So what's wrong with the Mac Pro quad 2.0ghz?

[WizardHunt]

For my type of work I would stay with 4 cores. PS CS3 and Aperture. http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html shows no gains with my programs on an 8 core machine.

Take a look at those benchmarks and see what might be better for you.

I love my 3GHz 4 cores but I would be as happy with a 2.66. I don't know in numbers how much faster the 3 is compared to the 2.66 but my butt dyno says it ain't worth $800. That money will be better spent in X1900XT and RAM.

One Thing that I need to mention, is I am about to switch from a powerful PC, 3.73 GHz Dual processor Intel Extreme Edition with 3.25 GB ram, running XP Pro with 4 each 500GB Hard drives, Diamond x1600 ati video card with 512 MB ram and 2 RW dvd drives. So I am a bit worried that if I don't go the 3.0 Ghz route instead of the 2.66 GHz route, that I may actually see a drop in performance but I could be wrong. What do you think?

 

[Spikeanator6982]

the performance from your dual processor should be lower i think then even a 2.66 quad core due to having two more cores. but it would depend on wether the aplications you used were optimized for using all the cores or not.

Brad

 

[WizardHunt]

the performance from your dual processor should be lower i think then even a 2.66 quad core due to having two more cores. but it would depend on wether the aplications you used were optimized for using all the cores or not.

Brad

you know I never thought about that. You are right there are 4 cores in the 2.66 Ghz model so I may actually see a increase then.

 

[LethalWolfe]

if you were doing video rendering. Is it worth the extra $1500 to go 8 core now?

No, not for rendering alone. None of Apple's video apps are multi-core aware so they can't take advantage of all the extra cores. Only Compressor (which is part of the Final Cut Studio suite) can take advantage of multiple cores (by basically a hack that launches multiple instances of the application). So if you are doing a lot of work in Compressor and you need it done as fast as possible then the 8-core could be worth the extra money. Or, if you do a lot of work in "heavy lifting apps" at the same time (transcoding in Compressor, rendering out a movie in AE, while jumping between Motion and Final Cut) the 8-core will allow you to do more at once. It all just depends on your needs.

I was seriously looking at an 8-core, but I've since backed off a bit because I'd like to get a pair of 23" ACDs too (which I can't afford if I get the 8-core). Decisions, decisions...


Lethal

 

[Multimedia]

Final Cut Pro 6 Does Use All 8 Cores To Render Video Faster Than Real Time

So for you to answer that question which would you go for:
1.) two 3.0 Quad core (8 cores) version loaded the way I want it ($5800)
2.) two 2.66 dual core (4 core) version loaded the same way ($4300)

if you were doing video rendering. Is it worth the extra $1500 to go 8 core now?

No, not for rendering alone. None of Apple's video apps are multi-core aware so they can't take advantage of all the extra cores. Only Compressor (which is part of the Final Cut Studio suite) can take advantage of multiple cores (by basically a hack that launches multiple instances of the application). So if you are doing a lot of work in Compressor and you need it done as fast as possible then the 8-core could be worth the extra money. Or, if you do a lot of work in "heavy lifting apps" at the same time (transcoding in Compressor, rendering out a movie in AE, while jumping between Motion and Final Cut) the 8-core will allow you to do more at once. It all just depends on your needs.

I was seriously looking at an 8-core, but I've since backed off a bit because I'd like to get a pair of 23" ACDs too (which I can't afford if I get the 8-core). Decisions, decisions...


Lethal

At HD Expo in Chicago the all day lecture included a Director of Operations of a major Hollywood Video Editing house. He said the 8 core renders faster than real time because Final Cut Pro 6 does use ALL 8 CORES AT ONCE to render that fast. He recently bought 9 for just that reason. So according to him you are mistaken Lethal.

 

[LethalWolfe]

At HD Expo in Chicago the all day lecture included a Director of Operations of a major Hollywood Video Editing house. He said the 8 core renders faster than real time because Final Cut Pro 6 does use ALL 8 CORES AT ONCE to render that fast. He recently bought 9 for just that reason. So according to him you are mistaken Lethal.

If FCP 6 can utilize all the cores available for rendering and RT effects/streams then that's the best kept secret in the Apple/Final Cut world and it would certainly get me to upgrade to a Mac Pro and FCS 2 faster if it was true. Unfortunately the only apps that I've seen tested and talked about that can use all the cores you can throw at them are the new versions of Compressor and After Effects. And even then those apps just spawn multiple instances of themselves and are not "truly" multi-core aware. Apple showed off how Compressor could take advantage of multiple cores at NAB and I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for FCP 6 if it had the same ability.

With that being said, Apple's white paper about ProRes mentions that the codec takes advantage of the more cores you though at it (which makes since, besides Mac Pros, only the fastest G5 towers can encode to ProRes on the fly), but I haven't seen any tests comparing ProRes on 8-core and 4-core machines yet. One codec optimized for multicore machines isn't the same thing as FCP 6 as a whole being able to take advantage of all the cores though.


Lethal

 

[ebouwman]

But would upgrading to a Dual Quad 3.0 be a good investment? Is it worth the extra money at this time? Difference of appx $1500.00 to $2000.00 more I guess. I don't like to wait for things like rendering a movie. I think the 3.0 dual quad could help alot in this case. What do you think?

I don't know about it actually being a good investment, but i can tell you that i REALLY want one

Also with leopard comming out it should use the multiple cores more efficiently, so having 8 cores should give even more of a performance boost.

 

[Umbongo]

One Thing that I need to mention, is I am about to switch from a powerful PC, 3.73 GHz Dual processor Intel Extreme Edition with 3.25 GB ram, running XP Pro with 4 each 500GB Hard drives, Diamond x1600 ati video card with 512 MB ram and 2 RW dvd drives. So I am a bit worried that if I don't go the 3.0 Ghz route instead of the 2.66 GHz route, that I may actually see a drop in performance but I could be wrong. What do you think?

The 2.66Ghz is faster than your current processor, without taking multiple cores in to consideration. It's a different technology that performs better even at lower clockspeeds.

 

[chillihead]

Mac Pro 2.0Ghz Used...

I bought my Mac Pro 2.0 on eBay just recently for $1,800.00 US shipped to my door. 2GB of ram and the standard 7300GT video. Thats a great price for this system. Add on to that I also bought the same day on eBay a Mac Pro Applecare for $90.00 US. Now it's covered!

I am waiting for the Quad Xeon's to come down in price later this year and then I will replace my 2.0's. Even so, right now they are more than fast enough. I can run numerous VM's with Fusion and this machine just keeps on going! I am very pleased with it.

 

[ChrisA]

The difference in Ghz clock speed ONLY matters when the CPU is running at 100%. Most of the time the CPU is not at 100% and you will not notice any difference at all. So it depends on your usage. Will you be doing CPU intensive jobs or just email and web browsing

 

[newportmac]

The difference in Ghz clock speed ONLY matters when the CPU is running at 100%. Most of the time the CPU is not at 100% and you will not notice any difference at all. So it depends on your usage. Will you be doing CPU intensive jobs or just email and web browsing

I think most of this discussion why not to buy a 2.0 is this race to have the best and fastest... Why would anyone buy a Mac Pro if they just wanted to surf the web.. because they like it when their buddies see this aluminium box and say, "wow.. thats a Mac Pro"... yep.. sure is.. then they light up a Partagas 8-9-8, pour a glass of VSOP on the deck and watch thier kobe burgers grille on thier Vermont Castings 2,200 dollar rig while the kids play on thier 2,800 wooden swing set.. oh, did I forget that Mom just parked the 65,000 Hummer and is bringing in the Starbucks coffee.. dont scratch the soapstone counter hun...

 

[Multimedia]

You Better Call Him Up Lethal

If FCP 6 can utilize all the cores available for rendering and RT effects/streams then that's the best kept secret in the Apple/Final Cut world and it would certainly get me to upgrade to a Mac Pro and FCS 2 faster if it was true. Unfortunately the only apps that I've seen tested and talked about that can use all the cores you can throw at them are the new versions of Compressor and After Effects. And even then those apps just spawn multiple instances of themselves and are not "truly" multi-core aware. Apple showed off how Compressor could take advantage of multiple cores at NAB and I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for FCP 6 if it had the same ability.

With that being said, Apple's white paper about ProRes mentions that the codec takes advantage of the more cores you though at it (which makes since, besides Mac Pros, only the fastest G5 towers can encode to ProRes on the fly), but I haven't seen any tests comparing ProRes on 8-core and 4-core machines yet. One codec optimized for multicore machines isn't the same thing as FCP 6 as a whole being able to take advantage of all the cores though.

He made it perfectly clear that Final Cut Pro 6 Renders with ALL 8 Cores Simultaneously "faster than real time". Nothing about Pro Res 422, After Effects CS3 or Compressor 3 was in his sentence. That's why he bought NINE 8 core Mac Pros recently.

I think you better call him up:

Michael Cioni
Director of Operations
Digital Intermediate Supervisor
PlasterCity Digital Post, LLC
6500 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90028

Hours are 9-6 PT
323.469.9800

Having missed the Los Angeles HD Expo, that's why I went to Chicago (oh, and to visit family )

Lethal, don't forget ProMax is offering a FREE FCS2 upgrade (includes all the books) with the purchase of an AJA io HD for the list of $3495 (offer expires June 31st). Something to think about if you realize that box is worth Gold if you are really going into Apple Pro Res full time.

 

[Counter]

The difference in Ghz clock speed ONLY matters when the CPU is running at 100%. Most of the time the CPU is not at 100% and you will not notice any difference at all. So it depends on your usage. Will you be doing CPU intensive jobs or just email and web browsing

Very good point.

Although I would never buy a Mac Pro if I was just emailing and browsing... come on, I'm not an idiot. But my work is web development so I wont have processor intensive tasks running 24/7.

I think that's it, I'm set on the 2.0.

I think most of this discussion why not to buy a 2.0 is this race to have the best and fastest... Why would anyone buy a Mac Pro if they just wanted to surf the web.. because they like it when their buddies see this aluminium box and say, "wow.. thats a Mac Pro"... yep.. sure is.. then they light up a Partagas 8-9-8, pour a glass of VSOP on the deck and watch thier kobe burgers grille on thier Vermont Castings 2,200 dollar rig while the kids play on thier 2,800 wooden swing set.. oh, did I forget that Mom just parked the 65,000 Hummer and is bringing in the Starbucks coffee.. dont scratch the soapstone counter hun...

I think Apple has leaned a lot of people to the 2.66 earlier than they needed it. Lots do need it though of course and it does have more longevity.

Buying a Mac Pro to show off probably accounts for less than 1% of sales. I'd at least like to hope. But those sheep buy everything, unfortunately the Mac Pro doesn't require a non-moron license to own.

 

[LethalWolfe]

He made it perfectly clear that Final Cut Pro 6 Renders with ALL 8 Cores Simultaneously "faster than real time". Nothing about Pro Res 422, After Effects CS3 or Compressor 3 was in his sentence. That's why he bought NINE 8 core Mac Pros recently.

I'm just saying that this is first I've heard that FCP 6 fully utilizes all 8-cores. If it does, that's awesome, but I'd just like to see the results of some real world tests/benchmarks as confirmation.

I think you better call him up:

"Hey Michael, you don't know me but I was on the internet the other day and saw this other guy on the internet and he said that you said..." Yeah, I'm sure that's is phone call he wants to have. But I will drop him a quick e-mail.

Lethal, don't forget ProMax is offering a FREE FCS2 upgrade (includes all the books) with the purchase of an AJA io HD for the list of $3495 (offer expires June 31st). Something to think about if you realize that box is worth Gold if you are really going into Apple Pro Res full time.

Thanks for the reminder, but extensive use of Pro Res doesn't fit into any of my work flows for the foreseeable future so I'll keep my $3495 and eventually put it towards a new tower and monitors.


Lethal

 

[Multimedia]

Call Him Up Lethal. He Wants You To Come Over For A Visit.

I'm just saying that this is first I've heard that FCP 6 fully utilizes all 8-cores. If it does, that's awesome, but I'd just like to see the results of some real world tests/benchmarks as confirmation.

"Hey Michael, you don't know me but I was on the internet the other day and saw this other guy on the internet and he said that you said..." Yeah, I'm sure that's is phone call he wants to have. But I will drop him a quick e-mail.

Thanks for the reminder, but extensive use of Pro Res doesn't fit into any of my work flows for the foreseeable future so I'll keep my $3495 and eventually put it towards a new tower and monitors.

Just off the phone with him. He wants to invite you over for a visit and first hand view of the FACT that the 8 Core Mac Pro Renders UNCOMPRESSED 10-bit HD in REAL Time using ALL 8 Cores Simultaneously - nothing to do with Apple Pro Res 422 nor Compressor 3. Just plain old NEW FCP 6. So call him up and tell him I sent you.

His employees are flipping out over this Capability-Power. They still can't believe it and they've been using them for more than a month already. He says FCP 6 + the 8 Core Mac Pro has radically changed the way they get work done already. Completely different workflow thanks to the power of Final Cut Pro 6 with 8 Core Mac Pros.

He can't explain why Apple isn't bragging about it other than that perhaps Marketing doesn't understand what they've got.

Call him already. He wants to meet you Lethal. This guy is America's #1 FCP 6 + 8-Core Mac Pro evangelist.

Michael Cioni
Director of Operations
Digital Intermediate Supervisor
PlasterCity Digital Post, LLC
6500 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90028

Hours are 9-6 PT
323.469.9800

 

[ob81]

I think him posting on the forums would be better. But he may be too busy for that.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Just off the phone with him. He wants to invite you over for a visit and first hand view of the FACT that the 8 Core Mac Pro Renders UNCOMPRESSED 10-bit HD in REAL Time using ALL 8 Cores Simultaneously - nothing to do with Apple Pro Res 422 nor Compressor 3. Just plain old NEW FCP 6. So call him up and tell him I sent you.

His employees are flipping out over this Capability-Power. They still can't believe it and they've been using them for more than a month already. He says FCP 6 + the 8 Core Mac Pro has radically changed the way they get work done already. Completely different workflow thanks to the power of Final Cut Pro 6 with 8 Core Mac Pros.

He can't explain why Apple isn't bragging about it other than that perhaps Marketing doesn't understand what they've got.

Call him already. He wants to meet you Lethal. This guy is America's #1 FCP 6 + 8-Core Mac Pro evangelist.

Michael Cioni
Director of Operations
Digital Intermediate Supervisor
PlasterCity Digital Post, LLC
6500 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90028

Hours are 9-6 PT
323.469.9800

Why do I feel like I'm setting myself up to be punked...

Would you mind PMing me your real name, unless, of course, he knows you as Multimedia from Macrumors.com




Lethal

 

[Counter]

It's A Trap.

 

[ebouwman]

I think most of this discussion why not to buy a 2.0 is this race to have the best and fastest... Why would anyone buy a Mac Pro if they just wanted to surf the web.. because they like it when their buddies see this aluminium box and say, "wow.. thats a Mac Pro"... yep.. sure is.. then they light up a Partagas 8-9-8, pour a glass of VSOP on the deck and watch thier kobe burgers grille on thier Vermont Castings 2,200 dollar rig while the kids play on thier 2,800 wooden swing set.. oh, did I forget that Mom just parked the 65,000 Hummer and is bringing in the Starbucks coffee.. dont scratch the soapstone counter hun...

Sadly enough i know somebody thats kind of like that, a couple months ago his parents bought a mercedes benz and they let him drive it to school every once and a while, along with his decked out honda accord that they bought for him, and oh ya, today he showed up to write his english 12 final exam on a honda streetbike that i'm pretty sure he can't legaly drive...

They never bought him a mac pro though, but a 24" iMac, that though is way more than this kid needs, unless his parents happened to but him a nice video camera

 

[amc382]

nothings wrong

it's a great computer, just less powerful and expensive.

make a choice.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I had to chance to get a brief tour and demo at PlasterCity today (very nice facility, btw). Pro Res HQ on a 27ft screen projected on a 2k projector looked as good as the Uncompressed HD (to my not super-critical eye at least). They said they could get FCP 6 to max out 6 cores (and occasionally bleed into a 7th) while rendering. That's 2 less than full utilization, but still 2 more than what you get w/the 4-core machines. If you do a lot of heavy lifting a lot of the time and there is no such thing as "fast enough" then an 8-core will definitely be worth the extra scratch.


Lethal