quad core 2.93 ghz or 8 core 2.26 ghz?

[Ruairi Robinson]

So I'm thinking of taking the plunge and getting a mac pro. Depending on the app, (fcp, afterfx mostly I guess) am I better off getting a mac pro with 4 really fast cores or an 8 core (with each core slower)

want to be able to use windows/render in vray too...

R.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure 8 cores is the way to go. many applications are optimized for multiple cores (including RED's software) and more and more it will become the norm, in which case your 8 cores will be noticeably more efficient than the 4.

...I think.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure 8 cores is the way to go. many applications are optimized for multiple cores (including RED's software) and more and more it will become the norm, in which case your 8 cores will be noticeably more efficient than the 4.

...I think.

Yeah thats what I was thinking... until someone told me otherwise today, and confused the hell outta me. Damn you, someone!

R.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As far as Final Cut Studio goes, you won't benefit from 8 cores much, if at all. AE scales a bit better for rendering in some situations, but in reality is optimized for two processors.

I would go with the 8-core myself, because there are ways to distribute rendering tasks and other system loads. The improved multi-threading (use of multiple processor cores) in Snow Leopard via the new "Grand Central" should also help maximize more of those processors.

 

[Ace]

8 core.

in terms of pure MHZ power when utilising all cores,

8 x 2.23 = 17.8 ghz
4. 2.93 = 11.72 ghz

When you render in after effects, you can pretty much render 8 frames at a time rather than 4.

On the other hand,

I'm running an overclocked quadcore at 3.6ghz which gives me a total of 14.4ghz. About 1 core short of an 8core mac, which isnt bad, and a lot snappier in single core applications. Boxx has some sick shit.

 

[Ace]

For rendering, it really just comes down to the number crunching.

So 8 core hertz the most.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

8 core.

in terms of pure MHZ power when utilising all cores,

8 x 2.23 = 17.8 ghz
4. 2.93 = 11.72 ghz

When you render in after effects, you can pretty much render 8 frames at a time rather than 4.

On the other hand,

I'm running an overclocked quadcore at 3.6ghz which gives me a total of 14.4ghz. About 1 core short of an 8core mac, which isnt bad, and a lot snappier in single core applications. Boxx has some sick shit.

Right but it depends on how well the applications multithread right? So if afterfx only uses 2 cores fully, then the quad core is gonna be faster...

Right?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

After Effects can use more than 2 cores, it just scales very poorly beyond 2 cores. Comparing the two systems with only After Effects, you're likely to find that in some cases the 8-core may be faster and the 4-core faster at other times. And let's face it, many plug-in's are not multi-threaded at all.. Or even worse, some are multithreaded, but implemented so poorly that they can sop up CPU cycles on more than one processor and bog things down.

I would go with the 8 core system. Software is rapidly progressing and *finally* starting to adapt better to the multi-core platforms we're all running.

Oh and one other reason to go 8-core is the memory subsystem. Your RAM banks are on the CPU "daughter boards". You're effectively cutting your memory bandwidth and capacity in half with the quad-core system.

 

[Michael Vera]

I have a i7 920 running at 4GHz per core. And it runs great (renders very efficiently in Vegas 9, and AE). Intel's quick-path interconnect helps a lot to communicate with the 12 GB triple channel DDR3.

Not sure (I have to go check), but if its an option opt for the new core i7s (i believe 6-core i9s are on the way), they are great chips.

Personally I feel that, by the way software multi-threading is progressing, the more cores the merrier.

 

[Ace]

Right but it depends on how well the applications multithread right? So if afterfx only uses 2 cores fully, then the quad core is gonna be faster...

Right?

After effects doesn't just use 2 cores. Well, CS4 that is. I'm using After effects CS4, and you go into preferences, and you're able to select how many cores you want for rendering and assign ram to each core. So its actually not "multithreading" in the natural sense, Its just opening up different instances of the program and rendering every other frame in the background like a mini render farm on your computer. So If i open up program manager, I see 5 Aftereffects.exe instances, one main one and 4 render nodes. This is all transparent to user of course. All I see is the frames rising in 4 lots instead of 1. Even if a plugin is not multi thread capable, it doesnt matter.. Because AE is using a seperate instance of the program for each frame rendered anyway.

3D studio max, scales up cores pretty good. It always manages to eat up 100% of the cpu most of the time.

So in essence.. The more cores the better for these kinds of apps. The only caveat: Have enough ram to support each core.

But, if an app only uses one or 2 cores, then obviously the faster processor is going to be better. But what the hell is that, Word and Excel?

 

[albert rudnicki]

my 2cents
Working/editing/effects gets smoother on a faster cpu, rendering has an advantage on more cores only; that applies today, tomorrow may be a different story.
Best
Albert