12-core or Quad

[JohnSmith408]

Hello,

So since My MacPro 1,1 doesn't have a 64bit EFI and can't boot 10.8 I'm now looking into buying a new MacPro.

So I have 2 options.

2.4Ghz 12-core or 3.2 Quad

Which one would you guys recommend? I can't offered to up the CPU on the 12 core to a higher GHz.

I will be using it for.
Writing Programs, Video Editing (Final Cut), Photoshop, LogicPro, etc.

I ask because of the slower Ghz.

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

Hello,

The 12-core is the right choice if and ONLY if most of what you do is heavy, intensive video rendering and audio rendering. Photoshop is not multi-core based and will not provide any speed up in rendering photoshop based programs.

If you are not a really doing heavy video encoding and rendering + heavy audio recording, then the Quad would be a better choice. Just remember that the only advantage you will get with the 12-core is if you make use of most applications that are multi-core based. If you mainly use non-multi core based applications seldomly and are not worried about how long they take to complete, then the QUAD Mac Pro I would go with.

The 6-core 3.33 w3680 is a nice machine to consider, but you could start out with a 3.2 Quad Core and then get the 6-core cpu (w3680).

Hello,

So since My MacPro 1,1 doesn't have a 64bit EFI and can't boot 10.8 I'm now looking into buying a new MacPro.

So I have 2 options.

2.4Ghz 12-core or 3.2 Quad

Which one would you guys recommend? I can't offered to up the CPU on the 12 core to a higher GHz.

I will be using it for.
Writing Programs, Video Editing (Final Cut), Photoshop, LogicPro, etc.

I ask because of the slower Ghz.

 

[goMac]

12 x 2.4 = 28.8
4 x 3.2 = 12.8

12 core wins.

XCode, Logic, and Final Cut can all use 12 cores.

 

[ChrisA]

Hello,

So since My MacPro 1,1 doesn't have a 64bit EFI and can't boot 10.8 I'm now looking into buying a new MacPro.

So I have 2 options.

2.4Ghz 12-core or 3.2 Quad

Which one would you guys recommend? I can't offered to up the CPU on the 12 core to a higher GHz.

I will be using it for.
Writing Programs, Video Editing (Final Cut), Photoshop, LogicPro, etc.

I ask because of the slower Ghz.

This question is like asking "Which is faster a Ferrari or a dump truck?"

If the job is to drive just you the Ferrari but if the job is to move 6,000 pounds of gravel the truck is faster. It is a mistake to buy the wrong vehicle. The 12-core is like the dump truck. If you have tons of rendering buy it


Buy the 12 core machine ONLY if you currently spend a lot of time WAITING for audio and video to render. And I mean WAITING as in you get up from your seat and walk around and come back and check. A 12-core machine will seriously speed things up for you.

But if your current machine is only "sluggish" and lags a little then you want more both (1) more RAM and (2) faster clock speed. (3) faster disks. Get an iMac if you don't do big render jobs. The 4-core Mac Pro is to old and expensive

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

Only if the OP is using his machine heavily to render video and audio and can't wait a long time. If he is only using it on rare occasions, then I can see the need for the Quad. a 6-core would even be a better choice over the Quad.

12 x 2.4 = 28.8
4 x 3.2 = 12.8

12 core wins.

XCode, Logic, and Final Cut can all use 12 cores.

 

[TableSyrup]

Just wondering if Jane Doe has anything to say about this

(Just sayin.... sorry.... I couldn't help it)

shameful... I know

 

[goMac]

Only if the OP is using his machine heavily to render video and audio and can't wait a long time. If he is only using it on rare occasions, then I can see the need for the Quad. a 6-core would even be a better choice over the Quad.

Why? They're slower. OP specifically asked what the faster machine was, so I responded with an accurate assessment of speed. 12 core would be faster than the 6 core, and OP is asking what the faster machine is, so I'm assuming speed is actually important to OP.

Sure, if the OP was ok with a slower machine, the 6 core would be a decent pick, but that's not what OP asked.

Code compiles can take a long time, and are an instance where you don't want to wait because you might be doing it a half dozen times within a ten minute span. OP certainly seems to a legitimate case for not wanting to wait.

 

[derbothaus]

App = Best

Xcode = 12-core
Final Cut X = 12-core
Final Cut 7 = Quad, Hex
Logic Pro = 12-core, Hex (Depends on use)
Photoshop = Quad, Hex

As goMac pointed out 12-core wins mathematically but it is your personal use that will determine where you spend your money. Could be extra RAM, SSD, etc...

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

Ok, maybe I overlooked the OPs intentions. If he is after extremely fast rendering times, then the 12-core would be the best option. I should have asked the OP what he uses his machine for to make a valid suggestion.

Based on his needs, the 12-core is a go. Now, if the OP was only using Photoshop or non-multi threaded apps, then the 6-core and or Quad. I like the 6-core better over the Quad, but thats my personal opinion.

App = Best

Xcode = 12-core
Final Cut X = 12-core
Final Cut 7 = Quad, Hex
Logic Pro = 12-core, Hex (Depends on use)
Photoshop = Quad, Hex

As goMac pointed out 12-core wins mathematically but it is your personal use that will determine where you spend your money. Could be extra RAM, SSD, etc...

 

[nanofrog]

So I have 2 options.

2.4Ghz 12-core or 3.2 Quad

Which one would you guys recommend? I can't offered to up the CPU on the 12 core to a higher GHz.

I will be using it for.
Writing Programs, Video Editing (Final Cut), Photoshop, LogicPro, etc.

I ask because of the slower Ghz.

How much time are you spending on each area you're using the system for?

The reason for asking, goes directly to cores v. clock frequency (GHz), as your specific usage pattern will determine the better direction for you to go.

For example, if most of your time is spent running applications that don't use many cores, frequency will be more important (i.e. Photoshop). But if your time is spent primarily doing video editing (Final Cut), then the core count will be able to have an effect, and may be the better choice.

Generally speaking (based on numerous posts here in MR on multiple use systems), the SP Hex core system tends to offer the best balance of cost and performance.

But without specifics, there's not really enough information to direct you properly (i.e recommendation could end up an expensive mistake).

 

[ClassObject]

There is a bigger world out there than just rendering some stuff.

If you need virtual machines, running multiple VMs at once, the 4 core is out. Go dual. I say go dual no matter. The speed isn't as big a deal as ram and more cores will be win.

 

[nanofrog]

There is a bigger world out there than just rendering some stuff.

Of course there is.

But all that matters is what the user will be doing with the system, as that's what performance that matters to that particular person.

Go dual. I say go dual no matter. The speed isn't as big a deal as ram and more cores will be win.

This is a blind, inaccurate statement.

It will be the case under specific conditions, but not ALL. Some still benefit from higher frequencies rather than core counts.

Keep in mind, that software is quite a bit behind hardware, and there will be applications that cannot be threaded to multiple cores (impossible/impractical due to the type of program).

Then there's the financial implications of such a statement for those that a DP core count are useless or nearly so (either don't use applications that can leverage the core count, or only a very small portion of their time is spent in them).

The "DP/high core counts all the way" comments have financial implications as well for those that can't really benefit from them.

 

[derbothaus]

There is a bigger world out there than just rendering some stuff.

If you need virtual machines, running multiple VMs at once, the 4 core is out. Go dual. I say go dual no matter. The speed isn't as big a deal as ram and more cores will be win.

Well in Photoshop a single high clocked Quad can be twice as fast as a 2.4GHz anything be it 8-core or 154-core. In Final Cut 7 by buying the 2.4GHz or 2.66GHz 12-core you just cut off your legs. Awesome VM host yes, terrible video editing system compared to the other options. OP never said anything about VM's especially more than 1 or 2. OP listed their concerning applications.

 

[mcnallym]

Is there anything you particularly need 10.8 for right now.

With what you are doing what will 10.8 bring you. Is the 2006 Mac Pro sluggish for your workload yet.

I haven't really seen anything for 10.8 on a Mac Pro with what you use it for that says you need it. (or maybe I have missed it )

I only ask as from your opening entry you appear to be changing the Mac Pro simply as it doesn't boot 10.8

If the Mac Pro 2006 isn't sluggish or slow yet, then why not hold off until the 2013 update. E3 / skt 1155 Ivybridge Xeons are out now so the E5's / 2011 shouldn't be too far off if that is what Apple are waiting for, and you would get more longevity and bang for buck, ( or pick up a current one cheaper )

 

[davidb367]

I was going to buy a new Mac. The MacPro 1,1 was getting a little sluggish in the 3D rendering area. I decided to wait for the next group of machines and upgraded the MacPro instead. I upgraded it from 4 cores @ 2.66 to 8 cores @ 2.66, RAM from 6GB to 12GB, and a 128GB Samsung SSD for 350.00. Works great, no problems. All of my software runs on Lion and below.

It has drastically cut my rendering times and I can continue to save money for the next round of Macs.

 

[TacticalDesire]

The fact that you have to ask probably means you don't need the 12 core. . Just sayin.

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

This is usually the case when someone asks, it means that they don't need that kind of power.

The fact that you have to ask probably means you don't need the 12 core. . Just sayin.

 

[twietee]

The fact that you have to ask probably means you don't need the 12 core. . Just sayin.

I'm not so sure about that, actually.
Sitting in the same boat I believe, do a lot of PS work and rendering. 50/50 I would even say, so what shall I do? The hex is somewhat fine, but considering rendertimes it would be wiser to go with the 12c...you can get pretty lost inbetween this decision.

I don't have much knowledge about these things but a few thoughts I made up or advises given by others:

- The hex is about maxed out, the 12c 2,4 has still plenty of possible upgrades cpu-wise, although this is the very expensive route. I don't think prices will go down on 1366 high-end CPUs either.
- large PS-files: using a proper SSD can significantly improve loading/saving times
- maybe a GPU can improve on PS usage (?)
- one can get the Hex (OP Quad) and add mini-server(s) as render nodes, also later if necessary. This was suggested to me sometime ago in MR and I find the general idea very appealing, but have to do much more research on that

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

I would just sum it up as follows: If most of the work one does most of the time is heavy rendering and encoding, then the 12-core would be the best bang since it will complete multiple tasks a lot faster than the Quad or 6-core. Get the 6-core if you do 50/50 regular computing and SOMETIMES encoding and rendering(Notice I am saying sometimes, and NOT all the time). The 6-core is still plenty powerful, but if one does not use many multi-threaded applications, the 12-core is useless, since to get all that power one would have to use multi-threaded applications.

The 6-core is the sweet spot as you get fast computing for daily use + that occasional time when you need to encode or render on the fly.

The Quad is good for daily computing, and light to not very often rendering.

Me personally, I would benefit more from the 6-core as I use my system for light rendering and very seldom do I encode large movies, unless I want to make a copy of a movie that I own as a backup.

The fact that you have to ask probably means you don't need the 12 core. . Just sayin.

I'm not so sure about that, actually.
Sitting in the same boat I believe, do a lot of PS work and rendering. 50/50 I would even say, so what shall I do? The hex is somewhat fine, but considering rendertimes it would be wiser to go with the 12c...you can get pretty lost inbetween this decision.

I don't have much knowledge about these things but a few thoughts I made up or advises given by others:

- The hex is about maxed out, the 12c 2,4 has still plenty of possible upgrades cpu-wise, although this is the very expensive route. I don't think prices will go down on 1366 high-end CPUs either.
- large PS-files: using a proper SSD can significantly improve loading/saving times
- maybe a GPU can improve on PS usage (?)
- one can get the Hex (OP Quad) and add mini-server(s) as render nodes, also later if necessary. This was suggested to me sometime ago in MR and I find the general idea very appealing, but have to do much more research on that

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[goMac]

On the other hand, the extra cores are very useful for doing live work in Logic Pro, if your compositions are complicated.

That goes beyond waiting, that's just making the app more usable. Although if you're not doing complicated stuff in Logic it may not be a huge deal.

 

[derbothaus]

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong but paying the money for X56xx series processors later on is just not a smart way to stay current. Even discounted greatly each proc may be over 1000.00 as they keep them around for servers and the enterprise and rarely discount them to regular consumers if you can even find them. So later on you pay 2000.00+ for another 20% gain but the rest of your system is still stuck in 2009 (ie. system bus, SATA links, PCI lanes, Memory, etc) Where that 2000.00 can go a long way to a full new system. The socket and board is dead as of 2011. Also it makes more sense to upgrade procs only on the singles as the cost is so much lower for the proc (ie 600.00) unless you have a line on X56xx at a great price.

 

[twietee]

You're not wrong but paying the money for X56xx series processors later on is just not a smart way to stay current.

Well, I didn't say it's smart, but for same people money doesn't matter as much as for others - that doesn't include me but still - one should at least consider it as a possibility. It doesn't really make sense to max out the 3.33 hex either, as it's not possible, or is it? That's actually no rhetorical question.
For OP with a quad thats valid of course.

It's also a pity that there are no geekbench-scores for the 12c 2.4, although I can somewhat imagine what they could be like

 

[PowerPCMacMan]

My guess that the 2.4 12-core scores will be LOW..maybe in most tasks, but in multi-threaded applications, I assume it will be high, but NOT as high as the w3680 3.33 6-core or the w3690 3.4 6-core.

Well, I didn't say it's smart, but for same people money doesn't matter as much as for others - that doesn't include me but still - one should at least consider it as a possibility. It doesn't really make sense to max out the 3.33 hex either, as it's not possible, or is it? That's actually no rhetorical question.
For OP with a quad thats valid of course.

It's also a pity that there are no geekbench-scores for the 12c 2.4, although I can somewhat imagine what they could be like

 

[twietee]

My guess that the 2.4 12-core scores will be LOW..maybe in most tasks, but in multi-threaded applications, I assume it will be high, but NOT as high as the w3680 3.33 6-core or the w3690 3.4 6-core.

Please explain! That doesn't sound too logical to me.

 

[goMac]

Please explain! That doesn't sound too logical to me.

It isn't. For multicore, the 12 core has more ghz.

There is no logical way a 6 core could score higher on multithreaded tasks.

It's not perfect, but generally with multicore apps you can get a rough comparison by multiplying ghz by number of cores.