CPU Speed vs Core Threading?

[Frodo]

It has oft been said to buy the fastest computer one can afford.

But what if the choices are a 12-Core running at 2.4 Ghz vs a single-CPU Quad running 3.2 Ghz (both late models)? Overall benchmarks show the latest Quad CPU coming in just a notch under the 12-Core. The prices are somewhat different than a mere "notch"-- $2500 vs $3800.

I'm sure much of this has come up before, but with 64-bit memory addressing now entering the equation (and knowing that later models will at least marginally beat the models they replace), I'm wondering if there are any opinions on the necessity of multi-core threading in DAW/VI world and whether the 12-Core is effectively $1300 faster.

I'm a bit beyond the stage of considering a refurb, and circumstances (beyond my control) put the necessity of getting a new MacPro ahead of holding out for a potential 2013 model.

Thanks!

[bayswater]

Reminds me of an article on hyperthreading in Ars Technica last week (it is discussed here indirectly in a review of i7 and i5 chips

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/ ... tra-juice/)

The question is whether the 12 core is 12 real cores or 6 cores with hyper threading making 12 virtual cores? I gather the latter can run 12 threads, but only 6 at once. Under moderate use, that would make a difference, but under heavy loads, 6 threads is 6 threads.

Apparently it can be difficult to tell from Apple specs which chip it is because they don't list the actual chip part number.

Is it really 6 X 2.4Ghz versus 4 X 3.2 Ghz?

[Frodo]

Apparently it can be difficult to tell from Apple specs which chip it is because they don't list the actual chip part number.

Seems to me from what I've seen that the 12-Core is really a 2x 6-Core. What makes this possible is that the latest Westmere chips are really Nehalems shrunken down to 32 nm. There's also some confusion where the latest Westmeres were supposed to be let off as i9s but were instead called i7s when they went to market.

I know. A skunk by any other name...

Is it really 6 X 2.4Ghz versus 4 X 3.2 Ghz?

The 12-Core model is really a Dual 6-Core and $1300 further up the creek from the other 1x Quad.

I miss Steve Jobs.

[HCMarkus]

Frodo, I'm sure you've seen at least a few of my many posts referring to my *new* 2010/12 hex, which is really a 2009 quad flashed to 2010 EFI with an updated CPU and GPU.

Before I chose that direction, I was seriously looking at purchasing the 2012 12 core 2.4. But as I considered the situation, the slower clock speed of the 12 core (the machine's single-threaded performance seriously lags that of the 3.33 hex) combined with the higher price tag and only moderately higher Geekbench score (optimum performance gauge) pushed me in the direction of the hex. When I learned about the 2009 EFI update, the decision was made for me. Here are the numbers, one more time:

2009 updated to Hex Westmere 3.33/5770 GPU
$1925 inc tax
Geekbench 13,800
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819117242
Note: The 3.33 Hex CPU required for dual processor applications (like the 12 core) is this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819117228
Easy to see why the faster 12-core Mac Pros cost so much more!

2012 12 core (dual Hex) Westmere 2.4 with 5770
$3,800 plus tax
Geekbench 17,213
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819117256

I don't include costs for RAM and HDs/SSDs, as these add-ons will inflate the prices equally. The update was really easy, the CPU swap a piece of cake. All that's missing is the warranty, but seeing as how I can essentially buy two Macs for the costs of one (my new CPU has its Intel warranty), I can live with that.

Now, by my calculations, the newest (not yet released) and fastest iMac with Ivy Bridge i7 Quad is expected to Geekbench at pretty close to where my Hex sits. For me, the lack of expandability (unless one goes the costly Thunderbolt route) and all-in-one form factor are deal-killers. The iMac isn't for me. Based on your work with VI's of substantial magnitude, I suspect you are not in the iMac market either, but (especially if one needs a new display) the iMac is now a serious contender in the bang-for-the-buck department.

The Hackintosh or PC routes offer other alternatives. Hackintosh builders abound on the web, but ethical and long-term compatibility issues raise concerns. The PC route may be a minefield, given the likely growing pains DP will encounter in the transition to a dual-platform DAW, but if you are already using VE Pro, you may be readier than I to abandon Apple.

Decisions, decisions!

[kgdrum]

As Bayswater & HC have stated the choices are confusing and the vague information on actual chips etc...don't help with making an informed decision.
My MacPro is a lightweight compared to what your considering but as HC is saying and I'm sure MLC has also probably told you there are some really great used MacPro bargains out there.
If you consider that route I'd go either 2009 or 2010.
The 2011 or even the 2012 new MacPros don't offer many advantages over those models & considering the reliability and the amazing architecture of these beautiful Macs,I think the used MacPro route on a later vintage is worth considering.
I went for a extreme bargain that was a bit underpowered for my needs(2008 2.8 Quad 24gig) but I snagged it for $1100! & it's been the best Mac I've ever had by far.
When funds allow,hopefully in the Spring or Summer,I intend to look for a 2009,2010 or 2011 MacPro which I expect will be extremely affordable on the used market if the newer MacPros are released with Thunderbolt &USB3 as anticipated.
Unfortunately you have if I remember correctly a 1.1,so anything from 2009 and later will give you the ability to run in the 64bit Kernel and hyperthreading.
IMO with these advantages,whether you go with a Quad ,Six or Octo core you will already have an enormous jump in capabilities over your present MacPro,I'd go for the highest chip speed probably avoid the 2.4 & if if it was me I'd look for a Six or Octo.
These are great Macs it's not IMO like taking a chance on buying a used G5.
If I were to buy now as you intend to I'd have a hard time justifying the purchase of a new MacPro as most users expect a major update in '13 with Thunderbolt,USB3 etc....if you need one right now I'd look for a powerful used beast save some money and see how the line looks in a year or so.
If you're determined not to buy used I'd reconsider a refurb directly from Apple,2010-12 MacPros pop up all of the time,you can get AppleCare with them and most people who've gone this route feel they're tested & re-tested beyond even new Macs before they're listed so I'd be confident that it wouldn't be a lemon.
With the rumored refresh coming as soon as possibly the next few months if I needed a MacPro now and didn't want to go the used route the refurbs from the Apple Store would be my 1st choice,the savings would pay for AppleCare,ram,hard drives etc..... And I'm comfortable in saying they'd be as reliable as a brand new MacPro.
Good Luck!

[Frodo]

Yo, kg: I hear ya out loud, bro.

Buying now would be an allowable 2012 expense for my business, but it raises the question of what's going on with Apple that DAW users are now kit-bashing with retrofits or investing in refurbs. There's NOTHING wrong with that, except that buying new (for the first time?) doesn't seem like such an obvious option.

I recall buying an 857Mhz years (and years) ago, and a friend of mine bought a dual 800 about the same time. It wasn't completely clear if CPU threading/hyperthreading was a real advantage at the time-- and it sooooorrrrrrrrt of remains unclear now. If nothing else, the differences between CPU speeds having hit a ceiling between 2.4 and 3.xGhz vs the number of cores that are now possible would have me leaning towards cores in quantity.

What I'd like to do is to get away from the Ghz fetish IF and only IF that means that DAW/VI work fares better with more cores. What I don't want to do is to spend more than I have to, but I will spend what I *need* to just to get it right.

Sir Bravus Markus again makes bravus suggestions about updating the CPU, but I'm still thinking that I'd like to keep my current 1,1 as a VI sidecar using VEP.

BTW-- Thank you, Sir Markus, for your valuable input!

It could be that my needs dictate a need to update my current CPU as well as to get a newer machine in an effort to continue the concept of networking.

[kgdrum]

If part of your avoidance in buying used is based on how your accountant can take advantage of the expense of the purchase for your business which i totally understand I'm pretty sure the refurbs from Apple for IRS purposes is as good as buying a new Mac.
Of course I'd verify this but I'm 99.9% sure for a business expense deduction,it should be the same thing.

From my understanding hyperthreading in the Mac world started with the 2009 models and the newer Intel chips also the programs have to be written to be able to take advantage of hyperthreading and utilize all of the cores.
Ironically many Logic users complain that Logic doesn't utilize all cores on the newer Macs and has problems in this area.
So part of this is determined by the Macs design and part of this is determined by the app your trying to use.

[Frodo]

If part of your avoidance in buying used is based on how your accountant can take advantage of the expense of the purchase for your business which i totally understand I'm pretty sure the refurbs from Apple for IRS purposes is as good as buying a new Mac.
Of course I'd verify this but I'm 99.9% sure for a business expense deduction,it should be the same thing.

Well, it's not entirely about how much it will cost as much as how *intelligently* those funds are spent. Funds could just as easily be squandered. I'd rather spend $4k wisely than to spend $2k in ignorance.

I'm willing to forego Thunderbolt for now. To that extent, I'm highly annoyed that Apple is changing iPhone/iPad connectivity as of the first of the year, so I'll deal with connectivity manipulation as a separate issue.

I'm even willing to deal with the fallout of monitor connectivity where DVI bumps heads with mini-DVI. That would be the case were I to buy a new machine today. I've got a 24" and a 30" Cinema which are wonderful, but Apple has yet to offer a dedicated Retina display, outside of iPads, iPhones, or laptops. I want to keep my Cinema displays in service as long as they're working fine.

But, my main concern remains whether VIs fare better with CPU threading/hyperthreading vs CPU speed where running everything inside a 64-bit OS kernel becomes increasingly the new kid on the block.

Not all developers are on the 64-bit bandwagon just yet, and I think that bothers me the most.

[HCMarkus]

How about keeping the 1,1 to run DP and farming out everything else via VE Pro? This would free you to buy several Ivy Bridge CPU PCs, cutting edge machines, to handle the VI work...

Door open and beer cold in the San Diego hobbit warren; all required tools and a modicum of expertise on hand should you decide voiding a 2009's (expired) warranty is the way to go.

[Frodo]

Forget computers. Did you say, "beer"?

I've walked to Mordor many times. San Diego is a lot closer and a lot quieter.

How about keeping the 1,1 to run DP and farming out everything else via VE Pro? This would free you to buy several Ivy Bridge CPU PCs, cutting edge machines, to handle the VI work...

Excellent. Ultra excellent.

[kgdrum]

If I already had a 30" & 24" monitors I'm happy with I'd stick with them, get the necessary adaptors and be done with it.
If Apple releases those monitors as retina displays I think they'd be very pricy and eat up system resources needlessly,if your doing video editing the retina displays might be justified but IMO for music oriented DAW use it's 1st generation overpriced bling that would be a drain on the budget and required system resources.
I can imagine they would require a very powerful video card to run 2 monitors these sizes with this type of resolution.

[Frodo]

If I already had a 30" & 24" monitors I'm happy with I'd stick with them and get the necessary adaptors and be done with it.
If Apple releases those monitors as retina displays I think they'd be very pricy and eat up system resources needlessly,if your doing video editing the retina displays might be justified but IMO for music oriented DAW use it's 1st generation overpriced bling that would be a drain on the budget and required system resources.
I can imagine they would require a very powerful video card to run 2 monitors this size with this type of resolution.

You're right, kg. I'd sooner downgrade the graphics card than to buy new monitors. (Ooo, what I just said!! )

Displays have not been a high priority for Apple, otherwise they would have dedicated Retinas available by now. Instead, they seem to be more about iThingy integration at the moment.

[kgdrum]

I actually do think the Retina displays are a very high marketing priority for Apple.
But most people who want to run multiple large displays will probably avoid them now because expense of 2 new 1st generation Retina displays compounded with the added cost of the graphic card you'd need to run 2(30" & 24")Retina displays in a system,this IMO would bump the system price up too much.

[Frodo]

I actually do think the Retina displays are a very high marketing priority for Apple.
But most people who want to run multiple large displays will probably avoid them now because of the graphic card you'd need to run 2(30" & 24")Retina displays in a system.

But that's part of my point. The "expense" or the "luxury" are not to be ignored, but when Apple users who invested heavily in their previous DVI Cinema monitors find themselves now in need of adapters or graphics card replacements that are more affordable than just replacing the monitors--- dunno. There's something munked up about this.

I could buy two new Apple monitors, but:

1. They are 27" at their current largest, and not 30"
2. They are not Retina
3. They are not standard DVI
4. My Cinemas represent hardware that will work well beyond their shelf lives for many more years to come than Apple might want.

But, I'm not all that bothered by the monitor quandary. Presently, it's much more about software compatibility in the world of 64-bit. I mean, I've watched this whole 64-bit memory addressing thing transpire since 2004. It stagnated and is only now dragging its knuckles into reality.

DP8--- There's no urgent need for super-ultra high-res anyway, is there?

[kgdrum]

DP8--- There's no urgent need for super-ultra high-res anyway, is there?

Not from my perspective,lol
I'm using a 20" DVI Apple display,my 2nd monitor is an older 19" VGA Apple display(w/adaptor) which I haven't even used since I updated to DP8,I've have it connected to my old G5 so I haven't even noticed the video problems some users are reporting with DP8 & multiple monitors.
I hope 8.01 solves the multiple monitor problem (i dont want to buy a new video card for the Mac)and I might hunt for a 24" monitor and use that as the main screen and use the 20" as the 2nd screen & keep the 19" w/ the G5.

I also think I need to look at Spaces more,Shooshies raves about utilizing Spaces to have multiple virtual monitors has the cheap impoverished bastard that I am quite intrigued!