Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's still cheaper to buy a base configuration (it's 3x1GB on the single-processor models) and replace it with aftermarket RAM than buying extra RAM from Apple.

Thats what i was eluding to above... I will upgrade ram elsewhere... but if I get the 1 gig sticks I will have to ebay them or something as they will be useless when I go to upgrade.
 
Thanks for your post.
To answer your questions...

I am dealing with Canon Raw. Each file is typically around 30MB, and a shoot can range from 400 - 800 shots. My Photoshopping generally is limimited to between 5-10 layers. I do mostly event, and portrait photography. I also shoot video on my 5DMarkII which produces H.264 MOV files which I generally run through compressor to make very large PRORES 422 files. The speed at which compressor compresses these files is important to me as is rendering speed within FCP7. Also I render some motion stuff, as well as after effects. I use handbrake to pull my DVD's.

AS far as my storage goes I know that I will benefit greatly from SSD's, which these will be eventual upgrades. To start I will probably run 3 X 1TB 7200 RPM 300 mb/sec drives in raid. And have a 4th drive for my Win7 OS.

I understand that the GPU doesn't handle much in the software that I use, but I know that it is important to gaming so I will most likely order whatever the system comes with and get an additional high end card for the gaming. I run a pair of 30" 2560 X 1600 screens.

I also know that the RAM i get is highly important to what I do... I won't get any combination that has 1 gig sticks. I will probably get the minimum of 8 gigs (4x2GB) and then buy some RAM elsewhere. Probably another 8 Gigs to get to 16.

I am aiming my budget at 4K. If I need to go over it is ok as it is a business expense, and will be covered. :)

I hope that this answers your questions!

Thanks!
I hope this answers your questions.

OWC does a rebate on the 1GB sticks, and Apple will charge you a much higher markup on getting to 8GB. Rendering speed is pretty damn cpu dependent. In some applications, the gpu can help mitigate times as well, but it varies. The reason the six core is more popular than the eight core is really clock speed. On applications or processes that scale less efficiently with more cores, the difference in clock speed there is pretty significant. Based on what you're using overall I'd probably go with the six core unless you really need more ram. On the six core 16GB is relatively cheap, 32 is doable (prices have been falling on 8GB dimms). The eight core would double your ram capacity.

Below those models, the imac is actually faster in raw cpu power. This applies to both quad core mac pros. The suggestions on what to buy are really based more around things like rendering times. 5DII files with a few layers are really nothing. I could make those run smoothly on a G5, so if you build for the other mentioned functions, you will have more than enough power for actions within photoshop.
 
OWC does a rebate on the 1GB sticks, and Apple will charge you a much higher markup on getting to 8GB. Rendering speed is pretty damn cpu dependent. In some applications, the gpu can help mitigate times as well, but it varies. The reason the six core is more popular than the eight core is really clock speed. On applications or processes that scale less efficiently with more cores, the difference in clock speed there is pretty significant. Based on what you're using overall I'd probably go with the six core unless you really need more ram. On the six core 16GB is relatively cheap, 32 is doable (prices have been falling on 8GB dimms). The eight core would double your ram capacity.

Below those models, the imac is actually faster in raw cpu power. This applies to both quad core mac pros. The suggestions on what to buy are really based more around things like rendering times. 5DII files with a few layers are really nothing. I could make those run smoothly on a G5, so if you build for the other mentioned functions, you will have more than enough power for actions within photoshop.


Thanks again,

I am not really worried about the photo stuff... I am more wanting to get the best performance out of rendering in final cut, compressor, motion, after effects etc.

B
 
Thanks again,

I am not really worried about the photo stuff... I am more wanting to get the best performance out of rendering in final cut, compressor, motion, after effects etc.

B

http://barefeats.com/macs11_01.html
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ask/computers-MacProMemory.html



That's a fairly unbiased chart. They have some others on that site. I think digilloyd has a few, but I can't find them at the moment. OWC had some that I referenced once. One showed how the more ram you installed, the less an SSD would really add once documents are open (assuming 64 bit programs). I do think we've been a bit stuck in a 32 bit ram paradigm. Just by running 64 bit binaries you need somewhat more ram merely to retain equivalent performance. I just added one of the digilloyd links, but I can't find the OWC one :(
 
http://barefeats.com/macs11_01.html
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ask/computers-MacProMemory.html



That's a fairly unbiased chart. They have some others on that site. I think digilloyd has a few, but I can't find them at the moment. OWC had some that I referenced once. One showed how the more ram you installed, the less an SSD would really add once documents are open (assuming 64 bit programs). I do think we've been a bit stuck in a 32 bit ram paradigm. Just by running 64 bit binaries you need somewhat more ram merely to retain equivalent performance. I just added one of the digilloyd links, but I can't find the OWC one :(

Thats a great chart... wish they had an 8 core and 12 core on there to compare.

b
 
Sorry, I'm an expert in scientific apps, not video processing. Hopefully someone else can comment here.

Ok...
So last question.
If you guys had the choice between a 12core 2.93, or a 6core 3.33 what would you do? The refurb shop has gotten a few of these 12 cores in and the discount is quite good at this price point.

From all my research it seems that the main benefit is the ability to add even more Ram. And the future is also positive with the 12core as the future seems to hold much more usability for more cores.

???

B
 
Ok...
So last question.
If you guys had the choice between a 12core 2.93, or a 6core 3.33 what would you do? The refurb shop has gotten a few of these 12 cores in and the discount is quite good at this price point.

From all my research it seems that the main benefit is the ability to add even more Ram. And the future is also positive with the 12core as the future seems to hold much more usability for more cores.

???

B

FCP 7 is single-threaded. Compressor and AE will use whatever you throw at them. photo apps typically don't scale past four cores. basically, 6 cores is still the sweet spot - clock speed for photo and FCP7, and extra cores for Compressor and AE - but a 12 core is still justifiable.

don't bother thinking that you're future proofing somehow by getting 12 cores. by the time software catches up, cheaper and faster CPUs will be available. at the same time, there is no replacement for clock speed. not all tasks can be multi-threaded.
 
FCP 7 is single-threaded. Compressor and AE will use whatever you throw at them. photo apps typically don't scale past four cores. basically, 6 cores is still the sweet spot - clock speed for photo and FCP7, and extra cores for Compressor and AE - but a 12 core is still justifiable.

don't bother thinking that you're future proofing somehow by getting 12 cores. by the time software catches up, cheaper and faster CPUs will be available. at the same time, there is no replacement for clock speed. not all tasks can be multi-threaded.

So your saying... regardless... get the hex and call it a day? I am assuming that you meant "but a 12 core is still not justifiable." ???

So after 2 (almost 3) pages on this thread I have the feeling that I should get the fastest single CPU system I can get. And that being a 6Core with as much ram as I can afford. Now... Do i just get the ones available now or wait a couple of weeks / months for the possible refresh? Will the new hardware on the possible refresh be new Mobo or CPU, or just faster of the same chips?

B
 
It's been a week! That tells me you didn't need it critically.....

I still like my idea - tide yourself over with a mini until the Pro is updated.
 
By "video processing" your speaking of something other than Final Cut and its suite of programs?

Final Cut Pro (7) isn't optimized for multi-core use. It's an OLD program and won't ever see updates again. FCPx is optimized for multicore though.

Regardless, I'd still recommend the single hex due to the clock speed advantage.

MP updates won't be released for quite some time and even then will only be marginally-modestly faster the current gen.

cheers
JohnG
 
So your saying... regardless... get the hex and call it a day? I am assuming that you meant "but a 12 core is still not justifiable." ???

So after 2 (almost 3) pages on this thread I have the feeling that I should get the fastest single CPU system I can get. And that being a 6Core with as much ram as I can afford. Now... Do i just get the ones available now or wait a couple of weeks / months for the possible refresh? Will the new hardware on the possible refresh be new Mobo or CPU, or just faster of the same chips?

B

I'm saying 12 is justifiable, at least if you use AE/Compressor often enough, but six will get you more for your money.

refresh should be early next year, new socket and everything. wait if you can afford to lose the productivity until then, otherwise just buy now.
 
keep in mind that the 12 core turbo boosts to 3.33ghz when all cores arent in use
 
keep in mind that the 12 core turbo boosts to 3.33ghz when all cores arent in use

And the 3.33GHz boosts to 3.6GHz. All of them are slower than i7-2600 on single threads as it boosts to 3.7GHz. That's why iMac beats Mac Pro at iTunes.
Stay somewhat competitive and get the hex.
 
upgrade?

If you're feeling handy with the screwdrivers you could get a 2nd hand base model (2009/2010) and stick the 6 core processor in it for much less bucks.

There's threads about it on here somwhere.

That's what I'm thinking of doing if the new MPs don't arrive soon or aren't compelling when they do.
 
Motion, Compressor and Handbrake will definitely be quicker on the 12-core. Photoshop and FCP 7 will probably be just as quick or quicker on the 6 core.

Large amounts of RAM is cheaper on the 12 core due to being able to use 4GB DIMMS with double the number of slots. Although the 8GB DIMMs are getting pretty reasonable, so that alone is poor rationale to get a DP.

If I recall correctly, the Geekbench scores between the hex and the 12 are something like 15000 to 22000 for things that really scale well over cores (video/3D rendering/certain music SW). The 12 core is probably not economically sensible for most other common uses.

That said, many of the 3rd party filters I run in CS5 peg all 12 cores (6+6 HT) in my hex. CS5 itself is pretty poor at using them all.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.