Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Maybe old question: 08 Octad 2.8 or 09 Quad 2.66

A

alxwang

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 25, 2009
12
0
I did search in google and a lot of review said 2.66 wins.
But https://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/ show me 2.8 is better.
They are same price in reimbursed store now so which on I should pick?
My usage:
iTune, iPhoto for relax.
Programming in Vision technology, Parallel Algorithm and iPhone programming.
Thanks.
BTW: The 2.8 come with 2600 video card, 2G mem and 320 HD
the 2.6 come with GT120, 3G mem and 640HD.
I am not really care about HD but will 3G and 2G will be big difference?
 
alxwang said:
I did search in google and a lot of review said 2.66 wins.
But https://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/ show me 2.8 is better.
They are same price in reimbursed store now so which on I should pick?
My usage:
iTune, iPhoto for relax.
Programming in Vision technology, Parallel Algorithm and iPhone programming.
Thanks.
BTW: The 2.8 come with 2600 video card, 2G mem and 320 HD
the 2.6 come with GT120, 3G mem and 640HD.
I am not really care about HD but will 3G and 2G will be big difference?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, the '08's offer a lot more bang for your buck than the '09's.

Ideally, look for one with a higher clock speed if you want, but given your useage, I don't think the increase in clocks will help that much (CPU's are still waiting on data off the drives). You'd be better served by other improvements, such as adequate memory, graphics card (if needed), and drive throughput (RAID). You've more possibilities with RAID in the '08's if you want an internal hardware RAID solution. That would really make the '08 a better alternative, as the drives are attached to the logic board via a MiniSAS cable (SFF-8087 connector). Disconnect it, and attach it to a card. Get another MiniSAS cable, and you can still use the SATA controller on the logic board and stuff the drives in other locations, or via an eSATA bracket (though it won't support hot swapping of drives). <Not supported in OS X, not due to the controller on the logic board>. Such support requires 3rd party drivers in OS X.

To set up a system with such upgrades, the '08 is not only the same price (possibly lower, if you get lucky and find it), but the upgrade cost is lower in terms of RAID.

Hope this helps. :)
 
alxwang said:
I did search in google and a lot of review said 2.66 wins.
But https://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/ show me 2.8 is better.
They are same price in reimbursed store now so which on I should pick?
My usage:
iTune, iPhoto for relax.
Programming in Vision technology, Parallel Algorithm and iPhone programming.
Thanks.
BTW: The 2.8 come with 2600 video card, 2G mem and 320 HD
the 2.6 come with GT120, 3G mem and 640HD.
I am not really care about HD but will 3G and 2G will be big difference?
Click to expand...

The 2.8 is what I did about 3 weeks ago. I went through BHPhoto.com and got a new one with the 8800GT for a great price. They still have them.

Kimo
 
If you need multithreaded performance the 8-core will be better; for the rest the newer processor will kick ass.
 
alphaod said:
The 2.26GHz 8-core is faster than the 2.8GHz 8-core in many cases, so I think the latest generation model may be the better choice.
Click to expand...

I know that. I have 2.26GHz 8-core in office and I really love it. But when I need a computer in home now and I need to pay for it so I have to choose between 2.8 8-core and 2.66 4-core - which are a lot cheaper.
I am not sure which one is better choice. They are at same price.
 
alxwang said:
I know that. I have 2.26GHz 8-core in office and I really love it. But when I need a computer in home now and I need to pay for it so I have to choose between 2.8 8-core and 2.66 4-core - which are a lot cheaper.
I am not sure which one is better choice. They are at same price.
Click to expand...
Given your usage, I'd think additional cores would be better, even if each instance is a single thread, as you can run them simultaneously (provided you can work that way).
 
I totally understand what do you mean. But
2.66 side: I get 4 2.66 core or 8 2.66 virtual core.
2.8 side: I get 8 2.8 core or I should call 8 real physical core.
I assume new CPU 2.66 is faster then old 2.8 core. So I will choose 4 2.66 over 4 2.8 for sure.
But when I need to choose between 4 2.66 core(or 8 virtual 2.66 core) to 8 physical 2.8 core I get confused.
So the question come to:
assume my application can consume 8 core power - for example I have 8 threads and each of them work on the 1/8 of big bitmap, which one will has better performance?


nanofrog said:
Generally speaking, the '08's offer a lot more bang for your buck than the '09's.

Ideally, look for one with a higher clock speed if you want, but given your useage, I don't think the increase in clocks will help that much (CPU's are still waiting on data off the drives). You'd be better served by other improvements, such as adequate memory, graphics card (if needed), and drive throughput (RAID). You've more possibilities with RAID in the '08's if you want an internal hardware RAID solution. That would really make the '08 a better alternative, as the drives are attached to the logic board via a MiniSAS cable (SFF-8087 connector). Disconnect it, and attach it to a card. Get another MiniSAS cable, and you can still use the SATA controller on the logic board and stuff the drives in other locations, or via an eSATA bracket (though it won't support hot swapping of drives). <Not supported in OS X, not due to the controller on the logic board>. Such support requires 3rd party drivers in OS X.

To set up a system with such upgrades, the '08 is not only the same price (possibly lower, if you get lucky and find it), but the upgrade cost is lower in terms of RAID.

Hope this helps. :)
Click to expand...
 
alxwang said:
I know that. I have 2.26GHz 8-core in office and I really love it. But when I need a computer in home now and I need to pay for it so I have to choose between 2.8 8-core and 2.66 4-core - which are a lot cheaper.
I am not sure which one is better choice. They are at same price.
Click to expand...

Yeah I corrected my post after I reread your post.

The quad-core is faster for most things that you'll be doing. I mean most things are not going to need 8-cores.
 
alxwang said:
I totally understand what do you mean. But
2.66 side: I get 4 2.66 core or 8 2.66 virtual core.
2.8 side: I get 8 2.8 core or I should call 8 real physical core.
I assume new CPU 2.66 is faster then old 2.8 core. So I will choose 4 2.66 over 4 2.8 for sure.
But when I need to choose between 4 2.66 core(or 8 virtual 2.66 core) to 8 physical 2.8 core I get confused.
So the question come to:
assume my application can consume 8 core power - for example I have 8 threads and each of them work on the 1/8 of big bitmap, which one will has better performance?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with your applications (programming evironments), and wasn't sure if they were multi threaded or not.

But here's the rub. Virtual cores (Hyper Threading) isn't working that well. Not now anyway, from my experience, and posts from others are reporting issues as well. I've had to shut mine off, as it was causing "choppiness" (brief, but annoying stalls where the system temporarily ceases to even accept input off the keyboard!). It sucks. So at this point in time, real cores are more desirable than virtual ones (which are only 50% of the core anyway, and it's actually less due to latency in HT operation).
 
I am using xcode /objectC to do the programing and current it is in multi-thread. I start coreX2 amount of threads always. I am going to try the grand central when it is available.
From your information about virtual core I think I have to go with 2.8.
4 2.66 core < 8 2.8 physical core.

nanofrog said:
I'm not familiar with your applications (programming evironments), and wasn't sure if they were multi threaded or not.

But here's the rub. Virtual cores (Hyper Threading) isn't working that well. Not now anyway, from my experience, and posts from others are reporting issues as well. I've had to shut mine off, as it was causing "choppiness" (brief, but annoying stalls where the system temporarily ceases to even accept input off the keyboard!). It sucks. So at this point in time, real cores are more desirable than virtual ones (which are only 50% of the core anyway, and it's actually less due to latency in HT operation).
Click to expand...
 
kbonnel said:
The only issue I had with the quad 2.66 system is the memory "restrictions". The 4GB modules are just so expensive, and I needed more than 8GB.

Kimo
Click to expand...

Except that's more of an operator restriction oppose to the a hardware restriction.
 
Hands down I'd buy the octo 2.8 over the quad 2.66 (2009). I find the value is better and it's still an amazing machine.
 
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd always go 8-cores over 4-cores.

I would've gone w/ 8-cores, but on the Mac Pro 1,1 the 8-core option was MUCH more expensive.
 
Anyone who tells you that the 2.26 octad is faster than the 2.8 octad is dead wrong. In some VERY specialized benchmarks it can appear to be about the same but the 2.66 octad and the 2.8 octad is a much better comparison! Even so the 2.8 octad will still be faster at some things. The 2.8 octad of course blows the 2.66 quad out of the water at almost everything.

So the question you're really asking is do you want to spend more and get less?

The answer is obvious.

Benchmarks like the ones I composed https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7270035/ which were again used in the link you posed tell one specific instance. They are completely skewed for trying to determine general performance.



.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back