Worth going Quad...?

You just answered your own question. Keeping it 4 - 5 years the 8 Core will not be overkill.

 

The speed increase from 4 to 8 cores will be more than worth the £320 it costs, especially for video editing.

 

The CPU is currently around $800 (US) before taxes. Therefore it's worth a more than £320, so I'd say go quad.

 

You'll be able to do some of this simultaneously and much easier with the 8-core in my opinion, but I'm a strong believer in getting the absolute best possible Mac that fits your requirements you can afford at any given time. Start with a minimum of 4gbs of RAM and you'll be laughing, especially with the discount.

Just remember: today's super-machine is tomorrow's slowpoke. When we bought our dual 2.5 G5s for work almost four years ago, they were the best Macs we could get at the time. Now, they're benchmarking near the MacBooks and Minis and it's starting to show with some apps.

 

Oops, yes I mean go dual-quad (8 core).

 

That's a testament to Intel engineering. The alternative is to be stuck in PowerPC architecture and have a smaller margin of performance gap.

I agree with everyone who has recommended the 8-core. You don't want to be regretting your purchase and this being a sizeable investment, you should do it right from the onset. Sooner or later you will feel the strain of the single processor and upgrading isn't necessarily a cake walk.

 

Get the 8 core with the 8800GT. If you're keeping it for 4-5 years, the few hundred you'll pay now will definitely be worth it in the long run.

 

Save your money

I would have to disagree with the "get as much Mac as you can" philosophy. You're basically looking at a 20% price difference for the 4 vs 8 core machine. That's a substantial amount of money.

Mathematically speaking if you spend $2800 on a MacPro and keep it for 5 years, that's $560 per year for your Mac Pro. Well, why don't you spend $500 less, and get a new Mac Pro in 4 years instead?

Look, you've gotten this far with your G4 obviously you're coping, and you probably should have upgraded a year ago. Your machine is what 3 to 4 years old? Even if you bought a G5 back then, you would probably still want a new Mac Pro now because it runs circles around the G5.

Intel is known for very quick development of CPU's and changing architectures (compared to PowerPC). Intel is really changing the Mac game. Because of that you can't rely on your past experience with purchasing Macs.

The next Mac Pro will be so different and so much better than today's machine, that you'd wished you'd bought that one. Considering that Intel does this big leap every few years, you will probably want a new computer in 3 years... just like your PC counterparts.

In the future, it will be very hard to justify keeping your machine so long. The rate of innovation is going up, so don't get stuck by spending $$ on more computer than you actually need.

That being said, if you're a professional and video and pictures are your income, then you NEED the 8 core. No doubt. But if you're just a hobbyist who doesn't know if this will become your vocation, then you don't NEED it. If in the future it does turn out to be a viable business, then let your business income justify the purchase of a new machine at that point in time.

My advice is to save your money and put it towards the next newest computer.

 

I think 9Charms has a very good point, especially if you stick the difference in a bank account to start the fund for the next one...a 'psychological' approach to saving.

The only argument against that I can see, is that if the time lost in waiting (for encodes etc) would out-weigh the money saved. Only you can answer that, but based on your original post I'd lean towards you can afford to wait.

There's a thread at the moment talking about how the 2008 Mac Pros have 'murdered' the 2007 - maybe worth a look.

AppleMatt

 

the idea to "just save $500 and buy the next mac pro earlier" doesn't really make sense for most of us. mac pro owners buy for the longevity of the machine. if you want a disposable mac to replace every few years, the mac mini or imac are suited right up your alley.

go 8 core. people who opted for dual processors in the G4 era were rewarded when software to fully utilize it came along later (OS X!). It's true today too — more and more software will be built to take advantage of all 8 cores and you'll be kicking yourself if you don't do it. no one wants to keep replacing their machines.

 

I'm a video professional and I bought my quad in October despite the new octo's being around the corner. My hand was forced for a project I was working on (I was a Windows user, but needed FCP for the project. So it was a good excuse to move to the Mac ) Up until then I had been quite happily using a Pentium 4 with Sony Vegas.

I have to say that in all reality a quad core is more than enough for most video tasks. The only time you really need the octo is for rendering highly complex composites, and if you have done some extreme colour correction with Color etc.

For the vast majority of video guys that work corporate and industrial and who don't spend loads of time making complex compositing and grading an octo is not a neccesity. It is nice, and I wouldn't get a quad if the octo is the standard if I was buying one now, but having a quad is hardly a slouch.

There is always something new around the corner. I don't have any regrets about getting a quad. If business keeps going well I'll just get an octo as well

 

We're in a new era with Intel's development cycle. We're in the same game as our PC counterparts now. I can't see anyone being able to keep their machines for more than 4 years anymore. Just look at the 4-year old PC's... how useful are they today? The top machines then are relegated to file server duty and web browsing...

I understand that the machine will last you for 5+ years if you don't upgrade your software, and Mac people are the type that actually do that. But I'm sure Apple will eventually put out the next killer piece of software or a must have computer that will force you to upgrade your hardware. They simply have to, they make more money on hardware than anything else.

 

You are bloody right.

But isn't Mac Pro marketed as "upgradable"? If that is so, all the MP users can just upgrade the necessary parts to be updated?? If what you said is right, and the incident with the 8800 not working with the older MP, isn't it false marketing on Apple's part? I personally call bull on the "upgradable" part. The MP may be upgradable relatively speaking to other Apple models, but I suspect never in the processor department.

 

So what is 'better' a single quad with the updated 8800 card or the standard dual quad with the 2600?

I know the standard is still more expensive by $300 in this case - which is the better bang for the buck?

Doing video work (FC), photoshop work on photo's and the standard computing mix.

 

Orpheus: nVidia is working on an 8800 GT that is compatible with 2006/2007 Mac Pros.

Also, Anandtech upgraded the original 2006 Mac Pro to an 8-core machine.

 

So I read.

However, and that's my personal view, is that by "upgradable" I am led to believe such upgrades will be released by Apple itself and not being led by some third-party companies. Apple should take the initiative to take care of its loyal customers by providing upgrade kits instead of replying on other vendors to back us up.

Just my 2 cents.

 

You can already upgrade the processor in the Mac Pro with a little playing around with the case and heatsinks.

 

Will it void the warranty?

 

Of course.