Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quad 2.66ghz vs Octo 2.26Ghz
- Thread starter Chaos123x
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
It's tricky though, if the apps you'll be using can use more than 4 cores, then you're maybe better off getting the lower clocked, 8-core CPU option. If your apps will only use 4 cores max, then the higher clocked 4-core option is better.
The benefit of 8-core vs 4-core is only apparent if you're using apps which will use more than 4 cores simultaneously, or if you're running multiple apps simultaneously to tax 5-8 cores.
This update really feels like being stuck in between a rock and a hard place.
Makes really not want to upgrade after all.
If they had a quad 2.66 at a good price I would go for it.
But DAMN this so annoying, it's like they did it on purpose.
Makes really not want to upgrade after all.
If they had a quad 2.66 at a good price I would go for it.
But DAMN this so annoying, it's like they did it on purpose.
I'm not entirely convinced that you'd notice much of a difference between your current Mac Pro and the new model, I'd maybe wait for a little while until some benchmarks come in from the review sites.
I would think you would lose performance, especially for video rendering if you went with 4 cores.
Look at the performance page on apple's site http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html.
Look at the render speeds for prores and HDV, 1.2x and 1.1x speed increases from previous 8 core to new 8 core. Only a slight increase, if you lopped the cores in half I'm thinking performance would go down on a new 4 core vs 2008 8 core.
Look at the performance page on apple's site http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html.
Look at the render speeds for prores and HDV, 1.2x and 1.1x speed increases from previous 8 core to new 8 core. Only a slight increase, if you lopped the cores in half I'm thinking performance would go down on a new 4 core vs 2008 8 core.
Wait for snow leopard before deciding. That and real world application speed tests will tell the tale. If its less than 50% boost, I don't think its worth the money to upgrade.
Is the new 2.26 faster than the previous 2.66 or something? I'm just wondering why 2.26 --> 2.66 is now a $1,400 option. 
the 2.26 is 2 processors while the 2.66 is only one (but you can get 2 2.66s if you choose for more $ of course)Is the new 2.26 faster than the previous 2.66 or something? I'm just wondering why 2.26 --> 2.66 is now a $1,400 option.
So why would the previous gen come with an 8 core at 2.8 and now it's an 8 core at 2.26? Just assuming the Nehalem is a lot more efficient at running tasks I would assume.
Because each processor has a direct memory link to a bank of 4 DIMM slots. So a single processor cannot access the other 4 slots dedicated to the second CPU socket.
So technically, it should be a max of 16gb (4x4GB).
Different architecture, so you can't make a 1:1 comparison by clock speed. Though I'm waiting for benchmarks to see how the 2.26 Octo compares to the '08 2.8GHz model.
Waiting for benchmarks on this one.
The 2.66Ghz X5550 would be able to outperform it, just as the 2.93 X5560 outperforms the '08 3.2GHz model.