Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,537
30,847



Just days after Apple teased its upcoming radical redesign for the Mac Pro back in June, a Geekbench 2 result appeared to offer some data on just such a Mac Pro running a 12-core 2.7 GHz Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 processor, 64 GB of RAM, and a custom build of OS X Mavericks. Many observers were disappointed to see that the machine received a Geekbench 2 score of just under 24,000, only marginally higher than a top-end 2012 Mac Pro, a machine that was considered by many to be outdated from the day it was launched.

Others had noted that prototype hardware, beta software, and a 32-bit Geekbench run were likely to have limited the performance seen in the benchmarks, with the final shipping version of the Mac Pro due for launch later this year perhaps seeing substantial improvements under a 64-bit version of Geekbench 2.

Tom's Hardware has now gotten its hands on this exact processor expected to make its way into the Mac Pro and put it through rigorous testing in a Windows setup, subjecting the system to numerous benchmarking tools including the 64-bit version Geekbench 2. While the results do not provide an exact answer to how well the chip will benchmark in a Mac Pro, it does offer some perspective on what kind of performance might be possible.
The leaked result was run using the free 32-bit build of Geekbench on a pre-release build of OS X Mavericks. Switching over to the paid 64-bit build of the benchmark adds SSE support, though that's still a pre-Pentium 4 extension. Tab between the 32- and 64-bit runs on Xeon X5675-based systems and you'll find that the SSE-capable build averages 14%-better performance.

Curious as to how the very same 12-core Xeon [E5-2697 V2] compared in Windows, I ran my own test on a 64-bit build of Geekbench and scored in excess of 30,000 points--more than 25% faster than the leaked number.
Click to expand...
xeon_e5_2697_v2_blender.jpg
Strong performance in multi-threaded Blender 3D modeling benchmark​
The full set of testing benchmarks pitted the high-end 12-core Ivy Bridge-EP Xeon processor against a variety of Sandy Bridge and other Ivy Bridge chips, as well as a Core i7-4770K Haswell chip, finding that the Xeon E5-2697 V2 generally topped the performance charts in multi-threaded tests but was beaten in many single-threaded tests by the faster chips with fewer cores.

xeon_e5_2697_v2_itunes.jpg
Relatively poor performance in single-threaded iTunes benchmark​
As noted, the benchmark scores for the Xeon E5-2697 V2 generated from these tests won't necessarily translate exactly to a Mac Pro running OS X Mavericks, but they do provide some confidence that the redesigned Mac Pro will indeed be a significant improvement over its predecessor for the most demanding multi-threaded tasks.

Article Link: Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/14/upcoming-12-core-xeon-cpu-destined-for-apples-new-mac-pro-posts-impressive-benchmark-scores/
W

wiz329

macrumors 6502a
Apr 19, 2010
509
96
Now if only Apple would put TWO of these in the new Mac Pro, instead of only offering a single socket configuration...
 
Klae17

Klae17

macrumors 65816
Jul 15, 2011
1,227
1,578
Glad to see that some upgrades will make it worth the years of waiting!
 
brock2621

brock2621

macrumors 65816
Jun 8, 2007
1,015
539
Kentucky
Hmm... And I just finished building my render machine with 2x 2687w xeons (16 cores) with 64gbs of ram and a GTX Titan.

I feel like I should have waited a few months?
 
Last edited:
phoenixsan

phoenixsan

macrumors 65816
Oct 19, 2012
1,342
2
If the new Mac Pro......

actually can go 25-40% faster running Mac OS X in most tasks, that would be a good incentive toward an investment on one.

Still, I would like to wait the initial wave and see how the real thing goes in the real world, productive enviroments and so on....


:):apple:
 
WardC

WardC

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2007
2,727
215
Fort Worth, TX
It's big...and it's black...IT'S THE NEW MAC PRO!

EDIT: But it's not really "that" big...it's small and it's black :)
 
AidenShaw

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
Why are Mac fans excited about the performance of a Windows system?

Especially when they know that there will be Windows systems with two of these chips - but Apples will have only one....
 
D

donutbagel

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2013
932
1
It's really annoying to have a really powerful Mac Pro bottlenecked when you press "open with..." on something and have to wait for an external hard drive to wake up while Finder hangs.

Edit: I know that you can disable hard drive sleep but don't want to have them always awake, and I have already excluded them from Spotlight search.
 
Last edited:
D

drblank

macrumors regular
Feb 12, 2006
111
0
How were they able to run benchmarks on a computer that hasn't been released? Secondly, Mavericks is still in Beta, I would never rely on Beta benchmarks on hardware that wasn't released. Not to be weird, but I would wait until the final release.
 
xnu

xnu

macrumors 6502a
Jul 15, 2004
502
1,177
It may turn out that it has been worth the wait... As with anything price is a huge factor... if the entry model, as i expect is $2500... very good... if they can find a way to give us a base model for $2000, revolutionary... if it is $3000 I am sticking with a Hackintosh. (I will still buy it, but i will be grumbling the whole time)

I need to replace all my CAD stations... and I will not use iMacs... I really don't want to deal with trying to build and maintain Hacks.... I don't need huge drives on everyone.. I just need graphic and processor power.. and this looks like a great machine.
 
D

donutbagel

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2013
932
1
AidenShaw said:
Why are Mac fans excited about the performance of a Windows system?

Especially when they know that there will be Windows systems with two of these chips - but Apples will have only one....
Click to expand...

I think the answer is obvious. That Windows machine's CPU will be in the new Mac Pro, there could actually be 2 instead of 1 for all we know.

Edit: For some reason, strikethrough doesn't work as normal. Apple's site says up to 12 cores.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WardC

WardC

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2007
2,727
215
Fort Worth, TX
I am excited that the chip shows some sizable improvement over the Westmere...I am not excited about the "new" Mac Pro being a single-processor machine with no other options presented by Apple. Dual Processor power is one thing that made the high end Mac Pro so great....for power users that could afford it, you got a helluva machine. Now Apple appears to be offering us no more than a souped up headless iMac with a Xeon processor and a tricked out custom graphics card set, that appears to be soldered onto the board.

The fact of zero internal expandability has me a bit perturbed about the thing...it's a MiniPro, not a Mac Pro. This is a power mini with better parts than a Mac Mini...a true Pro would have better internal expandability options and not require 20 cables coming out of the thing to get PCIe and hard disks.
 
yadmonkey

yadmonkey

macrumors 65816
Aug 13, 2002
1,306
838
Western Spiral
donutbagel said:
I think the answer is obvious. That Windows machine's CPU will be in the new Mac Pro, there could actually be 2 instead of 1 for all we know.
Click to expand...

There will be 1. The MP page on apple.com clearly says "configurations up to 12 cores".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

drblank

macrumors regular
Feb 12, 2006
111
0
wiz329 said:
Now if only Apple would put TWO of these in the new Mac Pro, instead of only offering a single socket configuration...
Click to expand...

The reason i can see why Apple decided not to use 2 processors is that it generates a LOT more heat, requires a bigger power supply, more cooling, and that costs MONEY. The amount of speed increase in a MP version isn't 2x, plus they have to add more room for RAM, which requires MORE space, bigger Power Supply, more cooling, etc. and costs more. Most MP systems get a marginal speed improvement and the ROI just isn't that great. Most of the high end apps that are going to be used on these systems are more GPU intensive and you probably won't see that much improvement in having multiple CPUs.

If Apple can get MP to the point where it's cost effective and enough people will see enough speed improvement, then maybe they'll do that, but MP for workstations in a lot of ways is not exactly getting the best ROI for what it costs for a marginal increase in speed if most apps don't even use MP.

I think they are putting the expense into faster SSD, 2 GPUs instead. Again, I'm just speculating what Apple's decision making process of why they decided not to deploy MP.

What applications are you using or plan on using that requires more CPU than GPU that would need a second CPU? I'm just curious.
 
WardC

WardC

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2007
2,727
215
Fort Worth, TX
yadmonkey said:
There will be 1. The MP page on apple.com clearly says "configurations up to 12 cores".
Click to expand...

Maybe Apple will be realistic and price this headless iMac MiniPro with one SINGLE processor and NO Drive Bays, not PCIe slots, No Optical Drive...

At the ridiculously low price of $1799!
 
inscrewtable

inscrewtable

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,656
402
donutbagel said:
It's really annoying to have a really powerful Mac Pro bottlenecked when you press "open with..." on something and have to wait for an external hard drive to wake up while Finder hangs.
Click to expand...

You can set external drives to not sleep in system prefs.
 
D

drblank

macrumors regular
Feb 12, 2006
111
0
clemahieu said:
Why stop at 2? What if someone needs 4?
Click to expand...

Then you probably should get a Supercomputer and get a couple of hundred, why stop at 4.

I think Apple knows what apps are going to be used on these systems the most and I think they are mostly GPU intensive or just adding more CPUs doesn't justify the added expense of requiring more space, more RAM, bigger power supply, more fans, etc. etc.

I think they decided that the ROI on what it takes puts them back into having a big expensive tower that most people won't really need the second CPU.

In order to run these MP Xeons with all of the extra stuff inside, they are now having to rely on MANY MANY fans, even water cooling and it just gets ridiculously expensive and the average user isn't going to want that.

I think they decided to get rid of certain types of bottlenecks instead and wanted to make the box smaller rather than just being another HUGE box that costs too much to mfg, and requires so much cooling, that most people aren't going to want that.

Just a hunch.

I would think that users using CAD, Animation, Graphic arts apps, NLE, etc. type apps probably won't see much difference in 2 CPUs when they would see more difference in 2 GPUs.

Pro Tools HD and HDX users don't really use the CPU, they use the cards themselves that they install and I'm sure having one 12 core processor handles a fully loaded down Pro Tools, Logic, native app where if you actually needed more CPU power, you'd be using HD and HDX cards instead.

It will be interesting to see how much the processor is actually taxed when running most applications to their fullest load levels. I wonder if the CPU will ever max out. I'm sure it will be a rare occasion.

Heck, I used an older iMac to do video conversion and would max out the CPU where I couldn't do anything. I was running multiple video conversions on a newer i5 with 16G of RAM and I'm barely taxing the CPU I have and it's just an i5. It will be interesting to see what apps doing what things will push the 12 core to the point where it's maxed out. I'm sure for those people, they should probably get a supercomputer and get something that has LOTS of processors because it's an app specifically for CPU crunching that's more supercomputing. I don't think Apple wants to play in that space since it's probably not a good ROI. That's why Apple kind of got out of those massive Supercomputer installs. Sometimes, it's best to let others spin their wheels in certain small niche markets for bragging rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom