In my quest for a Mac Pro ...I have now found a 2008 8 core 3.2ghz that is in the price range of what you can buy a 2.93ghz quad core for now ....can anyone please tell me the plus and minus ...if there is any minus other than the warranty to considering that 2008 8 core 3.2ghx 8 core over the 2.93 Ghz quad?
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.
Mac Pro 2008 8 core 3.2ghz vs. 2010 2.93ghz Quad
- Thread starter headrc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well one thing to account for is that the quad only has 4 memory slots compared to the octo's eight - HOWEVER, although the 2008 can hit 32GB with 4GB chips, there are 8GB chips available for the 2010 so it can hit 32GB anyways. I love my 2008 but to be honest I think you'd be better off with the 2010, given the small window to obsolescence that Apple has been giving to their machines lately
Also, the value of the 3 year warranty should be taken seriously. I'd only consider the 2008 if your workload is heavily multi-threaded - but even then, you could always upgrade the quad to a hex in the future.the 3.2 has 8 memory slots, which is a definite advantage. 8 real cores is only advantageous if your software can use it all, which most can't. it also uses more power (if you care) and has slower memory (but I'm not sure if it's slow enough to be a bottleneck).
the 2.93 has 4 real cores plus 4 virtual. virtual cores give something like 30% of the performance of a real core in well-threaded applications. it has Turbo to overclock itself in single-threaded tasks, I don't know how much off the top of my head but probably to around 3.3GHz. memory is faster (Intel switched from FSB to QPI at this point). it uses the Nehalem microarchitecture, which is 10-15% faster than the Core 2 in the '08 at the same clock speed, and is more power-efficient.
the 2.93 has 4 real cores plus 4 virtual. virtual cores give something like 30% of the performance of a real core in well-threaded applications. it has Turbo to overclock itself in single-threaded tasks, I don't know how much off the top of my head but probably to around 3.3GHz. memory is faster (Intel switched from FSB to QPI at this point). it uses the Nehalem microarchitecture, which is 10-15% faster than the Core 2 in the '08 at the same clock speed, and is more power-efficient.
Well one thing to account for is that the quad only has 4 memory slots compared to the octo's eight - HOWEVER, although the 2008 can hit 32GB with 4GB chips, there are 8GB chips available for the 2010 so it can hit 32GB anyways. I love my 2008 but to be honest I think you'd be better off with the 2010, given the small window to obsolescence that Apple has been giving to their machines lately
Is this true? So the quad core comes with an empty slot that will allow it to become a Hex if you add another quad to the mother board? I'm assuming you would also need to get a compatible heat sink. That could turn out to be a very expensive upgrade!
I also wonder if someone were to buy a 6 core, it it could be turned into a 12 core a year or so down the line? If so, that would be a great investment.
first, the 2.93 is a 2009 model, which is incompatible with the Westmere-based 6-core CPUs. it only has one socket, so it will only ever support one CPU.
the 2010 quads can be upgraded to a hex. they cannot be upgraded to 8 or 12 cores since they only have one socket.
MMM .....so the extra four cores are are not of much value then? I will be doing audio recording production with Logic Pro 9 with it. And the good priced 2.93's that I see are 2009 models ...so no upgrading in cores? Could the extra cores in the 2008 3.2 8 core be important in the future? Also BTW ...I just got word that this 2008 actually may have Applecare warranty ...and the extension can be bought for it ...so the warranty may not be an issue. It is a machine that was not sold until November 2010 by the retailer. But the technology is important.... I find it interesting a quad core with a slower clock rate could actually be better then an eight core with a faster clock rate. But of course I am a newbie to the Mac Pros ....which is why I am relying on this great forum. Thx again ..RH
Logic can indeed use all cores. The 3.2Ghz will give you slightly more CPU power afaik, although i'm not sure about the results since 9.1.2/9.1.3. See here:
Thread here: http://www.gearspace.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest.html
Of course, the benchmark test isn't completely all-encompassing, but in terms of raw power, it seems pretty fair.
Thread here: http://www.gearspace.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest.html
Of course, the benchmark test isn't completely all-encompassing, but in terms of raw power, it seems pretty fair.