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

[archangel890]

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.

 

[Umbongo]

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.

 

[nick9191]

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.

 

[Chad H]

Yeah but what about such applications like Handbrake? I know in Cinebench the 2.8 8-core scores nearly 4000 points higher.

 

[Genghis Khan]

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

 

[JPamplin]

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

 

[archangel890]

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.

 

[seisend]

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.

 

[kntgsp]

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.