|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring.... |
| Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
05-29-2007, 07:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Mac Pro--Quad Core or 8-Core
So, in terms of longevity, Quad core or 8-core.....Logically, 8-core would last longer in term of performance....Starting with 8GB of RAM should help (using 2GB DIMMs) Will be doing video editing/graphics, plus all the stuff I was doin' on the PC such as creating call schedule, Excel, Power Point for presentation, Word for documents, Outlook for call schedule, X5World surfin', etc. The Mac Pro chassis has plenty of room to expand in terms of memory and drive bay space. Opinions welcomed....
__________________
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
|
|
#2
05-29-2007, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
that's going to be one expensive computer $4000+!!!
i'd want one  but currently, even the higher end 2 cores are operating fine, unless you're an intense gamer (who rely on graphic performance), i don't see the need for this expenditure
__________________
|
|
#3
05-29-2007, 08:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
8 core is really intense... but if you've got the money I say splurge ?
Personally if it was my $$, I'd say save the money and get the 2.66. Put the extra money aside and use it to replace the machine with a newer Mac Pro sooner than you would have with the 8 core. Buying the highest end machine isn't the wisest choice as the industry moves so fast now. If you were doing intense photoshop work, or major number crunching where time was of the essence, by all means get the 8 core. Its worth it for professionals who can use the processing power to their advantage and speed up their workflow. I dunno how serious you are for video editing, but the 2.66 or 3.0 quad core should be more than enough for your needs... Either way, you can't really go wrong... Check out barefeats.com for speed comparisons & bar charts... They also have pretty good bang for buck analysis...
|
|
#4
05-29-2007, 10:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
 Hey thanks for the tip re: barefeats.comI did check out their recent article re: 8-core vs. Quad-core.... http://barefeats.com/octopro1.html Thanks for the info! Quote:
__________________
|
|
#5
05-30-2007, 04:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Honestly, I don't know much about Macs but I would definitely say that the 8-core is overkill. My wife makes a living using Macs and her firm is doing fine on the older dual cores with tons of RAM. Of course they'd love the latest and greatest and they'll be upgrading soon but they handle major graphics files all day long and don't have problems with their setup. She uses a quad Mac Pro at home and loves it. Again, handling huge graphics files and apps without issues.
I say save your money, forgo the 8 and get a quad. Those Mac Pros are gorgeous and so well built too!
__________________
|
|
#6
05-30-2007, 10:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How much memory did you guys start with on the Mac Pro Quad core?
BTW, that www.barefeat.com website was quite informative re: Macs. It seems that Tiger is not optimized for 8-core, but they speculate that Leopard might fix it. There is a memory bottle neck for the Quad Core already and it is not any better with the 8-core. Yes, the 8-core CPU is "twice as fast" as the Quad-core CPU technically, but when you realize that the CPU has to communicate with the memory and there is a bottle neck and also how the OS decides which program(s) gets control of which core CPU, it does get muddled. Anyhow, glad to hear about you & your wife's positive experiences with the Mac Pro. Quote:
__________________
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
