8-or-12-core Mac Pro, Anyone?

Just curious to hear if anyone has taken the $3500+ plunge into the latest dual-processor Xeon ("Gulftown") processors yet....and what kind of benchmarks you're getting CS or Lightroom.

I've been looking for some reviews but so far all the of Gulftown reviews I've read are for Windows' users! I can't find anything for the dual-Xeons yet on the August 2010 Mac Pros.

I have a purchase request in for the 12 core machine. But it'll be for DNA sequencing and gene annotation work.

BeritOlam wrote in post #11270349
I've been looking for some reviews but so far all the of Gulftown reviews I've read are for Windows' users! I can't find anything for the dual-Xeons yet.

Lloyd Chambers has a few pages about it: http://macperformanceg​uide.com …opics.html#MacP​roWestmere

Might want to take a few grains of salt with that.

My workstations at home and work are Xeon W3680's (6-cores, 3.33GHz) and are just plain awesome at everything they do. Most apps are not threaded enough to use 12 cores so I'd probably either go with a single 6-core CPU or a pair of 4-core CPUs to keep the cost down. You're probably better off with a few fewer cores that run at a faster speed.

That said, there are some apps that will take advantage of high core counts. I just put in a pair of new servers at work for virtualization with 32 cores each (4 L7555 CPUs, 8 cores per, 256GB of RAM) and at a job a few years back we had similar setups for physics simulations. It takes a lot of effort to make software that parallel (and not all workflows support it) and Adobe just hasn't gotten there yet.

No point going for any of the dual-processor options since hardly any photo software scales well past 4 cores.

jasonlitka wrote in post #11271760
My workstations at home and work are Xeon W3680's (6-cores, 3.33GHz) and are just plain awesome at everything they do. Most apps are not threaded enough to use 12 cores so I'd probably either go with a single 6-core CPU or a pair of 4-core CPUs to keep the cost down. You're probably better off with a few fewer cores that run at a faster speed.

That said, there are some apps that will take advantage of high core counts. I just put in a pair of new servers at work for virtualization with 32 cores each (4 L7555 CPUs, 8 cores per, 256GB of RAM) and at a job a few years back we had similar setups for physics simulations. It takes a lot of effort to make software that parallel (and not all workflows support it) and Adobe just hasn't gotten there yet.

So I am looking at making the switch to MAC's and I am debating between the 6 core 3.33 mhz and the 2 processor 4 core 2.24 mhz, my primary uses will be Photoshop, Lightroom and a yet to be determined video editing app for the 5D MKII videos, I wil be installing 16 gig of RAM so where will i get the best bang for the buck with this software compliment the 8 cores or the faster 6 core ?

Thanks,

Michael

All I have at home is a laptop with Pentium D
someday i'll have a quadcore... Someday....

mjryan67 wrote in post #11275935
So I am looking at making the switch to MAC's and I am debating between the 6 core 3.33 mhz and the 2 processor 4 core 2.24 mhz, my primary uses will be Photoshop, Lightroom and a yet to be determined video editing app for the 5D MKII videos, I wil be installing 16 gig of RAM so where will i get the best bang for the buck with this software compliment the 8 cores or the faster 6 core ?

Thanks,

Michael

6. It has more total processing (18.08 vs 19.98 ) and more singled-threaded (2.26 vs 3.33) speed, so there is no question. I assume you meant 2.26 since there is no 2.24 model. The same still applies if you were thinking about the current 2.4 8-core. The only drawback is that the single-processor models have 4 memory slots instead of 8, but I think that's a minor issue.

Finally, MAC means Media Access Control. Mac is short for Macintosh.

I'm still rocking a C2D MBP with only 4Gb ram. If I can survive on that, you'll be fine with only a 8core Mac Pro ^_^

I have the hexacore. Boosted the RAM, added an SSD and a couple of drives, and it absolutely screams. I use it for photo editing, some video work, and will shortly get rocking with the digital audio/multitrack stuff.

toxic wrote in post #11276071
6. It has more total processing (18.08 vs 19.98 ) and more singled-threaded (2.26 vs 3.33) speed, so there is no question. I assume you meant 2.26 since there is no 2.24 model. The same still applies if you were thinking about the current 2.4 8-core. The only drawback is that the single-processor models have 4 memory slots instead of 8, but I think that's a minor issue.

Finally, MAC means Media Access Control. Mac is short for Macintosh.

Sorry it was late when I typed this and the B & H website listed it at 2.4 mhz not the 2.24 that I typed ....

BeritOlam wrote in post #11270349
Just curious to hear if anyone has taken the $3500+ plunge into the latest dual-processor Xeon ("Gulftown") processors yet....and what kind of benchmarks you're getting CS or Lightroom.

I've been looking for some reviews but so far all the of Gulftown reviews I've read are for Windows' users! I can't find anything for the dual-Xeons yet on the August 2010 Mac Pros.

I haven't seen any Mac Pros with the Gulftown yet is it coming or have they announced it and I just missed it ? What are the supposed improvements ?

Gulftown = Westmere on the apple site:
http://www.apple.com …o/features/proc​essor.html

Gulftown is just a type of Westmere processor. Westmere is the microarchitecture, Gulftown is the specific processor.

toxic wrote in post #11281877
Gulftown is just a type of Westmere processor. Westmere is the microarchitecture, Gulftown is the specific processor.

Thank Rene and Toxic ! Appreciate the nugget of knowledge !