qaud, 6 or 8 core to run 64 bit App's

[photogy]

Am looking at getting new mac pro but not sure which one is best to run 64 bit app's (LR3, CS5, FCP)

Primarily used for photography and for video editing...currently using MBP 2.8GHz with 8gb....

is the 6 core 3.3 GHz better than the quad 3.2 GHz (given extra price) and what about the 8 core 2.4GHz..considering that all my software is 64 bit

don't want to pay for stuff i don't need...but don't want to cut corners on stuff i need at this price point!

thanks..

 

[robbieduncan]

The number of cores has no impact on the ability of the machine or the suitability of the machine to run 64-bit (or for that matter 32-bit) software. The multi-core awareness/number of threads the software can sensibly use is what you need to consider.

 

[Hellhammer]

Don't even think about the 2.4GHz 8-core, it's horrible deal for your usage. Why? Because the apps you listed aren't very well multithreaded and 8-core has such low frequency thus it's slower than quad-core in most tasks.

6-core is easily 50% faster than quad core is because it has 50% more cores and higher frequency. Of course this is theoretical and the difference can only be seen when all cores are maxed out.

For you, the 3.2GHz quad is probably sufficient but 6-core would be more "future-proof" and at least some of the apps in CS5 can take advantage of the extra cores. After Effects for example. If you can afford the 6-core, I would pull the trigger. It's 3149$ from refurb store if you want to save some $ (currently unavailable).

 

[photogy]

Don't even think about the 2.4GHz 8-core, it's horrible deal for your usage. Why? Because the apps you listed aren't very well multithreaded and 8-core has such low frequency thus it's slower than quad-core in most tasks.

6-core is easily 50% faster than quad core is because it has 50% more cores and higher frequency. Of course this is theoretical and the difference can only be seen when all cores are maxed out.

For you, the 3.2GHz quad is probably sufficient but 6-core would be more "future-proof" and at least some of the apps in CS5 can take advantage of the extra cores. After Effects for example. If you can afford the 6-core, I would pull the trigger. It's 3149$ from refurb store if you want to save some $ (currently unavailable).

i know you mentioned 'theoretical' 50% faster of 6-core...

am not a techy but just upgraded my 4gb's to 8gb's on my mbp and have noticed big diff in performance...would the diff between 3.2ghz 4-core and 3.3ghz 6-core be similar comparison?

might just bite!

 

[Hellhammer]

i know you mentioned 'theoretical' 50% faster of 6-core...

am not a techy but just upgraded my 4gb's to 8gb's on my mbp and have noticed big diff in performance...would the diff between 3.2ghz 4-core and 3.3ghz 6-core be similar comparison?

might just bite!

RAM and CPU aren't really the same thing. The issue is that most applications cannot use more than one or two cores thus the extra cores will be idling. Most apps aren't CPU intensive either. However, when you have more RAM, the apps and OS X will use more RAM as RAM is much faster than your hard drive.

CPU will only speed up tasks that require A LOT CPU power, video encoding for example. It won't make Safari any faster. You can notice the difference in CPU speed with After Effect or Compressor for example.

RAM will speed up all tasks as all apps can use more RAM and thus operate faster. Of course you need to have use for that RAM, e.g. multiple apps open at once. Having 64GB of RAM won't speed up Safari or Mail

 

[johnnymg]

i know you mentioned 'theoretical' 50% faster of 6-core...

am not a techy but just upgraded my 4gb's to 8gb's on my mbp and have noticed big diff in performance...would the diff between 3.2ghz 4-core and 3.3ghz 6-core be similar comparison?

might just bite!

Different issues involved here. You were probably RAM starved in your MBP.

If you can afford it the Hex is the fastest MP for MOST programs right now. The reality is that the 3.2 Quad isn't far behind and is an attractive alternative if you're $'s starved.

cheers
JohnG

 

[photogy]

Different issues involved here. You were probably RAM starved in your MBP.

If you can afford it the Hex is the fastest MP for MOST programs right now. The reality is that the 3.2 Quad isn't far behind and is an attractive alternative if you're $'s starved.

cheers
JohnG

thanks...cleared that one up for me nice n quick!

am ALWAYS $'s starved...especially since taking up this game