iMac Core Duo or Quad Core?

[mixaudio]

I'm pretty excited about these new iMacs, but I'm wondering how much of a difference and improvement would be to go for the iMac Quad Core versus the Core Duo, considering:

a) that the Core Duo's speeds are higher, and

b) I've read in other posts that for best performance, users should set PT Playback Engine to use only 1 processor on Core Duos, which is half. Does that apply the same way for Quad Cores, taking advantage of 2 cores only?


Also, about converting FW800 to FW400 to hook-up my 002, I don't mind everything in the chain running at 400, but I'm more concerned about any potential issues with the 002 being connected to a "converted FW800 port". Any known issues?

[nst7]

Definitely go for the quad core. Everything I've heard says it makes a big difference. Not only get the quad core, but spend the extra $200 to upgrade the processor to the I7. What you would do with the processors is use 3 for RTAS and leave one for the other stuff. That still gives you 2 more than what you'd have with a dual core.

As for the firewire, it works fine on my 003R to go from FW800 thru 3 800 hard drives, then 400 out to the 003R.

[Dism]

The "speed" of the processor really isn't all that important anymore. Most processors these days are in the realm of somewhere between 2.3 and 2.8GHz, which honestly doesn't represent a whole lot of change in terms of power. Doubling the cores, however, will result in an entirely new experience. A dual-core running at 2.8GHz won't even touch a quad running at 2.2GHz. Plus, as mentioned, you would be running 3 cores through PT rather than just one. This is why I tend to recommend people should drop their dual-cpu G5. Back in the day it was a great machine, but two single core processors can't even hold a candle to a single quad. Even if you slot up to the max 16GB of RAM, it can't compare at all to a single quad with 4GB of RAM.

I guarantee within the next year we're going to see a lot more computers with quads, including laptops. Mostly because Intel and AMD are going to be releasing 6 and 8 core single processors in 2010. Trust me when I say that you want more cores.

[Keybeeetsss]

Thatz Kinda like asking should u get a 4 or 8 cylinder(disregarding gas of course)...

[djkiller]

actually i this got me thinking.. i have a mac quadcore 2.6ghz fisrt gen. and i love it by the way :) couldn't see myself wanting much more..well maybe the 8 core but that's overkill. but can i upgrade it to the new chips? oh and it has two dual xeons

[sunburst79]

You want 4 cores. At least in PC land we found the Core 2 Quads doubled the performance of the Core 2 Duos.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by djkiller

actually i this got me thinking.. i have a mac quadcore 2.6ghz fisrt gen. and i love it by the way :) couldn't see myself wanting much more..well maybe the 8 core but that's overkill. but can i upgrade it to the new chips? oh and it has two dual xeons

Not entirely sure if I follow what you're asking... but if you're asking if you can switch out the two dual xeons in your mac pro for two quad xeons the answer is no. The motherboard necessary for dual quads is completely different, in which case, you might as well buy a new Mac.

[djkiller]

oh well i was just wondering. i'm pretty happy with my mac now and have 7gb of ram going to go up to 16gb. i'm barely taxing the system as it is... i can see it lasting me for awhile.

[GW]

Originally Posted by mixaudio

Also, about converting FW800 to FW400 to hook-up my 002, I don't mind everything in the chain running at 400, but I'm more concerned about any potential issues with the 002 being connected to a "converted FW800 port". Any known issues?

I'm running my 002 with my MacBook Pro via the FW 800 and haven´t had any problems sofar... [Regarding chaining see post above]

[Obsidian Dragon]

Originally Posted by mixaudio

I've read in other posts that for best performance, users should set PT Playback Engine to use only 1 processor on Core Duos, which is half. Does that apply the same way for Quad Cores, taking advantage of 2 cores only?

This is a misconception. By setting the Playback engine to use one less than the total number of processor cores does not necessarily mean the one excluded processor core is not being used. It simply means that it is free to handle the non-realtime plugins that may be in your system. When you dedicate all your processor cores to only handle realtime plugins, and you have a non-realtime plugin installed, the system has no resources left over to handle them. In fact, if you have many non-realtime plugins, that one excluded processor core may actually be doing more work than the other dedicated processors. It is a balancing act. In the future, Avid will release a new RTAS engine that should dynamically handle both realtime and non-realtime plugins. Don't think that you are "not using" the processor core for plugins. Think that you are "making it free" to handle other (non-realtime) plugins. There is no list available of realtime vs. non-realtime plugins at this time so you don't know which is which.