2008 8-core 2.8ghz vs 2010 2.8ghz Quad Core?

Hey all.
I am leaning toward between these two machine.
2008 8-core 2.8ghz
vs
2010 2.8ghz Quad Core
I can pick up a 2008 2.8 octo core from a friend for about half the price of the refurbished 2010 from Apple store.
I will mainly use this machine for illustrator, dreamweaver and photoshop work.
I am a graphic design / web designer.
I am pretty sure none of my software can really benefit from all 8 cores.
So will I be better off with a quad core 2010?
Can the 2010 justify twice as much in price difference?
Note: The 2008 has 16gb ram and HD5770, and in really good condition. But the 2010 has apple care and can be easily upgrade to 16gb ram for cheap.
Hopefully you guys can give me some advice
Thank you very much

Skip the 2008. Too high cost for FBDIMMs, too many problems surfacing. 4 yrs old.
the 2010 ref'd is $1819 and lets you throw in $600 W3680 and 4x8GB and better graphics and also PCIe controllers work better as well as 64-bit mode. The 2008 was the first to get UEFI / EFI64 and you could say it needed and got a lot of improvements over the next 2-3 yrs.
If you did want more RAM the cost of 2x4GB FBDIMMs can be $300.

Similar Messages

Should i buy a 2010 mac pro quad core 2.8 never been used at the price of £1350

i know someone selling a mac pro 2010 model they say its still got 1 year warranty the specs are
Introduction Date:
July 27, 2010*
Discontinued Date:
N/A
Details:
The "Introduction Date" refers to the date a model was introduced via press release. The "Discontinued Date" refers to the date a model either was replaced by a subsequent system or production otherwise ended. *On August 9, 2010, Apple began accepting orders for this model.
Also see: All Macs introduced in 2010.
Processors:
1 (4 Cores)
Geekbench:
8673/9715*
Processor Speed:
2.8 GHz
Processor Type:
Q. Core Xeon W3530
Custom Speeds:
3.2 (4), 3.33 GHz (6)*
Architecture:
64-Bit
Details:
*Via custom configuration, this model also can be equipped with a single 3.2 GHz Quad Core "Nehalem" Xeon (W3565) processor for an additional US$400 or a single 3.33 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (W3680) processor for an additional US$1200. As requested by readers, EveryMac.com also has documented these custom configurations as their own models.
Processor Upgrade:
LGA 1366 Socket
FPU:
Integrated
Details:
Also see: How do you upgrade the processors in the "Mid-2010" Mac Pro models? How are the processors mounted?
System Bus Speed:
4.8 GT/s*
Cache Bus Speed:
2.8 GHz (Built-in)
ROM/Firmware Type:
EFI
EFI Architecture:
64-Bit
L1 Cache:
32k/32k x4
L2/L3 Cache:
256k (x4), 8 MB*
RAM Type:
PC3-8500 DDR3 ECC
Min. RAM Speed:
1066 MHz
Standard RAM:
3 GB
Maximum RAM:
48 GB*
Motherboard RAM:
None
RAM Slots:
4*
Video Card:
Radeon HD 5770
VRAM Type:
GDDR5 SDRAM
Standard VRAM:
1 GB
Maximum VRAM:
1 GB
Display Support:
Up to 6 Displays*
Resolution Support:
2560x1600*
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600
Standard Hard Drive:
1 TB (7200 RPM)
Int. HD Interface:
Serial ATA (3 Gb/s)
Standard Optical:
18X DL "SuperDrive"
Standard Disk:
None
Standard Modem:
None
Standard Ethernet:
Gigabit (x2)
Standard AirPort:
802.11a/b/g/n
Standard Bluetooth:
2.1+EDR
USB Ports:
5 (2.0)
Firewire Ports:
4 (800)
Expansion Slots:
4 PCIe 2.0*
Expansion Bays:
4 3.5", 2 5.25"
Incl. Keyboard:
Apple Aluminum KB
Incl. Input:
Magic Mouse
Case Type:
Tower
Form Factor:
Mac Pro
Apple Order No:
MC250LL/A*
Apple Subfamily:
Mac Pro Mid-2010
Apple Model No:
A1289 (EMC 2314)
Model ID:
MacPro5,1
Battery Type:
N/A
Battery Life:
N/A
Pre-Installed MacOS:
X 10.6.4 (10F2521)
Maximum MacOS:
Current
Minimum Windows:
XP SP2 (32-Bit)*
Maximum Windows:
7 (64-Bit)**
MacOS 9 Support:
None
Windows Support:
Boot/Virtualization
Dimensions:
20.1 x 8.1 x 18.7
Avg. Weight:
39.9 lbs. (18.1 kg)
Original Price (US):
US$2499
Est. Current Retail:
US$2499
they want to sell it for £1300 and this would be my first mac im going to use it for maschine traktor scratch pro 2 and ableton vst s plugins etc i needed to know if this would be a good buy for me or not if u coulld all please help tell me the pros and cons
if possible answer as quick as u can as if it is a good buy i need to get it today or tommorw as he might find someone else to sell to
thanks

You are due for a new build or pre-built, most definitely.
you should be able to hit score of 14k on 6-core w/o trouble.
And for what you can get for £1799 - £2099 I think you could build one, but start with quality parts and go with a solid foundation that will be supported for years. As long as you don't need OS X as it stands.
the mac pro use to shine when it came to dual processor setups. Custom built dual PCs can be another matter, and not for faint of heart.
Choose current socket support, processor, and motherboard and you really are set for years and can upgrade from there.
Take a look at this for a start:
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-LGA-2011--X79-Motherboards/dp/B006L6ZIU4/

2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Xeon Quad Core or 2013 Mac Mini 2.66 Quad Core i7 ?

2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Xeon Quad Core or 2013 Mac Mini Server 2.66 Quad Core i7 ? I have a choice between these two for running Final Cut Pro X. Price is nearly the same.
The Mac Pro has a ePCI 512 display adapter, 16 GB RAM, more hard drive expansion and faster 1tb 7200 rpm conventional hard drive. FW 800.
The Mini Server has two 1 tb 5400 rpm conventional drives, 16 GB RAM and an integrated display adapter. Has thunderbolt and FW 800.
My primary concern is the performance of the processors. Does anyone happen to know how they compare in video editing?

This may give you some ideas.
There are some folks on this forum who report very saticfactory results editing on Minis.
Perhaps they will chime in with first hand experience (which I can't give).
Russ

2.0 GHz Intel Quad core i7 vs. 3.7 GHz Intel Duo Core i7 Processor: Why not make the Quad Core 3.7GHz?

I don't really understand processors, but is the 2.0GHz Quad Core i7 really a better processor in terms of performance? If it has 4 cores why not give it greater processing speed like 2.7 or 3.0 GHz?
I am asking because I am thinking about getting the high end Mac Mini, but I see that it's processor runs at 2.0GHz and the others in the line run at 2.5 and 2.7 respectively. Why is this?

I'm really oversimplifying here, but...
Let's just assume that each core runs at full speed all the time, the total performance of that processor would be the sum of the running totals of each core:
Duo Core i7 = 2 (cores) * 2.7 GHZ = 5.4 Ghz total processor power
Quad Core i5 = 4 (cores) * 2.0 GHZ = 8.0 Ghz
Like I said, oversimplified. But, you get the point. Not to mention, most apps still aren't optimized, so at a given time they only use a single core anyway. In this case, it'd be more beneficial to have more cores, since they would (hypothetically) be able to run more simultaneous processes (four vs. two in your case).
I gues the greater question is: what were you planning on using the mini for? Most CPUs go underutilized anyway, so you may be better off getting a 2.0, and maxing out your RAM and maybe adding a SSD. Those upgrades (the SSD especially) will result in a very noticeable increase in performance.

How much faster is the 2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5 than the 2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5?

Hi there,
I'm considering buying either a Mac Mini (2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5) or an iMac (2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5). I'm just wondering what the difference in speed is between the two different chips. If both had 4GB of memory would the iMac be a lot faster than the Mac Mini? I'm a graphic designer so I'd be mostly using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.
Many thanks,
Richard

You mean this information:
GRAPH LEGEND
MP 3.3 w6 = 2010 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Hex-Core Westmere
iMac 3.4 i7 = 2011 iMac 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7
MBP 2.3 i7 = 2011 MacBook 2.3GHz Pro Quad-Core i7
mini 2.7 i7 = 2011 Mac mini 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBP 2.7 i7 = 2011 MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBA 1.8 i7 = 2011 MacBook Air 1.8GHz Dual-Core i7
All Macs had except the MacBook Air had at least 8GB of RAM

Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Intel's new Quad Core processor ( 2.4 Ghz ) will give a good boost to system performance over an older Intel 3.2 Ghz Ht chip.
I have seen test results where a 1.6 ghz dual core Intel processor has lost in speed tests vs regular 3.2 ghz chips ( not dual core )
So I'm puzzled,, will a Quad Core chip have any advantage when running Premiere ?
I'm hoping there is a clear cut answer here, and I look forward to any responses.
Thank you,
Dave.

Guys...
Before you all go out and throw a party...
My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
2. 64bit XP is not supported.
3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
Here's the specs from Adobe:
- Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
- Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
- 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
regards,

Eight Core or Quad Core??

Hi,
I'm deciding on the spec for new Mac Pro.
The eight core is significantly more expensive than the quad core. Is the difference in performance as noticeable?
My work is mainly hi-res photoshop work - often very large files (between 2 and 5Gb files). Will an eight core make a noticeable difference on that kind of work?
Also, how does a 2.93GHz quad core compare with a 2.2GHz Eight Core Mac Pro?
Many thanks,
Mr Hairdo.

Heck, even the 2008 Mac Pro (check Specials) is fine and what you need is RAM and other things and SAVE yourself the $1400+, way too over-priced for an 8-core.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Check Barefeats "Pro Apps" article.

IS 2.3GHz i7 Quad Core MacBook Pro (Retina) able to run Civilization V?

Apple mentions that Civilization V has been updated for the Retina display. Civ 5 shows it needs at least a Core Duo 2.4 GHz processor. The Retina I have is 2.3 but quad core. Will this not work?

Those are 2 different CPU - the 2.4GHz being a Dual Core is slower than your 2.3GHz Quad Core.
So Civilization V will run much better in your Macbook Retina.

Quad-Core or 12-Core for FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX?

Hi Folks, I am ready to buy a new MacPro. My main use is FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX.
We all know 12-core is obviously much better, but Is there such a great difference on performance, especially rendering time on both softwares runing on the 12-core rather then on the Quad-core? Even if we pack a Quad-core with lots of RAM and a better video board? Any other crucial items to go for?
Thanks for your help!!!!

You likely won't see that much difference between a 4 core and a 12 core with FCP7 as it is a 32bit program and is not optimized for multicore processors. (it also can not make use of more than 4GB RAM) While SnowLeopard, Lion and now ML are full 64 bit Operating Systems, they can only do so much with legacy code. More important for FCP responsiveness is disk throughput.
On the other hand, the current version of AfterEffects is 64bit and can take advantage of a multi-core CPU. It also can take great advantage of all the RAM available.
One other point - don't forget the GPU. I'm running a nVidia Quadro 4000 (instead of an ATI card) in an 8 core MacPro and both Premiere and AE take full advantage of it for processing acceleration.
Have fun.
x
edit- The benefit of increasing the number of processors is not linear - that is - 8 processors will not be twice as fast as 4. In some cases, the increasing complexity of managing the overhead can outstrip the benefit of the additional cores. If a program is not optimized for it, more cores wlll not speed things up. And, in the case of the 12 core machine, you are paying a huge premium for non-measurable performance.

WARNING: DSP 3 NOT supported under Quad-Core G5 Systems!

This is from my posting at the DSP forum and a warning to all...
Alright, are you ready for this one? I just contacted Apple Support about running DSP 3 on my newly purchased Quad-core G5.
Those of us with a Quad-core G5 system are SCREWED when it comes to using DSP 3. The Apple guy told me that DSP 3 is not supported under the Quad systems (because "the Quad systems didn't exist at the time that DSP 3 was around" but wait, didn't DSP 4 come out BEFORE the Quad-core systems, too?). You have to use DSP 4 if you have a Quad-core G5.
I explained my outrage to the guy (very unsympathetic) that Apple does not post this information on their website and does not inform their Apple Store employees about the issue (I had mentioned to several employees of my intentions to run DSP 3 on the system when I was buying it).
The guy said that no one's complaining about this issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest software to run on the newest machines" and "that's just the nature of technology" Yeah, right. I hate to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc system.
Anyway, spread the word and give Apple some more money by upgrading to DSP 4, so that they can keep nickel and diming us. The guy mentioned that if anyone wants to complain, that they can complain to the Final Cut Pro discussions site since apparently, that's the place where Apple actually reads posts.

Heya,
Unsupported it may be, but does it run ok? I could
see it having worse performance than on a single-proc
machine, but it shouldn;t have any actual problems.
The guy said that no one's complaining about this
issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest
software to run on the newest machines" and "that's
Well, given that you have bought their first machine
which supports > 2 concurrent threads [e.g. one system
thread and one app thread], I'd say he's partly right.
Anyone forking out the money for a quad will be [partly]
wasting it if they do not run applications that are
written to be fully multithreaded, i.e. written with
the quad in mind.
This is probably especially true on the Apple platform
as the programmers will assume that the user is on
one of the handful of machines available at the time.
Being inherently lazy, no programmer is going to add the
complexity of supporting n threads if only single-proc
machines are being sold [yeah,ok, there were dual-procs,
but that really means a two-thread system, which is
normally the case anyways ... one for GUI and one for
processing].
to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single
proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc
system.
Given the nature of Windows 98[/95/ME] and the
applications written for it, I am very frightened
for your system integrity
--Mike

I5 or quad core processsor on mac book pro 13inch screen 2009

hi i was wondering could i upgrade myself from a dual core to either a i5 or a quad core. if so where would i buy it

hi i was wondering could i upgrade myself from a dual core to either a i5 or a quad core. if so where
would i buy it
MBP's cannot have the CPU upgraded. You will need to replace the complete machine if you want to go from a dual core to a quad core.
Roger

P6N and Quad-Core

Hey Guys,
I´ve got a P6N Mainboard with the Nvidia reference design 680i and C00 revision.In the moment there are no problems, cause there is a C2D E6600 working on it, but i will buy a quad-core cpu soon and I ve often heard about problems with quad-core cpus and the C00 revision. but i only heard about problems with the evga 680i board and not with the p6n. so, has anybody problems with a quad core and the p6n or does anybody know if there are problems with a Quad-Core CPU and the C00 revision? I think the evga 680i and the p6n are nearly the same, aren`t they? They are both the nvidia reference design.
Evga is changing the C00 revision into a D00 revision 4free, does msi also do that?
And is it right, that the p6n isn`t sold any more?
so far
LostDevil

Quote from: AaronYuri on 18-November-07, 04:00:12
You can put an eVGA BIOS on the P6N anyway. They are all manufactured and distrobuted by Foxconn
Yes, but that is not the matter. I wonder if there are problems with the C00 revision of this board. As far as I know you can`t solve these Quad-Core incompatibility with a bios update. You need a new board with a D00 revision to run a Quad Core CPU or can I run a quad core only with a Bios update on a C00 rev?

Mac Pro early 2008 2 x 2.8GHz Quad Core 10.7.5, replaced 4 x 500ghds with 4 x 3Tb and Raid card Raid5 them OK but can not load time machine back up as it does not see any of the 4 drives, neither does disc utilities, any thoughts?

On my Mac Pro, early 2008 2 x 2.8GHz Quad Core 10.7.5, replaced 4 x 500ghds with 4 x 3Tb. The Raid card Raid 5ed them OK but can not load time machine back up as it does not see any of the 4 drives, neither does disc utilities, any thoughts?

You don't see drives when using a hardware RAID only the volumes.
WD Green are not suitable for hardware RAID (or software RAID for that matter).
USB2 and TimeMachine are a disaster waiting to happen. I've used SATA (internal) and eSATA (using SATA PCIe cards) trouble-free.
I can't say I begin to understand your use or "choosing the install drive for the backup"
Install what?
You don't load TimeMachine. Maybe seems minor but that is not how to describe the behavior of software.
You read FAQ and How To http://www.apple.com/support/timemachine
Time Machine’s Gory Details:
https://www.apple.com/support/timemachine/
TimeMachine 101
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT1427
Lion Recovry & TimeMachine
http://www.apple.com/support/lion/installrecovery/
http://www.apple.com/support/lion/
How To Restore Your System
http://pondini.org/TM/14.htmlMac OS X v10.7 Lion
Pondini's Blog: Time Machine - Troubleshooting -- B5. Would you like to inherit (or re-use) the backup . . . ?

Apple Mac Pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core

Hey guys,
Ive got a real brain teaser. I have a apple mac pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core that wont boot.
The leds on the memory test good its all tested in another mac and working well.
The 9 leds are reading as follows 2nd led lit yellow. Led 9,8,7 Green- which from my research is good.
Ive also reset the cmos battery and vram, nothing.
Pulled the memory and video card and re-seated them also nothing.
The last thing i tryed was shut the computer down sit for 30 seconds then held alt and got the install mac os screen not a hard drive option.
Which leads me to think its not seeing the hard drive?
Any suggestions?

Starts up with fans
Makes the apple chime
The chime is generated in software when the first portion of the power-on self test has passed.Your Mac is working and has enough working RAM memory to start up.
You still may have problems with drives, the software on those drives, or your graphics card.
apple logo comes up
The dark gray Apple is loaded by the ROM boot loader in the first blob of software (before the file system is initialized). Its presence indicates your Mac can get some stuff off a Hard Drive, and seeing it indicates your graphic card can display something in a primitive way.
with spinning gear and just sits there for hours
It is stuck booting up something. Verbose Mode (hold Command-V at startup) will show you the parade of messages. The last five will tell you what happened.

Hi is it worth purchasing for 1500$ a used imac 27 inch 2010 i7 quad core 2.8Ghz 16 Gb RAM 1033 mhz HDD 1TB atiradon hd 4850 and it (got out of mac sotre 3 days ago(guarantee) New screen New motherboard new harddrive)

Hi is it worth purchasing for 1500$ a used imac 27 inch 2010 i7 quad core 2.8Ghz 16 Gb RAM 1033 mhz HDD 1TB atiradon hd 4850 and it (got out of mac sotre 3 days ago(guarantee) New screen New motherboard new harddrive)

This is a good deal.
I paid that for my 2009 27 inch iMac with similar specs through an Apple Reseller.
Is this from an individual or Authorized Apple Reseller?
If from an individual, then there will be no type of warranty.
An Apple Authorized Reseller wil have a warrany period of 30 days to six months depending.

2008 8-core 2.8ghz vs 2010 2.8ghz Quad Core?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for