Eight Core Mac...2.8 or 3.0?

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
I have to upgrade from my non-intel G5 to edit RED footage. There's about a 700 dollar difference between the eight core 2.8 and 3.0. Just wondering if the extra .2 on each processor is worth it, or if I should put into more RAM later on.
 
Last edited:
I'd put it towards ram.

I have a Dual Dual Core 2.66Ghz Mac Pro.. and I am quite happy with the performance. The real bottleneck for me our my Hard Drives.

My comp chews through Uncompressed HD.. when my drives can keep up.
 
Thanks. I guess the next question is the video card. One editor out here told me that the ATI 2600 works better in the Mac than the Nvidia 7300GT, which are the two choices on MacMall.

Any thoughts on that?
 
The 7300 isn't a standard option in the MacPro 8cores....besides if I was spending the money on a MacPro, I would go for the 8800GT 512MB. Your going to want it. Editing RED footage, getting a great system like that, great HD's, great CPU speed, decent RAM, then a 256MB Video Card? I think not...get the 512MB at the least.

Kyle
 
The 8800 is a killer gaming card but there's evidence it might not be the best choice for video work with Apple's Pro Apps...The ATI cards for the Mac Pro are significantly faster than the 8800 for certain processes, namely anything that utilizes Core Image - so a lot of what you do in FCP and Motion.

Can't remember where I first started reading about this but here are some more benchmarks from Bare Feats:

http://www.barefeats.com/harper10.html

Probably what your editor friend was talking about.
 
Wow, that's a big difference. Does it help me to have 2 ATI 2600s, aside from being able to use 4 monitors?
 
Jim Brennan said:
Wow, that's a big difference. Does it help me to have 2 ATI 2600s, aside from being able to use 4 monitors?
Click to expand...

No, there's no SLI support as far as I know - the cards can't work together on the same process. So yes, I believe the only benefit would be in running more displays.
 
Jared Meyer said:
No, there's no SLI support as far as I know - the cards can't work together on the same process. So yes, I believe the only benefit would be in running more displays.
Click to expand...
And the fact that ATI doesnt have SLI Atall :-D
Its called Crossfire for ATI FYI
 
MiniMan13 said:
And the fact that ATI doesnt have SLI Atall :-D
Its called Crossfire for ATI FYI
Click to expand...

Nerd.






Just kidding. :) Thanks for the correction. I've only ever used Nvidia cards so I'm used to their nomenclature...Wasn't aware "Scalable Link Interface" was actually their own exclusive tech/name.
 
Jared Meyer said:
Nerd.






Just kidding. :) Thanks for the correction. I've only ever used Nvidia cards so I'm used to their nomenclature...Wasn't aware "Scalable Link Interface" was actually their own exclusive tech/name.
Click to expand...
SLI was originally 3DFX technology but after filing for bankruptcy Nvidia bought them out and acquired all the 3DFX tech including SLI (which originally stood for Scan-Line Interleave). How's that for nerd (although I do prefer the term "geek")?:laugh:


-A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top