http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.htmlI'm looking into purchasing my first Mac Pro for my computing needs. I'm stuck on either getting the Single 2.93 Nehalem Processor or Dual 2.26 Processors, since the prices are very similar.
On it I'll be doing the following:
- Final Cut Editing with HD files
- Amatuer Photoshop CS4 Work
- World of Warcraft
- PC Gaming in either Parallels or BootCamp
I'm aware that gaming is more concerned on higher clock speeds rather than having more cores, which is why I'm considering the single 2.93. The 8-core with a 2.26 clock seems a bit TOO low for me, and I can't afford upgrading to the 2.66/2.93 8-core.
Any help or advice is greatly appreciated!
Thanks for your time.
Seconded. MOST apps are multithreaded, even to a minor extent. As with Windows, OS X will let a single app run on an available core/CPU.It's true that at the moment there aren't too many apps that are coded to take advantage of 8 cores but Snow Leopard has been engineered in such a way that near future software should be more multi processor aware.
Something that should be of particular interest to you is in the area of video rendering and compression, where more cores will definitely mean less waiting time while your edits are being processed. I imagine the next version of FCP will be optimised to take advantage of all your CPUs.
Personally, I would go for the 8 core. I have a Jan 2008 octo machine (I do 3d graphics so 8 cores makes a lot of sense for me) and I love it. Don't forget that even with non optimised programs, it means that you can have your machine processing video whilst you're simultaneously playing WOW or whatever.
Agreed, I've got the Nehalem 2.26 Octo w/12GB and it was notably faster than a 2.66 Quad w/8GB. People also keep forgetting the 4 vs 8 memory slot issue of the MPs as well. 4GB memory sticks are way more expensive, and even then you are limited to 4 slots with a quad.
With the high end single quad being $20 less than the entry dual-quad (when the single quad has a 2.93 CPU and 8GB RAM and 4870 video compared to the dual quad's 2.26 CPU and 6GB RAM and 4870 video), and that even single apps can run on their own core, one can still do a LOT.I use the 2.93 Quad for FCP editing of HD video and it's way more than adequate... it's amazing!
Don't buy the 8 core machine. Very little software can actually leverage that many cores and you will benefit from the clock speed increase in EVERY application.
That's not very good advice IMO. You can't "future proof" yourself with any machine. By the time mainstream developers are on board with the changes in Snow Leopard and can actually deliver software to scale across multiple cores/CPUs, you'll be able to get a much faster Mac Pro for the same or less money. Get the Mac Pro that will give you a maximum benefit FOR YOUR WORKFLOW and save your money for the next big upgrade. By then, more software will take advantage of the available horsepower.Future proof yourself and get the 8 core.
Trust me IT IS FAST!!
NP. I just wanted to find out where you were on other possibilities than an MP, given the budget.Sorry for the moderately late reply.
I'm committed to a Mac in the sense of it's exclusive applications, Final Cut is basically a must to me. I couldn't get used to any Windows alternative at all. I'm avoiding any type of hackintosh systems to avoid any type of problems with OS X.
As for the graphics: Final Cut Editing with HD files, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 4, and some PC gaming. I'm looking at the upgradeable 4870, and possibly upgrading to the GTX 285 later on if I'm not satisfied with the performance.
I feel that with the dual 2.26 processors not ALL of the 8 cores will be used a majority of the time, and doesn't really feel worth sacrificing for the much higher clock speed. I just don't know if my "theory" is accurate for what I plan on using the computer for.
That was the point I was trying to make, and for the same $$$, you get more bang-for-your-buck to boot due to the faster clock speed, as the cores themselves are the same.
I can see your point, but one of the apps mentioned was Final Cut Pro, which is of course, Apple software. I'd be very surprised if the next version of FCP doesn't fully utilise all cores for rendering and processing, what with Apple's presumably intimate knowledge of the workings of "Grand Central". I imagine they will want to showcase this feature of Snow Leopard ASAP and will be amongst the first to utilise it.That's not very good advice IMO. You can't "future proof" yourself with any machine. By the time mainstream developers are on board with the changes in Snow Leopard and can actually deliver software to scale across multiple cores/CPUs, you'll be able to get a much faster Mac Pro for the same or less money.
Yes. Or if you feel adventurous you can get the 2.66 and for $1000 buy a W3580 3.33Ghz Xeon and swap your CPU. Then sell the 2.66 for about $200 on ebay. When I am swimming in cash, the 2.93 gets a little slow or the prices drop... I'll be doing just that for my system.For Gaming purposes alone though, would the 2.93 GHz Quad be the much better choice over the 2.26 Octo?
No. Macworld did a review on the 2.93GHz quad, and most apps improved by 2 seconds... except for the games, which doubled in FPS. That was due to the ATi 4870 video card being installed.For Gaming purposes alone, I assume the 2.93 GHz Quad be the much better choice over the 2.26 Octo?