Anyone know about processors?
Abbott Schindler wrote:
I'm just going through the quad-vs-dual quad thought process
now...once again. I visited it several months ago as well, but now
I'm definitely going to buy a new Mac Pro in the next week or two.
Quad: probably enough for now. 2.8 GHz is more than enough for
single-threaded apps, both today and likely tomorrow. And it's plenty
for dual-threaded apps and multitasking a dual-threaded with several
Dual quad: Can multitask more processes, and would be better choice
(albeit maybe not much better) for video work + other things running
simultaneously. One thing I don't know is how good OS X is at parsing
out threads to cores on different chips. Example: Would OS X be smart
enough to run Aperture on one processor and Final Cut on the second
processor? (that would give an advantage, I think)
But that's today. Snow Leopard is reported to focus on performance,
which could improve multi-core/multi-processor task management. Also,
more image and video (and other) apps are going to get better at
using multiple processors. I'm expecting this to happen in my new
machine's lifetime, so I want to be prepared.
some image and video processes are going to be off loaded to the video card's GPU. Core Imaging Technology, e.g. Aperture and Open GL apps are going to be using the GPU. If things go that way, video cards are a whole lot cheaper way to upgrade.
Bottom line: in spite of the higher initial cost + higher electricity
cost (maybe $100/year for me) of the dual processor model, I'm about
decided to spring for the dual, plus nVidia upgrade next week. Unless
someone convinces me otherwise. I'm gambling that although I won't
get much use from the second processor for a year or two, I'll start
being very glad I have it after that.
We have art that we do not die of the truth.