2.8 Extreem compared to Mac Pro

I was wondering how different the processors are besides the number of cores of course. I have read here that the Mac Pro has little in the way of apps that can use the 8 processors and that if you are not going to be utilizing 8 cores one might just as well keep to the iMac Extreem.

I was planning on getting a Mac Pro until I read iTunes actually performs better on two cores, which it is written for, then it does on 8 cores; depressing.

I am very new to this forum so please make allowances. Thank you.

There is no way on earth you should be buying a Mac Pro based on iTunes performance! What else do you plan to do with it? If its just web, email, photos etc forget about the mac Pro its overkill.

I just did a little poking around on the XBench site. The "average" 2.8 GHz iMac Core 2 Extreme is scoring in the 250 area. The "average" 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz Mac Pro is scoring in the 260 to 300 range. So, you could argue that the price differential between the two isn't worth it.

It all comes down to what you are planning to do with the machine, and whether you are inclined to upgrading your computers over time. You will get much more flexibility with the Mac Pro, somewhat higher speed, and many more cores. If you are using applications that can take advantage of it, the Mac Pro will be the better choice. If you are just doing web browsing, email, iTunes, budget spreadsheets and the like, you are better off sticking with the iMac.

Note that the 24" iMac appears to use far superior display technology than the 20" iMac. I would recommend the 24" iMac if you go the iMac route.

How does one find out which programs make use of all available cores? Like Office 2008 or Open Office or Iwork 08 and iLife 08?

My intent was to run the beta softwware sent to me and offer what findings developed,

mac57 said:

I just did a little poking around on the XBench site. The "average" 2.8 GHz iMac Core 2 Extreme is scoring in the 250 area. The "average" 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz Mac Pro is scoring in the 260 to 300 range. So, you could argue that the price differential between the two isn't worth it.

Click to expand...

This is why I can't find Xbench a reliable benchmark tester. My Mac Pro scored a 187. My Mac Pro has 2 more cores of than the 2.8GHz Extreme, larger L2 cache, faster FSB, faster RAM, and a much faster video card. Tell me how the 2.8GHz iMac scored better....

What is worse, Bryan, is that the results do not really tell you enough about the configuration of the Mac they are taken from. Hence you have no way to be sure that the Mac hasn't been "hacked" - overclocked, modified, or changed in some other way to get a better result.

So, I quite agree, XBench is not really a good comparison tool unless you know the configuration of the two Macs in question. Then you can likely draw some meaningful conclusions.