank you I just did the same thing. It will be much easier upgrade to 12 core 2 years down the road plus the extra memory slots was a clincher for me
    Thank you for great feedback this looks like an amazing machine
    I know hex would be faster at start, but this will be better for the future
     
  25. austinted macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #25
    Well, Congrats. I certainly didn't expect or mean for you to swap machines, but I think you will be very happy with this one as well. Both models are monsters performance-wise.

    I think you will find the machine to be a good performer anyway. Aperture is pumping out 24 or so raw conversions per minute on the dual quad for my particular camera. That's a 100% speedup as compared to my i7 Macbook Pro and more than fast enough for my needs.

    In addition to the two reasons I mentioned for choosing the dual quad, I forgot to mention one other. I also run Virtual Machines on the system as well as have it doing a lot of file serving functions in the background. I also have it running some processing jobs in the background from time to time. I thought this situation might be a good fit for a machine with more cores as I wanted the background activity to be as invisible as possible to an interactive user. So far this seems to be the case, but I don't know if the additional cores are really helping with that or not.

    Anyway, enjoy the machine. I'll see you down the road in a couple years and we can post about our upgrade experiences. :)




     

Share This Page