MacWorld review of 2009 MP quad and octo

[natteaap]

So, if I understand Macworld correctly, they state that the quad 2.66 is faster then the octo 2.26.

But, unless I am mistaken, I havent read anything that proves that a quad is equal in multitasking. If I open FCP, Logic, Motion and PS4 (not speaking of color) will it suffer on a quad and go smoothly on an octo? My 2007 quad 2.0 could handle it, but had some hangs and lockdowns once in a while. That is why I sold it and waited for the new nehalems.

@ plutonius: My main income is not based on this Mac, I have a fulltime job (which pays for this mac) giving dutch classes, but the "extra" income will come from producing this DVD. But it is an uncertainty. It may very well be that i is a nice seller and I net €60K, but it may also be that I barely make €1000. There is no certainty in selling this product, so you understand that this is not my main income.

I'm choosing between 2008 octo 2.8, 2009 quad 2.66 and 2009 octo 2.26. I find it difficult to determine the right MP for my needs.

 

[Horst]

I'm choosing between 2008 octo 2.8, 2009 quad 2.66 and 2009 octo 2.26. I find it difficult to determine the right MP for my needs.

You don't understand; if you have to ask, neither will be faster than the other one .

 

[DeepCobalt]

I'd go with the 2009 2.66 quad if I were you, citing the Macworld article. Most apps will actually "feel" faster on the quad than on the 2.26, unless you have specific 8-core needs, which it seems you haven't.

 

[hobes270]

I would also probably go with the 2.66 quad. It has a higher clock speed. Plus, it is still a quad core processor.

 

[Johns12]

Give me some examples, will you ?

I'm basically claiming recreational users wouldn't know performance if it sat on their face.

So what applications and tasks are there which are both pushing a Mac Pro and do not benefit from memory greater than 3-6 GB, and/or a proper HDD setup ?

High-def. Video, Audio, Photo, 3D do, is there anything else ?

And please , no VI - Tech clusters or such, that's not relevant .

Logic only uses about 3 gb of memory no matter how much you have installed. For me, the power of the Mac Pro is needed to run the buffers in Logic low enough to get usable latency. That requires the power of a fast computer. Using a 2008, 2.8 octo, I can run the buffer at 64 with no problem. On my 2006, 2.6 quad, I had to keep the buffer around 128. That little bit has made a big difference.

 

[natteaap]

I'd go with the 2009 2.66 quad if I were you, citing the Macworld article. Most apps will actually "feel" faster on the quad than on the 2.26, unless you have specific 8-core needs, which it seems you haven't.

What are specific 8core needs? I use FCP, Logic pro, PS4, motion, color, word and a lot of smaller apps all at the same time. I do HDV video editing, but work on the soundtrack at the same time and might get an idea for a titlepage in the movie and while I'm at it, I might try that one out with some moving text and extra effects. In the meantime, FCP is doing a render of a 8 minute clip that I want to work on.

Is that 8core need or does the 4core 2.66 handles this like it was a hot knife thruogh fresh snow?

@Horst: You're right, it is not about speed, but more about multitasking ability and not suffer apps that hang for some minutes. Bieng able to do some rendering in FCP while I open another softsynth in Logic and throwing some more effects on the pile in Logic.

Thanx for your thoughts guys

 

[natteaap]

Logic only uses about 3 gb of memory no matter how much you have installed. For me, the power of the Mac Pro is needed to run the buffers in Logic low enough to get usable latency. That requires the power of a fast computer. Using a 2008, 2.8 octo, I can run the buffer at 64 with no problem. On my 2006, 2.6 quad, I had to keep the buffer around 128. That little bit has made a big difference.

So Basically you're saying that, no matter how much Gb of RAM you have, logic only uses 3Gb? Does that include the softsynths, the effects and so on? I can imagine that the more RAM you have, the better it is for your softsynths, effects, softamps, ...

 

[VirtualRain]

So Basically you're saying that, no matter how much Gb of RAM you have, logic only uses 3Gb? Does that include the softsynths, the effects and so on? I can imagine that the more RAM you have, the better it is for your softsynths, effects, softamps, ...

This makes me laugh, not that it has anything to do with Logic or it's use of RAM, but how desensitized I've become to large amounts of storage/RAM... 3GB is nearly enough to fill a 2hr DVD full of multi-track audio and video yet that's not enough RAM for a music synth program... what is it doing that it needs more than 3GB of RAM... composing the entire works of Mozart?!

Another one that makes me laugh is that some people find Photoshop's limit of 3GB terribly restrictive... LOL... that's enough for over 100 RAW 12 Megapixel images.

If I had 24GB of RAM in my MacBook Air, I wouldn't be able to hibernate it... I don't have enough free disk space to store the contents of memory!!!

It's really amazing. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this though. I don't work for a movie studio or produce professional music, but I do some cool stuff on my computer and I doubt I ever maxed out my last systems 4GB of RAM

 

[Ploki]

Logic only uses about 3 gb of memory no matter how much you have installed. For me, the power of the Mac Pro is needed to run the buffers in Logic low enough to get usable latency. That requires the power of a fast computer. Using a 2008, 2.8 octo, I can run the buffer at 64 with no problem. On my 2006, 2.6 quad, I had to keep the buffer around 128. That little bit has made a big difference.

worng, exs patches address as much memory as they want OUTSIDE logic.
it uses about 3.5 otherwise, before it crashes.
buffersize smallness depends also on the quality of the clock..
i can get two different Smallest buffersizes on the same interface if i change the clock
(i.e.: i can get buffersize 32 with the builtin clock, but the fw interface clock is so crappy i cant get past 128)
so, might be that quad 06 2.66 had a worse built in clock.

So Basically you're saying that, no matter how much Gb of RAM you have, logic only uses 3Gb? Does that include the softsynths, the effects and so on? I can imagine that the more RAM you have, the better it is for your softsynths, effects, softamps, ...

it includes all the softsynths, effects and softamps, except exs24.
by the way, effects and softamps barely use memory, they are more than anything CPU hogs.
also softsynths (synths in a true meaning of the word, not samplesynths) only hog CPU.
many of them cant even use more than one core.

This makes me laugh, not that it has anything to do with Logic or it's use of RAM, but how desensitized I've become to large amounts of storage/RAM... 3GB is nearly enough to fill a 2hr DVD full of multi-track audio and video yet that's not enough RAM for a music synth program... what is it doing that it needs more than 3GB of RAM... composing the entire works of Mozart?!

actually, if you have a piano library that is 180gigabytes big (each piano 60gb), you have to know that in order to play that, its good that you load as much as you can in ram or you better have a VERY fast harddrive (and by very i mean VERY, 7200rpm DEDICATED or 10000rpm if you have other clutter on it).
that alone takes alot of memory, now, you want to have drums with your composition, and orchestra, etc etc.
(go see vienna symphonic library, EWQL pianos, drumkit from hell superior (2), EWQL Platinum Orchestra, etc etc)
edit: oh to answer directly, its trying to EMULATE the realthing. now if analog sound if basically infinite, imagine how big samples must be to replicate that as close as possible

so, you were ALL wrong

 

[NoNameBrand]

Give me some examples, will you ?

I'm basically claiming recreational users wouldn't know performance if it sat on their face.

That's fine - I think recreational users wouldn't notice anything from a multi-core setup, either. A few very fast cores would be noticeable.

My problem was with your statement that people that don't require more than the minimum RAM have no business with these machines, which is patent nonsense.

So what applications and tasks are there which are both pushing a Mac Pro and do not benefit from memory greater than 3-6 GB?

High-def. Video, Audio, Photo, 3D do, is there anything else ?

And please , no VI - Tech clusters or such, that's not relevant .

Of course clusters are relevant. Content creation isn't the only use of these machines. My mention of clusters was to illustrate different scientific and engineering tasks that have different requirements (some high RAM, some high netwonrk I/O, some merely high CPU use, etc).

Here are a couple of generic examples (I've seen specific examples of each in labs) of low RAM/fast multi-CPU requirements:

-Simulations in which input and output data sets are relatively small and doesn't need to track much intermediate data, won't benefit from more than the minimum ram.

-Analysis software that operates on a stream of data (the sum total of data greatly exceeds any amount of RAM) needs very little memory, but fast CPUs and disks that can feed those CPUs provide huge gains.

There's lots of scientific computing that requires tons of RAM too, don't get me wrong.

I also think Macworld only including benchmarks of non-optimally configured machines obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[dagomike]

My problem was with your statement that people that don't require more than the minimum RAM have no business with these machines, which is patent nonsense.

Of course clusters are relevant. Content creation isn't the only use of these machines. My mention of clusters was to illustrate different scientific and engineering tasks that have different requirements (some high RAM, some high netwonrk I/O, some merely high CPU use, etc).

This

Just as an example, I could set up a cluster and 6 GB would be just fine while fully utilizing all cores. It was just a ridiculous blanket statement even though the intent of the argument is probably valid.

Still, if I get my Mac Pro I'll put in for 16 GB just because it's cheap.

 

[nanofrog]

Still, if I get my Mac Pro I'll put in for 16 GB just because it's cheap.

I can understand that one , but others may not be quite so cavalier about their wallet.

 

[dagomike]

I can understand that one , but others may not be quite so cavalier about their wallet.

I need at least 8 GB, and 16 GB is only $135 more. Hardly worth balking at. Procurement is a PITA and it's actually easier to buy fully loaded than try and buy RAM later.

But even then, that's small change considering the price of the computer.

 

[Johns12]

worng, exs patches address as much memory as they want OUTSIDE logic.
it uses about 3.5 otherwise, before it crashes.
buffersize smallness depends also on the quality of the clock..
i can get two different Smallest buffersizes on the same interface if i change the clock
(i.e.: i can get buffersize 32 with the builtin clock, but the fw interface clock is so crappy i cant get past 128)
so, might be that quad 06 2.66 had a worse built in clock.


it includes all the softsynths, effects and softamps, except exs24.
by the way, effects and softamps barely use memory, they are more than anything CPU hogs.
also softsynths (synths in a true meaning of the word, not samplesynths) only hog CPU.
many of them cant even use more than one core.

I left the EXS sampler out of my comment because I do not use it much. It can access more ram outside of Logic, but this is a fairly new (within the last year) option. I have also not noticed clocking as having much effect on my buffer setting. Core audio drivers have more to do with that.

The point is that huge amounts of ram are not necessary for all professional uses. Clock speed and hard drive access speed can many times be more important.

 

[nanofrog]

I need at least 8 GB, and 16 GB is only $135 more. Hardly worth balking at. Procurement is a PITA and it's actually easier to buy fully loaded than try and buy RAM later.

But even then, that's small change considering the price of the computer.

Memory prices are certainly better these days. Switching out the DIMM's can cause people to complain though, and "trade in" programs won't offer much, last I looked.

 

[natteaap]

This makes me laugh, not that it has anything to do with Logic or it's use of RAM, but how desensitized I've become to large amounts of storage/RAM... 3GB is nearly enough to fill a 2hr DVD full of multi-track audio and video yet that's not enough RAM for a music synth program... what is it doing that it needs more than 3GB of RAM... composing the entire works of Mozart?!

Another one that makes me laugh is that some people find Photoshop's limit of 3GB terribly restrictive... LOL... that's enough for over 100 RAW 12 Megapixel images.

If I had 24GB of RAM in my MacBook Air, I wouldn't be able to hibernate it... I don't have enough free disk space to store the contents of memory!!!

It's really amazing. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this though. I don't work for a movie studio or produce professional music, but I do some cool stuff on my computer and I doubt I ever maxed out my last systems 4GB of RAM

Tried the vienna symphony sampler recently? That is what I want to use, but therefore I'm asking i here if RAM is something to consider in maxing out at 6 Gb.

And how about having that baby open and doing some PS work with a few RAW's that I a importing in Motion while some clips are rendering in FCP. Does that eat away at my 6 Gb RAM or am I missing the point and this has nothing to do with RAM?

 

[Lucibelle]

If you think 6, 8, 12 or even 32G of RAM is 'excessive', don't click this link.

 

[RebootD]

How can Macworld give the 4Core model such a high rating while not listing it's pathetic 8GB limit as a major con?!

1. The new Intel platform uses TRIPLE CHANNEL DDR3 .. yet the 4/8 Mac Pros use multiples of 2, not 3, for their ram slots. If you fill them up you lose the real benefit of upgrading because you will be limited to Dual Channel speeds. This makes no sense.

2. 8GB limit for the 2009 model vs 32GB limit for the 2008 model. Why would I pay more for last years model and take a 24GB downgrade in ram upgradability?

3. You can build/buy a single quad i7 system faster than the 4 Core Mac Pro for under $1,500 .. with more harddrives, better video card and 6 slots for ram, upgradable to 24GB total.

 

[VirtualRain]

OWC is now selling 12 and 16GB kits for QUADs...

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory

$749 for 12GB and $979 for 16GB. Much better than previous 4GB stick pricing and I guess this solves the riddle as to whether the Quad could manage this much memory.

Once Gainstown gains some momentum, these prices will probably drop further.

 

[RebootD]

OWC is now selling 12 and 16GB kits for QUADs...

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory

$749 for 12GB and $979 for 16GB. Much better than previous 4GB stick pricing and I guess this solves the riddle as to whether the Quad could manage this much memory.

Once Gainstown gains some momentum, these prices will probably drop further.

Yeah they have kits but you have to pay 3-4x for 4GB chips for the Quad to get the same amount of ram as the OCTO. Dealbreaker.

Quad + 12GB + 1TB HD = $3363.
OCTO + 12GB + 1TB HD = $3632.

There is no reason to get the Quad core if you want to use more than 8GB.

 

[hobes270]

Well yea, but for some who dont need the 16gb right away, the 4gb modules will drop overtime and by the time they are ready to upgrade, they will be alot cheaper. You know 4gb modules will drop alot overtime, all the other ram did.

 

[nanofrog]

Well yea, but for some who dont need the 16gb right away, the 4gb modules will drop overtime and by the time they are ready to upgrade, they will be alot cheaper. You know 4gb modules will drop alot overtime, all the other ram did.

It likely won't take long either, as other vendor's haven't yet gotten the 4GB and larger DIMM's to market. March 29 is the official date from Intel, and there's a good chance vendors are waiting to coincide the release of their products with Intel.

With competition, the prices should drop, and will lower to some extent over time, as history shows.

 

[nicolasmasset]

What I don't get is that macworld says the quad is better, while barefeats and tesslator's graph with the cinebench test here on the boards all say octo 2,26 -> octo 2,8 -> quad 2,66.

I myself am deciding which of these three but I'm quite confused as to why macworld's results are so different!

 

[Erick808]

I totally agree with you on this. I have my Harpertown duals and I can expand my RAM way above 8. In fact I am using 8 currently. If I was to get a new QUAD, (A.K.A. not dump $5K) I would be maxed out for RAM, and the 8 is just about to become a little less then needed.

OWC now has 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 DIMMs listed as supported for the Quad-core Mac Pros, with 16GB Max! If/when you need to upgrade past 8GB, prices for 4GB DIMMs would probably have fallen substantially by then.

 

[RebootD]

OWC now has 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 DIMMs listed as supported for the Quad-core Mac Pros, with 16GB Max! If/when you need to upgrade past 8GB, prices for 4GB DIMMs would probably have fallen substantially by then.

What about next week because I need a new mac? OH SNAP!