New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Apple Desktops Discussion of Apple's desktop machines including Mac Pro, iMac, Power Mac, and mini

Mac Pro - CPU or RAM


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
chad8589

 
Member Since: Aug 05, 2006
Posts: 12
chad8589 is on a distinguished road

chad8589 is offline
Hey. Its been forever since I've been on here...anyway I tried to search the forums for this, but nothing useful came up. Im thinking of upgrading to a Mac Pro.

I don't whether to go for more RAM or a better processor. If I go for 4gbs of RAM, then I'll have to jump down to the 2.0ghz core duo processor, and if I go for a better processor then I'll be forced to go for less RAM.

What I'd like to know is what would be more useful in the realm of Audio Editing... Would I notice a lot of difference between the 2.66 core duo and the 2.0? Or would there be greater performance in 4gbs of RAM as opposed to only 2?

Thanks
QUOTE Thanks
gilesjuk

 
gilesjuk's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 03, 2007
Posts: 301
gilesjuk has a spectacular aura about
Mac Specs: Black MacBook 2GB, Mac Pro 2.66Ghz 3GB X1900.

gilesjuk is offline
Go for the faster processor. You can add RAM later. Upgrading the processors will cost loads and isn't recommended.

RAM is easy to add. 2GB will do for now, I have 3GB and I don't think I've come close to running low on RAM. 32-bit apps can usually only see 3-4GB of RAM anyway.
QUOTE Thanks
musicforme

 
Member Since: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Grapevine, Tx
Posts: 22
musicforme is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Early 2008 Mac Pro - 500 GB HD - 6 GB Ram

musicforme is offline
Are you thinking about getting the 4 gigs of ram from Apple or another place such as Crucial.com?

If you didn't compare memory prices from other sources, you might be able to get both of them for not a lot more than you were already planning to spend.
QUOTE Thanks
Kash

 
Kash's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 03, 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 9,385
Kash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G

Kash is offline
Both giles and musicforme make good points. If you look at RAM from a third party vendor, you may be able to save enough money to get both the faster processor and 4GB of RAM.

If it turns out you can't afford both, then I would definitely suggest getting the faster processor now as you can easily upgrade the RAM later. Plus, with audio editing, it's not like 2GB is going to hold you back severely. You might find that 2GB is enough for your purposes. Also, you should consider the fact that audio editing programs are processor intensive, so a faster processor will definitely give you a significant performance boost.


June 2007
July 2009
QUOTE Thanks
Alexis

 
Alexis's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 20, 2006
Posts: 2,255
Alexis is a jewel in the roughAlexis is a jewel in the roughAlexis is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo

Alexis is offline
Bear in mind there is very little difference in speed between the two processors and it's certainly not worth the extra cost.
QUOTE Thanks
bobtomay

 
bobtomay's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 22, 2006
Location: Texas, where else?
Posts: 25,008
bobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP 2.33 C2D 256 4GB, MBA 13" i7 1.8, MB 2.0 2GB, Nano 4th, 3GS, iPad 1

bobtomay is offline
Just thought I would chime in. They all are correct.
Audio/Video encoding is processor intensive.
But, for others that may be looking at this thread down the road and looking at building a topnotch system - always spend your money first - on the best processor you can afford. This is the most expensive piece of hardware in the system; now and to upgrade. It is also the single piece of hardware that will prolong the useful life expectancy of any system.

All other hardware (in a Mac Pro - since you have no options available for the system board) can be upgraded inexpensively (relatively) at a later time.

edit: see post below also

I cannot be held responsible for the things that come out of my mouth.
In the Windows world, most everything folks don't understand is called a virus.
QUOTE Thanks
bobtomay

 
bobtomay's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 22, 2006
Location: Texas, where else?
Posts: 25,008
bobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP 2.33 C2D 256 4GB, MBA 13" i7 1.8, MB 2.0 2GB, Nano 4th, 3GS, iPad 1

bobtomay is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis View Post
Bear in mind there is very little difference in speed between the two processors and it's certainly not worth the extra cost.
There certainly is basically no difference for the average computer user thats browsing the web, using Office, doing some e-mail or messaging and just listening to music. And this individual is wasting money buying a Mac Pro in the first place.

This is certainly "Not True" when it comes to encoding. That is if your time is worth anything or if you don't like sitting around waiting for something to finish. Speed is everything if you're doing a lot of encoding. The 2.66 is anywhere between about 18% and up to 40% faster than the 2.0, averaging about 30%.

The 2.66 can shave between 22-30 seconds off of a 90 second encode the 2.0 would take and several minutes off a 7GB video encode. Here is only one test showing the timed differences between multiple CPU's. The link starts on page 8 where the testing begins. There are others that can be found with a little search, all will show similar results.

edit: I will say again, "For audio/video editing and encoding, the processor is king".
edit: And the 2.66 will probably prolong the life expectancy of your system for at least a year beyond that of the 2.0. I would say this makes it well worth the $300 difference in price.

I cannot be held responsible for the things that come out of my mouth.
In the Windows world, most everything folks don't understand is called a virus.
QUOTE Thanks
Kash

 
Kash's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 03, 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 9,385
Kash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G

Kash is offline
bobtomay is absolutely correct. You can most definitely see an improvement with the faster processor when you're dealing with audio or video programs.


June 2007
July 2009
QUOTE Thanks
giulio

 
giulio's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 19, 2007
Location: NY USA
Posts: 1,813
giulio is just really nicegiulio is just really nicegiulio is just really nicegiulio is just really nice
Mac Specs: iMac 5.1 | iMac 7.1 | iPod Touch | iPod Nano

giulio is offline
Those benchmarks are not comparing merely processor speeds - they are entirely different chip manufacturers.

schweb This has to be one of the best threads ever in MF history...
Cherokee This gets my vote for most innovative thread on Mac-Forums... ever.
QUOTE Thanks
Kash

 
Kash's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 03, 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 9,385
Kash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G

Kash is offline
You can ignore the AMD and Pentium 4 benchmarks. The Intel Xeon 2.66 and 2.0 benchmarks are definitely relevant to this particular case.


June 2007
July 2009
QUOTE Thanks
chad8589

 
Member Since: Aug 05, 2006
Posts: 12
chad8589 is on a distinguished road

chad8589 is offline
Thanks guys. This is all very helpful. I believe I will heed your advice and go for the faster processor. Somewhere down the road, however, I will add more RAM as needed.
QUOTE Thanks
Kash

 
Kash's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 03, 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 9,385
Kash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant futureKash has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G

Kash is offline
Good choice


June 2007
July 2009
QUOTE Thanks
Alexis

 
Alexis's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 20, 2006
Posts: 2,255
Alexis is a jewel in the roughAlexis is a jewel in the roughAlexis is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo

Alexis is offline
Quote:
This is certainly "Not True" when it comes to encoding. That is if your time is worth anything or if you don't like sitting around waiting for something to finish. Speed is everything if you're doing a lot of encoding. The 2.66 is anywhere between about 18% and up to 40% faster than the 2.0, averaging about 30%.
It's about 13% per 200Mhz from what I can gather. Granted, a small time saver for encoding, but I suppose it's a personal thing whether you think 10 seconds per 90 seconds is worth $300.

Personally, I'd rather have $300 in my pocket.
QUOTE Thanks
bobtomay

 
bobtomay's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 22, 2006
Location: Texas, where else?
Posts: 25,008
bobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond reputebobtomay has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP 2.33 C2D 256 4GB, MBA 13" i7 1.8, MB 2.0 2GB, Nano 4th, 3GS, iPad 1

bobtomay is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis View Post
It's about 13% per 200Mhz from what I can gather. Granted, a small time saver for encoding, but I suppose it's a personal thing whether you think 10 seconds per 90 seconds is worth $300.

Personally, I'd rather have $300 in my pocket.
Didn't feel the need to respond to this at the time since chad had already made his decision. But, upon reading this again, just feel as if I should for those of you that may be reading this post with the same question later on down the road.

1) While 13% is an over simplification and depends greatly upon the program in use, according to your own calculations of 13% per 200Mhz - moving from the 2.0 to the 2.66 would yield over a 40% improvement.

2) There was no 10 seconds per 90 seconds savings. The savings seen was 22-30 per 90. The difference here is quite dramatic and a savings of only 1/9 does require a different answer than a savings of close to 1/3.

3) $300 in my pocket: Guess it all depends on what your time is worth. The difference in time only to re-encode a single 7GB file between the 2 processors in question will be approx. 5 minutes. This does not take into account the time savings that will also be seen during the actual editing phase of the work.

I just am not able to envision too many of those looking at the Mac Pro line not looking at the time is money equation. And, to be on the conservative side of things, lets say you save only 3 minutes a day for a 3 year life expectancy of a Mac Pro. This is a savings of 18 1/4 hours per year or a total of 54 hrs 45 min. That makes the cost of this processor upgrade $5.48/hr.

And anyone actually doing much of this type of work, should in reality expect to save a minimum of an hour a week or more. At an hour per week over 3 years, the price of this upgrade is now $1.92/hr.

I kind of doubt anyone looking at a Mac Pro to begin with would not value

I cannot be held responsible for the things that come out of my mouth.
In the Windows world, most everything folks don't understand is called a virus.
QUOTE Thanks
Obsidian

 
Obsidian's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 21, 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 8
Obsidian is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Mac Pro, 8 Core 3.0GHz, 16GB RAM, Dual DVD, 4 1TB Hard Drives (Hitachi), Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth

Obsidian is offline
My view is that if you plan to spend the money to get a Mac Pro in the first place, you should get the version of the machine which will stay current the longest. It doesn't cost that much to opt for the faster processors in light of the total cost. I would recommend opting for the 3GHz quad core or 8 core if your budget allows.

Best Regards,

Tim

-Tim
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« The Ram Question | iMac vs Mac mini vs Mac Pro »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Buying a 20" this week. Worth iupgrading the CPU and video RAM? DrivinWest Apple Desktops 2 10-20-2006 10:08 AM
MHz speed of PC2-4200 RAM??? ex_mcse Apple Notebooks 1 10-17-2006 01:37 PM
Powerbook Ram Biturbo V12 AMG Apple Notebooks 1 06-01-2005 07:48 PM
Pentium III 1Ghz 512 MB RAM beats new Mac G5 2.7 dual CPU 512 MB RAM Joe Feldman Apple Desktops 29 05-31-2005 09:33 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?