Considering Mac Pro single vs dual processor....

[schnee]

I could be terribly wrong, but that's how the things are going in Belgium (maybe in Europe as a whole, I'm not sure). I've ordered my first G5 as BTO -- and returned the thing after appr. 10 days, getting another one as a replacement.

Is that different in the US?

If you order one of the default models, you're fine. It's custom stuff they are much more restrictive about.

It makes sense, though. They have one of the leanest and most efficient manufacturing and supply chains in the business. If I remember correctly, they have less than a week's supply on hand at any one time. Custom stuff being returned and re-worked on a regular basis would really mess that up.

 

[Boomhowler]

hadn't time to run the scripts yesterday, I'll download the 64bit Beta today and try that one instead

 

[sash]

If you order one of the default models, you're fine. It's custom stuff they are much more restrictive about.It makes sense, though.

Yes, you're right, it does make sense. Here in Belgium a company is obliged by law to take its goods back within 8-10 days when bought on-line. BTW, I though these rules are much more flexible in the US, than in Europe. Apple's online store has 14 days unconditional return policy -- its reps are always stressing this 'unconditional', 'no matter what' aspect. It could be that they are a bit more cooperative and courteous here because of a relatively lesser popularity of Macs, I don't know.

sash

 

[schnee]

I though these rules are much more flexible in the US, than in Europe.

I wouldn't doubt it. Consumer protection laws are much more enlightened in Europe.

 

[btollenaar]

This is what you do...

Good 'ol Jack Burton would say..."Go ahead and get the dual processor version - but buy it refurbished - effectively getting that second processor for only $100 more than the retail single processor version! . . . The check is in the mail!"

 

[jdizzle707]

It sounds like quad + more RAM is a better option

Some people said the resale value would be better for a 8-core but maybe that wouldn't be the case. Maybe there will be more 8-cores for sale in the market which means prices would be more competitive. Meanwhile, entry level quad-core "harpertown" mac pros would be very rare. So that should help them hold their resale value. But who knows right? I just don't buy the argument about spending the extra $500+ to have a better resale value.

Anyhow, it sounds like most apps are not written to fully take advantage of 8-cores. Maybe every so often, iMovie will need more horses to render my HD home movies but I think a quad-core is already plenty fast compare to my dual-G5.

BTW, I just recently purchased a quad too and now I'm deciding whether to return it for the second proc or spend the money on RAM instead. I think I'll get the RAM. I can get 4GB (2x2GB) for $179 at Frys right now.

Also, in 3 years, you are going to want to the 16-cores. Hopefully the apps can fully utilize all that power.

Cheers

 

[Lord Zedd]

Good 'ol Jack Burton would say..."Go ahead and get the dual processor version - but buy it refurbished - effectively getting that second processor for only $100 more than the retail single processor version! . . . The check is in the mail!"

Very true. There is very little reason to buy a new mac outside the refurbished Mac center. Right now you can get an 8-core 3GHZ for $300 more instead of $800.

 

[MrMax]

With the state of many applications now, the ability to truly exploit multiple cores is rare. 4 cores are more than enough for almost anything that requires a user to interact with it.

The benefits of a greater number of cores becomes evident when doing tasks which lend themselves well to distributed computing. Rendering and Simulation, for instance, are ideal examples of these tasks.

Only if you intend to render video, simulate fluids or complex mathematical models would you see an improvement in speed with a greater number of cores at your disposal.

I use an 8 core Mac Pro at home and 4 core at work. I see nearly no difference between it and the 4 core machine until I render my work. Only then is it the difference between drinking one cup of tea and two.

Hope this helps!

 

[Lord Zedd]

MrMax, its clear you don't understand computing or the direction it is going.

If you were to actually get a graph going and watch your processing history you would see that OSX uses every core it has available. By June of next year when 10.6 is released it will utilize them even better than it currently does.

Back in the day, most people thought the dual 450/500 G4's were fast enough and that more than one CPU would never be needed.

 

[MrMax]

LordZedd, although it is true that the OS is capable of exploiting more than one core simultaneously, it is apparent from the Activity Monitor CPU graph I have open constantly that a single core at 100% usage and 7 more at 12% is not indicative of an even distribution of tasks.

It is entirely true that Snow Leopard will have superior support for multiple processors and cores, thanks to Grand Central.

In the description of the technology, however, Apple say, 'Grand Central also makes it much easier for developers to create programs that squeeze every last drop of power from multicore systems'.

This is an allusion to the inherent difficulty of creating applications that use multiple cores efficiently.

 

[Lord Zedd]

Its not difficult, most simply don't want to make the effort or haven't been updated in years. Grand Central will be sort of a "wizard" to nudge them into it.

 

[MrMax]

That's an excellent way of putting it!