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.
3.2 Quad vs 3.33 Hex - Your Opinions
- Thread starter skiffx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL! Thank you guys for the laugh.
Here are some further thoughts on the quad vs. hex...
In my opinion, there are only three configurations worth buying from the 2010 line-up...
3.2GHz Quad for almost everyone (add a couple of SSD's if you have $$ burning a hole in your pocket)
3.3GHz Hexa for extreme multi-threaded workloads
2.66GHz Dodeca for extreme multi-threaded workloads, people that absolutely need more than 16GB of RAM, and who's billable hours or employer can easily cover the cost.
The 8 core just doesn't have a home in my opinion... The hex will beat it in every task.
Quad-core is old school now with even Laptop's having them.
Octa-core is so "obvious"
Hex/Dodeca are exotic
So, go with the hexacore
Octa-core is so "obvious"
Hex/Dodeca are exotic
So, go with the hexacore
Except a cheap way to 16 gigs of ram (not to mention 32), and an upgrade path to dual hex cores in the future when prices on the cpu's drop...
OK now I'm unsure about my 3.2 quad purchase . . . going back in forth in my mind whether to jump up to the 3.33 hex.
Any thoughts would be helpful. Here is what I use, in order of how much time used.
-Lightroom 3
-Adobe InDesign CS5
-Adobe Photoshop CS5
-Adobe Illustrator CS5
-Occasional gaming on Steam (for Mac or in Bootcamp)
I'm thinking the 3.2 Quad is more than sufficient, but the $700 upgrade to 3.33ghz quad is tempting, just not sure if it's worth it in the long run. It'll be another 18 months before my top 4 programs would be updated, and even if then, I doubt they'll be more optimized for multiple cores.
I already ordered my 3.2 Quad so I can't really wait for benchmarks, but I do have time to change my order. Thanks for any thoughts/help.
Any thoughts would be helpful. Here is what I use, in order of how much time used.
-Lightroom 3
-Adobe InDesign CS5
-Adobe Photoshop CS5
-Adobe Illustrator CS5
-Occasional gaming on Steam (for Mac or in Bootcamp)
I'm thinking the 3.2 Quad is more than sufficient, but the $700 upgrade to 3.33ghz quad is tempting, just not sure if it's worth it in the long run. It'll be another 18 months before my top 4 programs would be updated, and even if then, I doubt they'll be more optimized for multiple cores.
I already ordered my 3.2 Quad so I can't really wait for benchmarks, but I do have time to change my order. Thanks for any thoughts/help.
The 3.2 Quad will be an excellent machine for your needs. You could invest the money saved by not going with the Hex into storage or ram. Or you could just buy one additional harddrive and take your gf out for dinner.
I'm in this exact same situation with the prorgrams I use and the computer that I'm considering. I'd really like to get the 3.33, but that extra $$ just makes more since to be spent elsewhere (SSD, RAM, Video card upgrade).
Can anyone give us an idea how the 3.2GHz w/ the 5870 vs the 5770 will perform in PS CS5 & LR3 or Apeture?
The 5870 to me is a no-brainer, but I'm having a hard time justifying the Hexacore for the applications I use . . . glad to see others in the same boat. Currently I'm keeping with my 3.2 quad order unless someone can prove otherwise. Knowing that CS6 won't be around until 2012, maybe then I'll upgrade to more cores.
I think the Quad is ideal for those applications, it provides you some budget to upgrade things that will make more of a difference, like SSD's and the GPU. At least with Aperture, it utilizes the GPU fairly well and I'm thinking the 5870 will be a nice enhancement for that app (it's on my upgrade list for sure). For the others, outfitting your rig with 6, 8, or 12GB of RAM is probably a nice win as well. (Aperture is perfectly happy with 6GB). And then if you add an SSD for your OS/Apps drive, you have a monster performer in my mind.
For me I already have SSDs, 10TB and was already planning on installing 12GB from the get go; my current MP is already maxed. The only comparison left in my mind is if it is worth the upgrade to Hex if I'm not going to see the difference.
Resale value to me will be a wash since I'll never make up the extra $800 over a used 3.2ghz in 2 years.
Resale value to me will be a wash since I'll never make up the extra $800 over a used 3.2ghz in 2 years.
Is the upgraded quad 3.2 a good upgrade over the base 2.8? Quite a price jump, up in Canada anyways. Or is the money better spent on other goodies like an ssd and more ram? There seems to be so little love for the 2.8??
Is the upgraded quad 3.2 a good upgrade over the base 2.8? Quite a price jump, up in Canada anyways. Or is the money better spent on other goodies like an ssd and more ram? There seems to be so little love for the 2.8??
JMO, but the 2.8 is a real orphan or perhaps it's the black sheep of the family.
The top imac has better basic specs and is a WAY better "value" than the 2.8 as long as you can accept the imacs limitations. Anyway, the 2.8 just has no zing for me.
The 3.2 would be a no-brainer if it used 1333 memory. The Hex is the MP with real appeal.
cheers
JohnG
Is the upgraded quad 3.2 a good upgrade over the base 2.8? Quite a price jump, up in Canada anyways. Or is the money better spent on other goodies like an ssd and more ram? There seems to be so little love for the 2.8??
It really depends on your budget constraints. Personally, if I was buying a Mac Pro right now, I would buy the 3.2GHz Quad, but then, I opted for the 2.93 CPU last year at a $400+ premium as well.
In my mind, that 400MHz difference in clock speed is worth the extra $400. But everyone's budget and priority is different. If you don't consider yourself a real pro-apps power user but want an expandable system, then the 2.8GHz Quad is for you.
And consider that a week ago, a 3.3GHz Mac Pro quad with a crappy GPU cost $3700 USD... this week a 3.2GHz quad with much better GPU costs only $2900.
I agree with this assessment as every time I think about the 2.8GHz QUAD Mac Pro, I always think to myself that the iMac is a much better buy as it is a bit faster.
I wouldnt settle for anything less than the 3.2GHz QUAD Mac Pro. It would be sweet to have running 3.2GHz at default clock for OSX, even if its only 4 cores it would still be crazy fast.
I have been debating the 3.2 vs. 3.3 since the 9th --
I think I'll just go Quad. The 6 core is hard to resist but I CAN RESIST!! i think.
the 3.2 with an SSD and at least 8gb ram should be ok.
Couldnt resist any longer, pulled the trigger on 3.33 Hexa and got OCZ Vertex 2 180GB ssd with 16gb of transintl RAM.
I probably dont need Hexa, and 3.2 would have been sufficient, BUT, since its my first MacPro I wanted to have the top notch experience
I probably dont need Hexa, and 3.2 would have been sufficient, BUT, since its my first MacPro I wanted to have the top notch experience
Couldnt resist any longer, pulled the trigger on 3.33 Hexa and got OCZ Vertex 2 180GB ssd with 16gb of transintl RAM.
I probably dont need Hexa, and 3.2 would have been sufficient, BUT, since its my first MacPro I wanted to have the top notch experience
Sounds like you're going to have an *awesome* system!!
Couldnt resist any longer, pulled the trigger on 3.33 Hexa and got OCZ Vertex 2 180GB ssd with 16gb of transintl RAM.
I probably dont need Hexa, and 3.2 would have been sufficient, BUT, since its my first MacPro I wanted to have the top notch experience
smart move all the way around.
since i am moving up from imac and mac mini and my best cpu is 3.06ghz in the 2009 iMac. i am thinking the 2.8 quad works and then just have the good graphics card. i get the ed discount so it is about 2,479 plus tax then after market ram as needed. maybe drop in a hex core in 18 or 24 months, hdds ssds are not a problem.
Definitely no power user and like most, have looked at the iMacs too. Just think the Mac Pro offers much more in terms of flexibility - choose your own monitor, add drives galore with ease, including SSDs and better video card option. When you consider that if you want to stretch the life of a high end iMac by buying the dual driven option (SSD + 2TB HD), that's $1k option, the "value" of the iMac starts to diminish.
$400 for 400MHz? Would you not get more bang for the buck adding an SSD + RAM? Especially if you wait a bit for SSD prices to continue falling.