4 Core VS 8 Core

Hi guys i have chosen a Mac Pro as my next system. Mainly because of the expandability of the machine compared to a imac.

But here it comes. would a 8 core be more interesting compared to a 4 core system? planning of running lots of apps at the same time so i figure that a 8 core system would be more faster then a 4 core one?

So 2,26Mhz 8 Core vs the 4 Core 2,93Mhz

Any suggestions are welcome ;)

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alucard on June 7, 2009 at 7:41am: i have no idea what you are going to be running but im quite positive 4 cores is enough.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Clement on June 7, 2009 at 7:55am: At this time constantly Safari, Itunes, Iphoto, Imovie, and Imovie HD, tweet deck various chat clients and so on. i notice that imovie slows down allot when working with big files.

Worked on a friends 3GHZ Imac great machine but still not cutting it. want to move to final cut express and aperture 2. The imac does not offer the expandability in storage for me.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alucard on June 7, 2009 at 8:14am: the imac is a dual core. a 4 core mac pro will be just fine. more cores doesnt always mean more power, ram is actually a bit more important.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Clement on June 7, 2009 at 8:33am: So you are saying it might be wiser to get a 4 core?
I was thinking in a multitasking environment. what would be better ;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alucard on June 7, 2009 at 8:48am: well that all depends on budget, obviously an 8 core would be faster but my point was that a 4 is perfectly sufficient and that you don't need to waste extra money for 8.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Clement on June 7, 2009 at 8:54am: Yeah but in the long run a 8 core and more memory = better..

I am thinking snow leopard and so on ;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kildar on June 7, 2009 at 9:09am: I would go for 8 and then upgrade your RAM as needed.

It's better to have and not need that need and not have.
Papa Smurf Searles
SFC USA RET

A wise man told me that 20 years ago and I still use that philosophy today.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cookenstein on June 7, 2009 at 9:12am: It's great to future proof if you can afford it. But frankly most software, and OS's barely take full advantage of 4 corse as it is. While this will change soon, it is certainly not necessary to have an 8 core machine. That said, I own an 8 core machine and am still waiting for software to catch up... :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Clement on June 7, 2009 at 9:20am: But for me it not only one app running loads of stuff in the background.. and am a bit worried about getting a 4 core and regretting it later... more software more ram... is the 4 core not limited to 16 gb?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cookenstein on June 7, 2009 at 9:43am: Not at all. 4 cores really has nothing to do with ram limits. It is in the OS that reads the ram. You need a 64bit OS to access 4 or more gigs of ram, and plenty of 4 core machines are 64bit compatible. Also, the OS it self should be 64 bit too. Windows Vista and up to 7 tells you wether you have 32 or 64 bit OS. OSX leopard is of course 64 bit compatible.

Great question, many people ask this.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken on June 7, 2009 at 9:30am: Well right now most companies are now starting to optimize their software for dual core so anything above that your ahead of the game. Right now with the exception of a few programs you really wont notice any difference but if you go with the 8 core you will be future proof and it will pay in the long run.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wandering I on June 7, 2009 at 11:36am: I've been using dual core's for a few years now and honestly, I'm not really impressed with the amount of software that actually utilizes both cores. Granted you have your editing stuff, software that crunches a butt load of numbers at once, but other than that no other software really takes advantage of more than 2/4 cores. When i was building my latest rig I stayed with a dual core because I know that if i Should ever need the quad core I can just buy the CPU (amd) and be done with it. Now you have to remember that I'm not a "speed queen" like some people are. I don't need a 3.0ghz quad core with 16 gb of ram just so firefox opens 3 milliseconds faster...lol; ▶ Reply to This