Quad Core 2006 3.0GHz vs 2.26GHz 8 Core 2009 Model

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by archangel890, Aug 3, 2009.

  1. archangel890 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #2
    It depends what you are doing, but you should expect at least a slight improvement and at most massive time savings. It certainly should be slower for anything, except some games.
     
  3. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #3
    I'd personally just go for the quad 2.66.

    http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

    It’s harder to recommend that people spend $800 more for the new $3,299 2.26GHz eight-core Mac Pro if they don’t run software written for the top-of-the-line Mac Pro’s 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.
     
  4. Chad H macrumors 6502a

    Chad H

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #4
    Yeah but what about such applications like Handbrake? I know in Cinebench the 2.8 8-core scores nearly 4000 points higher.
     
  5. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #5
    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
     
  6. JPamplin macrumors 6502

    JPamplin

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #6
    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
     
  7. archangel890 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #7
    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.
     
  8. seisend macrumors 6502a

    seisend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland, ZG
    #8
    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.
     
  9. kntgsp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    #9
    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.
     

Share This Page