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

6-core or 8-core MacPro

That's assuming large scale support of more than 6 cores—and I think that's probably a pipe dream for a 4 year time period. Software advancement is slow.

You also have to consider how fast those cores are. Having more doesn't necessarily help if they're nearly 1GHz slower.

I'm almost certain the 6-core will be the way faster machine CPU-wise. But those 4 RAM slots...:mad:
 
eponym said:
those 4 RAM slots...:mad:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I run 16GB on my 2008 MP right now and I have maxed it out a few times already with page outs. So if I want more than 16GB RAM in a 2010 I pretty much have to go for the 8 core.

Sure I could get 8GB sticks but they would be horrendously Expen$ive!
 
hmmmm
8core = 2 more cores for a 1GHz speed trade off

i think its cheaper for a reason. i am now thinking 6 core will be faster. but RAM!! ARRRRRR

dam i cannot decide
 
harlem said:
so the article states that the 6-core 3.33 beats the 12core 2.93? (clock speed):confused:

going by the article the 6-core is pretty much up there with the 12core?
Click to expand...

Those benchmarks are lloyds assessment of using common Photography software solutions and how they'd perform. Unfortunately most software even Photoshop does not scale well with multiple cores.

However, there's no way the 6 core is going to keep up with a 12 core doing media conversion or other scalable app that will utilize all cores.

The gigahertz IMO, still matters and there's a huge gap from 2.4 to 3.33ghz, almost every app would benefit from the extra .933ghz but only a few will benefit from the 2 extra cores on the octo.

The primary win for the 8 core is the extra RAM slots, which means cheaper and more RAM.

I'll be going with the hex core a 8gb x 3 sticks for 24gb of RAM.
 
I'm leaning towards 6-core.


Even when apps utilize all cores. I'll still have 6 CORES. That's enough for what i'll be doing. Plus, I really don't want to have to step back to 2.4ghz. Even my iMac is 3ghz.


But, the 8-core comes w/ much better options and a cheaper price tag. I use reason and logic studio for mixing & mastering. I really don't know what will be best for what I do. smh

smh, what a hard decision.
 
tekboi said:
I'm leaning towards 6-core.


Even when apps utilize all cores. I'll still have 6 CORES. That's enough for what i'll be doing. Plus, I really don't want to have to step back to 2.4ghz. Even my iMac is 3ghz.


But, the 8-core comes w/ much better options and a cheaper price tag. I use reason and logic studio for mixing & mastering. I really don't know what will be best for what I do. smh

smh, what a hard decision.
Click to expand...

Do you mind telling me the "much better options" besides RAM? Thanks
 
aLfR3dd said:
Do you mind telling me the "much better options" besides RAM? Thanks
Click to expand...

Well there's several things when it comes to RAM:

The extra slots make it easier to upgrade RAM, as well as way cheaper and to a greater capacity. It comes standard with 2x the RAM. For many of us, 6GB to start would be fine. But 3GB is pointless in a server-class workstation. So almost right away you're dishing out even more $$ for the hexacore.

And the price difference between the two standard configs means you could upgrade the 8-core to the better GPU.
 
eponym said:
Well there's several things when it comes to RAM:

The extra slots make it easier to upgrade RAM, as well as way cheaper and to a greater capacity. It comes standard with 2x the RAM. For many of us, 6GB to start would be fine. But 3GB is pointless in a server-class workstation. So almost right away you're dishing out even more $$ for the hexacore.

And the price difference between the two standard configs means you could upgrade the 8-core to the better GPU.
Click to expand...

Not to mention with the 8 core you're getting 24mb L3 Cache (3mb per core) vs. 12mb L3 with the 6 core (2mb per core). I don't know much about hardware but I'm guessing that at some point the 6 core is going to be bottlenecked since it has less L3 per core and only one bus. Plus, an additional 4 "virtual cores" from the 8 core has to help out as well.

This is just the way I see it, but again, wouldn't consider myself a hardware expert :)

Edit: My main concern regarding the 6 core vs. 8 core debate is the longevity of the system...as others have said, multithreaded apps should become more prevalent in the near future, making the 8 core more worthwhile than it appears right now.
 
shokunin said:
Those benchmarks are lloyds assessment of using common Photography software solutions and how they'd perform. Unfortunately most software even Photoshop does not scale well with multiple cores.

However, there's no way the 6 core is going to keep up with a 12 core doing media conversion or other scalable app that will utilize all cores.
Click to expand...

'Shokunin' - What APPs will utilize all cores? you mention media conversion? I really want to know as I have not heard of many that do so would love to find out which ones do.

Thanks
 
StofUnited said:
'Shokunin' - What APPs will utilize all cores? you mention media conversion? I really want to know as I have not heard of many that do so would love to find out which ones do.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I can only speak to what I will be using the new 12 core Mac Pro for, virtualization.
 
StofUnited said:
'Shokunin' - What APPs will utilize all cores? you mention media conversion? I really want to know as I have not heard of many that do so would love to find out which ones do.

Thanks
Click to expand...

These are apps that I use regularly that utilizes all cores on my Octo 2.8.
Handbrake will utilize all cores when transcoding, Final Cut Pro Compressor with Qmaster Cluster enabled for render and compression, and Genuine Fractals will utilize all cores when upconverting still photos for larger print jobs.
 
So I'm currently using a Quad G5 and its pretty much dead - so I need a new machine (it keeps overheating and crashing after 30 minutes). I went with the 6 core for now - which will be a big jump for me and if I need more, I'll get another one in a year or two. The money I'll save will let me buy CS5 and a host of other much needed upgrades - I have the current FCP on my MacBook Pro, so I can't wait to see how much better that runs.

D
 
Mr. Anderson said:
So I'm currently using a Quad G5 and its pretty much dead - so I need a new machine (it keeps overheating and crashing after 30 minutes). I went with the 6 core for now - which will be a big jump for me and if I need more, I'll get another one in a year or two. The money I'll save will let me buy CS5 and a host of other much needed upgrades - I have the current FCP on my MacBook Pro, so I can't wait to see how much better that runs.

D
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mean you will add another processor, as the 6 cores only have one socket.
 
6 x 3.33 = 20ghz total
8 x 2.4 = 19.2ghz total

On top of that the 6 core uses 1333 mhz bus where the 8 core only has a 1066 mhz bus. I expect the 6 core to be faster in everything even apps that can stress all 8 (16 with HT) cores.

But if you use only software that scales really well over multiple cores the 8 core is a better deal, as it has more memory and is cheaper , while performance will be really close (in those apps). Also a big benefit can be that it can hold twice the memory the 6 core can.

If you use software that doesn't scale over 6 cores the 6 core will be a lot faster. Hell if it doesn't scale over 4 cores ,which a lot of software does not, the base model will be significantly quicker.

The 8 core model is really for a very specific market. The 6 core is the jack of all trades. Best single to six core performance (of all macs!) and very good even when software can use more then 6 cores
 
iRobertM said:
I hope you don't mean you will add another processor, as the 6 cores only have one socket.
Click to expand...

No - buying a new machine sooner than I'd like, but I have a plan :D

I just need to be up and running and comfortable right now and for the next year or so - 3D animation, flash/flex dev., iphone dev, movies (FCP, Motion)

This machine will do quite nicely and leave me with a little extra cash so I can buy software upgrades and the like.

D
 
Dang it! Why did they have to price the 6 core and 8 Core models so close together?!?

Now I'm sitting here, more speed or more RAM... :confused:
 
I vote for 8 core. You get more standard RAM and better upgradeability if you choose to upgrade the memory (and processor).
 
I went for the 6-core. Remember that Nehalems and Westmeres offer hyperthreading, so the 6-core will present 12 virtual cores to your software, and a 3.33GHz processor will have no problem keeping up with the virtual load. On my Dell (see sig) my video editing software uses all 8 virtual cores and is very fast. So I'm counting on my new 6-core to plough through the 12 parallel tasks with ease.
 
I don't think there's much to add that hasn't been said already, but here's my analysis...

For 6GB of RAM (from Apple):
Quad 3.2 = $3124
Hex 3.3 = $3924
Octo 2.4 = $3500

With 12GB of RAM from OWC the gap between the Hex/Octo decreases...

$2900 + $457 = $3357
$3700 + $457 = $4157
$3500 + $424 = $3924

In addition, the max turbo boost for each is...

3.2GHz > 3.46GHz
3.3GHz > 3.6HGHz
2.4GHz > 2.66GHz

My conclusion is, that unless you are doing a lot of multi-threaded applications, the 3.2 Quad core is the best value: It is 30% faster than the Octo at single-threaded tasks which means even with half the cores, it should only be slightly slower at multi-threaded tasks... all for less money.

If you need higher levels of multi-threading, the Hex core is king because it has nearly a 40% clock advantage on the Octo with 25% fewer cores. It will finish multi-threaded tasks faster than the Octo. PLUS it will finish single threaded tasks 40% faster. It will beat the Octo at every work load, for less than $200 more for 12GB of RAM.

Again this year, it seems the entry level Octo is an odd choice. Running more than 16GB of RAM is the only use I can see for it, but I wouldn't make the other compromises in performance necessary to just get those RAM slots. I'd either try to make do with 12GB or 16GB, or go for the gusto with the 12 Core.
 
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