Computer shopping: New 4-core vs Old 8-core?

[BobK]

Yeah, sounds like a refurb or used 2009 MP is the way to go, except that they're probably scarcer than hen's teeth.

Yup.

It's starting to look like those of us who want a tower form factor are paying a ridiculous premium at the entry level, only to get a machine that can be equaled or surpassed in computing power by an iMac. (I'm basing this on MacWorld's speed tests and Geekbench tests posted at everymac.com).

After reading the Macworld review of iMacs last November showing iMacs beating out MacPros in some tests, I decided to wait for the Mac Pros to be updated.

So it's really disappointing that after all this time, all we see at the entry level is a small bump in processor speed (and the video card upgrade, which doesn't mean much to me). We'll have to wait and see how the new Nehalem performs in those tests, but at least on paper the specs are underwhelming. I wish I had the option to switch to a Windows machine, but I'm not ready to drop DP and my Metric Halo audio interfaces.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Except a few computing pros IT guys I know will tell you that iMacs are not nearly as well built as the Mac Pros are.

[BobK]

Except a few computing pros IT guys I know will tell you that iMacs are not nearly as well built as the Mac Pros are.

I don't doubt it - and the article Kevorkian linked to comparing iMac and Mac Pro suggested that too.

I'm still not ready to go iMac. Another consideration: I plan to use all four of the Mac Pro's internal hard drive bays; adding on a good-quality hot-swap external FW800 enclosure for two or three drives to an iMac would cancel out a portion of the price advantage, and it would be competing for FW bus bandwidth with my audio interfaces.

[James Steele]

A lot of people ask too much on CL. The secret is to check it frequently for the occasional deal where the seller isn't delusional about their asking price and then pull the trigger quickly.

That's not always true... if it's loaded with things you'd have to pay for anyway then your making out. What if it has a Bluray drive or SSD's? These are added cost that many can't even get so it's very subjective to if the person is closing shop and hard up.

Of course if there are extras included you would take that Into consideration IF those extras were important to you. I thought that was too obvious to mention.

[bongo_x]

So, is there a downside to the 2008 2.8 8core? Besides there being too many 8’s in the description?

bb

[BKK-OZ]

I came across this today in an ad on evilBay for a used Mac, I thought it might be of interest to those looking @ used Macs. There is a site/service where you can enter the serial number of a mac and it will give you a lot of very specific build information. You can find it here.

It evens gives an estimated value from 'sell your mac'. To see what I mean, enter your Mac's serial, or you can try the one I got from the evilBay ad: YM710232UQ2

[BobK]

So, is there a downside to the 2008 2.8 8core? Besides there being too many 8’s in the description?

EDIT: My original post said that the 2008 8-core had a much higher Geekbench score. bongo_x checked the Geekbench developer's site and found that the score reported at Everymac.com was incorrect, and the correct score was actually a bit HIGHER than that of the 2009 quad-core Nehalem.

The 2008 has slower RAM speed. I don't know how much that would matter, but the Mac Performance Guide says that it can be a limitation of this machine. The question is whether that limitation would offset the advantage of more cores.

[bongo_x]

I think the numbers at everymac are wrong.

I found this;
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which gives it a 8829 instead of a 5573.

It’s a little confusing, but I thought I had heard those 2 machines were about the same speed.

bb

[BobK]

I think the numbers at everymac are wrong.

I found this;
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which gives it a 8829 instead of a 5573.

It’s a little confusing, but I thought I had heard those 2 machines were about the same speed.

bb

Thanks, bb.

I don't see the Nehalem quad core 2.66 (early 2009) in that list, so I wonder where everymac got their number for that model.

[bongo_x]

I didn’t see it either, I thought I was just missing something.
Either way, I think they are pretty close, the advantage with the 2009 being that it was just as fast with 4 cores.

My question is; Is that an advantage I care about? are people happy with the 2008 8 core? It seems the speeds have not been drastically different until you get to the new 6 cores.

bb

[BobK]

My question is; Is that an advantage I care about? are people happy with the 2008 8 core?

Or, to put it another way, given that the benchmark scores are so close, might there be an advantage to having more cores for working with DAWs and VIs, even though the machine is older and the RAM is slower?

[bongo_x]

My question is; Is that an advantage I care about? are people happy with the 2008 8 core?

Or, to put it another way, given that the benchmark scores are so close, might there be an advantage to having more cores for working with DAWs and VIs, even though the machine is older and the RAM is slower?

Exactly.

[Phil O]

are people happy with the 2008 8 core?

Indeed. I'm sure the new Macs will smoke this machine, but it still screams. I don't expect to be wanting an upgrade for a while.

Phil

[BobK]

Here's an article at Barefeats with some preliminary test results of the 2009 Nehalems, including comparisons with the 2008 8-core 2.8.

http://barefeats.com/nehal03.html

The 8-core scored better than the 4-core Nehalem in Cinebench and 32-bit Geekbench tests. The Nehalem 4-core scored slightly better in 64-bit Geekbench tests. I wonder how the difference might play out once DP goes 64-bit.

Here are some later tests with 'pro apps':

http://barefeats.com/nehal04.html

He concludes that the 2008 8-core is faster than the 2009 4-core.

[mhschmieder]

There's an SF CL ad for a 2008 8-core for $2500 at the moment.

And before reading these updated postings here, I had just concluded that anything beyond 4-core was pointless and possibly detrimental.

There are so many POV's on the multi-core issue, and I think we may have come to the point where no one computer spec is going to be optimal for everyone.

It's just a shame that so many people who make categorical statements (not here, but elsewhere), have never considered the very specific needs of audio professionals.

While it's true that gaming and photo editing are rather demanding, it is only when we get to VI's VE PRO, and such, that we find different results for multi-core.

I'm as confused as ever, so am looking at OWC's custom solutions, which are quite impressive. Just posted yesterday, they include three drives in the iMac with an eSATA port as well.

Haven't seen their MP custom options yet. They may have to wait until they have one at hand to play with. Also, not sure which base models and price points must be input to their MPG solutions.

It sounds like it could be the way to go -- for iMacs at least, where DIY is fairly risky. MP's ought to be simple enough for home-grown improvements to not warrant an MPG boost from OWC.