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

Just ordered 6 core, was this a mistake??

4

4dtough

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2008
47
0
Hello All
I just ordered a 6 core MP
It will be used with
Aperture
LR3
CS5
would the 8 core be better for that?
I work with 30mb or larger RAW files
THX
 
I'd get the 6-core 3.33 myself. The speed + cores = best of both worlds. No mistake was made, unless you got CS5 mainly for Premiere, because now you have to deal with the CUDA issue. PCs have an advantage when it comes to the Mercury Playback Engine technology.
 
Advantage as in getting cheaper CUDA cards? Got the Quadro 4000 for the same price as PC version :cool: But it isn't doing much more then a 5770 does.
As for the 6 core: nice. Got the 8 core, thinking I might upgrade to the two 5690's when they are released / cheaper. High speed 6 core = good machine, only got my octo because they had it in stock.
 
THX
so did I do good, or would the 8 core be better in the long run
Just want the computer to last me at least 3 years
THX
 
4dtough said:
THX
so did I do good, or would the 8 core be better in the long run
Just want the computer to last me at least 3 years
THX
Click to expand...

it will take adobe at least 3 years to make full use of the 12 threads.
if you feel the urge to spec up the system some day, forget the cpu and look at SSD / dedicated scratch disk / ram first ...
 
THX
what will be the best amount of ram for this baby?
and would 12 be enough or should I go with 16?
 
relax, you totally made the right decision. My research for the same reasons found the 6 core is best for retouching, photoshop etc. It's seems the 8 cores are good, but not amazing and even the 12 cores for retouching are often slower than the 3.3 6 core. 12 core will blitz in 3D and video editing though where the software is set up to use all processors and cores.

Unless you need 32GB of RAM 24GB (3x 8gb) is actually faster. In any case 3 lots of 8 or 4 is better. 2x 8gb (16GB) is actually slower than 3x 4gb (12GB). Apparently best is 12, 24. Apparently works best in triple and matched sets.

Best upgrades for it are SSD, like an OWC and maybe a RAID0 Working Drive internally.

This site helped me no end http://macperformanceguide.com/ there's a tonne of info on the 6 core and why it's being called the "sweet spot"
 
Last edited:
Since photoshop doesn't know how to utilize that many cores yet, it doesn't really matter.
Im running PS and Premiere CS5 on my 2.4 quad core pc with 3GB ram and even that doesn't hang.
Besides 30mb raws ain't that much...

If I was to speculate on the future and what's to come, I doubt that we're gonna see steps in software development like 2 cores > 4 cores > 6 core> etc.
They will probably try to write it take greater steps. I would think that being able to utilize at least 8 cores would be the next logical step.

So imo, you should have gone with the 8 cores, base config, and the jam it up with custom memory to save a bundle.

But enjoy your new pro :) I envy you just a bit still
 
Thank you
I was just told that the package has been ordered :)
so my 3.33 will arrive in 5 to 10 days
looking forward to playing with a mac pro again
 
I'm glad I didn't make a mistake
I almost called them back to 2x2.4
I just want to be a good system
THX
 
The only upgrade worthy from the 6c is the 12c DP system; the 8c DP system is not a worthy upgrade as it will almost be slower in every operation.
 
Mine arrived today, Im so thrilled with it. I bought it refurb, saved £500 and somehow scored a 2GB HD and 6GB of RAM! The thing is flawless except for one tiny 2mm scratch that you can only really see with a magnifying glass. I don't know why you'd buy new to be honest!

The service is great. I ordered the computer yesterday and it arrived 7:30 am this morning.

Just waiting on SSD's and RAM from OWC now.

Happy Days.

:D
 
I think you did good for the applications that you run - real good.

I just went through the same thing myself and went with the dual quad. Aperture can't drive it past 30% CPU utilization on raw conversion. However, it is plenty fast enough.

I tortured myself over the single hex versus dual quad decision and primarily went with the dual quad for two reasons:

1) I was targeting the machine at where my real performance issues were and that was in the area of video processing. My laptop runs Aperture just fine, but video encode jobs that run for 24 hours + on the laptop just aren't acceptable. The dual quad will run very well on video encode. For other workloads like Aperture it is fast enough. Granted, the hex will also do well here and very often even better. However, for my primary performance needs, the Hex wasn't enough better to compromise on #2.

2) I also wanted to maximize my future upgrade possibilities. In addition to more memory options, the dual quad has a cheaper path to future CPU upgrades to 12 core. Whether you do it yourself (which I understand is much easier on the 2010), or use OWC, the dual socket CPU upgrade path is going to more cost effective on the dual quad than the hex. I'll only pursue this when I am beyond warranty concerns. But, I really wanted to make sure that I got a machine that already had the dual socket processor tray.

The dual quad also has some other performance attributes that should theoretically be a good thing, but that doesn't seem to be bearing out in todays software. The dual quad has more aggregate memory bandwidth than the hex. However, that doesn't seem to be bearing any fruit yet - at least not enough to make up for multiprocessor overhead. Perhaps this will get better over time as the OS gets more sophisticated.

So that was my decision rationale for good or bad. It compromises some performance now on some applications on a hope for the future. We'll see how that works out in the end. Either way, the dual quad is a powerful machine and will get the job done for me.

I think you did just fine going with the hex core. It is really an awesome machine. By many measures it is more powerful than the dual quad. It will work great - especially for your applications.






4dtough said:
Hello All
I just ordered a 6 core MP
It will be used with
Aperture
LR3
CS5
would the 8 core be better for that?
I work with 30mb or larger RAW files
THX
Click to expand...
 
Thank you everybody, this was the best feedback ever, and a great discussion
austinted said:
I think you did good for the applications that you run - real good.

I just went through the same thing myself and went with the dual quad. Aperture can't drive it past 30% CPU utilization on raw conversion. However, it is plenty fast enough.

I tortured myself over the single hex versus dual quad decision and primarily went with the dual quad for two reasons:

1) I was targeting the machine at where my real performance issues were and that was in the area of video processing. My laptop runs Aperture just fine, but video encode jobs that run for 24 hours + on the laptop just aren't acceptable. The dual quad will run very well on video encode. For other workloads like Aperture it is fast enough. Granted, the hex will also do well here and very often even better. However, for my primary performance needs, the Hex wasn't enough better to compromise on #2.

2) I also wanted to maximize my future upgrade possibilities. In addition to more memory options, the dual quad has a cheaper path to future CPU upgrades to 12 core. Whether you do it yourself (which I understand is much easier on the 2010), or use OWC, the dual socket CPU upgrade path is going to more cost effective on the dual quad than the hex. I'll only pursue this when I am beyond warranty concerns. But, I really wanted to make sure that I got a machine that already had the dual socket processor tray.

The dual quad also has some other performance attributes that should theoretically be a good thing, but that doesn't seem to be bearing out in todays software. The dual quad has more aggregate memory bandwidth than the hex. However, that doesn't seem to be bearing any fruit yet - at least not enough to make up for multiprocessor overhead. Perhaps this will get better over time as the OS gets more sophisticated.

So that was my decision rationale for good or bad. It compromises some performance now on some applications on a hope for the future. We'll see how that works out in the end. Either way, the dual quad is a powerful machine and will get the job done for me.

I think you did just fine going with the hex core. It is really an awesome machine. By many measures it is more powerful than the dual quad. It will work great - especially for your applications.
Click to expand...

Thank you I just did the same thing. It will be much easier upgrade to 12 core 2 years down the road plus the extra memory slots was a clincher for me
Thank you for great feedback this looks like an amazing machine
I know hex would be faster at start, but this will be better for the future
 
Well, Congrats. I certainly didn't expect or mean for you to swap machines, but I think you will be very happy with this one as well. Both models are monsters performance-wise.

I think you will find the machine to be a good performer anyway. Aperture is pumping out 24 or so raw conversions per minute on the dual quad for my particular camera. That's a 100% speedup as compared to my i7 Macbook Pro and more than fast enough for my needs.

In addition to the two reasons I mentioned for choosing the dual quad, I forgot to mention one other. I also run Virtual Machines on the system as well as have it doing a lot of file serving functions in the background. I also have it running some processing jobs in the background from time to time. I thought this situation might be a good fit for a machine with more cores as I wanted the background activity to be as invisible as possible to an interactive user. So far this seems to be the case, but I don't know if the additional cores are really helping with that or not.

Anyway, enjoy the machine. I'll see you down the road in a couple years and we can post about our upgrade experiences. :)




4dtough said:
Thank you everybody, this was the best feedback ever, and a great discussion


Thank you I just did the same thing. It will be much easier upgrade to 12 core 2 years down the road plus the extra memory slots was a clincher for me
Thank you for great feedback this looks like an amazing machine
I know hex would be faster at start, but this will be better for the future
Click to expand...
 
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