Hi, All,

I just read this summary of the review of the new 2.66GHz quad-core vs. 8-core 2.26GHz Mac Pros.

"It’s harder to recommend that people spend $800 more for the new $3,299 2.26GHz eight-core Mac Pro if they don’t run software written for the top-of-the-line Mac Pro’s eight processor cores. Though the 2.26GHz model was faster at most individual tasks than the previous eightcore 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and very fast in a few of our professional applications tests, it was slower than the new quad-core model at the majority of our application tests."
Quad-Core and Eight-Core Mac Pros (2009 editions) Review | Desktop | Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html)

My wife is looking for a Mac to work Final Cut Pro to do broadcast and HD quality video editing, rendering, etc. I'm therefore wondering if this is the "software written for the top-of-the-line Mac Pro’s eight processor cores" that the article is talking about?

Which of the 2, the new 2.66GHz quad-core vs. 8-core 2.26GHz Mac Pros, would best suit these needs.

Thanks in advance.

Here's two more comparisons...

4-core versus 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal08.html)

Pro Apps on Nehalem Mac Pro (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html)

Found my answer for people using Macs for video rich programs.

"We found a much better outlook for the new eight-core Mac Pro on programs that rely on the strength of the system as a whole, such as Apple's Final Cut Studio 2, and on our multitasking and Cinebench tests that split the work between multiple processing cores. Keep in mind that our comparison Mac Pros also have eight CPU cores, and a faster clock speed than the new model, but the new Mac Pro was able to overtake them on all of the above tests. The fact that our default $3,299 review unit outpaced the 8GB version of the old model, which would have cost $4,299 as tested, proves that not only is the new Mac Pro faster on these media rich programs than previous Mac Pros, it also provides more bang for your buck."

Benchmarks

Apple Final Cut Studio 2 (in seconds)
(lower #'s indicate better performance for: #1. QuickTime encoding with blur, #2.
Log and transfer)

Apple Mac Pro 2009

83
143


Apple Mac Pro 2008 8GB

95
180


Apple Mac Pro 2008 4GB

93
207



Multimedia multitasking (in seconds)
(lower #'s indicate better performance)

Apple Mac Pro 2009

133


Apple Mac Pro 2008 8GB

172


Apple Mac Pro 2008 4GB
184



Cinebench
(larger #'s indicate better performance: 1. Rendering Multiple CPUs, 2. Rendering Single CPU)

Apple Mac Pro 2009

21,204
3,149


Apple Mac Pro 2008 8GB

17,834
3,224


Apple Mac Pro 2008 4GB

17,717
3,218

Here's two more comparisons...

4-core versus 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal08.html)

Pro Apps on Nehalem Mac Pro (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html)

THanks gwillikers!

If you peruse the GeekBench result browser, you'll find that 8 core 2.66 GHz machines score ~2000 points higher than the quad core version overall.

Mac Pro Performance Chart : Geekbench Result Browser (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/chart/18063)

There are some pretty big differences on individual tests as well.

I'm very skeptical about buying either machine at the moment... The Intel i7 2.26Ghz seems to be a chip that isn't being offered to other vendors, with Intel selling the low entry 2.66Ghz 'standard' i920 quad to vendors for a price of $285 back in November. Intel is getting VERY aggressive with processor prices, and was rather shocked at the Mac Pro price increase of late.

Many including Dell have offered dual 3.2Ghz (8 cores) available for a few months now. Something tells me there may either be a small price or processor shift come June's WWDC.

I'm also interested in learning what Snow Leopard's Grand Junction will offer. As mentioned here, if the software isn't meant to utilize many cores, no real benefit, but I'm thinking multiprocessor computing has gone on for a good four years now... there's gotta be a shift soon.

If you can get a couple of 940 processors cheap six months from now, and provided the chips can be upgraded, maybe the bottom line octo is the best path for the moment?

If you can get a couple of 940 processors cheap six months from now, and provided the chips can be upgraded, maybe the bottom line octo is the best path for the moment?

Ya, this is what I'm considering right now. Low end 8-core 2.26 ghz nehalem mac pro esp. in light of these responses from another thread:

"The processor is modular, so there's a good chance (re: not guaranteed) that you can swap it out for a faster one later down the line, though such an upgrade falls into the "unsupported" category."

"Mac Pros have traditionally used LGA sockets, meaning off-the-shelf parts will physically fit. The current batch of Mac Pros use an LGA 1366 sockets."