New Mac Pro 2010 Quad core or 2009 8 Core?

[analeon]

I am looking to purchase my first Mac Pro, and I am wanting to maximize my long term use of the machine and in my price range, approx 2500, I can purchase one of two machines, and I am looking for comments on which would be best long term.
1st Machine
Mac Pro 2.26GHz 8-Core Intel XeonTwo 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processors
6GB (6x1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory

2nd Machine
Mac Pro 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
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

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Hellhammer]

Impossible to say without knowing what it is going to be used for. 8-core offers more raw number crunching power but only if all of its cores can be used. Quad will be faster in apps that are not heavily multithreaded due to its higher clock speed.

 

[Macsonic]

Hi,

What tasks will you be doing with the Mac Pro? If its just graphic design the 2010 2.8Ghz will be adequate. Most apps are still single thread and can't maximize the most number of cores yet.

 

[analeon]

The majority of the stuff I will be doing is apple apps, iPhoto, iMovie, Aperture, maybe in the future i might try to do Final Cut. But the main thing is that I do not want to have to replace the computer for another 5 years if possible, and I will be taking advantage of installing the additional hard drives, I already have 2 2TB drives waiting.

 

[jerry333]

Although a lot of people believe that the additional cores don't help, that's only true if you're only running one and only one process. By default OS X has a number of processes running and by having more cores (or CPUs) you allow the one core to work at it's maximum.

I've noticed a big difference in speed between the older eight core and the newer four core systems that I have, with the older eight core being faster. Also, neither system has enough memory. 6 GB is just barely adequate so be sure to budget for some additional memory.

 

[Hellhammer]

In that case, I would go with the quad. The apps you listed won't benefit from more cores but they will benefit from higher clock speed. The CPU can also be upgrade to a 6-core model in the future

Although a lot of people believe that the additional cores don't help, that's only true if you're only running one and only one process. By default OS X has a number of processes running and by having more cores (or CPUs) you allow the one core to work at it's maximum.

OS X's processes use less than 5% of one CPU core. 8-core is only going to help if you run multiple CPU intensive apps simultaneously.

 

[ndraves]

Also, neither system has enough memory. 6 GB is just barely adequate so be sure to budget for some additional memory.

If you are looking at improving performance with those apps then extra memory will be a better place to look at.

In that case, I would go with the quad. The apps you listed won't benefit from more cores but they will benefit from higher clock speed. The CPU can also be upgrade to a 6-core model in the future

OS X's processes use less than 5% of one CPU core. 8-core is only going to help if you run multiple CPU intensive apps simultaneously.

As said the only way to benefit from 2 processors is to use them simultaneously, otherwise the better I/O of the newer system and an upgrade to newer '6' core processor at a later stage will have give you a greater effect on your use IMO.