Need advice (4 or 8 core)

[rickeames]

Here is what I use the system for:

- Photography (Lightroom, Photoshop)
- Video (FCE)
- Dev (xcode)
- VMWare (Win7)

I'm trying to decide between the quad 2.93 or the 8-core base unit. I know for single core tasks, the 2.93 is going to beat it, the question is do the extra cores make up for it, particularly when snow leopard comes out. I'm running VMWare most of the time.

Advice?

 

[UltraNEO*]

please search the forums.

Do you know how many peeps ask this question?

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I have an older quad-core machine and use it for many of the same things and rarely max out all four cores.

 

[Andrew Henry]

Another one of these questions... I guarantee if you search, there will be 10+ threads each with 10 pages of responses about which to pick.

 

[hehejames]

please search the forums.

Do you know how many peeps ask this question?

If you've got the energy to reply to the actual post? Why can't you reply to the poor fellow who is simply asking a question and if there are other threads... why don't you simply/nicely share the url/link to other threads/references?

Don't be a hater!!!

Here is what I use the system for:

I'm trying to decide between the quad 2.93 or the 8-core base unit. I know for single core tasks, the 2.93 is going to beat it, the question is do the extra cores make up for it, particularly when snow leopard comes out. I'm running VMWare most of the time.

Advice?

Buy the 2.93GHz 8-core if you can afford... That's the best/simple response to your question.

You can also refer to the following:

Which pro for me?
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/715959/

Buying a MAC PRO - Please help me decide on specs!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/708950/


Mac Pro - Previous Gen (Harpertown) VS Nehalem???
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/721332/

24" iMac vs. Baseline Nehalem Quad
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/726860/

And... there are more, but you can simply do a search and find more if needed.

 

[UltraNEO*]

If you've got the energy to reply to the actual post? Why can't you reply to the poor fellow who is simply asking a question and if there are other threads... why don't you simply/nicely share the url/link to other threads/references?

Seriously dude. You want every user on here to answer the same ole question over and over and over again? Please search the forums.. I asked politely. Though, if you like to spend your time answering them, that's OK too.

P.S. Welcome to the MR BTW.

Don't be a hater!!!

Hahaha! That's funny... Sounds like you're more of an hater judging from the other thread, regarding my linguistic ability.

 

[VirtualRain]

Here is what I use the system for:

- Photography (Lightroom, Photoshop)
- Video (FCE)
- Dev (xcode)
- VMWare (Win7)

I'm trying to decide between the quad 2.93 or the 8-core base unit. I know for single core tasks, the 2.93 is going to beat it, the question is do the extra cores make up for it, particularly when snow leopard comes out. I'm running VMWare most of the time.

Advice?

You'll have no trouble running all this on a quad. Most people get by running this just fine on a dual core laptop.

 

[Genghis Khan]

We should really make a sticky saying that there are only a few programs which maximise use of all cores available.

Namely:
FCP
Handbrake
3D rendering
a few scientific programs (if you use these, you'll know it)


And even Snow Leopard will not justify an 8-core machine for anyone who doesn't use one of the above.


Therefore SAVE your money and buy a 2.66GHz/2.93GHz Quad-Core (or an iMac)...

...and put in an SSD Raid 0 if you want speed.

 

[VirtualRain]

We should really make a sticky saying that there are only a few programs which maximise use of all cores available.

Namely:
FCP
Handbrake
3D rendering
a few scientific programs (if you use these, you'll know it)


And even Snow Leopard will not justify an 8-core machine for anyone who doesn't use one of the above.


Therefore SAVE your money and buy a 2.66GHz/2.93GHz Quad-Core (or an iMac)...

...and put in an SSD Raid 0 if you want speed.

+1 for sticky!!!

 

[rickeames]

We should really make a sticky saying that there are only a few programs which maximise use of all cores available.

Namely:
FCP
Handbrake
3D rendering
a few scientific programs (if you use these, you'll know it)


<snip>

Cool. I know VMWare also will take over a core or two, so I was curious if that made a huge diff. It still leaves three cores hanging out there with hyperthreading, I guess.

 

[Tesselator]

The cores do not need to be maximized for the advantages of 8-cores to be realized. Instead of explaining let's look at an example:

• Operation: Photoshop Image Resize:
  4 Cores 36 sec. - Per Core Average: 75%
  8 Cores 30 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%
  
  
• Operation: Hexagonal full frame Lens Blur:
  4 Cores 3:11 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%
  8 Cores 2:51 sec. - Per Core Average: 13%
  
  
• Operation: Surface Blur:
  4 Cores 3:28 sec. - Per Core Average: 92%
  8 Cores 1:40 sec. - Per Core Average: 93%

So you can see that Per Core Average may increase the benefits but even in low CPU usage situations 8 cores retains an edge over 4 - in this case 8-cores are about 10% ~ 15% faster. This is what I see in most applications as well including many or most of the various OS X parts.

 

[Genghis Khan]

The cores do not need to be maximized for the advantages of 8-cores to be realized. Instead of explaining let's look at an example:
Operation: Photoshop Image Resize:
4 Cores 36 sec. - Per Core Average: 75%
8 Cores 30 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%

Operation: Hexagonal full frame Lens Blur:
4 Cores 3:11 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%
8 Cores 2:51 sec. - Per Core Average: 13%

Operation: Surface Blur:
4 Cores 3:28 sec. - Per Core Average: 92%
8 Cores 1:40 sec. - Per Core Average: 93%
So you can see that Per Core Average may increase the benefits but even in low CPU usage situations 8 cores retains an edge over 4 - in this case 8-cores are about 10% ~ 15% faster. This is what I see in most applications as well including many or most of the various OS X parts.

Ah yes, I forgot that the 8-core will be slightly faster anyway as it takes up more background functions. However, I take it that test was done with a 4 and 8 core with equal clock speed? But would you still recommend an octo-core to anyone who can afford it?

 

[eXan]

Don't waste your money and get the base 4 core model.

 

[Tesselator]

Ah yes, I forgot that the 8-core will be slightly faster anyway as it takes up more background functions. However, I take it that test was done with a 4 and 8 core with equal clock speed? But would you still recommend an octo-core to anyone who can afford it?

Yeah, the tests were done on the same physical machine but with 4 and 8 cores.

What would I recommend? I try not to recommend anything and just supply information so they can make up their own minds. Usually anyway - sometimes when the whole thread is a senseless kibitzing fest I'll rip a lame comment like "Get the octad!", but not usually. I hope I can NOT recommend ANY of the 2009 models 4 or 8 core. And of the 2008 are there even any 4-core configurations offered? If there are then fine, go for one of those because you can plop another CPU in it at any time and make it an 8-core if you feel so inclined.

 

[hehejames]

when the whole thread is a senseless kibitzing fest I'll rip a lame comment like "Get the octad!"

Just go buy one (8-core) and we can all talk about pimping your machine

 

[hehejames]

SAVE your money and buy a 2.66GHz/2.93GHz Quad-Core (or an iMac)...

...and put in an SSD Raid 0 if you want speed.

If you went with an iMac and decided to install an SSD or even any other HDD than the one installed by default; you will be voiding your Apple warranty. Just keep that in mind!

 

[eXan]

If you went with an iMac and decided to install an SSD or even any other HDD than the one installed by default; you will be voiding your Apple warranty. Just keep that in mind!

It doesn't. Don't talk out of your ass.

 

[hehejames]

It doesn't. Don't talk out of your ass.

Since you do seem to have an iMac... and most likely did work on the machine a bit; why don't you just give me your serial number? or we can simply do a three way call to those Apple genius boys/gals.

 

[Dr.Pants]

....And of the 2008 are there even any 4-core configurations offered?...

Yep, 2008 quad 2.66 GHz... I am pretty sure it was dual-core dual-processor.

 

[hehejames]

Since you do seem to have an iMac... and most likely did work on the machine a bit; why don't you just give me your serial number? or we can simply do a three way call to those Apple genius boys/gals.

Well... that's what I was told from those smarty geniuses when I had no choice, but to drop off a 1 day old iMac 24" on Sunday due to CPU fan not working. iStat saved my butt!

 

[eXan]

Since you do seem to have an iMac... and most likely did work on the machine a bit; why don't you just give me your serial number? or we can simply do a three way call to those Apple genius boys/gals.

Why would you need my serial number? My iMac is out of warranty anyway because its almost 2 years old.

Changing the HD in iMac doesn't void it unless you break something in the process.

Edit: oh I see you were talking to yourself

 

[Tesselator]

Yep, 2008 quad 2.66 GHz... I am pretty sure it was dual-core dual-processor.

Oh right. That's right. Well the point is that it's upgradable to 8 cores where the 2009 is not. So instead of "plopping in another CPU" you would remove the two in there now, sell them, and replace them with new or used 4 core models.

 

[chiefroastbeef]

Seriously dude. You want every user on here to answer the same ole question over and over and over again? Please search the forums.. I asked politely. Though, if you like to spend your time answering them, that's OK too.

P.S. Welcome to the MR BTW.



Hahaha! That's funny... Sounds like you're more of an hater judging from the other thread, regarding my linguistic ability.

If you don't wish to answer the question in hand, then skip to the next thread. Stop trying to change the world by teaching people to search on forums...

Many others are more than happy and willing to answer a repeated question.

 

[rickeames]

The cores do not need to be maximized for the advantages of 8-cores to be realized. Instead of explaining let's look at an example:

• Operation: Photoshop Image Resize:
  4 Cores 36 sec. - Per Core Average: 75%
  8 Cores 30 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%
  
  
• Operation: Hexagonal full frame Lens Blur:
  4 Cores 3:11 sec. - Per Core Average: 25%
  8 Cores 2:51 sec. - Per Core Average: 13%
  
  
• Operation: Surface Blur:
  4 Cores 3:28 sec. - Per Core Average: 92%
  8 Cores 1:40 sec. - Per Core Average: 93%

So you can see that Per Core Average may increase the benefits but even in low CPU usage situations 8 cores retains an edge over 4 - in this case 8-cores are about 10% ~ 15% faster. This is what I see in most applications as well including many or most of the various OS X parts.

Is that of equal core speeds? I was asking about fastest quad vs. lowest octo. I can't afford the fastest or even mid octo. The price jump is huge. So it's either low end octo or high end quad and I haven't been able to find a test of those.

 

[Tesselator]

Is that of equal core speeds?

Yes.

I was asking about fastest quad vs. lowest octo.

Yeah, I wasn't speculating on that, just pointing out an aspect of an 8-cores that might have been missed.

I can't afford the fastest or even mid octo. The price jump is huge. So it's either low end octo or high end quad and I haven't been able to find a test of those.

This is why many folks are recommending the 2008 machines. You get them for the price of the current quads but you get all 8 cores and VERY equal overall performance between the 2.8 ⇆ 2.66 octads and the 3.2 ⇆ 2.93 octads. Plus you get the advantage of having an IDE interface, one more open SATA connection, and none of the bugs that come from using hyper-threading.