Quad 2.93 or Octa 2.26 for FCP and AE?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by videotastic, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. videotastic macrumors newbie

    Mar 29, 2009
    Hey everyone...I know this topic is getting beat to death, but I'm going to be buying a new mac pro (like many folks here). I've read tons about using apps like Photoshop on the new mac pros, but I am a filmmaker that shoots in HD and I do A LOT of editing in FCP and After Effects (CS3). I also use programs like Poser, Bryce, and Photoshop too.

    I'm assuming that for video the better choice would be the 2.26? I hate that the processors in the base Octa are only 2.26, but will I see that much of a difference if I were to get the 2.93 Quad?

    Right now I'm running a 2.0 Core Duo Imac, so almost anything is an upgrade at this point, but I want to make sure I make the right decision. :)

    Thanks for any input!
  2. hobes270 macrumors regular

    Jul 29, 2008
    I would say that when using photoshop, you will get better performance out of the 2.93 quad. When using FC you will get better rendering times out of the 2.26 octo. I had a 2.26ghz octo for about 5 days, until it died! Well the short time I had it, I was not too impressed with the photoshop quality. I opened a photoshop file that was about 300mb and zoomed into it and stated messing with it, I noticed all the cores in my activity monitor was really high. I was not too happy with that considering that is not the biggest photoshop file I will be working with. I also had 8GB of ram in it. Then my hard drive totally crashed so i called Apple and they said I can return it free of charge.

    I work for an apple company called macoutfitters. They have a MP 2.66 quad set up in the store, I went in and did the same thing as I did on my original 2.26 with photoshop and noticed the processor in activity monitor worked about 35% less than it did with the 2.26 octo.

    I use mainly photoshop and other CS4 apps. I only use FCS2 about 10% of the time.

    I am thinking that I just am going to get the 2.66 quad. I came to a conclusion that I just dont utilize all 8 cores so its better for me to get the higher clock speed. And hey if it is ever that apps that i use start utilizing all 8 cores, then I will sell and get a higher core machine, but for now I am going with the 2.66 quad and spending more money to get faster dives.

    Just my experience.
  3. Mac Husky macrumors regular

    Mar 28, 2009
    Bavaria, Germany
    I will go for Final Cut Express 5.0, when it will hopefully comes out at the end of the year. But I will not use it all day long. Just to cut and rework some clips from holiday or stuff like that. Photoshop and other apps from the Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium will characterize most of the work I´ll do on the Mac. Nevertheless something in me is still thinking about the litte 8-core (have a look). If I were a filmmaker - as you mentioned - I would go for the 2.26 8-core for shure. But I would still being dissatisfied with the clock speed I guess. The actual prices do not make it easy to come to a - the right - decision :(
  4. videotastic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 29, 2009
    Yeah, the 2.26 clock speed is a serious disappointment for sure. I was stupid and waited two months for the new nehalems to come out before upgrading, only to be let down by the prices and the new clock speeds.

    Anyone have any experience with FCP and AE on these machines? Would I benefit from more cores and lower clock speed, or higher clock speed and fewer cores?
  5. bzshutter macrumors newbie

    Mar 25, 2009
    I don't have much exp with AE, but have been playing with FCP on my 2.26 8core MP. I would say it's definitely worth it to get the 8 if you will be doing a lot of FCP. I use compressor with a 8 instance local cluster and it will use up to 98% CPU! That means all 8 instances using 2 virtual cores each and maximizing all CPUs. Sure the 2.93 is faster than the 2.26 clock for clock, but when it comes to video compression I think the benefit of more parallel processing out weighs clock speed.
    As far as what I've heard, AE is also very good at optimizing all available cores to work, so same principle there.
    Just my 2 cents.

Share This Page