8-core 3.2Ghz or 2.8Ghz?

markbnyc · Post by **markbnyc** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:31 pm

Greetings everyone,

Well, the time has finally arrived for me. Upgrading to a faster computer time, that is!

I have enough set aside to afford the 8-core 3.2Ghz Mac Pro with an extra 4GB of OWC RAM (for a total of 6GB altogether), a 150GB WD Raptor drive (for sample streaming) and a 750GB Seagate drive for projects files/audio/etc.

This will be a huge leap forward for me coming from a single processor 1.6Ghz G5. Yes, I actually bought the slowest G5 they made back then. I quickly regretted that decision so I vowed that my next computer would be the fastest they offered.

So that brings me to my question. Is the 3.2Ghz overkill for what I want to do (even though I can afford it)? I've heard good things about the 8-core 2.8Ghz.

I'm looking to be able to run the VSL Special Edition along with DP and Logic without freezing/bouncing tracks and no crackling audio. I do NOT need to have every articulation loaded since I compose and orchestrate at the piano before I even turn my computer on. Would the 8-core 2.8Ghz be enough to do this?

Thanks in advance for any advice/input.

Mark

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:27 pm

Hmm.

The difference in price doesn't always justify the smaller difference in performance were other aspects of the internal architecture are the same. Vastly improved bus and RAM speeds-- as well as memory capacity and independent PCIe busses appear to be identical on various Mac CPUs released right about the same time.

If money is no object, go for the gold. Otherwise, one might be hard-pressed to find vast differences between the two machines in proportion to their prices. Barefeats.com will likely have a detailed comparison of the two models.

I would personally get the 2.8 and invest in Apple Care, hard drives and RAM-- and plugins!

That is-- unless you find a deal on the big gun. OWC had a 3G with a cash rebate and other extras about this time last year, so I jumped on it. Otherwise, I would have gone for the 2.66 which was the mid-range model at the time.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:51 am

All things being equal except for CPU speeds made this one a no-brainer - for the first time ever I didn't opt for the "middle" model, but rather, I went for what IMHO is possibly the best Mac value ever - the dual quad 2.8.

As Frodo said, if you've got the dough to blow, then you might as well go higher, but I don't feel the performance increases justify the cost differences this time 'round.

markbnyc · Post by **markbnyc** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:09 pm

Frodo, monkey man

Thanks. Very good points both of you. Makes sense.

The other thing that made me consider the 3.2Ghz was that it would stave off obsolescence for just a tiny bit longer.

Still, I'll give it some more thought.

Thanks again,

Mark

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:14 pm

markbnyc wrote: The other thing that made me consider the 3.2Ghz was that it would stave off obsolescence for just a tiny bit longer.

Not "really". For example, my 3G might appear to be more in line with the 2.8 and 3.2G, but as soon as the new machines were released, my 3G bore more resemblance to the previous 2.66 than it did to the new machines.

The 2.66/3G models still had the old 33Mhz firewire single shared bus. The new machines have a new firewire bus that is closer to 2500Mhz, although the transfer rate remains the same @ 400/800 bps.

Also, my machine uses 667Mhz RAM. The new machines use RAM running @ 800Mhz.

These an many other improvements besides the CPU make the 2008 models much more compelling in general.

With that said, both the 2.8 and the 3.2 will serve you well for whatever period of time you'd own it. All it would take would be for the 2009 models to appear with 10 or more cores, and then both the 2.8 and 3.2 will hit the #2 spot on the Mac hit parade at the same time.

Generally, those who are going for the faster CPUs are also doing video and heavy CGI work. I would also recommend the 3.2 for those running lots of video along with VIs with their DAWs. But the speed differences with doing VIs and audio on both machines may be negligible.

As mentioned, if money is no object, go for the gold.

markbnyc · Post by **markbnyc** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:33 pm

Good point yet again.

Thanks, Frodo.

nice hobbit

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:40 am

Just thought I'd second that; my thinking exactly, Hobby... but without the flair and specifics.

The speed barrier seems to have taken a back seat to the number of cores as well as the efficiency and indeed bandwidth of the various buses these past few years - remember why Apple switched to Intel?
IBM apparently wasn't going to pip the 3GHz mark, according to its road map, quickly enough for Apple's liking.

Here we are at 3.2 GHz, years later, and yet every new iteration of the desktop machines still manages to more-or-less obey Moore's law.
It's obvious, IMHO, that it's not about speed anymore, but rather, bandwidth.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:04 am

monkey man wrote:Just thought I'd second that; my thinking exactly, Hobby... but without the flair and specifics.

Chances are that you would have finished your sentences and would have taken more time with typos earlier than I did!

What was I thinking!!?!!

[essential errors corrected]

markbnyc · Post by **markbnyc** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:10 am

Thanks, monkey man.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:40 am

Hey, no wukkers, markbnyc.

Hobby, this markbnyc is a true Unicorn at heart, it seems.
He's polite and appreciative.
Go you good thing, markbnyc!

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:23 pm

monkey man wrote:Hey, no wukkers, markbnyc.

Hobby, this markbnyc is a true Unicorn at heart, it seems.
He's polite and appreciative.
Go you good thing, markbnyc!

Indeed, you are correct as always! He's truly one of the Shire-folk like you!

Continued good luck, Mark. Keep us posted!

Cheers,
Frodo

markbnyc · Post by **markbnyc** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:01 pm

Hobby, this markbnyc is a true Unicorn at heart, it seems.
He's polite and appreciative.

lol! I'd say I'm more like a Liger (you know, a half lion half tiger bred for their skills in magic).

Indeed, you are correct as always! He's truly one of the Shire-folk like you! Razz

Continued good luck, Mark. Keep us posted!

Will do, Mr. Frodo.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:39 am

Oh... and he's a MkII... I mean, Mark too, Flopster.

Being a Mark, Phil, Bill, Greg, Gary, James, Dave, Steve, Jeff/Geoff or Mike is practically a qualification in and of itself.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:19 am

monkey man wrote:Oh... and he's a MkII... I mean, Mark too, Flopster.

Being a Mark, Phil, Bill, Greg, Gary, James, Dave, Steve, Jeff/Geoff or Mike is practically a qualification in and of itself.

LOL-- I think you've hit all the big ones there, Nicky. Indeed, I'm glad these guys have unique member names, otherwise I'd forget who's who!

Not a lot of Nickies in these parts, be there? You're one of a kind!

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:48 am

True Hobby; we're not oozing from the woodwork, but statistically we're also above the norm:
Off the top of my head, we've got Nikki-K, Nickythefish, Nick Danger, Nickysnd and Nicky the Simian Slacker.

Of course, the names I mentioned in the previous post are way out of whack statistically.
Sorry for the distraction Hobby; sometimes I wish I could shake the patterns thing.

EDIT: I just saw a post from nk_e. Could be a stretch, but if you read it literally...
OK, so I've got a bad case of patternitis.