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

Considering Mac Pro single vs dual processor....

mchalebk said:
That's true today and will probably be true a year from now. However, it will not be true in a few years. That's why I feel it's important to understand how long someone plans to use their computer before giving them advice on this matter.

When I buy my MacPro, I plan to use it for at least six years, maybe longer. In my case it makes sense to buy the 8-core system. If someone upgrades their computer every two or three years, the 8-core probably doesn't make sense unless they are doing specialized tasks that can take advantage of eight cores (like video rendering).
Click to expand...

Then indeed it is useful to buy the octocore macpro. In my case I will use the machine to the end of my master study which ends in june 2011. If I'm going for my PhD than it's life will be extended to 2015 or something like that.

But with only Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and some office apps having a Quad with 6gb ram is more than sufficient for me :)
 
MaximusNL said:
I was doubting just like the TS is doing now. Yesterday I ordered my MacPro single 2.8 Xeon with a 30" Cinema Display. To replace the 2nd cpu I added 4gb ram extra.

Reasons for Single CPU vs Dual CPU:
- The 2nd cpu provides only 2% performance increase
- More memory is better than a second cpu
- Braggin' rights about a 2nd cpu don't justify $500 :D
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, but where did you get this information?
 
I'm wondering about that also. Based on me going from two cores to four (enormous speed improvement), I'm betting he made the number up.
 
Roy said:
Not disagreeing, but where did you get this information?
Click to expand...

I don't get it either.
Processor speed up is not 1 to 1 that is for sure but a renderer using all 8 cores will be around 80% faster than the one using 4 cores.

Maybe he was talking about average usage in which this would make sense and some test proved that the quad core is as fast as 8 core in certain photoshop tasks and other apps.

Problem this days is that only a few apps will use more than 2 cores and let alone 8.
For average use 8 is a waste of $$.
 
I you plan on selling this a few years down the road for a new machine, consider this: your resale value will be drastically diminished by choosing the single proc option. The main selling point of the new Mac Pros is the 8 cores that it provides. Selling your self short now will impact the machines resale value as well as rending it obsolete that much faster. The machine is more "future proof" with all 8 cores.

I've heard so many people on this forum say that they'll add the second proc later if they need it. Trust me, the cost of getting a matched Xeon 2 years down the road along with the Apple-certified heatsink will probably cost you the $500 or even more. Look on eBay now for a Mac Pro heatsink and you'll see that there's none. Going to an Apple Certified Parts supplier will cost you and arm and a leg.

Do your self the favor and don't cheese-out with the single proc version. You'll regret it later.
 
krye said:
I you plan on selling this a few years down the road for a new machine, consider this: your resale value will be drastically diminished by choosing the single proc option. The main selling point of the new Mac Pros is the 8 cores that it provides. Selling your self short now will impact the machines resale value as well as rending it obsolete that much faster. The machine is more "future proof" with all 8 cores.

I've heard so many people on this forum say that they'll add the second proc later if they need it. Trust me, the cost of getting a matched Xeon 2 years down the road along with the Apple-certified heatsink will probably cost you the $500 or even more. Look on eBay now for a Mac Pro heatsink and you'll see that there's none. Going to an Apple Certified Parts supplier will cost you and arm and a leg.

Do your self the favor and don't cheese-out with the single proc version. You'll regret it later.
Click to expand...

Cheese-out... Lol. Even in 2-4 years you will not see too many apps running on 8 cores man. Even new PS will use GPU processing so I do not think multicore will be developed extensively for that app.

It's all about what you need isntead of cheesing-out or braggin rights.
$500 is a lot of memory + a better GPU and it's a WAY better upgrade to your PRO as it benefits you right away and not in 2-4 years.

Just because it says it is the fastest Mac ever it doesn't mean you'll be able to experience that. Software is not ready for this power in 90% of the cases now and it will take years before it is.

By the time software will use all this power the Mac Pro will be several generations ahead (which is another story).
I personally couldn't justify the $500 even tho I work with 3D apps. if I want a fast render I'll network my iMac and wifes Macbook which in most cases I don't even bother to do.
 
Ah, there was a page about it. All right.

I'll note though that even if you aren't using all 8 cores for one application, Leopard will still scale very well across them all if you've got lots of applications running simultaneously - I've got nine apps open right now and usually have six or seven more all open. So it's still not a bad deal.
 
Mackilroy said:
Ah, there was a page about it. All right.

I'll note though that even if you aren't using all 8 cores for one application, Leopard will still scale very well across them all if you've got lots of applications running simultaneously - I've got nine apps open right now and usually have six or seven more all open. So it's still not a bad deal.
Click to expand...

True so in your case it does make sense as yuo use a lot of apps at the same time. Just remember that some apps won't even use 15% of the CPU so you can run a few without any issues having 1 core.

Like I wrote. it's all about how you use your system. In some cases it makes alot of sense to get the 8 and in many is totally pointless.
:)
 
sash said:
What I'm just asking myself, why in the world is Apple giving these performance comparison charts?

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
Click to expand...

If you are a concious user that knows about all this stuff then answers will be simple BUT if you think (just take a look at this forum) that 8 cores has got to give you better performance simply as it is twice more than 4 then Apple does it's job right. They show you good sides of 8 core and that's about it. Problem is the good side of 8 cores is a extremeley small now compared to even 2 cores and if you are a casual user that does some photoshop and apps like that even a iMac will do it's job no worse than the 8 core system.

It's all about what you use it for. Same way a lot of people buy Pick Up Trucks to drive yet the bed never sees anything more than dust. You can have it but if you'll ever use it is another story.

Put your money somewhere else to benefit from it instead of dropping it into a box that most likeley you will never open. That's what I do with everything in my life. I just don't like to waste something I bust my ass off to get.
 
D4F said:
If you are a concious user that knows about all this stuff then answers will be simple BUT if you think (just take a look at this forum) that 8 cores has got to give you better performance simply as it is twice more than 4 then Apple does it's job right.
Click to expand...

I'm a conscious human being. All I wanted to say was that these 2% were not quite right (to say the least). But I do think that 20% - 200% speed gain -- for a professional -- is a reason to buy this particular product.
 
sash said:
I'm a conscious human being. All I wanted to say was that these 2% were not quite right (to say the least). But I do think that 20% - 200% speed gain -- for a professional -- is a reason to buy this particular product.
Click to expand...

For a Pro that needs all the power he can get indeed it is.

As for that 2% they were very right in the enviroment they tested it in.

For a regular user or amateur designer or even for a PRO photoshop user it's pointless. The $$ difference will be way better spent on RAM and better GPU.
 
D4F said:
For a Pro that needs all the power he can get indeed it is.

As for that 2% they were very right in the enviroment they tested it in.

For a regular user or amateur designer or even for a PRO photoshop user it's pointless. The $$ difference will be way better spent on RAM and better GPU.
Click to expand...

Peace... It's all about personal choice.
 
I'm not looking to start a fight. I'm just trying to say that it might be a waste to buy a single proc machine. What's the point of spending that kind of money and not going the extra mile to take full advantage of the machine? It's like buying a Porsche and asking for a 4 cylinder model.
 
sash said:
What I'm just asking myself, why in the world is Apple giving these performance comparison charts?

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
Click to expand...

You need to compare apples to apples (not even a joke ah!). You'd hope that a brand new MacPro would be at least 1.6x faster than the good ol' G5 ...

The truth is, not many applications are designed to take advantage of the multi-core architecture. :cool:

----
Quad Core G5 - 8.5GRAM - 2 LaCie D2 + Drobo 2TB
Dual 23" Cinema Display, iPod 5G, Shuffle & iPhone 8Gb
MacBook Air
 
krye said:
I'm not looking to start a fight. I'm just trying to say that it might be a waste to buy a single proc machine. What's the point of spending that kind of money and not going the extra mile to take full advantage of the machine? It's like buying a Porsche and asking for a 4 cylinder model.
Click to expand...

Problem is you do not take the full advantage of the machine. You get the hardware that most likeley will never be used as by the time apps benefit from setups like this the Mac will be a few generations ahead and I doubt you will keep it by then. We are talking years here and who knows how will technology advance and in which dirrection.
 
D4F said:
For a Pro that needs all the power he can get indeed it is.

As for that 2% they were very right in the enviroment they tested it in.

For a regular user or amateur designer or even for a PRO photoshop user it's pointless. The $$ difference will be way better spent on RAM and better GPU.
Click to expand...


And what would be your suggestion?
 
krye said:
I'm not looking to start a fight.
Click to expand...

You're right.

When you come to the point of working 12-14 hours a day, and you have an opportunity to spare let's say an hour thanks to a more powerful comp, cutting the time of the pure computing, then the answer is pretty clear.

Not to forget that as a pro you have to make costs.

sash
 
Roy said:
And what would be your suggestion?
Click to expand...

The 8800 and the 'new' ATI that is supposed to show up anytime soon.
Both of them will be way better than the 2600 BUT you have to make sure which is the field you will be using them.
If you're into Core Image then wait and see the numbers of the ATI and if you're a OpenGL guy then 8800 will be better.

And even if the new ATI doesn't improve core image numbers i still wouldn't spend $500 if I know I would never use them. Simple.
 
D4F said:
Question is why to spend $500 on something that most likely you will never use.
Click to expand...

I've got 2.6 speed gain on a task that I have to do several times a day -- 7 min instead of 18 (of cource, it differs). Let's say, I have to do that 10 times a day -- that could mean 1,5 - 2 spared hours.
 
sash said:
You're right.

When you come to the point of working 12-14 hours a day, and you have an opportunity to spare let's say an hour thanks to a more powerful comp, cutting the time of the pure computing, then the answer is pretty clear.

Not to forget that as a pro you have to make costs.

sash
Click to expand...

Problem is, some of those costs aren't worth it. There is making costs, then there is making the right costs.

Look at your average dell business class workstation, its a slow 700 dollar piece of crap, but it works for most professional business class workers. I am a professional programmer / sys admin, and it doesn't take 8 cores to type code and more real businesses have dedicated systems for large compilations (ie: not your home mac pro).

Unless your a contract video editor where time really is money and those extra minutes on your render are dead serious - your not going to need the 8 cores. A single quad will handle your surfing, gaming, and of course your professional spread sheets.
 
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