I asked the EXACT same question yesterday, and someone said that you WILL be able to. They also said that Apple might have a different firmware that will prevent people from upgrading their dual quads to dual hex processors. I wanted to get the 8-core and then upgrade to 12-cores when the prices are cheaper. I think we'll have to wait until people receive their 8/12 core machines and then we can determine if they are identical.
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.
6-core or 8-core MacPro
- Thread starter harlem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I asked the EXACT same question yesterday, and someone said that you WILL be able to. They also said that Apple might have a different firmware that will prevent people from upgrading their dual quads to dual hex processors. I wanted to get the 8-core and then upgrade to 12-cores when the prices are cheaper. I think we'll have to wait until people receive their 8/12 core machines and then we can determine if they are identical.
so the article states that the 6-core 3.33 beats the 12core 2.93? (clock speed)
going by the article the 6-core is pretty much up there with the 12core?
For most applications, yes. Until (or If) they are written to take advantage of all cores available, pure clock speed will win the day.
Unless a new chip technology comes out, of which Sandy Bridge will most definitely drop prices across the board.
i've ordered an 8-core with 8GB ram
i'm planning on using it for FCS and CS5 stuff and also as my personal computer (itunes, photography, internet etc.)
but reading this makes me want to cancel this order. what do you guys think?
my opinion was that everything seems to be going towards more cores over clock speed so an 8core made sence.
i'm planning on using it for FCS and CS5 stuff and also as my personal computer (itunes, photography, internet etc.)
but reading this makes me want to cancel this order. what do you guys think?
my opinion was that everything seems to be going towards more cores over clock speed so an 8core made sence.
That's what Intel would have you believe since the only real way they can keep improving processor performance is to add more cores. Clock speeds hit a wall a couple of years ago. However, software is not following suit and software for creative professionals, particularly Apple's own products, are terribly lagging in their multi-threaded capabilities. Some tasks just don't lend themselves to multi-threading either. (9 women can't have a baby in 1 month). So clock speed is still king on all but a very select group of apps and tasks (3D rendering, video compression, etc.).
At any rate, the 3.3GHz 6 core will complete even heavily multi-threaded tasks faster than the 2.4GHz 8 core. So if the 6 core isn't powerful enough for you, then you should be looking at the higher clocked 8 core or the 12 core machines.
I think that's great advice, personally, though I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 9 women having a baby, lol.
I use an 8-core at work for video and the only time I see a benefit is when I'm doing an export via Compressor. I setup a virtual cluster and now my DVD's export at least three times as fast. More often, though, I'm waiting out little renders in FCP. If I was choosing, I'd take the clock speed over the added cores.
Exactly.
Software always lags behind hardware, so multi-threaded operation (if it's even possible), is hard to come by for the most part. Some that are, have fixed core counts (i.e. Photoshop that's stuck to 2 cores).
BTW, there's only the single Octad model in the 2010 lineup (2.4GHz; the other two choices are Dodeca's @ 2.66 and 2.93GHz).
Wahoo, did it.
Got the Hex (CDN price btw).
Now deciding on RAM. Crucial has 2 x 8GB sticks for $1000; OWC 4 x 4GB for $750; Trasintl 4 x 4GB for $560.
Can't believe the difference in Apple vs. OWC vs. Transintl prices. What's the safest bet? A search for failure rates yields a lot of OWC results, but I'm guessing that's because they sell a *lot* and who's going to report unless there's a failure or compatibility issue. The common factor, though, is that OWC has a great warranty and always replaces problem RAM.
And still now sure if the hex supports 8 GB sticks. Crucial is the only one that lists them for this model.
Going to grab some 1.5 TB 7200 drives, too.
Got the Hex (CDN price btw).
Now deciding on RAM. Crucial has 2 x 8GB sticks for $1000; OWC 4 x 4GB for $750; Trasintl 4 x 4GB for $560.
Can't believe the difference in Apple vs. OWC vs. Transintl prices. What's the safest bet? A search for failure rates yields a lot of OWC results, but I'm guessing that's because they sell a *lot* and who's going to report unless there's a failure or compatibility issue. The common factor, though, is that OWC has a great warranty and always replaces problem RAM.
And still now sure if the hex supports 8 GB sticks. Crucial is the only one that lists them for this model.
Going to grab some 1.5 TB 7200 drives, too.
re: RAM
See a few threads popping up now regarding the eternal RAM question:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/991162/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/991677/
See a few threads popping up now regarding the eternal RAM question:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/991162/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/991677/
Got the Hex (CDN price btw).
Now deciding on RAM. Crucial has 2 x 8GB sticks for $1000; OWC 4 x 4GB for $750; Trasintl 4 x 4GB for $560.
Don't bother ordering any RAM until places like OWC confirm what's usable. Even they're not sure about the vague restrictions on these new Intel chips. For instance, you might not even be able to use 8GB DIMMs in the 6/8/12 cores.
Exactly why I'm waiting. Crucial is the only one listing 8GB sticks, but I'm waiting for OWC to get their machines and do their testing. If the hex does indeed support 8GB sticks, I'm sure OWC will offer them at that time.
I called apple asking about the 6 core model vs 8 core. I use FCP a lot and want it to be future ready. The person I spoke with put me on hold while he spoke to the specialists. He came back and said the 6 core is better for the current FCP now, however, when FCP eventually goes to 64-bit, the 8 core would be the better choice to handle that.
Take note that he didn't say for sure FCP would go 64-bit, but the hint was there.
So I bought an 8 core.
Take note that he didn't say for sure FCP would go 64-bit, but the hint was there.
So I bought an 8 core.
There's no doubt that FCP is due for an overhaul that would mean 64-bit and better multi-threaded support. However, it's not clear if they will go for CPU core or GPU core optimizations. The latter would probably yield more gains.
Regardless, the 3.33GHz Hex will still beat the 2.4GHz Octo at multi-threaded tasks due to it's clock speed advantage. The only advantage to the Octo is a cheap way to install mass quantities of RAM.
At any rate, I'm sure the Octo will serve you well.
Man, no one should listen to anything this guy says if he really believes this. I'll give you a choice between a 4 ghz Pentium 4, and a 2.66 ghz Nehalem. Which would you pick? There is more to processor performance than clock speed and core count.
It seems the general consensus around here is that the single 6-core model is a better idea vs. the 8-core model. As an After Effects user I was planning on loading up on as much RAM as cheaply (within reason) as possible, and this has been pushing me towards the 8 core as the 12 falls outside my price range.
Up until now I've been using a qual-core macbook pro at 2.8 for FCP, Avid and AE with only 4 gigs of RAM. Before that was a dual-core at 2.4 Windows desktop with 3 gigs of RAM. Obviously whatever the choice this is going to be a significant upgrade.
I'd love to hear from other 8-core purchasers their reason for getting the system. I'm not opposed to being swayed and I definitely see strong points for the 6 core, but the long term cost to me is too steep. Am I going to be really upset with a 2.4 processor considering what I've been using up until now?
Up until now I've been using a qual-core macbook pro at 2.8 for FCP, Avid and AE with only 4 gigs of RAM. Before that was a dual-core at 2.4 Windows desktop with 3 gigs of RAM. Obviously whatever the choice this is going to be a significant upgrade.
I'd love to hear from other 8-core purchasers their reason for getting the system. I'm not opposed to being swayed and I definitely see strong points for the 6 core, but the long term cost to me is too steep. Am I going to be really upset with a 2.4 processor considering what I've been using up until now?
one final check up before ordering - its just that i don't want to regret spending so much money on the wrong machine.
- Is it pretty safe to say the 6-core will beat the 8-core. (music editing, photoshop, illustrator, indesign)
- the 6-core only has up to 16GB of ram, i was reading somewhere that you might be able to put more than 16GB in it using 8GB sticks. is this true?
- Whats the biggest reason why one should choose an 8-core over the 6-core. And will an 8-core machine with 8GB outperforme the 6-core or will the 6-core still be king regardless?
- Since my budget is limited at the moment i don't have money to add memory to my purchase...is it a bit silly to have the 6-core machine with only 3GB of memory? will the machine perform relatively slower than the 8-core witch has 6GB standard. (straight out the box configs)
- Future wise, what would definitely seem like the best and smartest purchase (hoping this computer lasts me 4-5 years).
- Is it pretty safe to say the 6-core will beat the 8-core. (music editing, photoshop, illustrator, indesign)
- the 6-core only has up to 16GB of ram, i was reading somewhere that you might be able to put more than 16GB in it using 8GB sticks. is this true?
- Whats the biggest reason why one should choose an 8-core over the 6-core. And will an 8-core machine with 8GB outperforme the 6-core or will the 6-core still be king regardless?
- Since my budget is limited at the moment i don't have money to add memory to my purchase...is it a bit silly to have the 6-core machine with only 3GB of memory? will the machine perform relatively slower than the 8-core witch has 6GB standard. (straight out the box configs)
- Future wise, what would definitely seem like the best and smartest purchase (hoping this computer lasts me 4-5 years).
His statement meant compared to the previous generation, not n generations back, as there's too much of a disparity between the architectures. Remember, Pentium 4 was still a single core, and they were still trying to tweak the frequency to get things moving faster. This is also when they realized that they had hit the wall (for mass production parts using air cooling), and shifted their focus to additional cores (SMP) to increase performance.
In the case of Nehalem and Westmere LGA1366 parts, the base architecture is the same. Westmere got a couple of tweaks (i.e cache went up, and new AES instructions), and some parts got additional cores as a result of the die shrink. But the memory controller is the same, cores operate the same way, base clock is the same, QPI didn't change within their family (SP & DP kept the same counts),...
You're really making my point... Intel has been forced to trade clock speed increases for core count and other logic improvements since at about 3.5-4GHz they have reached the physical switching limits of current silicon. I didn't say there were no other improvements going on... of course there are core logic, cache, memory, instruction set and other optimizations going on, but the CPU design world has definitely shifted from clock speed to core count as a way to continually improve processor performance.
BTW, why the personal attack? A lot of your posts seem fairly confrontational and immature.
The age though between P4 and current parts is significant. Even if you run a single threaded application on both, the P4 will be left in the dust by the current line of chips, even at lower clock speeds (i.e. 2.8GHz base 2010 Quad).
This is where the other changes will take over, such as better out of order processing, larger cache, improved IO,...
But I do get your point over cores vs. clock. Even if you were able to run 4x P4's on the same board (same config as 7xxx Xeons), the 2.8GHz Quad would still beat it on multi-threaded applications. Even though faster clocks in the P4's (4GHz), the newer architecture will still make up for the difference and then some.
If 9 women cant have a baby in 1 month, can 6 women with a harder push have a baby in 3 months?
If 9 women cant have a baby in 1 month, can 6 women with a harder push have a baby in 3 months?
Nope!
Some tasks just can't be multi-threaded. Yeah, I wasn't implying there weren't other architectural improvements going on... of course every new microarchitecture gets a lot of under the hood improvements.... and I wasn't talking about P4's either, I was more focused on the shift to more cores in recent years (particularly with the Core2 and Nehalem architectures).
Any way, it's clear that increasing TDP headroom brought about by smaller node processes are now being used differently than they use to... Now, the smaller process is being used for adding cores and related logic/cache... not for increasing clocks. The physical limitations of current silicon in terms of current leakage have been reached at our current top clock speeds of 3.5-4GHz. Even a single core 32nm processor that might have TDP headroom to run at 8GHz, isn't going to do that... the physics of the materials won't allow it.
Nope!
8 Bruce lees can knockout 1 Tyson...
I'd go 6 core all the way. It is simply faster than the 8 core. Period.
The only possible reason for going octad I could image is that you require more than 32GB RAM or don't wanna spend that much money for RAM.
The only possible reason for going octad I could image is that you require more than 32GB RAM or don't wanna spend that much money for RAM.