Mac Pro: 8- or 4-core?

sib · May 11, 2008

I am planning on buying a new Mac Pro for (primarily) photo and (some) video editing. The baseline configuration comes with two, quad-core Xeon processors. Optionally, I can remove one of the two processors and save $500, which could then be spent on more RAM, another HDD, a better monitor, or just saved. :scratch

My current (RAW) workflow on the PC I have now includes Capture NX, DxO Optics, and Photoshop.

Does anyone have thoughts on the relative performance benefit of the second processor vs additional RAM or another HDD for separate swap / workspace? How well (if at all) do these applications utilize multiple processors? Would the difference be primarily noticed in batch processing?

Thanks!

CatOne · May 11, 2008

There are many sites which test it in benchmarks... e.g. barefeats.com.

I would say, TODAY, for running one single application (e.g. Photoshop), it will be as fast with a 2.8 GHz quad-core as it will with *two* 2.8 GHz quad cores. As future versions of Photoshop (and, likely, OS X) come out, they will get better and better with leveraging all the CPU cores (it's tough to code to it, and multiple CPUs are relatively new).

If it were *me*, I'd get the 8-core. Get it with 4 GB of RAM (4x1 GB) and then you have the ability to add 4 GB more RAM later at relatively little cost. You'll get a screaming machine, and one that will have legs for years. If you get a the quad core machine your only option to get more CPU cores is to sell it and get a new machine.. you can't just drop in a second chip.

DavidTO · May 11, 2008

You're *not* CatOne. Get the 4 core. The rest is just a waste of money for all practical purposes.

Andy · May 11, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

You're *not* CatOne. Get the 4 core. The rest is just a waste of money for all practical purposes.

4cores here, and I can't keep up with my machine

sib · May 11, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

You're *not* CatOne. Get the 4 core. The rest is just a waste of money for all practical purposes.

Hmm, not sure exactly what you're implying, but I do understand your recommedation ;-)

sib · May 12, 2008

CatOne wrote:

There are many sites which test it in benchmarks... e.g. barefeats.com.

I would say, TODAY, for running one single application (e.g. Photoshop), it will be as fast with a 2.8 GHz quad-core as it will with *two* 2.8 GHz quad cores. As future versions of Photoshop (and, likely, OS X) come out, they will get better and better with leveraging all the CPU cores (it's tough to code to it, and multiple CPUs are relatively new).

If it were *me*, I'd get the 8-core. Get it with 4 GB of RAM (4x1 GB) and then you have the ability to add 4 GB more RAM later at relatively little cost. You'll get a screaming machine, and one that will have legs for years. If you get a the quad core machine your only option to get more CPU cores is to sell it and get a new machine.. you can't just drop in a second chip.

Thanks, there's not a lot comparing these two at barefeats, but it does seem that Photoshop and Aperture will both take advantage of 8 cores. In the synthetic benchmarks in which they compare the two, the 8-core is definitely faster.

I'm surprised that it's not possible to add the second CPU later; that's something I would not have expected...

DavidTO · May 12, 2008

sib wrote:

Hmm, not sure exactly what you're implying, but I do understand your recommedation ;-)

CatOne's my buddy, and he knows a boat-load about Apple product (he works for them). I just don't think 8 cores are justified.

SloYerRoll · May 12, 2008

sib wrote:

Hmm, not sure exactly what you're implying, but I do understand your recommendation ;-)

At the risk of putting words in ones mouth. *feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

David is just saying that CatOne is a professional computer torturer. You'd need to go to great lengths in order to make processors scream like he does.

DavidTO and Andy can put a severe beating on their machines and they don't hurt em. So going 8core is kinda like buying a maserati and only being able to drive around in a commercial district. You'd never get a real chance to see what all the fuss is about.

DonRicklin · May 12, 2008

I think that depends on just what software you're using on an 8 core. A modern app like Lightroom will use the cores well if you are importing, exporting and Developing all at once and have PSCS3, a browser and itunes and iChat all running at once!

I know a number of 8 core runners. (Not one myself, not in that league, finacially!)

Don

CatOne · May 13, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

CatOne's my buddy, and he knows a boat-load about Apple product (he works for them). I just don't think 8 cores are justified.

I just went to the "Tim the Toolman Taylor" school of computer purchasing

Though my rule of upgrades is generally to not get a new machine until it is at LEAST 2x as fast as the machine it's replacing. I went from a dual 2.5 GHz G5 to a quad 2.5 GHz G5... so the only option to upgrade was of course the 8-core Mac Pro

Still, an 8-core could easily go 4 years without needing to be upgraded (even with Adobe's bloatware). And... for the $400 you get double the number of cores... but if you don't get it you can never add it without buying a new machine. And that's for heavy use... unlike the poor guys who are now complaining that their 6-year-old 1.25 GHz G4 machines are slow.

sib · May 13, 2008

CatOne wrote:

I just went to the "Tim the Toolman Taylor" school of computer purchasing

Though my rule of upgrades is generally to not get a new machine until it is at LEAST 2x as fast as the machine it's replacing. I went from a dual 2.5 GHz G5 to a quad 2.5 GHz G5... so the only option to upgrade was of course the 8-core Mac Pro

Still, an 8-core could easily go 4 years without needing to be upgraded (even with Adobe's bloatware). And... for the $400 you get double the number of cores... but if you don't get it you can never add it without buying a new machine. And that's for heavy use... unlike the poor guys who are now complaining that their 6-year-old 1.25 GHz G4 machines are slow.

OK, thanks. I also don't like to get a new machine frequently, and I do perform the occasional upgrade to prolong the overall system lifespan.

What is it about the 4-core Mac Pro that makes it impossible to add a second Xeon processor? Is it actually a different board? Or is it the same board missing a socket?

Or has the board been intentionally defeatured to prevent it?

(I think the difference is actually $500, rather than $400.)

Is there a Binford 9000 model Mac?

CatOne · May 13, 2008

sib wrote:

OK, thanks. I also don't like to get a new machine frequently, and I do perform the occasional upgrade to prolong the overall system lifespan.

What is it about the 4-core Mac Pro that makes it impossible to add a second Xeon processor? Is it actually a different board? Or is it the same board missing a socket? Or has the board been intentionally defeatured to prevent it?

(I think the difference is actually $500, rather than $400.)

Is there a Binford 9000 model Mac?

Actually, I don't know. I checked the service manual for the Mac Pro and I can't see any specific reference to the single-CPU Mac Pro. Only the dual 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 models. So it's possible I guess that you could buy the CPU 3rd party later and add it. The heat syncs on it are absolutely ginormous (and proprietary) so you'd need to ensure there are 2 in the box -- if you had to buy one from Apple Service Parts it would be painfully expensive. There are a number of questions -- I'd figure it's safest to not assume you'll be able to easily add a second CPU later.

sib · May 13, 2008

CatOne wrote:

Actually, I don't know. I checked the service manual for the Mac Pro and I can't see any specific reference to the single-CPU Mac Pro. Only the dual 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 models. So it's possible I guess that you could buy the CPU 3rd party later and add it. The heat syncs on it are absolutely ginormous (and proprietary) so you'd need to ensure there are 2 in the box -- if you had to buy one from Apple Service Parts it would be painfully expensive. There are a number of questions -- I'd figure it's safest to not assume you'll be able to easily add a second CPU later.

Alright, thanks, I'll make that assumption :-) Appreciate the help!

JEphotography · May 14, 2008

quad core

sib wrote:

Alright, thanks, I'll make that assumption :-) Appreciate the help!

I was trying to decide the same thing a few weeks ago. Here is an article that might help you. I bought the quad 2.8 and added ram. I think that spending that money on ram will get you further, expecially in photo processing. 8 core really shines in video.
In lightroom, the only time I can run all four cores to almost full power is when I do 2 exprots at the same time...

Actually, for Photoshop, it seems like the Imac 3.06ghz is one of the fastest. Might look into that machine.

good luck and hope this helps.

http://www.macworld.com/article/131782/2008/01/macprobench2.html

Jonathan

Mac Pro: 8- or 4-core?

Comments