Nobody denies that but if your a PRO working 12-14 hours a day let's say in photoshop then 2% is not worth the $500 no matter how you look at it. Get RAM for that $500 and you'll see a big difference in this case.
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.
Considering Mac Pro single vs dual processor....
- Thread starter badcrc32
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nobody denies that but if your a PRO working 12-14 hours a day let's say in photoshop then 2% is not worth the $500 no matter how you look at it. Get RAM for that $500 and you'll see a big difference in this case.
With all due respect, I don't think you need a workstation for these tasks (even a single-CPU). Mac Mini will do.
sash
Just as you don't need 8 cores in Mac Pro to run many professional applications at 100% as you will not notice any speed differences. All you will feel is $500 less in your pocket.
A mac mini play games? Ridiculous. A mac mini have 4 gigs of ram? Ridiculous. A mac mini with user replaceable / upgradable parts? Ridiculous. A mac mini power multiple displays with out extra adapters? Ridiculous. Etc.
I think you forget some of the many reasons why people are attracted to the mac pro instead of the under powered and all in 1 solutions.
comparing MatLab drives between the mac pro at home and the dual core 2.66Ghz computer at work is a laugh. Just look at the image provided, this exact same script took approx. 5.5 times longer on the HP. This just shows that there already are usage for more power, on some places you just CAN'T have enough computing power. More power = less time.
Attachments
Very true if you're talking six years. With the current flattening of CPU power, and growing green initiatives though, I'm unconvinced it will matter in two years, or even three. Hell, my dual G5 is still doing fine for most tasks and it's almost a 4-year old platform now.
People throw around 'professional' like candy, and don't understand how powerful these machines are. The slowest interface in any computer is *you* for 95% of tasks. A single user multitasking enough to hit all 8 cores without some form of rendering or real-time video going on is rare to nonexistent.
I also think most people over-inflate their need. Hell, I know I did for a long time. That's fine, but call it what it is. Doing a bit of Maya for fun isn't *really* justifying a $4k machine if we're honest with ourselves. Saying 'I want it' and being clear on that is, IMHO. As long as your savings are good and your 401k is maxed first...
Very true if you're talking six years. With the current flattening of CPU power, and growing green initiatives though, I'm unconvinced it will matter in two years, or even three. Hell, my dual G5 is still doing fine for most tasks and it's almost a 4-year old platform now.
People throw around 'professional' like candy, and don't understand how powerful these machines are. The slowest interface in any computer is *you* for 95% of tasks. A single user multitasking enough to hit all 8 cores without some form of rendering or real-time video going on is rare to nonexistent.
I also think most people over-inflate their need. Hell, I know I did for a long time. That's fine, but call it what it is. Doing a bit of Maya for fun isn't *really* justifying a $4k machine if we're honest with ourselves. Saying 'I want it' and being clear on that is, IMHO. As long as your savings are good and your 401k is maxed first...
It won't take 6 years to justify an 8-core machine, though. And what $4K? I thought they were $2799.
Yeah, I agree. It really just depends on your workload, though. If you never touch the extra cores, was the extra $500 worth it?
Also, $4k is shorthand for $2800 + tax + RAM + hard drives + etc. Nobody runs a stock machine.
As a business / self-employed you're not paying tax (state returns VAT amount). RAM and drives etc. cost half the prise at OWC, newegg and so on.
Look, a few years ago Apple has been criticised for not being able to catch up with the PC world in terms of speed, productivity etc. Now Apple offers us the most powerful workstations at the lowest prise, leaving in these aspects the whole industry far behind, -- and what's the reaction? -- 'Nobody needs all that power and won't need it for years'.
Firstly, let me say there's a few really sensible opinions in this thread. The one I've quoted from Sash is my pick.
I don't work in USD, however I can say I spent the extra and got 8 cores. Sure, at present 'the beast' barely raises a sweat, however one must remember that the architecture and software are still very much in the infancy stage.
Software and applications will grow to support 8 cores - there is no doubt in my mind about that. If your looking to future proof yourself and make a substantial long term investment, there should be no doubt in yours.
My point is that, if you keep your computer for four or more years, you WILL touch the other cores.
Furthermore, if you're the type of person who holds on to a computer for that long, the extra processing power will probably allow you to be happy with the machine for a longer period of time. Enough, perhaps, to last one or two more release cycles so that the next time you buy you're further down the road. If spending an extra $500 today allows you to keep the computer for one year longer, it is definitely worth the money.
Bottom line:
If you buy a new computer every 2 or 3 years and don't perform tasks like video rendering that can use all eight cores now, it's probably not worth the money.
If you do video rendering or other core intensive tasks or you plan to keep the computer for at least four years, it is worth the money.
Given the harcore users around here, I'm surprised no one has brought up virtualization.
I'm running the aforementioned MacMini. It's fine for surfing, iPhoto, light GarageBand, etc.
But run up a virtual machine? Even with memory to spare, a single virtual machine has both cores maxed out without even attempting anything intensive.
I'm using it for casual reasons, but there was a time I was developing applications for multiple target OS's. Being able to run those OS's concurrently and verify the cross-compiling effects of various methodologies would have saved me days, if not weeks.
I'm sure I could do it (albeit very slowly) on my current machine. That said, I'm also sure I could max out an 8-core machine with little effort if I so desired.
The shortening of my story is that I am looking for a Mac Pro. Probably a previous-gen 4x2.66 model, but still. I have clearly determined that it is necessary for the type of casual computing I do. I'm not using it for my professional work, and I'm not doing video rendering.
But it's still necessary.
Certainly I can't be alone in this?
I'm running the aforementioned MacMini. It's fine for surfing, iPhoto, light GarageBand, etc.
But run up a virtual machine? Even with memory to spare, a single virtual machine has both cores maxed out without even attempting anything intensive.
I'm using it for casual reasons, but there was a time I was developing applications for multiple target OS's. Being able to run those OS's concurrently and verify the cross-compiling effects of various methodologies would have saved me days, if not weeks.
I'm sure I could do it (albeit very slowly) on my current machine. That said, I'm also sure I could max out an 8-core machine with little effort if I so desired.
The shortening of my story is that I am looking for a Mac Pro. Probably a previous-gen 4x2.66 model, but still. I have clearly determined that it is necessary for the type of casual computing I do. I'm not using it for my professional work, and I'm not doing video rendering.
But it's still necessary.
Certainly I can't be alone in this?
Vmware would crap out a mac mini no problem. But with a machine like a mini you should optimize your vm settings like restricting to 1 core.
I thought 8 cores would be cool to run 7 virutal machines and dedicate 1 per a core and have the last core for the host. But when am I ever going to need to run 8 operating systems on 1 machine? Its just not practical for me. I find dual cores are plenty. My macbook often runs 2 virtual machines (my solaris and windows vms) at the same time and handles it well. My gaming rig has an amd x2 5200 (dual core again) and it screams for virtual machines.
Going to a quad I am not expecting higher performance, I am just replacing my dead workstation. My workstation requires the ability to be expanded for harddrives and such, leaving all other mac solutions out of the question. Its cheaper for me to build another one my self hands down - I just want another mac to compliment my macbook. So the mac pro (2x2.66 or the 1x2.8 quad) is my only option.
To the OP, if you have to think about if the 4 extra cores are worth it, $500, then it probably is not worth it to you.
I would get an 8-core if I ran Photoshop, Idesign, Logic Studio and Traktor Scratch for a job but I do not, it is a hobby for me. That is why I am leaning towards a 4-core machine this summer.
I would get an 8-core if I ran Photoshop, Idesign, Logic Studio and Traktor Scratch for a job but I do not, it is a hobby for me. That is why I am leaning towards a 4-core machine this summer.
Not attempting to start a flame war here, but I've got a 1.66GHz CD Mini with 2GB of ram. I don't see that it is particularly underpowered compared with your MacBook.
I can VERY easily bring both cores to their knees with a single VMWare VM. It's clearly not a memory issue as it's not even using all the memory I have allocated to it. Even if it were, the Mini only takes 2Gig anyway, so expansion isn't an option.
It is for that reason (and many others) that my eye is wandering towards to Mac Pro.
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or your mini. I meant the management thing as a suggestion. I would think 1.66 is capable of doing virtualization, but giving 100% of it to the virtual machine drags the host down, and splitting it may also be slow. Also, you should look at the spec differences between the CD and the C2D chips. The C2D can do something like 4 instructions per clock where the CD does 3 (something like that, I cant remember). So my C2D does more calculations per clock, and at 500 mhrz faster its clocking a lot more then your CD. Anyways, its a hudge difference when doing multi threaded AND single threaded processing like that. My dead workstation was a 1.6ghrz 64bit sempron (amd) with 2 gigs of ram and vmware asside it choked on a ton of things. So i am thinking your dual core 1.6 with vmware leaves you with 2 incapable cores 1 per os kind of stuff. That is of course mostly speculation - I don't have figures to back up that.
So in your situation - I would recommend just upgrading, I am sure you'll benefit from any upgrade at this point. I think even a new 2ghrz c2d mac mini you would see the difference like night and day. Not to put you off from a Mac Pro, if you want one do it. But to tie in with the topic of the thread, I think the quad core single cpu would do you 100% justice, and the 8 core would be overkill. Other words, I am on your side, and can 100% see your mac mini sucking, but don't compare it to my macbook - no competition there. I think a quad core mac pro would work for you if you wanted one (trying to be unbiased to your buying decisions).
So hard to word a reply to that...
Look, I think you're nitpicking.
First, $2800 + (16gb RAM) $700 + (two 1tb HDs) $400 = $3900.
I am not exaggerating at all when it comes to workstation costs.
Second, stop projecting what other people have said upon me. I said nothing about catching up on the PC world, or comparisons, or anything else. I'm talking about this thing at hand.
I'm a designer for software that has 18 million users. I'm doing damn intensive design work, with huge Illustrator files, lots of Photoshop, running Parallels and ten other apps, etc. I do all that on a piddly dual-core Macbook Pro and the thing barely breaks a sweat.
I've talked to at least a dozen people I know in my field. Every single one that uses a quad-core Mac Pro says 'it's way more power than I utilize'. Some even have moved to a Macbook Pro completely and left towers behind.
Some tasks and workflows are CPU bound, some are RAM bound, some are embarassingly parallel, some are not. Just be very clear of what you are trying to solve and why. You can completely over-buy on one aspect of a machine that will never pay off to you. The Pros are so damn powerful that it's very easy to do this. That's all I'm saying.
No-no-no, not at all. I was speaking about my personal situation. In my particular case Mac Pro 8 cores / 8800GT / 2GB RAM / 500GB HDD = 2375,20 euro (min 498,79 VAT). The additional 2 x Barracuda 7200.11 750GB + 8GB RAM from OWC made the total amount of 2860,4 euro.
Sorry, but I didn't do that. I have nothing but respect for you.
Which means that these machines will still be pretty good years from now. Smart investment for years.
Anyway, all I was trying to say to the OP: if it could save you your time, than go for it. If you're not sure, you're still able to try it for some time thanks to Apple's generous attitude towards customers.
sash
sash: that's super-cheap! Even with taxes added... which country do you live in so I can import those
sash: that's super-cheap! Even with taxes added... which country do you live in so I can import those
Hi Boomhowler,
It's Belgium:
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/belflBusiness?type=bizbelflPRO&qprm=64977&family=MacPro
The session will probably soon expire; standard configuration of 2x CPU 2,8 costs 2,065.29 excl. VAT.
sash
After exhaustively weighing all my options and finding a buyer for my current Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5, I finally pulled the trigger yesterday on a Mac Pro. I opted for the single quad 2.8GHz model.
My usual purchasing strategy is to buy more machine than I need and keep that machine as my main system for 4+ years. This was a bit easier back in the days when CPU upgrades were more feasible. I'm not buying the low-end Mac Pro under any illusion that I'll upgrade the CPUs later, but the type of work I'm doing these days and the type of work I see myself doing over the next few years would probably not touch cores 5-8 much at all if I had them available. I'm primarily doing IT/network consulting these days, but do dabble in audio/video editing/encoding, graphic design, virtualization and the occasional intensive 3D game.
I'm sinking the $500 I would have spent on the other quad-core CPU into more RAM and a fast hard drive to boot off of (WD 640GB 2-platter). I'll take the 750GB storage drive out of my G5 and slot that right in the new machine.
For my next trick, I'll have to figure out a new video card. Waiting for the Radeon HD 3870 to come out so I can compare and contrast with the 8800GT. I'm probably going to do more Core Image stuff so I'm leaning towards the Radeon, but I'll wait to see the benchmarks and pricing first.
My usual purchasing strategy is to buy more machine than I need and keep that machine as my main system for 4+ years. This was a bit easier back in the days when CPU upgrades were more feasible. I'm not buying the low-end Mac Pro under any illusion that I'll upgrade the CPUs later, but the type of work I'm doing these days and the type of work I see myself doing over the next few years would probably not touch cores 5-8 much at all if I had them available. I'm primarily doing IT/network consulting these days, but do dabble in audio/video editing/encoding, graphic design, virtualization and the occasional intensive 3D game.
I'm sinking the $500 I would have spent on the other quad-core CPU into more RAM and a fast hard drive to boot off of (WD 640GB 2-platter). I'll take the 750GB storage drive out of my G5 and slot that right in the new machine.
For my next trick, I'll have to figure out a new video card. Waiting for the Radeon HD 3870 to come out so I can compare and contrast with the 8800GT. I'm probably going to do more Core Image stuff so I'm leaning towards the Radeon, but I'll wait to see the benchmarks and pricing first.
I received my single CPU Pro day before yesterday, was too busy to set it up that night (man that was annoying), set it up last night and put it through it's paces.
Details: 8gb RAM, Samsung Spinpoint 1tb, ATI 2600
Initial impressions: Yeah, it's fast. I think I beachballed once, when I fired it up with the the default 2gb RAM, and had five file copies running from an external FW drive while simultaneously installing OS X updates, installing another app, while Spotlight was indexing the drive, and launching Safari another app or two. I'm impressed. It seems to be at least twice as fast as my old tower for the 'sustained' stuff, and a lot snappier on the immediate stuff.
It's perceptively snappier than my Macbook Pro at work. So much so that I'm glad I sprung for the tower at home. The power makes up for the lack of portability.
The video isn't as crisp and fast as my Macbook Pro though. When I use Spaces or Exposé, it looks like it has a lower 'framerate', and I push a 30" screen at work. Illustrator is still a bit of a dog, but I think only Nehalem will solve that.
I'll find out more this weekend after I finish setting it up and dig into some real work.
Details: 8gb RAM, Samsung Spinpoint 1tb, ATI 2600
Initial impressions: Yeah, it's fast. I think I beachballed once, when I fired it up with the the default 2gb RAM, and had five file copies running from an external FW drive while simultaneously installing OS X updates, installing another app, while Spotlight was indexing the drive, and launching Safari another app or two. I'm impressed. It seems to be at least twice as fast as my old tower for the 'sustained' stuff, and a lot snappier on the immediate stuff.
It's perceptively snappier than my Macbook Pro at work. So much so that I'm glad I sprung for the tower at home. The power makes up for the lack of portability.
The video isn't as crisp and fast as my Macbook Pro though. When I use Spaces or Exposé, it looks like it has a lower 'framerate', and I push a 30" screen at work. Illustrator is still a bit of a dog, but I think only Nehalem will solve that.
I'll find out more this weekend after I finish setting it up and dig into some real work.