Just curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
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 Core 2006 3.0GHz vs 2.26GHz 8 Core 2009 Model
- Thread starter archangel890
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd personally just go for the quad 2.66.
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
Its harder to recommend that people spend $800 more for the new $3,299 2.26GHz eight-core Mac Pro if they dont run software written for the top-of-the-line Mac Pros eight processor cores. Though the 2.26GHz model was faster at most individual tasks than the previous eightcore 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and very fast in a few of our professional applications tests, it was slower than the new quad-core model at the majority of our application tests.
So for most apps the new quad 2.66 or quad 2.93 will be faster
And the new quad 2.66 will still blow your old machine out of the water despite lower clock speed. The single quad 2.66 beats last years 8 core 2.8 Harpertown, despite half the cores and lower clock speeds.
With its improved graphics, memory bandwidth, and reduced memory latency, the 2.66GHz quad-core Mac Pro was faster than the 2.8GHz eight-core Mac Pro, and at $2,499 costs $300 less. It would be a fine purchase for anyone replacing an older Mac or buying a new one for the first time. That is especially true for people who work with processorintensive apps such as video or graphics.
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
Its harder to recommend that people spend $800 more for the new $3,299 2.26GHz eight-core Mac Pro if they dont run software written for the top-of-the-line Mac Pros eight processor cores. Though the 2.26GHz model was faster at most individual tasks than the previous eightcore 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and very fast in a few of our professional applications tests, it was slower than the new quad-core model at the majority of our application tests.
So for most apps the new quad 2.66 or quad 2.93 will be faster
And the new quad 2.66 will still blow your old machine out of the water despite lower clock speed. The single quad 2.66 beats last years 8 core 2.8 Harpertown, despite half the cores and lower clock speeds.
With its improved graphics, memory bandwidth, and reduced memory latency, the 2.66GHz quad-core Mac Pro was faster than the 2.8GHz eight-core Mac Pro, and at $2,499 costs $300 less. It would be a fine purchase for anyone replacing an older Mac or buying a new one for the first time. That is especially true for people who work with processorintensive apps such as video or graphics.
Yeah but what about such applications like Handbrake? I know in Cinebench the 2.8 8-core scores nearly 4000 points higher.
Depends what you are doing, single-threaded apps will run better on your current system, multi-threaded apps will fly on a 2.26GHz Octo
Yeah, I upgraded my 2006 Mac Pro to 2 quad core 5355s (2.66) with multi-core apps in mind (Snow Leopard, then everything that comes after). Right now, the only thing that really takes advantage of multi-core is Handbrake, so if you do that a lot, then 8 cores is the way to go.
Frankly, the new Pros will smoke my 2006 octo-core, however, I think Snow Leopard will give the old girl a new lease on life. I think that will really be the way that apps are written in the future, so if it were me, the more cores, the better.
Just my $0.02,
JP
Frankly, the new Pros will smoke my 2006 octo-core, however, I think Snow Leopard will give the old girl a new lease on life. I think that will really be the way that apps are written in the future, so if it were me, the more cores, the better.
Just my $0.02,
JP
Well my old 2006 model isn't an Octocore anyways, its still a quad core, single processor. vs an 8 core 2.26? Cause almost $1300 more for the 2.66 is hard to justify.
Make sure you got enough money left for good hard drives and much of memory ram. Cause after all, they will give you the extra kick of speed ! So what I am trying to say, better buy a little slower CPU and save money for the other components.
So for most apps the new quad 2.66 or quad 2.93 will be faster
And the new quad 2.66 will still blow your old machine out of the water despite lower clock speed. The single quad 2.66 beats last years 8 core 2.8 Harpertown, despite half the cores and lower clock speeds.
You do realize that the Nehalem quads run 8 threads, right? That's why the quad Nehalems beat the old octos in lots of tests.