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 vs. 8 core
- Thread starter jjahshik32
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Welcome back.
Didn't you previously own a 2008 Octo? If so, you may have core envy if you don't buy another octo, but if you have been getting by on your mini then you'll be overjoyed to move to a quad. Unless you are making money with your rig running software that is multi-threaded, it's hard to justify an 8-core computer.
Welcome back.
Didn't you previously own a 2008 Octo? If so, you may have core envy if you don't buy another octo, but if you have been getting by on your mini then you'll be overjoyed to move to a quad. Unless you are making money with your rig running software that is multi-threaded, it's hard to justify an 8-core computer.
Thanks, I've been away busy for a while and trying to decide on a mac pro or a 17" macbook pro.
One thing swaying me away from the 17" mbp is the screen flickering issues.
So now I'm trying to see if I should buy a quad or an 8 core.
I think a quad should do just fine. Only downside is the lack of RAM.
So I'm stuck sandwiched in the middle again.
If you plan on keeping this mac pro for awhile, Get the 8 core if you can afford it. (You will be kicking your own a#& later if you don't). With snow leopard around the corner, and more apps being written for multicore systems, would be a wise investment. Good luck on your decision.
Of course not.
iLife is single-threaded and OS X can't use more than two cores yet.
The iLife apps will need rewritten to be of any use to anyone with any Nehalem or Westmere Mac.
God - this has been covered ad infinitum!!! As currently most applications can't take advantage of multiple cores, there is no advantage of 8 vs. 4 cores (and the price difference is outrageous). I think that for the next few years, chip speed will trump 4 cores over 8. If you are doing high-end video, your return on investment might come sooner. Otherwise - buy a quad. For the VAST MAJORITY, octo is expensive overkill.
Do a search and check the real-life benchmarks.
Do a search and check the real-life benchmarks.
In MOST cases the quote should be:
"Octo - if you've got more money than common sense."
Currently, yes.
For almost ALL tasks, except extensive high def rendering of LONG clips, not short ones, the 2.93 quad is cheaper and WAY better than 2.26 octo
2.66 quad also better
I am beginning to think that 2.93 quad is the current sweet spot...
any opinions?
As long as most applications aren't using Grand CentralCurrently, yes.
Snow Leopard won't change the results (much). Only optimization of programs to utilize the multiple cores that becomes possible in SL can do this, but this could take years for some of the larger applications.
Waiting a few months won't make a difference.
Agreed--and that's the direction I went! Unless you do lots of video encoding or 3D rendering, I believe the quad is the best bang for the buck.
What about heavy graphics programs like Cinema 4D or modo, what Mac Pro would be better 4 or 8 ?
If you have money to afford the 8-core you buy the 8-core.
The immutable fact is that today's top end computer will be tomorrow's low end.
There's a reason why Apple, Microsoft, Intel and AMD are looking at ways of optimizing for concurrent programming. Quad Core is barely gonna cut it in a few years.
The immutable fact is that today's top end computer will be tomorrow's low end.
There's a reason why Apple, Microsoft, Intel and AMD are looking at ways of optimizing for concurrent programming. Quad Core is barely gonna cut it in a few years.
I plan to buy a quad core as soon as Apple offers a 3.2 GHz chip. Don't think the 2.93 will give me that much advantage over my 2.8 GHz iMac. (I know, the Mac Pro has a Xeon chip and 2 additional cores.)
I went with the octad because of the number of RAM slots. Right now I run 16 GB and that would cost a fortune on a quad.
Oh yes I had totally forgotten about the RAM slot advantage. Yes another reason for the Octo...to avoid the ass raping of high density RAM modules.
8 if you can afford it
I have the 8 core and am very glad I went that route. I normally have 7 or 8 programs running at the same time and it definitely helps things work smoothly.
I have also watched the CPU Usage in Activity Monitor while ripping DVDs with Handbrake and usage goes as high as 720% - basically using 7 cores fully and partially using the 8th.
Once Grand Central is out OS X will do a far better job of juggling multiple cores as well. Most CPU intensive applications will be updated to take advantage of this as well so you can expect even better results.
I have the 8 core and am very glad I went that route. I normally have 7 or 8 programs running at the same time and it definitely helps things work smoothly.
I have also watched the CPU Usage in Activity Monitor while ripping DVDs with Handbrake and usage goes as high as 720% - basically using 7 cores fully and partially using the 8th.
Once Grand Central is out OS X will do a far better job of juggling multiple cores as well. Most CPU intensive applications will be updated to take advantage of this as well so you can expect even better results.