"Octo-Core" Confusion!!

I was waiting for the MacPro update before buying my new rig and now that the update is announced, I'm debating weather or not it's worth the extra $700?
I was planning on getting the 3.0 Quad-core with 4GB RAM
What (if anything) will I really gain buy getting the "Octo-Core"?
Will it help with the multi-tasking that I do everyday like having multiple applications going at once?
Will it help gain speed in tasks like backing up my home folder, burning disks or startup time?
I won't be doing any high-end video editing, so will the Octo-core even effect me?
Thanks in advance for your time,
Tom
1Ghz TiBook Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Hi Tom,
I hope it's okay I write in between the lines to try to answer some of your questions.
What (if anything) will I really gain buy getting the
"Octo-Core"?
Okay, let's give you a simplified example what multi-core CPUs can and cannot do for you:
Assume you have a single core chip with, let's say 1.5 GHz. If you run a computer program on that chip it will take a certain time, e.g. 10 seconds.
If you have now the very same chip with twice the clock speed, i.e. 3.0 GHz, the same program will be twice as fast and take only 5 seconds.
Now, if you have a dual core chip with 2 times 1.5 GHz, will your program run as fast as on the 3.0 GHz chip? 2 x 1.5 GHz is after all 3.0GHz! The answer is unfortunately: No.
In the worst case, it will run 10 seconds, exactly the same time it took on the single core. This will happen if your program is sequential, that means every single computing step is totally dependent on the result of the previous computing step.
In the best case, it will run almost as fast as on the 3.0 GHz single core. This will happen, if your program is embarrassingly parallel, that means every single computing step is independent from any other computing step. It will take a little bit longer than on the 3.0 GHz single core, because of some overhead (the 2 cores have to "communicate" with each other, which adds some calculation time).
Unfortunately, not many programs in the real world are embarrassingly parallel, so if you run just one program on your computer, multi-cores are often not very useful.
Will it help with the multi-tasking that I do
everyday like having multiple applications going at
once?
Luckily, modern computers run more than just one program at a time (multi-tasking). However, as others have said in this thread before, if your everyday multi-tasking means mail, web-browser, word-processing, spread sheet and those types of programs, it won't help, because the multi-tasking capabilities of OS X are advanced enough to schedule those tasks on one or two processors without you even noticing if there is a task switch. One of the main reasons is that those programs spend more or less most of their time just waiting for user input. Even if you type really fast or click really fast with the mouse, today's CPUs are so fast that the programs have a lot of idle-time.
Some real life examples: I have the 2.66 quad and when I do this kind of work, my processors are usually at 0-2%. My use peaks under these conditions at may be 2 cores, if at all. If I start a program, I get a delay of half a second or so, but this is not because the CPUs have a lot to do, but because the program has to be loaded from the hard-disk to the RAM.
It is actually quite hard to feed these beasts. I only get all 4 cores saturated if I do some highly parallel bioinformatic calculations (my work). I guess video encoding could do the same.
Will it help gain speed in tasks like backing up my
home folder, burning disks or startup time?
I doubt it. Startup time is short anyways, maybe 20 seconds or so. Again, most of that time is not wasted because the CPUs are busy, but because stuff has to be moved from the hard-disk to RAM. The same with backup and burning, the bandwidth for the data transport and hard-disk/burner speed is the bottle-neck here. Even if processor speed limited burning or backup, 4 more cores would not help at all, because these are not tasks that can be easily split up in parallel tasks.
I won't be doing any high-end video editing, so will
the Octo-core even effect me?
I would say: No.
Spend the extra money for a nice monitor (or maybe even two nice monitors) or an iPod or an TV or something
Thanks in advance for your time,
Tom
Hope that helps, Lars
12" PowerBook G4 - 1.25 GB RAM - Mac Pro - 2 GB RAM - Mac OS X (10.4.9) - 40 GB iPod 4G

Similar Messages

Question about Quad Core 2.93 and Octo-Core 2.66

OK, so forgive me cause I am asking a question that has been asked a zillion times. I have read and searched and read and searched, however, I still don't quite understand a few things.
I am a huge Aperture user. I shoot the Canon 1Ds Mark III and use photoshop a lot as well.
I am still confused. What is the difference in performance between a
loaded 8 GIGs ram Quad Core 2.93 or
a middle 8-Core 2.66 12 gigs RAM
I read benchmarks after benchmarks, but most use games for their stats and that does not help me. I read the boards, but it is all so confusing what people think. I went to the Apple store, and of course, they immediately said 8-core! hahaha.
I hear an 8-core can be slower at single core apps than a quad core and so on and on.
please help me!

Hi-
this question si about what the ** is the difference between a Quad 2.93 and a Octo 2.66.
The question is pretty vague.
Maybe asking "What benefit do I get from an octo core as opposed to a quad core?" would be better.
To understand the main difference, and the main benefit of an octo core over a quad core, understanding the concept of multithreading is necessary.
Basically, Multithreading is the ability of a system to break tasks up into portions (threads), and assign these portions across multiple CPU cores, enabling the calculation, thus the process, to be be completed faster than if the entire process were to be done on a single core.
Because of this, more cores allows for faster completion of system functions. Yes, it's faster.
Currently, some software isn't quite up to snuff in supporting/utilizing multithreading abilities of multi core systems.
But, that is changing, and changing rapidly.
Soon, all software will be able to utilize the multithreading ability of a multi core system, and greater increases in system performance will be realized.
In the upcoming OS 10.6 release, further enhancement of multithreading operation will be seen.
What this all means to the end user, say in Photoshop, is, work will fly, complex enhancements will be almost instantaneous, and productivity can be increased.
Along with the multi core, multi channel memory will also allow for the use of larger amounts of RAM, with out the bottlenecking that occurs in singe channel systems.
Again, everything works faster.
The octo core allows for more physical RAM, which, even now, but more so in the near future, always helps with memory hungry applications like Photoshop.
Basically, the biggest difference between the two machines, is the octo core is more future proof- that is, it will support future software enhancements better than the quad core.
And, we are talking +near future+.
I believe the Quad is limited to 8 gigs RAM, not 16.
Both machines can use 4GB DIMMs, so the quad core can use 16GB and the octo core can use 32GB.
Buying RAM from a trusted third party vendor can reduce costs greatly, without affecting the Apple warranty.
Again, Apple employees are telling you what the book says, what they currently offer, not what can be done.
Apple store said SDD in a Mac Pro is not a good idea at all. Again, more conflicting suggestions.
The Apple store will not recommend anything that Apple is not officially selling.
SSDs work, and they work well.
Just ask Samsara, or some of the other hot rodders on these forums.
And because I don't understand scratch disk, SDD disks, raptor drives etc, this all is not getting me anywhere. thus, why i tried the Apple store.
Ask. Study. Use Wikipedia.
Educating oneself is paramount to improving decisions, questions, work and life........
SSD - The future, now. Fast, expensive (but coming down in price), no moving parts (reliable)Solid State Drive
*Raptor Drives* - A family of 10,000 RPM SATA drives from Western Digital. These drives are high performance. They make systems run faster.
*Scratch Disks* - These are additional hard drives (in addition to the system drive) that allow for greater utilization of virtual memory- the writing of files, temporarily, to hard drive, to free up physical memory and allow faster calculations of processes.
Anyone who does work with video or photography software, must have a working knowledge of the benefits of a scratch drive.
Photoshop runs +way faster+ with a fast scratch disk.
When seeking advice on any forum, the more specific the question, the easier it will be for contributors to provide advice that is pleasing to your senses.
I've given you my take on what I feel may be your questions intent.
Hopefully, it wasn't a waste of time.....

Explaination of Octo Core RAM and Hard Drive differences

From Macintouch
For those of you wondering about the Apple Knowledge Base Article #305352:
After some research this is what I have discovered:
Memory: The difference in the memory is that all memory modules have a little program embedded in them. Apple changed the program in the 8 core memory modules to make them play nicely with the new 8 core processor. Also, the new 8 core memory module has a larger heat sink.
Hard Drives: Notice that Apple uses the word "Kit" in the Knowledge Base Article. A "Kit" consists of a hard drive mounting sled and a Sata II hard drive. The sleds from the quad core Mac Pro are larger than the sleds in the 8 core Mac Pro. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled allows for greater air circulation, hence better cooling. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled can be used in the quad core Mac Pro but the larger quad core Mac Pro sled is too large to fit in the 8 core Mac Pro. Any Sata II hard drive will work in the new 8 core Mac Pro, with those having the 3gb transfer and 16 mb cache specs being the favored ones. BTW, Apple does not make hard drives, buys Sata II hard drives in the third party market, and at last check was using Seagate's.

Hmmm… interesting. While I'm not saying it's wrong as I simply don't know I do find the reasonings, or parts of them, odd for both.
the new 8 core memory module has a larger heat sink.
The new memory is still compatible with with the quad-core MP and if you look at the space between the DIMMs when mounted in the risers you'll not there's not a lot of space between them to begin with. So Ned scratches his head and wonders how they can be any larger without reducing the space between them such that it results in a net loss in available heat dissipation.
The sleds from the quad core Mac Pro are larger than the sleds in the 8 core Mac Pro.
How large are the sleds in the quad-core MPs in the first place?! They're barely larger than the drive with the same width, a recess to allow the sliding in of the sled as well as allowing a bevel for the screws and a small space at the end to get your fingers in to pull it out. It's barely more than a piece of metal bent in a L shape with a chunk cut out in the middle above the bottom of the drive. Ned is now using his other hand to scratch his head in confusion.

Core confusion on MacBook Pro retina

hi guys im just wondering something, i just got my new shiny late 2012 13"inch macbookpro retina i5 2.5gz last week and was a bit baffled by everywhere seems to say this processor is a dual core, however my activity monitor shows 4 cores on the cpu tab just wondering why this is?

That's because of Hyperthreading, a Intel technology which allows the processor to double the cores of the processor creating, in the case of a dual-core processor, two virtual cores that makes your computer faster

Barefeats Says 12 GB Sweet Spot on octo-core

On their performance chart for rendering with After Effects, 12 GB of RAM beat 16. Is this likely to be true on all pro apps? When buying RAM for these machines, should we always think in multiples of 3?

BOBBOBKK wrote:
When buying RAM for these machines, should we always think in multiples of 3?
Absolutely. The new Mac Pros processors have a triple-channel memory interface, and each channel moves at about 8.5GB/sec. This means that if you toss in three same-sized memory modules, you'll get peak memory bandwidth of about 25GB/sec. Add a fourth module, and that module has to share a channel with another module since there are only three channels.
Depending on what kind of work you do, having more memory may provide a greater performance advantage than simply having -faster- memory, but as always, your mileage may vary.

ATI HD 4870 vs 5770 vs 5870 on Mac Pro (3,1) 2.8 Octo Core

Im sorry if I'm asking a noob question but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out which Video Card I should get. To me it appears the higher the Model number the better the card.
What throws me off is the face that the 4870 cost more than the 5770 which appears to have better specs. I don't think I can afford the 5870 at this time so depending on the replies I might not even consider the 5870.
I want a Video Card to run in Windows 7 under BootCamp for gaming. I also want to just plug in the New 27" Apple LED with no issues - unlike my current ATI HD 2600 card.
These are the questions I have...
(1) Is there a HUGE gaming performance difference between the 5870 and the 5770?
(2) Why does the older 4870 cost more than the 5770?
(3) Why do some recommend using a DVI to Mini Display Port adapter ($200) when you can get a New Video Card for $249.00?
I would also appreciate any links to read up on if you have any.
I plan to sell my 30" Apple Cinema Display to pay for a New 27" Apple LED and a New Video Card.
PS - Any other alternatives to the 27" Apple LED? Any of the competition have a similar product?
Thanks for your time.

The 4870 is a better card than the 5770; more bandwidth.
It just saves a test cycle when one card is already known to be slower than another.
More results:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40254
The only way a 5770 comes close to or beats a 5870 is in a crossfire vs single card situation:
http://www.overclock.net/ati/644665-radeon-5770-cf-vs-5870-vs.html
The 3 cards are on this page:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14
Get the 5870.

Ivy bridge only quad core?

I may be quite possibly switching over from mac to pc this summer and am looking to build a workstation. I'm fairly new to customizing and building and am trying to understand all these differences between xeons, i7's, sandy bridge, sandy bridge-e, ivy bridge, etc.
For a while I was sold on the idea of a dual lower ghz xeon-e5 workstation for my 3d/compositing work, but I still see a lot of people pushing the idea of an overclocked i7 as being an worthy competitor for a lot of the type of work I do.
Anyhow, I've been led to believe that for my applications, which can usually use a lot of multicore multithreaded operations, that more cores are better. I've been looking at an 8-core cpu or possibly dual hex. I've been told to wait for ivy bridge, especially for graphics work and performance, but I notice statements that ivy bridge cpu's have a maximum of 4 cores? How does this leave them stacking up against previous sandy bridge/e 6 and 8 core cpu's?
I'm a little confused about this, why intels next gen microarchitecture would have less cores? Can somebody help clarify this for me?

TDP. Microsoft wants to limit the TDP of their chips (see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power) and thus has to either limit the clock speed or the number of cores and L3 cache.
You may wonder what all this means and I can understand that. Look at it like a car, where the manufacturer limits fuel consumption to X gallons per mile. He either has to limit the top speed (clock speed) or limit the number of cylinders in the engine block (number of cores). That is what Intel currently does.
For AE and 3D applications, number of cores is critical, for PR clock speed is critical. Since you mention octo-cores, there is only the i5 Xeon with 8 cores. Bulldozer or whatever other AMD 8-cores there are on the market now or in the near future are absolute crap in comparison to Intel.
FYI, I'm waiting for the Ivy E version, 22nm models that lift the 6-core and 15 GB L3 limit of the current SB-E and will give us 8-cores and 20 GB L3 cache. No idea when it will happen however.

My 8th core is almost maxed out while idle

Hello folks,
I'm glad Logic is now 64bit; no more "out of memory" errors. Yippee! However, now the eighth core of my "octo-core" Mac Pro, is almost maxed out when idle. This also seems to be the core that is taxed the most during playback. After looking at the Activity Monitor, it looks like the 32-bit Bridge might be the culprit. Does anyone know if the 32-bit Bridge is supposed to spread the load evenly across the cores (multi threading)? Is there something that I can "tweak" to fix this? Is anyone else having the same issue? Thanks!

Depending on the year of the MBP, the hard drive may not be considered a user replaceable item...but you can check the available 1 TB drives at good sources such as OWC, http://www.macsales.com they are great to deal with and have on-line videos showing how to do most installation tasks.

Opinions on FCP w/ Quad or 8-core

Do you think it's worth the extra money to invest in the 8 core Mac Pro, instead of Quad, mostly for use with Final Cut Studio?

To be honest, I'd rather spend the money saved from a
MacPro quad and invest in something else like a good
monitor.
Thats why I finally bought my ACD 30" yesterday.
As far as future-proofing is concerned, the octo-core
will probably last you longer than the quad core. But
how much longer, no one can say.
It's true. We can only speculate.
Computers don't just
scale by number of processors (or megahertz, as used
to be the case). Apple might roll out other
technologies aside from multi-core. I'm willing to
bet when PCIe video cards and SATA hard drives
started coming into use, a lot of people who had top
of the line AGP/ATA systems suddenly found themselves
feeling a bit behind the curve.
And this is the best truth. My Dual-core I bought only 5 months after the fastest model was 2.7 Dual Processor. But what the difference! I have slower processors but I have PCIe - I bought X1900GT, DeckLink PCIe. In the company where I sometimes do some works, they have this 2.7 DP with AGP card and PCI DeckLink, and in many works it runs slower than the mine.
Writing a Hobbyst I didn't meen anything wrong, but changeing computer so fast will push you to think not about the work but about the changes all the time. I suppose. And besides, this is not the kind of race: "I am the best because I have the fastest computer". More important is what you can do with this computer. Isn't it?
For Philip Fass1 both computers are good.
It is all about the money.
If you have limited budget, with similar money it's better to buy Quad MacPro 3.0 with more RAM, better graphic card than 8-core with 1GB and slow 7300GT card.
Marek.

Second mac in cluster uses only one core

Hello all. For some reason the second computer in my render farm is using only one core out of eight.
I'm using 2 Mac Pros linked together directly via giga ethernet wire. Mac one is a Quad Core 3ghz. Mac two is a Octo Core 2009 model. Both computers have the same version of FCS3 with different serial numbers.
In the Qmaster preferance pane: Mac one is set to "Quickcluster with services" with the check boxes for Share and Managed next to "Distributed processing for Compressor" checked. 4 instances selected and "Include unmanaged services from other computers" checked. Mac two is set to "Services only" with check box for Share next to "Distributed processing for Compressor" checked. 8 instances selected and "Include unmanaged services from other computers" checked.
I hit submit in Compressor, select the name of the cluster from Mac one, then in the Batch Monitor I see the video divied into 10 sections with Mac one handling 4 and Mac two handling one. On Mac two I see that the cores aren't fired up 100%, more like 30% on average.
I did a test earlier with a dual core mbp, and again only one core. How do I get my Octo core to use all 8 cores?

Solved the problem. The solution was simple, but somehow went under my radar. On Mac two in the Qmaster preferance pane next to the "Options for selected service" button, the selected service was set to off.
Duh

First 6 core MP results with Logic...and they're worse than the quad

Starting a new thread for this...
Here's the first report I've seen of 6 cores on Logic. Logic shows 6 bars in the CPU meter. But he ran the "evan" benchmark and performance was worse than on a quad at a lower clock speed, only 47 tracks. For comparison, 4 cores (with HT enabled) at 2.26 gave 50 tracks - the new machine has two more cores and 47% higher clock speed.
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-LogicStudio.html
For comparison, a while back I simulated six cores by disabling two on my eight core MP 2.26 and got 32 tracks. The difference matches the difference in clock speed. In my test the result for six cores was identical to that of four cores with hyperthreading disabled. My guess is that with the current version of Logic, the six core machines might get a big speed boost if two of the cores are disabled, basically turning it back down to a quad - my estimate would be about 73 tracks.
Logic has lacked support for new machines before, but this is the first time I've actually seen performance get worse with a new machine with more cores (and much faster clock speed). If this doesn't provide incentive for Apple to update for better support of cores, I don't know what will.

Exactly. You would think that if the app wasn't programmed to support four cores, the worst case scenario would be that it would just use four of them and provide the same performance as a quad. But instead it seems like the extra cores confuse the app and it actually performs considerably worse than a quad.
No question they are due for a Logic update asap or get some bad press once word gets out.

Launching Color on a 2.7 Power mac dual core - not

I have a 2.7 ghz power mac. I've upgraded final cut studio through 5 up to the crossover to intel and then to 6. When I try to start Color it says Open GL not able to start - turnoff 'video desktop'. (the same programme runs on my octo core intel mac)
Question 1: Will color run on power PC macs and
Question 2. how do I turn off video desktop whatever that is - and
Question 3. why does it conflict with open GL
Question 4. Is there a color forum and why can't I see it if there is ?
The answer to 3 of course is not that important
Thanks in advance

Ok, that one is easy, just go into your system preferences, Decklinki settings and uncheck the "Enable Video Desktop" box. Tada, it's starting now.
As for the machine, I own the same setup and Color and Motion 3 just work fine, but I've put an ATI X800XT in that G5 for it to work.
Best regards,
Jean-Luc

Brandnew 8-core MacPro and ATI Radeon X1900 xt

I had this quadcore MacPro with an ATI Radeon X1900 XT and now I am switching to a newer octo-core MacPro.
I managed to install the card into the computer case. But alas, i don't see anything on my screen...
System Profiler discovers the card but gives it an generic name "Display" with Vendor ATI and DeviceID 0x7249.
But no "displays" found attached to it, which is b.s.
Please please don't tell me i cannot use this graphics card in the octo-core MacPro?!

I am surprised .... I don't have (any ideas), so I don't know for sure
You know, that doesn't help or further things and puts out false ideas that there even might. Then I'll hear "but I read somewhere something."
Apple changed the firmware on 2008. That is well known and pretty obvious, and graphic cards have to follow suit.
Nvidia doesn't seem to know or follow ATI's path of using a "hybred" (for want of better term) EFD? ROM that works across EFI32 and EFI64. Been explained over and over, or if not explained, given as cause to why.
At least we have a few years before EFI128!
NVidia GeForce 7400 gfx card
Now that is very elusive.
The 7300GT works only in 2006-7 Mac Pro, which were dual processor / dual or quad-core, but all used EFI32; 667MHz FBDIMM; had 1333MHz front side bus; PCIe 1.0/1.1 (but not PCIe 2.0 that came out in 2008).
And with brand new 2009, DDR3, you graphic option is really between GTX 285 and ATI HD 4870 - forget the GT120 even as a viable option for most.

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.

Licensing and quad core CPU`s

Hi I hope someone can help me here.
We have CF8 enterprise edition installed on a 32 bit OS with 2 dual core CPU`s.
What I want to know is, can I use the same license to migrate CF8 to a new server that has a 64 bit OS with 2 quad core CPU`s.
Also are there any other issues to take into account?.
Any thoughts from anyone who has experience with this kind of thing would be appreciated. Thank you :-)
P.S I tried asking Adobe customer support but it was a waste of time, they couldnt understand the question. My question does make sense right?

Seconded. Once of the nice things about their licensing is that it actually specified "physical" cpus rather than just cores, as Microsoft stuff often does.
Twin octo-core CPUs for the win!

"Octo-Core" Confusion!!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for