New Macpros: 4 core vs. 8 core

[neil_parker]

I am planning to buy a Macpro 2.8ghz; which is available in a dual processor version (w/ 8 'core's total)

or in a single processor (4 cores). The single version is $500 less. This will be used for photoshop and

other photo-related applications, and for illlustrator and other design programs.

 

Any opinions on how useful the 8 core version is for photoshop compared to 4 core? and how useful

would the 2nd processor be for other 'normal' uses like word-processing, web surfing/authoring etc.?

I.E. what applications take advantage of the extra processors? (I know high-end 3d apps like Maya and

video apps like Final Cut probably do.)

[catchlight]

I don't have the answer for you, Neil, but am wondering the same thing.

 

For a Mac Pro used mainly for Photoshop, would the $500 for a second processor be better spent on bumping the RAM to 4MB?

 

I believe a second processor can be added later, if needed.

[Brad_]

>>> Any opinions on how useful the 8 core version is for photoshop compared to 4 core?

<P>

 

<a href= "http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html">Here's a review</a> that's a little

dated comparing older 8/4 core models.<P>

 

No advantage with ps, currently. Where 8 cores fly is with rendering software.

[neil_parker]

That review attributes the problem to the OS; Tiger specifically. I wonder if Leopard offers

any improvement in multiprocessing?

 

A machine like this will serve me for a few years. It would make sense to get the extra

processor if the trend was to develop more software that makes use of the extra cores. On

the other hand I don't mind saving $500 if all it will do is use more electricity. I haven't

seen any confirmation that the extra processor could be added later. And it seldom makes

sense to upgrade processors from my experience.

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

I just ordered the dual. Like Brad pointed out Photoshop currently won't take advantage of all the processors, but who knows what will happen in the future. Intel is pushing development tools to optimize software for their newer processors. The extra power would still be nice for multi-tasking (like Quicktime export in the background) while photo editing. $500 for that much extra power is a pretty good price/performance ratio. Get extra RAM from Otherworld - $200 for 4 GIGs.

[neil_parker]

"The extra power would still be nice for multi-tasking..."

 

Thanks, I was wondering about that. So even if the app like PS doesn't take advantage of

the extra cores, the computer as a whole can take advantage by having multiple apps and

processes working and using all the cores?

[kuryan_thomas]

<i>the computer as a whole can take advantage by having multiple apps and processes

working and using all the cores?</i>

<p>

Yes, that is a feature of the operating system, in this case Mac OS X Leopard, which fully

supports "symmetric multiprocessing". But keep in mind, the more apps are running at once,

the more RAM you will need to keep things moving smoothly.

[Brad_]

<a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/photoshop_and_multicore.html">Here,

John Nack from Adobe</a> elaborates on multiple cores and photoshop. Great

explanation...

[Carl Stone]

One of our Mac gurus put it this way.

 

"If your task for today is to move a truck load of product from Phoenix to Tucson, only one

worker, the truck driver, is needed. But, if your task is to install a new roof, then 8 workers

can be used, and it will cut down on the time needed to accomplish the task."

 

Photoshop cannot use more than 4 processors, or more than 4 gigs of RAM, in it's current

incarnation. BUT, if you are running other tasks at the same time, mail, Illustrator,

financial software, etc., then 8 processors look very helpful indeed.

 

As time goes on new software will be better able to take advantage of multiple processors,

so one should look to the future before making a buying decision today. It's all about each

person's individual needs going forward. HTH

[Brad_]

We'll see...

 

The thing to remember is multiple applications open not doing any *work* (ie a photoshop

filtering operation using convolution, Quicktime exporting, Motion/After Effects/FinalCut

rendering, video encoding, gaming, etc) does not tax processors.

 

Most common applications (mail, web browser, excel, word processing, etc) are static and

waiting for something to happen 99% of the time...

[jwittenberg]

On a related, but different MacPro performance issue:

 

 

1) Am I correct in thinking that the MacPro uses Fully Buffered Dimms (FBD) for its memory, accessed via a serial bus between the FBDs and the memory controller?

 

 

2) Do I understand correctly that this adds wait states to memory access (ie, both overhead and latency)?

 

 

3) If so, how badly does this affect performance? How many wait states are added? Slowing down memory access is A Bad Thing ...

 

 

4) Does this mean that only Apple Dimms can be used (the dimms need to translate between the serial bus and the normal DDR2 memory chips)?

 

 

Thanks for any info,

 

/joel

[lad_lueck]

I don't think it's worth 20% more for 4 cores which most likely won't ever be used. You just won't see any but a very small increase in speed when running a raw converter in batch mode, while also editing in PS.

 

You might see a significant speed boost if you also encode movies, but then you'll run out of memory bandwidth and disk I/O.

 

By the time these issues are sorted out, you'll be able to buy a far more powerful pc at a lower price.

 

Spend the money on ram, and high-end disk drives like the WD raptors.

[uncle git]

You may not be able to move to 8 cores later if apple ship the single CPU machine with a depopulated second cpu slot - they may physically not solder the CPU socket onto the motherboard.

 

I've not heard one way or the other thus far.

 

I've just ordered an 8 core machine - this is my first mac being a unix / windows guy thus far professionally - so it'll be an interesting trip ;)

 

Oh don't buy RAM from apple - go 3rd party and 1/2 the price for the same chips - same with hard drive upgrades.

[Carl Stone]

Nobody, with good sense, buys RAM from Apple. That also goes for hard drives.

 

As far as moving up goes, you buy a quad, or an 8 core, and that's what you have. Apple

does not build like PC makers. Period!

[douglas_white1]

For the work you'll be doing you might as well save the extra money. The extra cores come in handy for gaming, rendering, video editing and processing. etc. But it sounds like for you, Photoshop is your biggest processor hog most of the time, and it's really light on the processor resources.

 

For most people ram is usually the bottleneck in almost any system. You can never have enough ram.