Quad-Core or 8-Core

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Keniff, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Keniff macrumors 6502a

    Keniff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #1
    OK, so it's finally released.

    And I need to upgrade my G4 Dual Optical, so I can start using newer applications like Logic Pro, CS4 and maybe something like Maya and Final Cut Pro (at a later date)

    I just need somebody to Geek me up on the differences between these two?
    In the UK it seems there's a £600 difference ($844usd/€670 euros).

    So, just in normal terms, for somebody that doesn't know too much, but just enough, I need to know what the difference is between these.

    I need/want a machine that's going to last me a long time, so what is the difference between Quad-Core or 8-Core, and what will I get for my money?

    Simple terms, please? :confused:


    (Sorry if this question has been posted before, but I can't find it)

    P.S.
    And if somebody could advise a good home or use for my old G4 Dual Optical, you'll get an extra 2000 bonus points. ;)
     
  2. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #2
    Are you using this as a hobby machine, or are you making a living with it? :confused:
     
  3. robinp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #3
    well, I suspect the only thing during your work that will make use of all 8(16) cores is rendering with Maya. Most other things I suspect you would find the single higher speed quad core chip quicker. Of course, this doesn't take into account the RAM limit on the quad core machine. It is for this reason (and that I use Maya) that will go for the 2.23ghz 8 core.
     
  4. robrose20 macrumors 6502

    robrose20

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #4
    can you add a second processor to the quad core mac pro? Or is it a different motherboard?
     
  5. Keniff thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Keniff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    It's for my work
     
  6. Keniff thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Keniff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6

    Thankyou :)
     
  7. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #7
    No. :(

    Apparently it's a different board this time. The Quad core is a single processor board running a W35xx part. (Just an i7 with ECC enabled).

    For the budget minded, it might be a consideration to build a Core i7 920 Hackintosh. Just my opinion though. ;) :p
    Then you should go for one of the 8 Core models. For any improved performance over the '08, you'd need to look at the 2.66GHz or better processors though. Not cheap. :( 2x 2.66GHz + HD 4870 is $4900!, and you'd likely still want to increase the memory. :rolleyes:
     
  8. carolhayes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #8
    mail back or keep?

    how is 2.26 faster than 2.8? be nice
    Ok So I have an unopened 8 core 2.8 ready to ship back to apple in my living room. Excuse my ignorance but I called apple and the apple care guy still could not explain how it was better. Help me so I know whether to ship it back or keep it and order the new one. With so many negative posts on the new one..
     
  9. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #9
    Don't forget that the Xeons based on Nehalem automatically raises the clock speed if the application is single-threaded.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #10
    Here's the performance page for the '09 MP.

    They're using the 3.2GHz '08 as the baseline, and comparing it to the '09 MP @ 2.93GHz.

    It would be similar to a 2.8GHz '08 MP compared to the 2.66GHz '09 MP. But not the 2.26GHz parts used in the base model. I'd truly like to see that comparison myself. ;)

    Somehow, I think Apple didn't want to publish it. :p
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    Here's the performance page for the '09 MP.

    They're using the 3.2GHz '08 as the baseline, and comparing it to the '09 MP @ 2.93GHz.

    It would be similar to a 2.8GHz '08 MP compared to the 2.66GHz '09 MP. But not the 2.26GHz parts used in the base model. I'd truly like to see that comparison myself. ;)

    Somehow, I think Apple didn't want to publish it. :p
     
  12. robinp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #12
    I really depends what you are doing with it... but based on early benchmarks for the nehalem chips (the ones now in the new mac pro) are that for 3D rendering, they are about 30-40% quicker for the same clock speed. So for example, if such a chip existed, an 8 core nehalem 2.8ghz mac pro would perform 30-40% quicker than the one you have unopened.

    3D rendering is one of the better performing tasks on the new chips so it really depends what you are planning on doing with it. It seems likely that for these types of tasks, the 2.23ghz mac pro 2009 would be about the same speed as the old 3.2ghz model.
     
  13. carolhayes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #13
    2.26GHz 8 core is slower than the 2.8 8 core?

    2.26GHz 8 core is slower than the 2.8 8 core? Thank you for your help.
     
  14. robinp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #14
    no, the 2.26 is probably a bit faster than the 2.8, but it depends on what you are doing. What kind of work do you do?
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    Not absolutely sure, but I think it might be, though just slightly. I'm thinking they could be equivalent.

    At that point, the only reason to get one, is if you're usage requires memory intensive applications. Otherwise, it may not be worth the extra $$$.
    We'll have to wait and see I think. Barefeats is planning to do a comparison. (I was actually under the impression he got his hands on one early, and had it completed already). :eek: :p
     
  16. Keniff thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Keniff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #16
    Thanks so much for this, People....

    This information really helps :) :apple:
     
  17. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #17
    The new CPUs use a new microarchitecture that allows them to be faster than the old CPUs for the same clock speed. How much faster depends on the tasks, but increases range from a bit more to over 100%.
     
  18. Salavat23 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    #18
    The 2.8GHz Mac Pro will be faster in most applications that use less than 8 cores. For apps that are VERY multithreaded (8-16 threads), the 2.26GHz Nehalem will have the advantage.
     
  19. Keniff thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Keniff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19

    Oh, now you've slightly confused me!

    So for my needs (as mentioned at the start of this Thread), what machine would you advise I go for?
    And if I should need to make some adjustments, what should I add, to make it a solid workhorse for the next 6 or 7 years, before I'd need to upgrade again?
     
  20. Ploki macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #20
    why? all you people are blabbering about "how much faster is it"
    it still has an 8gig ram limit, and its still only 4cores.
    im really waiting for the benchmarks.
    i mean...
     
  21. mattia macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    #21
    I'm having the same basic conundrum right now - quad or 8 core? I'll likely be saving up for a few months first, but it's still something I'm uncertain about. I'm leaning towards the 8 core, base mode largely because of the greater RAM expandability.

    What I plan to do with it: photo editing (5D mark II RAW processing, 30 meg files), some video work (again the 5DII, 1080p) and multitrack audio recording. I don't really ever plan on doing 3D rendering or CAD/CAM - I'd like to, as making a CNC router for my guitar making seems like it would be interesting and fun, but I simply do not have the time or enough desire to free up the time and money required to get it going. So while I guess a (single, slightly faster) Quad core would be fine in terms of processing power for the next 6 years at least (don't plan many earlier upgrades), I'm not sure the RAM wouldn't become a bottleneck.

    Thoughts?
     
  22. rylin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    #22
    With 30MB RAWs, I'd probably go for the 8 core 2.66 with 12 or 18GB RAM if you do photography for a living (or accept that it's a very, very expensive hobby.. which you would if you've got a 5D Mk II and good glass :p).

    Keep in mind though that IO speed is very important for you as well.
    A typical SATA disk will give you somewhere around 20-60MB/sec (depending on if the drive is spun up, how much else is using the disk at the time etc.), so you might want to look at some better options there.

    If it turns out the quad will happily take 4GB or 8GB sticks, I'd get the quad 2.66 or 2.93 with 6GB now and a good disk system, see how well it works for your purposes and then slap in 12GB (3x4) or 24GB(3x8) RAM in a year or two when the prices have come down.
     
  23. amoergosum macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #23
    Wouldn't the 8 core 2,26 GHz be fine for that?
     
  24. mattia macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    #24
    It's 'merely' one of my very expensive hobbies (particularly as I don't earn that much per annum at this stage in my carreer) so I think I may need to be a little pragmatic about I/O speed gains - I'd like RAID 1 (with RAID-0 backup), but unless there's a third party RAID solution other than the 700 dollar extra card, I think I'll have to live with mere SATA.

    Food for thought, though. For now I'll slog through with my little MacBook, and save up for a Pro around the summer. Still have more glass to buy, after all!
     
  25. Abulia macrumors 68000

    Abulia

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Kushiel's Scion
    #25
    First, RAID 0 is striping across two or more disks and increases your chance of data loss in exchange for speed. It's not a backup. RAID 1 is disk mirroring. Using both would be RAID 0+1 or RAID 1+0. I'd recommend the latter over the former; in either case you'd need four disks. (Mirror two slices into a striped array; you could lose two disks on different mirrors and still be up and running.)

    You don't require a hardware card to do any of this as OS X supports software RAID. In this day and age of multi-cores and processor speeds, there is no performance hit.

    Factor in Snow Leopard and ZFS and you can use its disk pooling feature RAID-Z or RAID-Z2 to essentially get software RAID 5.

    You will, however, need a single bootable volume on standby in order to do any BIOS Firmware updates that Apple does (roughly 1 a year).
     

Share This Page