8 core

Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
6,183
Location
Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
New at the Apple Store:

Quad-core or 8-core, all Xeon
Every Mac Pro packs the power of two multi-core Intel Xeon processors. Choose two 3.0GHz quad-core “Clovertown” processors — the fastest quad-core Intel Xeon available — for groundbreaking, 8-core power.

Or configure a quad-core Mac Pro with a pair of dual-core “Woodcrest” processors at 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3.0GHz.
 

Jez

Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
706
Location
UK
And I thought Lens Lust was bad enough.... :eek:

Thank you Larry!
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
1,376
Location
Oregon
was wondering when they would finally offer this configuration. A number have done it themselves with superb performance just more ram needed will be one screaming machine
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
99
Location
minneapolis
I'm ready to buy a Mac Pro and I've been waiting for this update because I thought it would mean a price drop on the quad core configurations. No such luck :/
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
74
Location
Tenerife, Canary Isl, Spain
I am also lookin for a macpro and I was told for this 8-core machine.
But I will be patient, I am sure that the 8core macpro lusting (for others...lol)will be my solution!!!

So, anyone wants to upgrade¿?
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
4,288
Location
St. Louis, MO USA
Another RATS for no price drop in the dual cores.
I've been thinking that would be all it would take to get me to give the Mac a try.

Don
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
1,585
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
8 core is overkill for anyone other than video professionals and developers.

I should add that I mean that you won't see the gain in speed for what it costs. Not all software is written for quads even.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
6,183
Location
Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
You are probably right John. It might make me a bit more anxious to do videos, waiting is not my strong suit.
:smile:

Might it also help with rendering time with Aperture and/or CS3? Or will we have to wait until Aperture 2.0 and a rewrite of CS3?
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
1,585
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
Aperture loves a good video card and lots of ram. What do you have now?

As for video, I bet the quad mac pros are plenty fast enough. I fiddle around with Final Cut Express and have no problems with it. Seems to move fast enough for me.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
90
Location
Buffalo River Wilderness, Arkansas
John (or anyone) - how about the 8-core machines (vs. the same quad-core machine, both full of RAM) working on large tiff files, like 1gig in size and even larger, with CS3 - would you see any speed difference at all, or will it be CS4 before we see photoshop that can generate more speed for the really large files? I'm not talking about speed value for the money, but just raw speed...
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
1,401
Location
Seattle WA
I wonder if the 'feel' of the OS will seem faster on this.
I just played with my daughter's 400Mhz iMac with system 9.2.1.
I swear the finder is 'snappier'
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
99
Location
minneapolis
Well, I broke down and ordered a quad core even though prices didn't drop.

In regards to some of the discussion about programs working well on 8 cores vs. 4 cores...

As far as I know, if a program is optimized to work well on multiple core machines, it will benefit from additional cores. When the program is written, the developer can identify parts of the code that can split off and run separately on a different "thread" than the rest of the program. So the four core machines can run 4 thread simultaneously and the 8 core machine can run 8. As long as the program is written to take advantage of multi-threading, it will benefit from having 8 cores vs 4 without the developer changing anything.

I only write numerical analysis/scientific apps though, so normal applications may be different.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
7,818
Location
Gilroy, California
Well, I broke down and ordered a quad core even though prices didn't drop.

In regards to some of the discussion about programs working well on 8 cores vs. 4 cores...

As far as I know, if a program is optimized to work well on multiple core machines, it will benefit from additional cores. When the program is written, the developer can identify parts of the code that can split off and run separately on a different "thread" than the rest of the program. So the four core machines can run 4 thread simultaneously and the 8 core machine can run 8. As long as the program is written to take advantage of multi-threading, it will benefit from having 8 cores vs 4 without the developer changing anything.

I only write numerical analysis/scientific apps though, so normal applications may be different.
In my experience other things will cause most uses of so many threads to bottleneck at memory i/o or even more so disk i/o. Once the machine is keeping up with those there isn't much else you can do. Same goes for video. Video is basically single threaded in i/o of data to and from it.

Or at least that is my current thinking. I am considering the quad myself.

I personally work on things that would certainly use all 8 cores, but as I say above it doesn't actually speed up anything because of speed limits elsewhere.

Seems to me we will see specialized use of these extra cores appear first, and slowly over time more and more software will learn to make use of them. The bottleneck will remain memory and disk.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom