You can check out the speed performance of the 8-core Macs at the [url=http://www.barefeats.com/octopro3.html]Bare Feats site[/url]. They concluded: "If your work flow means doing more than one thing at a time on your Mac Pro, then you will see significant gains if you spend extra to get the 8-core version. Our Photoshop CS3 actions were completed 39% faster on the 8-core when we had 3 other apps busy crunching. This advantage emerges in spite of the memory bus limitations of the 8-core Mac Pro and poor core swapping algorithms of OS X Tiger." And Infoworld [url=http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2007/04/for_apple_8way.html]notes[/url] that going from four to eight cores will reduce the time to completion for compute-intensive, non- or semi-interactive, threaded workstation task units (e.g. render, simulate, compile/link, analyze, transform, filter) by ten to thirty percent without code changes.

My own experiments with the 8-core monster have been similar, though, as I always admit, I simply use my "gut reactions" to how speedy a system seems. So the question is: do you need every iota of speed you can squeeze out of your Mac?

Quad-core models are still available, and will be a better buy for all but the most demanding users. After all, prices start at US$2,499 for 2.66GHz quad-core models. The biggest, beefiest of the Mac Pro configurations will run you almost $4,000.

If you need top tier performance and expansion options out the wazoo, the Mac Pro is the desktop for you. If you have the need, and especially, the moolah, go for the four grand version. If you need speed and expandability, look into the quad-core Mac Pros and outfit 'em with more memory and beefier graphics cards.

And if you don’t have to have the fastest Mac, never add PCIe cards and don’t need a display bigger than a 24-incher, you should look into the Intel iMac, a gorgeous machine that packs plenty of power for most users in a compact, less expensive design.

Macsimum rating: 8.5 out of 10.