Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by blackgmc, Nov 25, 2010.
Which would you buy and why ? 3.33GHz 6-Core or 2.4GHz 8 Core Mac Pro 2010 ?
6-core. Why? Because it's as fast or faster in tasks that can take advantage of all cores/threads but it's lightyears faster in ≤6-threaded tasks due to its enormous clock speed. Only handful of apps can take advantage of more than four cores so the extra clock speed is very, very important.
8GB RAM modules aren't that expensive anymore so RAM isn't an issue.
This has been discussed at length several times here in the past couple of weeks, but the short answer is the 3.33 hex unless you plan to upgrade the CPU's on the dual at a later date (presumably cheaper than Apple hits you for a 12-core dual).
I would definitely choose the 6-core. It's a lot faster than the email@example.com GHz.
Yeah... It has, but this just goes to show users on here don't understand the principle of searching existing threads for topics covered by previous users.
3.2GHz Quad. I'd rather spend the extra money on stuff that will make a difference like memory and SSD storage.
I haven't seen many people recommending the 3.2 quad. How does it compare.
And a lot of the barefeets tests don't include that model. I've been considering the quad but have been worried it wouldn't be all that much faster than an i7 iMac. I have been considering the quad or the hex, and am having a hard time justifying the hex, even though I guess I could afford it.
Just take the scores for the 2.8 Quad (base model) and multiply by 1.14. The quads can take more RAM than the iMac's can, plus they are more expandable in general. They'll be a bit faster, especially the 3.2 due to the higher clock (the iMac uses the somewhat tamer LGA 1156 CPUs).
The extra cores in the hex will be great for 3D rendering or certain scientific apps (if you have any, you know what they are). You won't see much benefit from the elsewhere, and the clock speed increase is negligible over the 3.2 quad. (Ok, the hex will be faster in Compressor too, but the quads are fast enough to do even tough jobs by themselves on feature-length films, if left overnight)
What are you using it for? What machine are you coming from? You didn't say.
Quad 3.2Ghz is my choice
I will be ordering a 2010 3.2Ghz quad this Sunday from the apple store. I will also choose the ATI 5870 GPU for my video requirements.
As others here on macrumors have recommended, I will be ordering from a 3rd party Apple vendor (OWC in this case) 1333Mhz ram. Currently, 16GB 1333Mhz (4x4) ECC is on sale at OWC.
This macPro configuration should allow me to upgrade seamlessly to the Westmere hexacore in the next 2 years if I so choose which for me is equivalent to future-proofing for my anticipated needs against my current budget restraints and actual requirements. Hope this helps.
The 8 core will be significantly faster.
People that say 6 is faster are stuck in the past. The present and future is based around multithreading.
Best case (utterly unrealistic) scenario, the hex still wins.
Sorry, thats not how it actually works.
Yeah, in the real world the hex is a lot more than 4% faster.
Dunno why is everyone...
Clearly the dual six-core system will be faster than the dual-quad, surely it's worthy of the extra initial cost, for faster beast?
Most apps currently use only one core. That's why the single hex (@ 3.33 GHz) is generally faster than the dual-hex @2.93 GHz.
Your mileage will vary depending on what app(s) you're running. While the future belongs to multiple processors/cores, right now single processor speed generally rules.
Did you mean a single Core or a single Processor? Just wanna check...
FYI... I'm editing audio & video on mine, usually all eight cores are utilized (according to the activity monitor) but yea, it really depends on what the OP plans to run and do on his/her machine.
I'd go for the 12c 2.66 or 6c 3.33; I wouldn't even consider the 8c 2.4; my encoding tasks could use the extra cores, plus the 2.66 does turbo boost to a respectable 3.06 for most tasks. If I was on a tight budget, I'd choose the 6c 3.33; anyways, my current setup works great, so personally I wouldn't even upgrade.
Again, a ridiculous statement without any proofs backing it up. 6-core wins in EVERY test that Barefeats conducted
go with the base quad 2.8. for one it's the cheapest but it ain't no slouch. also you can upgrade to six core 3.33 or 3.47 once your first year of apple care runs out, for cheaper than apple sells upgrade. about $500 dollars in savings if you can sell your old cpu.
Interesting statement there... It does seems you've not read all their test thoroughly cause in this test, the 12 core kicks ass!! No contest.
Ultimately, it does depend on the amount of RAM one has access too and not everyone has access to 32Gb!
I'm pretty sure Hellhammer meant the 6-core wins against the 2.4 8core.. given the topic of discussion.
I meant 6-core vs 2.4GHz 8-core as 300D said that 8-core is significantly faster which is wrong. 12-core fights in a different series, it seriously kicks the asses!
But by all the tests the quad 2.8 gets beaten by iMacs. It seems that you'd be paying a premium solely based on the possibility of upgrading later. Is that not right?
From what I've seen the hex is the sweet spot, but pricey, and the 3.2 is a worthwhile upgrade from the 2.8. Or the 2009s are a better deal from the refurb store at Apple.
The 2.8 refurb gives several advantages over an iMac.
-Hard drives/optical drives
-CPU upgrade path
-Option of ATI 5870
The 2.8's a great deal from the refurb store too, when you catch one for $2119.
Only on artificial benchmarks.
Again, artificial benchmarks and not real-world.