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

Speed difference: 12 core 2.93 vs 12 core 2.66

S

ScratchyMoose

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 13, 2008
223
15
London
Hi Guys,

I've just bought a refurb 2010 12 core 2.93 which is being kinda glitchy (mouse not working on login screen & buzz coming from both front and back headphone sockets) and apple care are advising me to return it for a refund, as sadly there are no other similar refurbs that i could swap out with.

For the same price i could get a 2012 12 core 2.66, but i can't find any geekbench scores for the 2.66, so i don't know how much performance i'd be sacrificing. I've seen that the 2.93 gives a score of 21,525 so i'd guess it to be around 20,000? Geekbench mac scores here but there's only the one registered as 2012.

Any advice, it's primarily used for lightroom - should hold out for another refurb, or go for the 2012? Either way, i've got to do something.

Cheers
 
slater-k said:
Hi Guys,

I've just bought a refurb 2010 12 core 2.93 which is being kinda glitchy (mouse not working on login screen & buzz coming from both front and back headphone sockets) and apple care are advising me to return it for a refund, as sadly there are no other similar refurbs that i could swap out with.

For the same price i could get a 2012 12 core 2.66, but i can't find any geekbench scores for the 2.66, so i don't know how much performance i'd be sacrificing. I've seen that the 2.93 gives a score of 21,525 so i'd guess it to be around 20,000? Geekbench mac scores here but there's only the one registered as 2012.

Any advice, it's primarily used for lightroom - should hold out for another refurb, or go for the 2012? Either way, i've got to do something.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Why are you buying a 12 core machine for Lightroom?
 
slater-k said:
Hi Guys,

I've just bought a refurb 2010 12 core 2.93 which is being kinda glitchy (mouse not working on login screen & buzz coming from both front and back headphone sockets) and apple care are advising me to return it for a refund, as sadly there are no other similar refurbs that i could swap out with.

For the same price i could get a 2012 12 core 2.66, but i can't find any geekbench scores for the 2.66, so i don't know how much performance i'd be sacrificing. I've seen that the 2.93 gives a score of 21,525 so i'd guess it to be around 20,000? Geekbench mac scores here but there's only the one registered as 2012.

Any advice, it's primarily used for lightroom - should hold out for another refurb, or go for the 2012? Either way, i've got to do something.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Don't shoot me - this is JUST an idea. The Mac Pro as i'm sure you know is a very bad deal at present. The performance hit is, to me in line with what you have said.

Depending on your usage and needs - would a new iMac serve you? I only mention it as come the release of the new Mac Pro your system value will drop significantly. If you could use the new iMac to hold you over until the 2013 Mac Pro then the resale value of that iMac will be far higher making back almost all you spent on one then depending on the cost of a new Mac Pro you may have to add money or have change and you would have a far more up-to-date machine.

Just an idea.
 
After.....

the very informed people of everymac.com, the geekbench score for that computer is 20294.


:):apple:
 
All Taken said:
Don't shoot me - this is JUST an idea.
Click to expand...


Hi Guys! Thanks for the ideas - all gratefully received!

LR is multicore ... and so if i'm processing files from RAW, the more the better (in terms of deadlines and my time usage, i'm a photographer and so this is one of my main constraints).

Why not the imac ... i've got a raid card in the MP with a 8x disc RAID 6 array attached. I really don't want to loose my files, and this gives me great stability and storage quantity - love it!

Also because the mac is on 24/7 working hard, multi tasking the whole time, i do like the workstation aspect and reliability that comes with it (though not with this new one!).

So i'm set on the MP i'm afraid! (I was waiting for the 2013 MP but my 2008 had a couple of wobbles, and i thought that i needed to switch out before some sort of disaster befell me!). I had a top of the range 27" iMac during the summer, and it was about as fast as my 2.8 2008 MP ... i would like something faster.

Thanks for your thoughts - i hope mine make sense to you too!
Have i missed something?!
Cheers

----------
phoenixsan said:
the very informed people of everymac.com, the geekbench score for that computer is 20294.
Click to expand...

Am i right, in that not being all that large a hit? Surprising to me, given that the only difference between 2010 and 2012 is the processor.
 
phoenixsan said:
the very informed people of everymac.com, the geekbench score for that computer is 20294.
Click to expand...

thanks for putting me onto that :)

2010 2.93: 21754/24262 - avg 23,008
2012 2.66: 20294/22605 - avg 21,449


2.93 to 2.66 is a drop of 9.2%
23,008 to 21,449 is a drop of 6.8%

i guess the chips are getting better?!
 
Hello,

With a 2010-2012 12 core Mac Pro, you have 24 virtual cores. Make sure that lr can actually use 24 cores. Otherwise, ge yourself a 3.33 Hex core for 12 virtual cores.

Loa
 
slater-k said:
thanks for putting me onto that :)

2010 2.93: 21754/24262 - avg 23,008
2012 2.66: 20294/22605 - avg 21,449


2.93 to 2.66 is a drop of 9.2%
23,008 to 21,449 is a drop of 6.8%

i guess the chips are getting better?!
Click to expand...

If you're really set on getting a 12-core machine, the 2012 2.66 seems a better deal as the speed difference is negligable, plus you won't (fingers crossed) have the problems you're having right now with your current refurbished unit.

mokeiko
 
Loa said:
Hello,

With a 2010-2012 12 core Mac Pro, you have 24 virtual cores. Make sure that lr can actually use 24 cores. Otherwise, ge yourself a 3.33 Hex core for 12 virtual cores.

Loa
Click to expand...

Thanks Loa, kind of you to reply.

I've just exported three sets of raw images at the same time, and i'm seeing all the cores in use - the largest total that i've seen just now is 96% load, but an average the figures that i'm seeing gives me 69.7% . So yes, for me the 12 core will do well. (Also when exporting images, the 12 core should let me get on with other things rather than sit and wait for that action to finnish.)

Though to tell the truth, if i hadn't had any problems with my 2008 i'd have stuck with my plan of keeping the 2008 till the 2013. But, on the positive side, i'll just wait for the 2014 instead :eek:

If i just export the one set of images, total use by LR goes down to something like 33% with only 1 in 2 virtual cores in use.

Cheers

----------
derbothaus said:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-RAW-Lightroom3.html

Maybe 4 is better. Current Mac Pro was made when 3 was new.
Click to expand...

Thanks - i'd seen this but not read it in a while - very useful - and as they say, it's a good idea to 'load' up the app. I'm not so sure that 4 is better in this regard - i think they probably spend all their time trying to make 4 as fast to preview as 3 was! see here

Cheers, appreciated!

----------
mokeiko said:
If you're really set on getting a 12-core machine, the 2012 2.66 seems a better deal
Click to expand...

thanks - i think i'll go for it!:eek:
 
Hmm. I don't see why a 2.66 would be the same price as a 2.93. I'm typing this on a 2.93 and I wouldn't give it up for a 2.66. If the glitches persist and get in the way of using it so much that it makes it worth swapping, then do it. Otherwise, don't.
 
I cannot tell the difference using Lr between my 17" C2D 4800 GB, the 10400 GB Mac Pro, or the 16000 GB Hack. The only time the C2D shows its age is importing really big .raw.
 
Zwhaler said:
Hmm. I don't see why a 2.66 would be the same price as a 2.93.
Click to expand...

The 2.93 is a refurb.

----------
GermanyChris said:
The only time the C2D shows its age is importing really big .raw.
Click to expand...

I'm lucky enough to be using the d800 so the files are pretty big. Though at £1600 cheaper the 6x 3.3 is very enticing ... but missing a deadline could be the difference between being given another job or not. Having said that, what i could do with £1600 ... the mind boggles!

----------
macguy93 said:
I own the 12-core @2.4ghz and im getting a score of slightly above 20,000 with 40gigs of ram.
Click to expand...

good to know - thanks
 
slater-k said:
The 2.93 is a refurb.

----------



I'm lucky enough to be using the d800 so the files are pretty big. Though at £1600 cheaper the 6x 3.3 is very enticing ... but missing a deadline could be the difference between being given another job or not. Having said that, what i could do with £1600 ... the mind boggles!

----------



good to know - thanks
Click to expand...

I shoot with a D80 because I suck :0)

The 6 core is exactly what I would recommend if you were to ask me.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Buying anything other than the 3.33Ghz 6-core is dumb for LR.
Click to expand...

Hi, can you tell me why?

I'm really torn between the two (3.33 x 6 and 2.66 x 12) because while the 12 core would be faster at exporting if you we're to load it up, and better at doing other things while its doing that, other LR activities such as working in the develop module might be faster in the 3.33, and of course there's the money to be saved ... why is it obvious to you that the 3.33's best?
 
slater-k said:
Hi, can you tell me why?

I'm really torn between the two (3.33 x 6 and 2.66 x 12) because while the 12 core would be faster at exporting if you we're to load it up, and better at doing other things while its doing that, other LR activities such as working in the develop module might be faster in the 3.33, and of course there's the money to be saved ... why is it obvious to you that the 3.33's best?
Click to expand...

This depends on what apps you use. There aren't many apps that will take advantage of using 12-cores. I was on the same boat as you when deciding what I wanted. I ended up with a 3.33 Hex as that provided me with a median between the Quad and 12-core and also I dont use any apps that use 12-cores. It's almost like having the best of both worlds without spending too much. Again, it really depends on what you're using your machine for.

As Concord Rules said, LR doesnt need 12-cores. Adobe hasn't written it to take adavantage of 12-cores and probably never will. Photoshop is also another app that doesn't utlilize 12-cores, it's more ram dependant.

But like I mentioned earlier, if you're dead set on getting a 12-core machine, get the 2012 2.66 12-core. Good luck.

mokeiko
 
slater-k said:
Hi, can you tell me why?

I'm really torn between the two (3.33 x 6 and 2.66 x 12) because while the 12 core would be faster at exporting if you we're to load it up, and better at doing other things while its doing that, other LR activities such as working in the develop module might be faster in the 3.33, and of course there's the money to be saved ... why is it obvious to you that the 3.33's best?
Click to expand...

Problem with Lightroom is it doesn't load them all up so they all sit there doing absolutely nothing.

The 2.93Ghz 12-core chips clock to 3.33Ghz on one core, or 3.2Ghz max turbo where-as the 3.33Ghz 6-core turbos up to 3.6Ghz on two cores and 3.46Ghz on all cores.

So anything that uses 6 threads or less is faster on the 6-core.
 
If you have to get a dual processor system, get the 2.66. You can change the processors later when the prices come down. After I abandoned mac pro's after my 2008 model, I built two systems. See sig below. Not a real big difference but it is noticeable. But the 6 core 3.33 would be better for raw performance.
 
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