Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1 x Six Core or 2 x Quad Core?

D

dcordes

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
1
0
I'm ready to update to a new Mac Pro, I'm using the Mac Pro 1,1 at the moment and I'm wondering if you would recommend the single six core over two quad cores. I'm a Web designer and developer so I don't push the CPUs that hard most of the time. On a daily basis I use Dreamweaver, Eclipse, Photoshop, Transmit, VMWare Fusion and some others like Web browsers, iTunes, etc. I also game quite a bit with World of Warcraft and StarCraft II. What processor configuration would you recommend for me?
 
Definitely 6-core as the apps you mentioned aren't that well multithreaded (e.g. PS) so a higher clock speed with give bigger performance boost than two extra cores.
 
You will see more performance out of the 6 core at the higher clock speeds. Load up on as much memory as you can afford and preferably a ssd for the boot drive.
 
Sounds like you may want to consider the single quad models. If you don't push the CPU that often, it really isn't necessary to have so much processing power. However, if you are set on one of the two you mentioned, 100% go with the 6-core. The faster clock speed will definitely provide better overall performance. Personally, I'd go with the 3.2GHz quad model.
 
Ordering my 6 Core today

Hellhammer based on your suggestions and others - order went in today for the 3.33 and 2 displays - looking forward to next week!

Grabbed another 16GB Ram and an SSD from MacSales and some extension cables for the displays.

I am running Carbon Copy Clone for my Apps and Boot to put on my 120GB SSD.

All total going to come in around $6300

3.33 - 16GB Ram - 120GB SSD - 1TB 7200 for Home (May Upgrade this soon) 5770 video card - and 2 Displays...

For me - this will be a warrior for years to come - THANK YOU to everyone for the suggestions!!!

JB
 
I think you'll be very happy with the 6-core 3.33 GHz MacPro.:D

I just upgraded from a 2006 MacPro 1,1 to the 6-core 2010 MacPro. Like the OP, I do quite a bit of web development (Dreamweaver and Photoshop) and I'm also running Windows 7 through Boot Camp/Parallels VM for a couple of Windows-only apps I need to run.

I'm running with 12 GB of RAM (from OWC), a 120 GB SSD boot drive, a 1 TB HDD for Windows thru Boot Camp or Parallels, a 2 TB HDD for data and a 2 TB HDD for backups and time machine. Total cost came to around $4400 but I'm getting $1020 from SellYourMac.com for my old 2006 MacPro so the net cost of this upgrade comes to around $3400.
 
From what i understand having 6 cores at 3.33GHz will be faster than 8 cores at 2.4GHz wether the app is single or multi threaded.
 
300D said:
If you're willing to pay a LOT more for the same power, yes.
Click to expand...

I didnt say the same power, i said faster. Also for tasks that require clock speed over cores (for example CS5) the 3.33 would be so much better than the 2.4.
 
300D said:
The 8 core will be much faster.
Click to expand...

300D said:
If you're willing to pay a LOT more for the same power, yes.
Click to expand...

300D said:
Synthetic benchmarks don't relate to real-world use.
Click to expand...

I've seen you post similar one-line comments in other threads comparing the 3.33Ghz 6-core to the 2.4Ghz 8-core. Care to provide some support for your claims, or at least explain your reasoning?

I personally can't imagine any realistic scenario in which the additional 2 cores would outweigh the much, much higher clock speed of the 6-core. Have you even read OP's post describing what he'll be using the machine for? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Hellhammer is right. 6 core - cs5 is all about clock speed.

get the 8 core if you wanna cd render or motion edit.

8 and 12 cores wil be slower than the 6 core 3.3 for a lot of tasks depending on what software you are using.
 
DeeEss said:
Hellhammer is right. 6 core - cs5 is all about clock speed.

get the 8 core if you wanna cd render or motion edit.

8 and 12 cores wil be slower than the 6 core 3.3 for a lot of tasks depending on what software you are using.
Click to expand...

This is an ongoing discussion that will end at the next revision of MP and then is will start again

Cores do matter on the multicore programs
I have posted in the past somewhere that 8 core crashes 6 core in export in lightroom multi folders
Reason
It allows for more memory where 48 gig is very beneficial and extra 2 cores will allow for 4 extra threads to be run

My test showed that 60 gig plus exports including resize and re-compress take at least 20 % less time than on 6 core
Even the 2.26 will be faster with 64 gig of ram than 32 gig in a 6 core

yes single thread may be a bit fast
but if I want to work with single export I would of stick with my iMac

with more multi threads programs coming out and lion being the first true multi core OS coming out followed by FC , Aperture and photoshop core and ram will matter
 
About 3 months ango I purchased the 6-core setup, and I've been extremely pleased. The 2 processor configuration allows for more RAM but most people won't need more than the max RAM of the single processor configuration even 5 years from now (barring huge, unexpected leaps in RAM use). I still have just 6 gigs in the machine and have only maxed that out when running 4 virtual machines simultaneously. The 6-core machines also have the newer architecture and faster ram than the base quads.
 
MattDSLR said:
This is an ongoing discussion that will end at the next revision of MP and then is will start again

Cores do matter on the multicore programs
I have posted in the past somewhere that 8 core crashes 6 core in export in lightroom multi folders
Reason
It allows for more memory where 48 gig is very beneficial and extra 2 cores will allow for 4 extra threads to be run

My test showed that 60 gig plus exports including resize and re-compress take at least 20 % less time than on 6 core
Even the 2.26 will be faster with 64 gig of ram than 32 gig in a 6 core

yes single thread may be a bit fast
but if I want to work with single export I would of stick with my iMac

with more multi threads programs coming out and lion being the first true multi core OS coming out followed by FC , Aperture and photoshop core and ram will matter
Click to expand...

Lightroom is only one piece of software, it does not mean that it applies to every app. RAM isn't free either, 48GB will set you back over 1000$. I'm pretty sure 6-core crushes 8-core when they have similar amounts of RAM. Most of us don't need more than 32GB of RAM anyway.
 
alust2013 said:
Sounds like you may want to consider the single quad models. If you don't push the CPU that often, it really isn't necessary to have so much processing power. However, if you are set on one of the two you mentioned, 100% go with the 6-core. The faster clock speed will definitely provide better overall performance. Personally, I'd go with the 3.2GHz quad model.
Click to expand...


The 3.2 GHz quad is what I settled on, with similar requirements (slightly more science apps, less graphics apps, same games). I took the money saved from the drop down to 4 cores from 6 and spent it on good drives, an SSD, a better video card and more RAM.

I miss the extra cores on a few applications that do multithreading well - Mathematica, SAS, etc., but generally speaking, I'm over the moon.
 
I think it will be 2-3 years at least before software catches up, on the whole, with current hardware.

16GB RAM sticks are now available and when prices drop 64GB will be a viable option for the 6 core. You can do it now if you like.

A mass export may be quicker, i'll have to take your word on that, but that's about 5% of my workflow, if that. The majority of my work - Capture One, retouching in CS5 is quicker with the 6 core's 3.3 Clock speed and still generous cores. The large majority of my workflow is working on large files in Photoshop and my 6 core smokes it, from all my research it smokes the 8 and 12 cores too and I've zero problems with mass exports also. Can't say that i've ever been kept waiting around for it and I work with P65+ files.

6 Core makes sense for the next 3-4 years. 64GB RAM in the near future will make it a screamer, that's if you even need it, and gives it some head room for future-proofing
 
Last edited:
Thank you!

It is amazing these forums are great and scary at the same time.

I am an Apple guy, but and appreciate their products. I have never bought into the marketing of the next thing. Meaning not wanting to bump up to be fashionable. I was getting a little worried on the 6K I just spent as I sit here waiting till next week on the 3.33....:eek:

This thread has helped me fell good to know it will be well worth the investment for the next 3-4 years...

Feeling a lot better, thanks everyone... should be here next week!!!

Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back