I'm about to buy a Mac Pro and I was wondering, how much better is a 8-quad processor over a four quad. Obvisiously its better, but is it worth the extra money, or is it really diminishing returns?
As someone who does a lot of video-editing, image-editing, 3D work will I notice a considerable difference between the 8-core and 4-core?
but I cannot speak from experience.
The 8 should be faster at rendering than the 4 but I doubt it would be twice as fast. A lot depends on how the system, and your software, handles multiple processors.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly with a better answer
P
They have some benchmark scores from both posted on MacRumors.com:
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/
It's pretty obvious that 8 cores is better than 4 cores. CineBench is based off of 3D graphic animation, so I guess it's scores will give you a definite ballpark for video editing.
Here's the link for info on CineBench:
http://www.maxon.net/pages/download/cinebench_e.html
Honestly, these scores are pretty damned good for both Quad and Octo, so I'd base you decision on what you'd be willing to spend.
Always check with the application developer. But in theory, you should be able to get significant gains from programs that leverage all available processors.
Keep in mind that even if programs do employ the parallel processing capabilities of your system (such as SMP), then go for it. In the graphics biz, time is money, so it will pay for itself.
If you're buying this just as a hobby, you have too much disposable income, and it will simply be overkill. Quad Core is fast enough. Save your money and buy another toy. You'll get more enjoyment out of that.
Check specific benchmarks for the applications you use most.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |