Bifurcator wrote:
Good link Hammy! Notice how PS and Aperture scale almost identically with either 4 or 8 procs. The extra cores don't make a difference (for those apps!). If I wanted the MacPro and I was editing images mostly I would get the single proc, super-slow one and then go on-line and find a good deal on a used 3.2 and then sell the slower one to offset the cost a little. You'll have 4 cores at 3.2GHz and later when those chips are $500 or less I'd get the second one for 8 cores. By then hopefully, apps like PS will scale better over multiple cores too.
What sucks is by the time the expensive chips become cheap, they release a new CPU that costs the same as your original cheap one, but runs circles around the chip you were waiting to come down in price. And then you can't even use the new chip cuz it requires a completely new platform. So you get envious...and buy a new system. At least that's me! lol
Kimleng wrote:
What sucks is by the time the expensive chips become cheap, they release a new CPU that costs the same as your original cheap one, but runs circles around the chip you were waiting to come down in price. And then you can't even use the new chip cuz it requires a completely new platform. So you get envious...and buy a new system. At least that's me! lol
The new Xeon processors due early 09 are ridiculous according to early tests. About 80% faster with a lower clock speed (2.8 vs 3.2).
What do you guys consider to be "copious amounts of RAM?" I'm running a single quad and 6GB of RAM which I'm feeling is not nearly enough for Aperture. 12 or 16?
8GB is about where the benefits of more RAM diminish significantly. 4GB is about the minimum. Though with prices what they are more than 8GB is still a good way to eek out more performance for a decent price.
HOWEVER...make sure you need it. That all assumes you are using several high memory apps (Aperture, PS, Lightroom, etc). The way to check is to look at your memory usage. Activity monitor will show you how much RAM is being used. The stat to really check is 'page outs'. That is how often the system has to write data to disk vs RAM. Less than a 10:1 ratio and you can use more RAM.
One thing to keep in mind is that when Snow Leopard is released next year it is going to include Apple's Grand Central technology which is supposed to make it easier for developers to code for multiprocessor use so we might actually be able to make use of 8 cores.
Kimleng wrote: What sucks is by the time the expensive chips become cheap, they release a new CPU that costs the same as your original cheap one, but runs circles around the chip you were waiting to come down in price. And then you can't even use the new chip cuz it requires a completely new platform. So you get envious...and buy a new system. At least that's me! lol
Yup! There already are. What's selling in the Apple Mac systems are already outdated two versions back and 16-core chips are on their way. We will never be able to keep up. And "they" are not even releasing the "good stuff" to the public sector yet. Already in operation in some ah-hem, very private facilities, are processors perhaps suitable for micro computers ("PC's") that run thousands of times faster than what's offered to Joe Six-Pack or even to the university crowd who are still tinkering with outmoded massively parallel "super computers". The moral of the story is just to make (or buy) the best system within your budget and don't worry about next year, or parts that you can not afford. Don't worry too much about having the latest but rather focus on what it can and can't do reasonably. When there's something it can't do that you need/want to do that's when to upgrade.
Alistair Watson wrote:
I would recommend a single 3.0GHz, should be more than fast enough in the Mac Pro. You can always add another processor in the future.
Talking of green, I keep meaning to buy one of those devices which tell you how much electricity an appliance is using, I hate to think how much my Mac Pro is using!
Mac Pros expose a TON of stats... including temperatures, fan speeds, and Voltage/Amperage/Watts. You can use an app like iStat to view these stats. With two dual core 2.6GHz, four DIMMs (5GB), and three internal drives, my power supply is reading around 100W, if memory serves. It jumps when the system is chugging.
As far as how many cores and what speed you need, my four 2.6GHz cores are only pegged when rendering 1:1 previews upon importing photos into Lightroom. Otherwise I rarely see more than two cores pegged. I take that as a sign that I'm rarely processor limited. And those times when I am, the process takes long enough that I'd walk away from the computer no matter if I had four cores or eight cores.
For that reason, I wouldn't spend a lot on the processor, unless you have extraordinary needs. But definitely buy 4GB RAM (or more if you use virtualization to run XP).
