Most price efficiency for Mac Pro.

[CK.]

The question is rather simple - which would be the way to go with Mac Pros considering numbers of cores to be most price efficient?

I am aware of that today, all those large numbers or cores won't do much difference, but as I am aiming on buying a Mac Pro and using it for years around, till it eventually breaks down and withers to dust, more or less, I want to look at the big picture.

Really, the price isn't all that important, as I will save and buy it when it can be afforded, but it's still interesting to know, which is more or less the sole point of my question.

What I do is pretty serious image handling - both photographs and otherwise. Much of my work is InDesign filled of hundreds of pages with very high-resolution pictures as I set manga books together, ready for print.

(Also, I am aware that an iMac would be enough, but I want the expandability of the Pro, and also the availability of two or more monitors).

Thanks in advance!

 

[nanofrog]

I'm getting the impression you may be better served with a Quad.

Additional details on usage might change this though.

 

[thepawn]

If you are playing with large image processing in InDesign (and other Adobe stuff like Photoshop) often, you'll benefit from more cores then less, a lot of Adobe's stuff is very multicore aware.

If an app is set to take full advantage, the 2.26 8-core will be quicker then the 4-core 2.6 for you.

--Daniel

 

[CK.]

Ah, I see. I imagine the gap between four and eight cores will be even larger after the Snow Leopard?

 

[nanofrog]

Ah, I see. I imagine the gap between four and eight cores will be even larger after the Snow Leopard?

Not as much as you'd think. The OS itself would, and a few applications. Most though, would need to be rewritten, if they'd even benefit at all.

 

[CK.]

Not as much as you'd think. The OS itself would, and a few applications. Most though, would need to be rewritten, if they'd even benefit at all.

OK. Is there a foreseeable future with the applications being rewritten, though?

 

[Cynicalone]

but as I am aiming on buying a Mac Pro and using it for years around, till it eventually breaks down and withers to dust, more or less, I want to look at the big picture.

I think you are answering your own question. If you really want it to last 5+ years then either the 2.66 Octo or 2.93 Octo will have the longest staying power.

When purchasing my new Pro I went with the 2.93 Octo assuming of course that the software would catch up in time. Also I didn't want to upgrade again for at least 3 to 4 years.

 

[mason.kramer]

It's funny, you say you want price efficiency, but then you go on to describe one of the most inefficient technology buying strategies that exists, which is attempting to future proof your tech. You should rethink your buying strategy in general. ~3 year cycles are the most efficient way to buy tech.

 

[Tallest Skil]

OK. Is there a foreseeable future with the applications being rewritten, though?

What applications?

All of the pro applications, when updated, will be rewritten to take advantage of Snow Leopard, but no one has a clue when this will happen.

iLife and iWork '10, should they exist, will probably be announced late this year or February of next year, rewritten for Snow Leopard.

 

[CK.]

It's funny, you say you want price efficiency, but then you go on to describe one of the most inefficient technology buying strategies that exists, which is attempting to future proof your tech. You should rethink your buying strategy in general. ~3 year cycles are the most efficient way to buy tech.

Ah, this is great stuff. The kind of feedback I needed, really! So, considering what you wrote, if I've got the money, I should essentially buy what's best for the time? Please explain.

What applications?

All of the pro applications, when updated, will be rewritten to take advantage of Snow Leopard, but no one has a clue when this will happen.

iLife and iWork '10, should they exist, will probably be announced late this year or February of next year, rewritten for Snow Leopard.

Ah, sorry. What I use is mainly Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Aperture.

 

[TheStrudel]

~3 year cycles are the most efficient way to buy tech.

Not to be annoying, but can you give an example or a calculation of this? I only ask because I don't expect software to catch up with my octo 2.8 Penryn mac pro for another 3 years, tops. True, it won't rule the roost, but it should be fast at pro media tasks for some time to come. And not all prices - for example, high end monitors - are subject to such rapid price drops either. Why three years?

 

[thepawn]

Snow Leopard or not, the apps you lists out as "most common" are all very multicore aware. You'll get the price performance ratio out of the octos with those, it's the best path.

I'm not too sure about 3yrs as a tech rollover for home gear, 4-5 is usually closer...In the server world, most certainly always around 3.

In the US, tax capital depreciation cycles for financials also tend to be 3 years, so regardless of its standing performance, the box would have no "value" from a tax perspective at that point.

 

[CK.]

Snow Leopard or not, the apps you lists out as "most common" are all very multicore aware. You'll get the price performance ratio out of the octos with those, it's the best path.

I'm not too sure about 3yrs as a tech rollover for home gear, 4-5 is usually closer...In the server world, most certainly always around 3.

In the US, tax capital depreciation cycles for financials also tend to be 3 years, so regardless of its standing performance, the box would have no "value" from a tax perspective at that point.

Ah, thank you. Great to know!