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

MacPro 8core or 6core for video editing?

M

macguy93

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 30, 2012
149
1
Hello everyone,

Im new to the forum and looked around briefly and i found a similar post to this. However, slight different specs.

I am looking to upgrade my computer. I currently am operating on a 2009 iMac 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 gigs of ram, NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB.

I am in the market for a USED mac pro. I am having a hard time deciding whether or not i should go with an 8 or 6 core machine. Im not sure which clock speed to look for, so any input on that would be great. I'm looking at 2.66GHz and up would be perfect

I do a lot of video editing primarily in Final cut pro 7 and occasionally in adobe premiere pro. i do use Cinema 4D for some 3D modeling work when it comes to motion tracking for scenes.

I hope I'm not being too picky here but my primary budget is anywhere under $2,000 for a USED one.

If anyone has some great suggestions and input for what to look for and consider that would be well appreciated!

Thanks in advance!
Mike
 
thanks for your reply Zwhaler!

The question i really have is how significant is a higher clock speed with less cores over more cores with less clock speed? or other way around if i have that wrong.
 
Higher core count makes a difference for fully 64 bit applications like Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, and Cinema 4D, etc. Final Cut Pro 7 on the other hand will benefit more from a higher clock speed. If you want a good balance the 2009 gen 2.93GHz 8 Core is solid and could be found with enough searching in your price range whereas the 3.33GHz 6 core might be harder to find for that price.

The Geekbench scores pretty much tell it all for rendering tasks. That's why I recommended the 2009 gen 8 core over the 2010 gen. Lots of RAM will help too but that can be upgraded easily later. I'm using a 2.93GHz 12 core and it rips through rendering like there's no tomorrow. If I was using Final Cut Pro 7 I would probably be better off with the 6 core with higher clock speed. Since you're doing a combination of 64 bit work and 32 bit work you'll be fine either way, just find the best machine that fits your price range.
 
Ah okay, i never really was able to understand what programs utilized what.. that explains a lot! However, i can't seem to find a cheap enough 8 core 2009 model at the moment.. would any other machine be able to compete up next to that? (maybe not as good tho..)
 
The 2009 2.66GHz outperforms the 3.33GHz 6 core in multi threaded applications. That would be your next best bet. After that would be the 2.26GHz 8 Core (not as fast as 3.33GHz 6 core in multi threaded applications). When investing in these types of machines, its best to wait a little longer and save your money for the product you need instead of settling for less. I wouldn't go lower than a 2009 2.66GHz Mac Pro for what you do, but it looks like you might be able to get away with a 2.26GHz 8 core for that price.

Be sure to check this page frequently as you may be able to score a refurbished 6 core (when available) for a couple hundred above your $2,000 price which would be ideal.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro

I wouldn't recommend the 2.8GHz or 3.2GHz Quad, while it's a decent machine you would be a lot better off saving a couple extra hundred for a 3.33GHz 6 core at the minimum (excellent machine)
 
the 2009 2.66GHz looks to be more in my price range. however, when you mean multi threading, can you clarify more what that is and what programs would utilize that? I know of it but am not to educated on what its true meaning is. I also thought that 2010 was when multi threading came out? (btw if i am thinking correctly multi threading is hyper threading?)

sorry for the really newbish questions, I'm still learning sadly.. haha
 
macguy93 said:
the 2009 2.66GHz looks to be more in my price range. however, when you mean multi threading, can you clarify more what that is and what programs would utilize that? I know of it but am not to educated on what its true meaning is. I also thought that 2010 was when multi threading came out? (btw if i am thinking correctly multi threading is hyper threading?)

sorry for the really newbish questions, I'm still learning sadly.. haha
Click to expand...

When I said multi threading I meant multi core. Hyper threading means two threads per core (12 core -> 24 threads = 24 effective cores). Most modern software supports processors with multiple cores. That means a 6 core machine will run great because the program will use all six cores. Not all programs support hyper threading, however. Final Cut Pro X does, which means it runs on my system like a 24 core desktop, or like a 12 core system on a 3.33GHz 6 core Mac Pro, or like an 8 core for the i7 iMacs and MacBook Pros. 64 bit applications would support multi core systems and multi processor systems. Hyper threading is nice even on programs that don't support it, because if one program is using all 12 physical cores and I have another program running that wants to use 12 physical cores too, it will run parallel on the secondary cores in my experience. (12 for one program, 12 for the other totaling 24 out of 24 available cores instead of one program using all 24 which it would if it supported true hyperthreading). Basically it's like giving your CPU additional breathing room and free power in programs that support it.
 
I am buying a superceded 8 core 2.4. It's not so fast at multi-threading, because of the clock speed, which only hits 2.7 Mhz. So, for final cut 7, its not the fast MP. However, when final cut is improved, it will get a lot faster. The future of apps going fast, is not clock speeds. It is multi-threading. So apps will increasingly handle multi threading better.

Coming from your iMac Duo, any of these machines will be lots faster.

Also check out CPU upgrades ... some machines handle CPU upgrades more easily than others. The ones that do, have the levers in the CPU seats, and these allow you to buy a faster CPU, and plug it in, with a much lower risk of bending a pin and wrecking the CPU. I expect the Xeon 6 core CPU prices to fall, and I envisage an upgrade path for my machine down the track, from 8 to 12 cores. Worthwhile researching all that IMO. Also I envisage in the future program upgrades taking better advantage of all the cores available.
 
macguy93 said:
how does this machine look?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/APPLE-MAC-P...e_Desktops&hash=item20c8e8f132#ht_2779wt_1085

How does this compare to the 2.93GHz 8 core and the 3.33GHz 6 core?
Click to expand...

You can work some things out here:


Mac Score
Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 3070 MHz (12 cores)
22256

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon X5670 2930 MHz (12 cores)
21565

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon X5650 2670 MHz (12 cores)
20007

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon X5570 2930 MHz (8 cores)
15553

Xserve (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon X5550 2670 MHz (8 cores)
14546

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon X5550 2670 MHz (8 cores)
14325

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3680 3330 MHz (6 cores)
13808

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon E5620 2400 MHz (8 cores)
12599

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12229

Xserve (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon E5520 2270 MHz (8 cores)
12042

MacBook Pro (Retina)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12028

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon E5520 2270 MHz (8 cores)
11890

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11774

MacBook Pro (Retina)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11621

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2600 3400 MHz (4 cores)
11467

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10770

MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2860QM 2500 MHz (4 cores)
10744

MacBook Pro (Retina)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10743

MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2860QM 2500 MHz (4 cores)
10659

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon X5482 3200 MHz (8 cores)
10539

MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2760QM 2400 MHz (4 cores)
10372

MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2760QM 2400 MHz (4 cores)
10353

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2820QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10135

MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2820QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10128

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2600S 2800 MHz (4 cores)
10092

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon X5472 3000 MHz (8 cores)
9985

MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2720QM 2200 MHz (4 cores)
9805

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2720QM 2200 MHz (4 cores)
9797

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3565 3200 MHz (4 cores)
9755

Mac Pro (8-core)
Intel Xeon X5365 3000 MHz (8 cores)
9654

Xserve (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (8 cores)
9535

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (8 cores)
9441

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5472 3000 MHz (8 cores)
9392

MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2675QM 2200 MHz (4 cores)
9299

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i7-870 2930 MHz (4 cores)
9027

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon W3540 2930 MHz (4 cores)
9024

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2000 MHz (4 cores)
8684

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3530 2800 MHz (4 cores)
8655

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2000 MHz (4 cores)
8513

iMac (27-inch Late 2009)
Intel Core i7-860 2800 MHz (4 cores)
8329

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon W3520 2670 MHz (4 cores)
8266

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400 3100 MHz (4 cores)
8243

MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3520M 2900 MHz (2 cores)
7821

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2700 MHz (4 cores)
7799

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2700 MHz (4 cores)
7792

Xserve (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon E5520 2270 MHz (4 cores)
7259

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2500 MHz (4 cores)
7229

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2640M 2800 MHz (2 cores)
6948

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores)
6895

MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores)
6872

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5-680 3600 MHz (2 cores)
6840

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5-680 3600 MHz (2 cores)
6837

MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i7-2620M 2700 MHz (2 cores)
6766

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2620M 2700 MHz (2 cores)
6719

MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i5-3210M 2500 MHz (2 cores)
6695

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5-760 2800 MHz (4 cores)
6649

iMac (21.5 inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i3-2100 3100 MHz (2 cores)
6528

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2520M 2500 MHz (2 cores)
6326

iMac (27-inch Late 2009)
Intel Core i5-750 2670 MHz (4 cores)
6298

MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i5-3427U 1800 MHz (2 cores)
6059

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i5-2435M 2400 MHz (2 cores)
6049

Mac Pro
Intel Xeon 5160 3000 MHz (4 cores)
5891

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3-550 3200 MHz (2 cores)
5866

MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011)
Intel Core i5-2415M 2300 MHz (2 cores)
5865

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2415M 2300 MHz (2 cores)
5852

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3-550 3200 MHz (2 cores)
5839

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i7-640M 2800 MHz (2 cores)
5826

Xserve (Late 2006)
Intel Xeon 5160 3000 MHz (4 cores)
5800

MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i7-640M 2800 MHz (2 cores)
5785

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (4 cores)
5738

Xserve (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (4 cores)
5708

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2677M 1800 MHz (2 cores)
5687

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i5-3317U 1700 MHz (2 cores)
5684

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3-540 3070 MHz (2 cores)
5633

MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2677M 1800 MHz (2 cores)
5581

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i7-620M 2670 MHz (2 cores)
5524

MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i7-620M 2670 MHz (2 cores)
5519

Xserve (Late 2006)
Intel Xeon 5150 2660 MHz (4 cores)
5300

Mac Pro
Intel Xeon 5150 2660 MHz (4 cores)
5270

MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2557M 1700 MHz (2 cores)
5262

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i5-540M 2530 MHz (2 cores)
4960

MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i5-540M 2530 MHz (2 cores)
4932

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2010)
Intel Core i5-520M 2400 MHz (2 cores)
4851

iMac (Late 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 3330 MHz (2 cores)
4645

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2467M 1601 MHz (2 cores)
4580

iMac (Early 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8435 3060 MHz (2 cores)
4188

iMac (Late 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 3060 MHz (2 cores)
4180

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8435 3060 MHz (2 cores)
4128

MacBook Pro (17-inch Mid 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 3060 MHz (2 cores)
4108

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 3060 MHz (2 cores)
4102

Mac Pro
Intel Xeon 5130 2000 MHz (4 cores)
4079

Xserve (Late 2006)
Intel Xeon 5130 2000 MHz (4 cores)
4048

By the way, a "reconditioned" (likely brand new) - due to the model no longer being sold - Mac Pro starts at $1,900. It's CPU can be upgraded to a 6 core, quite easily. For around $500-$700, including keeping the Quad core in it, which is worth something too.



Refurbished Mac Pro 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Originally released August 2010
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (3 x 1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
1TB Serial ATA 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB GDDR5 memory
$1,899.00
Save $600.00
24% off

It is very likely brand new - because its superseded so Apple calls them reconditioned - although its no different except for the CPU. Its go a new warranty, etc etc.

check here:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-2010-westmere-early-2009-nehalem-models.html

Where I live, those cost $2,200, so I bought the 8 core, which is the same price as in the USA here. But the single CPU is terrific for what you want, and is cheaply upgradeable to a fast 6 core CPU.
 
Last edited:
Zwhaler said:
Higher core count makes a difference for fully 64 bit applications like Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, and Cinema 4D, etc. Final Cut Pro 7 on the other hand will benefit more from a higher clock speed. If you want a good balance the 2009 gen 2.93GHz 8 Core is solid and could be found with enough searching in your price range whereas the 3.33GHz 6 core might be harder to find for that price.
Click to expand...

Core count and bit count aren't really related at all. Core count, as you point out later, will have an affect on an application if it's properly threaded. There are properly threaded 32-bit applications, and very poorly threaded 64-bit applications (see: Adobe Premiere Pro).

A 64-bit machine can access more memory and allocate (significantly) larger files on disk. For that reason they may seem faster, but from a purely computational perspective: they aren't. One isn't related to the other. At all.

For video editing, I'd throw less cores and higher clock speeds at things like Premiere Pro. The 6-core 3.33Ghz system is probably the best bet, benchmarks be damned. A far better thing to do is to have enough money left over to invest in a good nVidia-based video card so that Premiere can make use of the CUDA cores on it.

jas
 
FCP7 isn't really designed for more than 2-4 cores. Going to 6 or 8 cores will be wasted on FCP7 and may not get you anything more over your existing hardware.

It might be worth looking at FCPX for those reasons, which can scale to 12 cores.

The cores will help in PPro and probably your 3D modeling though.
 
goMac said:
FCP7 isn't really designed for more than 2-4 cores. Going to 6 or 8 cores will be wasted on FCP7 and may not get you anything more over your existing hardware.

It might be worth looking at FCPX for those reasons, which can scale to 12 cores.

The cores will help in PPro and probably your 3D modeling though.
Click to expand...

Making the switch to FCPX will be more concerning than scalability. Every single editor I know takes them months to "get it". It is too simple it is complicated. Not a day goes by that one of them doesn't pass my desk muttering about it. Well maybe some days are free of complaining.
 
derbothaus said:
Making the switch to FCPX will be more concerning than scalability. Every single editor I know takes them months to "get it". It is too simple it is complicated. Not a day goes by that one of them doesn't pass my desk muttering about it. Well maybe some days are free of complaining.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's a valid point. It might be a good reason a Mac Pro upgrade isn't necessarily a good idea for OP at this point, or at least anything more than a 4 core. Depends on if OP is planning on adopting FCPX soon.
 
i do have final cut pro X, however, I'm not a big fan and still have yet to get use to its different interface. it has always ran kinda crappy on my current machine so thats why i stay away from it.

also if it helps, the camera i shoot with is a Sony NX5U that records to AVCHD codec. do better machines perform better with AVCHD then others?
 
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