I've found a 2008 Mac pro with dual 2.8ghz quad processors and a 2009 with a 2.8ghz quad (hyperthreading) for around the same price. I know that the 2009 model supports faster ram and has more pci express slots on it. My main use will be avchd video rendering. Would I benefit more from the dual quad (8 core) processors on the 2008 or the quad on the 2009 with up to 8 virutal cores?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 8 core Mac Pro or 2009 Quad
- Thread starter bjoplin21
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ALL Mac Pro's ever made come with 4 expansion slots.
However, the 2008 will undoubtedly faster at those tasks in case that the rendering software can utilise all cores (which I assume).
RAM speed is actually pretty much negligible, it doesn't make a huge difference for rendering which is mostly CPU dependant.
A little math:
2008 octad: 22.4GHz raw CPU power
2010 quad: 11.2GHz. You can add about 20 to 30% to that for improved architecture and hyper threading, but still, the octad will be faster.
If your software is single threaded, get the 2010 quad, though. Turbo-boost and the improved architecture make it faster clock by clock.
However, the 2008 will undoubtedly faster at those tasks in case that the rendering software can utilise all cores (which I assume).
RAM speed is actually pretty much negligible, it doesn't make a huge difference for rendering which is mostly CPU dependant.
A little math:
2008 octad: 22.4GHz raw CPU power
2010 quad: 11.2GHz. You can add about 20 to 30% to that for improved architecture and hyper threading, but still, the octad will be faster.
If your software is single threaded, get the 2010 quad, though. Turbo-boost and the improved architecture make it faster clock by clock.
There was no 2.8GHz 2009 model.
Anyway, my post above applies to 2009 models as well as 2009 and 2010 are pretty much exactly the same.
Anyway, my post above applies to 2009 models as well as 2009 and 2010 are pretty much exactly the same.
I agree. For rendering that can use multicores then 8 real cores will beat 8 virtual cores hands down, even with slightly older architecture.
Most of my rendering will be done in final cut express. Should that utilize multiple cores?
Get the 2008 Mac pro. 8 real cores will be better. Plus, you can use the over clocking software from zdnet to bump it up a bit more. Only issue is it messes with the clock but shouldn't affect rendering.
Here are the raw Geekbench averages for pure multi threaded.
2.8GHz 2008: 7685
2.66GHz 2009: 8144
They are really close. Add to that the single core execution got better as well on the i7's so you can't even really say that the clock bump would be any better for single threads. The GT120 sucks though on the newer 2009. I'd get the 2.66. Newer and has 2 turbo bins to clock at 2.93GHz on single threads. Xeon W3520.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39718
2.8GHz 2008: 7685
2.66GHz 2009: 8144
They are really close. Add to that the single core execution got better as well on the i7's so you can't even really say that the clock bump would be any better for single threads. The GT120 sucks though on the newer 2009. I'd get the 2.66. Newer and has 2 turbo bins to clock at 2.93GHz on single threads. Xeon W3520.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39718
Geekbench doesn't really scale well with hyper threading, though.
For example my 2.26GHz 2009 model scores 14000 and there is absolutely no way that it is almost twice as fast as the 2008 2.8GHz model, besides all the improved architecture.
As already mentioned, 20 to 30% is a realistic clock by clock speed increase, everything beyond that is just wishful thinking.
Im kind of dissapointed that final cut doesn't use multiple core processing. It kind of makes me want to hold off on getting the Mac Pro. But I guess I could try to learn some new software...maybe Adobe Premiere elements...
Hopefully apple will implement multithreading on the next update. If they don't, I suspect apple will loose more customers to adobe. Been considering moving over myself but might wait to see the next update before deciding.
Honestly, it doesn't matter. I do feature length editing and can edit on a mini if I needed to. Editing is not processor intensive. The limited time I have to render tends to be more of a limiting factor of the FX plug manufacturer being slow, not FCP. Compressor on the other hand DOES support multithreading and THAT is where you need it. And even compressor doesn't matter THAT much as most pro will have hardware transcoders. And when I'm doing heavy effects, I'm in After Effects anyway.
And not many professionals would just switch their whole work flow unless every one of their clients also did. I couldn't use Premiere even if I wanted to and I don't want to. I wouldn't up-heave a perfectly working $10K edit suite just because there may be a tiny speed increase when rendering which I tend to do during lunch or other times anyway.
Doesn't this prove the exact opposite? The 2.26 has 16 effective cores and the 2.8 has 8 effective. So if Hyperthreading is working as expected and scales correctly the 2.26 would be much faster even with the 600MHz difference (In geekbench land at least) It has twice the cores and geekbench is using them. This in no way reflects real world of course. For reference my 3.33GHz 6-core benches 14334 on 32-bit and it would destroy the 2.26GHz on pretty much everything. I see what you are saying but HT does work with geekbench and scales better than most other complete core saturation apps aside from Cinebench or something.
Certain elements are multi threaded like some of the H264/ ProRes codecs. Some compressor encodes. Just not the Final Cut edit app.
Last edited:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by exporting? Render, save, send to...?
If you use ProRes, multicore would make a difference in stream capability but from what I have seen renders (in app) are still slow and painful even at 3.2GHz+. FCP can also host multi-thread aware plugins and you get a benefit that way too.
If you use ProRes, multicore would make a difference in stream capability but from what I have seen renders (in app) are still slow and painful even at 3.2GHz+. FCP can also host multi-thread aware plugins and you get a benefit that way too.
By exporting I mean saving your sequence to a file such as mp4 or mov. Thats the main reason I want to get a Mac Pro so that I could improve the export times that I'm getting from my Macbook Pro 2.66ghz C2D
If you are exporting to quicktime, using the same sequence settings than it is a matter of writing the file time, there is no rendering. If you are using quicktime conversion then you are dealing with transcoding. If you are going h264 I would suggest getting a small hardware dongle. Cheapest/quality wise is the El Gato Turbo h264. I use it and for $100 I can easily 3x-to-6x my transcode speed (depending on quality and resizing). Quite a speed boost to money ratio that you aren't going to see going to a mac pro. I edit professionally on a Mac Pro and yes, while it will smoke my 2.4 C2D transcoding to h264, the El Gato is the most cost effective thing I have ever bought to reduce my time. Even on my decked out mac pro it is the single most useful to cost ratio tool I own and my suite is easily $10K.
Yeah I'm exporting my sequences using Quicktime conversion to h264 on my MBP... I was thinking buying a 2008 8 Core Mac Pro would be a lot faster when performing this task in Final Cut Express.. I guess I could just just save my money if it's not going to make much of a difference.
It WILL improve performance, but not a whole ton. If you are transcoding using compressor a lot than yes, the MP will be of great advantage with enough ram. But, where the compressor quality will be cleaner for a very big increase of money, for $100 you can speed up your conversions 3-6x with the El Gato.
I use an MXO2 LE and they have the MAX h264 encoder which I would have bought for an additional $400 but I do work remotely time to time. Having a $100 USB dongle the size of a thumb drive that 3-6X real time transcodes is probably the single, cheapest, most important addition to my workflow I have ever purchased in my career.
The long and short of it:
Yes a MP will be faster than your MBP in every respect. If you are concerned about multithreaded apps, remember you will need twice as much RAM. AE chokes on an 8-core with 16GB of ram because each core is getting 2GB. My 2.8 GHz 4-core with 16GB of RAM will smoke any 8-core with 16GB of RAM in practical real world applications. I have a client that has dual 2.26 ers with 16GB and my render time from AE with multiprocessor enabling is easily 4x's faster and I can continue using other apps while it is rendering. Their machines are useless during rendering. Just an FYI.
Last edited:
Helpful info... I'm definitely on the fence about purchasing a Mac Pro now... I was just about ready to spend that $1600 lol. I was thinking it would do wonders for the export times that I'm getting now from my FCE sequences on my mbp. Especially the sequences that are over 20 minutes in duration. Those are usually taking an hour or 2 now. Guess I have some decisions to make!
I'm pretty sure in a recent customer - Jobs email chat, Jobs mentioned that FCP will be updated early 2011. One can only hope that this will be addressed..