[Bruck]

Hey Guys,

Trying to help my brother choose between the current (2.4) 8core and (2.6) 12core offerings. We do realize that the 12 core machine means faster ram and a higher processing speed. As a graphic designer and a small project film editor he spends a lot of time in a slew of heavy applications. He'll be working on a file in indesign with a bunch of linked files, or inside a 5gb photoshop image with upwards of 50 layers - or in final cut pro. and motion - Often he's in all of these at once hopping back and forth between them. Either machine will have 8gb of ram (4x2) to start with. His current machine is a 2.7 dual G5 with 5gb of ram and we're wondering how much of a difference he'll see in the upgrade.

Recently when working with 1min standard definition clips in Final Cut Pro he'll be waiting up to 15 min for a compress and export

Also when working a 1min HD 1280 by 720 clip - during an optical flow render in motion - this can take 5hrs to process.

If anyone can offer some real world experience and opinions on how much of a difference he will see when performing tasks of this nature with this proposed upgrade- it would be very useful - as apple doesn't even offer benchmarks to compare the 2 systems, they simply made a chart comparing LAST YEARs 8 core to this years 12core which is not nearly as useful to me.

Thanks!

[P]

Well, the difference compared to the PMG5 will be huge in either case. Barefeats has some good tests to choose between current MPs.

[mduell]

The current 8-core and 12-core have the same memory configuration.

I'd suggest the 12-core. After you add a decent GPU and amount of RAM and SDD aftermarket the price difference isn't that much in relative terms.

Comparison to a G5 is kind of ridiculous.

[Don Pickett]

Considering that none of Adobe's dtp/design apps make efficient use of multiple cores, the 12-core machine will probably be a waste.

Don't know about the video stuff.

[OreoCookie]

You'll see a substantial speed-up, the Mac Pros are significantly faster than the G5s.

Video encoding benefits from additional cores while Adobe apps generally will not. Since you emphasize video in your post, I would take the 12-core model over the 8-core model. I would also check how much RAM is needed: 8 GB may be too little. You can estimate the amount of RAM you need though: open Activity Monitor, click in the Memory tab on the bottom and watch the page-outs. Page-outs are the amount of data that had to be swapped from the fast RAM to the slow swap file on the harddrive. Get third-party RAM if necessary.

[chipchen]

If money is a factor... I'd spend the $1500 difference on more RAM and maybe a better video card.

[SierraDragon]

Either box is a beast. Just a matter of whether he judges that the extra cost is worth the extra power of the 12-core. Primate Labs has relative Geekbench performance comparisons up at Mac Benchmarks.

With the described workflow and a top MP IMO 8 GB RAM is not appropriate. Immediately trade back the 1-GB-sized DIMMs to OWC and buy four 4-GB sized DIMMs from OWC:
Memory Upgrade DIMM, DDR, DDR2, FB-DIMM, SDRAM, FPM, EDO, SIMMs.
After the 16 GB RAM is on board if he experiences significant increases in Page Outs (shown in Activity Monitor) then add 4 more 4-GB sized DIMMs.

Another choice with falling RAM prices is to go immediately to 8-GB sized DIMMs. They cost 50% more and must be used only with identical DIMMs but allow maxxing out at 64 GB RAM. Note that his G5 experience has nothing to do with how the Westmere processors will behave as regards RAM usage.

I would go to the FCP Forum for counsel on which graphics card is most appropriate. My guess would be the ATI Radeon HD 5870 but the 5770 is strong and good value.

-Allen Wicks

[Veltliner]

Definitely get an SSD as a start-up disc.

I wonder if Final Cut Pro can actually take advantage of the four additional cores.

If I would buy a new Mac Pro, I'd rather invest my money in an SSD, more RAM, and the better GPU than getting four more cores.

But, of course, if you're not squeezed by budget limits, get the 12-core.

There's a 64-bit Final Cut Pro in the pipeline, but it could be a very long one. It could actually reach all the way to Alaska, and they only started pumping the stuff through now.

Seriously, the new 64-bit Final Cut Pro could take a year or longer to appear. Some say, it will never come, but I think that's nonsense.

If you are also editing on Adobe Premiere, which is 64-bit already and technically more advanced than Final Cut Pro at this time, I wonder if you'd feel the difference of the four additional cores when rendering.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Definitely get an SSD as a start-up disc.If you are also editing on Adobe Premiere, which is 64-bit already and technically more advanced than Final Cut Pro at this time, I wonder if you'd feel the difference of the four additional cores when rendering.

I haven't seen a copy of Premiere in five years.