Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gorillasandtoast

In need of buying a new Mac -- Quad Core or 8 Core?

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I'm looking to purchase a new Mac Pro. I do After Effects, editing. and C4D, I want to buy an 8 core Mac Pro, but its a little out of my price range. I can afford the quad core -- so here's my question: Would a quad core be sufficient enough for everything I do? I am thinking about those times where a RAM preview would take forever.... Please let me know, your input is greatly appreciated!

 

P.S. I'm running an old G5, so anything would be better than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

We used to get by on 30Mhz 030 processors, so I'm sure you'll survive with a quad core. Of course it could be faster with a bigger machine / more money, etc, but that's not what you were asking. it will def. seem lightyears ahead of where you are now - guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that you get the best performance with 3-4GB of installed RAM per processor core. Also consider that hyperthreading multiplies the number of physical cores by 2 to give the number of usable processor cores.

 

This means that a quad-core machinepresents 8 processors to After Effects, and to use those optimally you should have 24-32GB of RAM.

 

Getting an octo-core machine without getting 48-64GB of RAM is a bit of a waste (in the After Effects context, anyway).

 

BTW, I personally just bought a quad-core with 24GB of RAM. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

Edited by Todd Kopriva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty tiny iMac :P

 

 

The new iMac. So small you can take it anywhere. But it's not a laptop or a tablet. It's just a smaller iMac.

 

haha. Oops.. typo..

 

27"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that you get the best performance with 3-4GB of installed RAM per processor core. Also consider that hyperthreading multiplies the number of physical cores by 2 to give the number of usable processor cores.

 

This means that a quad-core machinepresents 8 processors to After Effects, and to use those optimally you should have 24-32GB of RAM.

 

Getting an octo-core machine without getting 48-64GB of RAM is a bit of a waste (in the After Effects context, anyway).

 

BTW, I personally just bought a quad-core with 24GB of RAM. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

 

Is this assuming he's using AECS5? Also assuming he's using all 8 cores for AE multiprocessing? I have an 8 core with 18GB RAM and only use 4 cores for AE, never had much luck with 8, and it runs great. Definitely nice to have to extra power to multitask while AE is rendering. I'm on CS3 though, so I know it's a bit different with CS5 and 64 bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe i'm wrong, but ive been thinking when the new units drop, looking for deals on 2008 octo-moms, i mean procs. i remember my 8 core machines from gigs in 08 and 09 being fast. wouldnt an $1800 craiglist 8 core with the RAM todd is talking about still be a beast? or are those speeds relative to some other factor in the new machines?

Edited by mintyfresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that you get the best performance with 3-4GB of installed RAM per processor core. Also consider that hyperthreading multiplies the number of physical cores by 2 to give the number of usable processor cores.

 

This means that a quad-core machinepresents 8 processors to After Effects, and to use those optimally you should have 24-32GB of RAM.

 

Getting an octo-core machine without getting 48-64GB of RAM is a bit of a waste (in the After Effects context, anyway).

 

BTW, I personally just bought a quad-core with 24GB of RAM. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

I thought the Quad-cores only supported up to 16GB? Or are you using those 8GB sticks Todd?

 

I also think the point about leaving some cores for other tasks while AE renders is valid, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are doing scenes with insane quad counts, C4D uses all the processors without needing quite as much memory as AE. If you spend a lot of time in C4D, then every processor cycle is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Quad-cores only supported up to 16GB? Or are you using those 8GB sticks Todd?

 

I was describing an HP running Windows, not a Mac. My Mac (which is an Adobe computer, not a personal computer) is also a quad-core, and it has 12GB in it.

 

I also think the point about leaving some cores for other tasks while AE renders is valid, no?

 

It's crucial, yes. See this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to get by on 30Mhz 030 processors, so I'm sure you'll survive with a quad core. Of course it could be faster with a bigger machine / more money, etc, but that's not what you were asking. it will def. seem lightyears ahead of where you are now - guaranteed.

 

IIsi

Motorola 68030 @ 20 MHz

17 meg ram

ah that was a beast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe i'm wrong, but ive been thinking when the new units drop, looking for deals on 2008 octo-moms, i mean procs. i remember my 8 core machines from gigs in 08 and 09 being fast. wouldnt an $1800 craiglist 8 core with the RAM todd is talking about still be a beast? or are those speeds relative to some other factor in the new machines?

 

My 2008 Octo is still a screamer. Highly recommended. Don't skimp on the ram though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iMac 17" quad

 

This.

 

Makes no sense going Quad Mac Pro. Unless you're looking to add extra hard drives, capture cards, fiber cards, or if you have a monitor already.

 

I'd only go with a Mac Pro if it was 8 core and above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no sense going Quad Mac Pro. Unless you're looking to add extra hard drives, capture cards, fiber cards, or if you have a monitor already.

 

I'd only go with a Mac Pro if it was 8 core and above.

Thats the conclusion I've come to. With a hyper-threaded quadcore presenting 8 cores and max 16GB RAM... It makes more sense to get a pre-Nehalem 8 core and closer to 32GB RAM for similar $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good info in here y'all. I've also been looking at the iMac lately, wondering whether to get the i5 or i7 processor. The i5 does not support hyperthreading, the i7 does, but either way you max out at 16gb of RAM, and I imagine this likely will not change.

 

Is it better to go with the i5 then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about what Todd is saying, about having 24-32 gb for a hyper-threading quad-core? With the i7 at 16gb, you're maxed out at 2gb per core, where as the i5 would get 4gb per core.

 

Also I'm tryin to save as much money as possible, as I won't be working in the Fall and Spring.

Edited by Cosmo Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about what Todd is saying, about having 24-32 gb for a hyper-threading quad-core? With the i7 at 16gb, you're maxed out at 2gb per core, where as the i5 would get 4gb per core.

 

Also I'm tryin to save as much money as possible, as I won't be working in the Fall and Spring.

the i7 has faster clock speed and you can always tell ae how many cores to use so that it gives more ram to each one. Leaving you with some cores for photoshop, email or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic thread. I've been away from the world of mograph work (on maternity leave!) and consequently not checked into mograph.net for sometime... I am gearing up to a possible change of hardware (from PC to Mac) and you guys have all still here (hurrah!) with all the info I need to get going.

 

Cheers, it's great you are all still here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that getting a refurbed Octocore Mac Pro pre-Nehalem is a bad idea in comparison to the speed gain of the Nehalem architecture and hyperthreading. If you're getting an older machine, get a Nehalem. Ars Technica tells you why: Ars Technica Mac Pro Review.

The new Westmere's are somewhat faster than the Nehalems, but it's hard to say how much the difference will be in real terms. The 12-core blows everything away on GeekBench's scores though: GeekBench Top Results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...