|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 25th, 2010, 10:39 AM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 204
|
Mac Pro Question: Which is faster
All else being equal, which system is better/faster:
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors or a Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processors Thanks! |
|
|
|
March 27th, 2010, 12:27 PM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bordeaux, going to Bangkok, 2011
Posts: 232
|
better hm buy the best video card and the most memory and as much disk space at 7200
|
|
|
|
|
March 27th, 2010, 01:07 PM
|
#3 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 1,389
|
agree...for all the apps I run, the processor speed isn't as important as RAM, video card, and hard drive speed.
I have the 8 core Nehalem 2.66 and it's ridiculously fast BUT, 16 gb RAM, ATI 4870 video card and all 7200 rpm drives are what makes AE and Motion run like champs!
__________________
The older I get, the better I was! |
|
|
|
|
March 27th, 2010, 02:12 PM
|
#4 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
All valid points, but he stipulated: all else being equal. He's asking about raw processor power, and it's a good question.
Here's a chart that has all this info: PassMark Software - CPU Benchmarks - Multiple CPU Systems The chart shows them being virtually identical if I have the model numbers right. When I put together my editing rig a couple of years ago, I took these scores and divided them into the price of the CPU to come up with a bang-for-the-buck score, and made my decision based on that.
__________________
"It can only be attributable to human error... This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error." |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
