englishman
macrumors 6502a
True - pity the punters get seduced by these silly server processors - give me a single 2.66 core 2 duo in the mac pro - and it would be really affordable and get nearer to mass market
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8-Core Mac Pro Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True - pity the punters get seduced by these silly server processors - give me a single 2.66 core 2 duo in the mac pro - and it would be really affordable and get nearer to mass market
liv4Mac
macrumors member
Talk for yourself buddy and I mean only for yourself. Sorry, But what about rendering using Maya, Strata etc. and also using pro music sofware like Logic or Cubase. Some plugins (VST, AU, RTAS) uses a lot of processing power.
So don't asume that 8 cores are not needed just because your apps will probably not use them. There are many apps that will take advantage of 8 cores
EagerDragon
macrumors 68020
Sounds like all new computers will need 2 inch thick Lead enclosures to gain sufficient bus and memory speed.
deputy_doofy
macrumors 65816
It seems that Intel, as a company, has OCD. First, it's "let's get the MHz or GHz as high as humanly possible" and now it's "let's create a 100-core chip - no, 100 billion-core chip."
How about a more efficient everything and slow down on the multiplication of cores...
the links seem to be down, but...
1st off, aren't most games GPU dependent? Would those games run just as fast if the machine was doing some video transcoding in the background?
Where are the benchmarks for parallel workflow? Could the Ocho provide the same Aperture performance while also matching Quicktime export numbers? or would core-affinity issues prevent this?
more real-world tests needed. Doesn't anyone else with benchmarking apps have an 8xMP yet?
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
It shouldn't, but Apple in its infinite wisdom doesn't really give you many choices.
PinkyMacGodess
Suspended
It's inside OS X...
I visited someone at Arecibo last year and noted that they had a mac server there and asked what they were using it for. I was surprised to see it in a rack of Sun and custom machines...
They were trying to get the server to cruch numbers but were having problems with the speed through the server. He said that they were surprised at how slow the crunching was when compared to unix based boxes with slower processors... They were working with 'someone at Apple' to find out what the issues were but firmly believed that it was in the software, not the hardware...
It makes me wonder now if Apple will pay a price for delaying Leopard in favor of the 'toy' iphone... I for one was ready to buy a new MBP with Leopard on it but now will wait... It makes no sense to buy a MBP and turn around and have to buy Leopard in a few months...😡
I visited someone at Arecibo last year and noted that they had a mac server there and asked what they were using it for. I was surprised to see it in a rack of Sun and custom machines...
They were trying to get the server to cruch numbers but were having problems with the speed through the server. He said that they were surprised at how slow the crunching was when compared to unix based boxes with slower processors... They were working with 'someone at Apple' to find out what the issues were but firmly believed that it was in the software, not the hardware...
It makes me wonder now if Apple will pay a price for delaying Leopard in favor of the 'toy' iphone... I for one was ready to buy a new MBP with Leopard on it but now will wait... It makes no sense to buy a MBP and turn around and have to buy Leopard in a few months...😡
PinkyMacGodess
Suspended
Uh...
It makes me wonder how serious the issue is and what, if anything, Apple has come up to address the slowness issue in my previous post...
I see the delay in Leopard (which may have been discussed elsewhere) as a serious blow to Apple's credibility, especially if the speed fix is wrapped into Leopard.
It makes me wonder how serious the issue is and what, if anything, Apple has come up to address the slowness issue in my previous post...
I see the delay in Leopard (which may have been discussed elsewhere) as a serious blow to Apple's credibility, especially if the speed fix is wrapped into Leopard.
mklos
macrumors 68000
And you absolutely need Leopard because? Why does everyone think they absolutely need the latest and greatest all the time? You don't even know whats going to be included in Leopard, yet you still want it. I myself would rather buy my own retail copy. Then its my copy and its not attached to the computer it came with, but I guess thats just a smart mans thinking! :sighs:
What would really hurt Apple's creditibility is if they delayed the iPhone which is going to 100x more hype than Leopard will.
localoid
macrumors 68020
Good question. Interestingly enough, the music and audio section of Apple's Mac Pro performance page doesn't show result (yet) for the 8-core (while the other test do.)
But, it's really not a complex or in-depth audio "benchmark" -- it just shows the "number of concurrently playing Platinum Verb reverb plug-ins." Still, having this comparison data (for the 8-core) would be better than none at all.
Dissapointing to see that the long awaited photoshop CS3 isn't able to really take advantage of more cores. It'll be a long time till the next version of photoshop.
I need leopard for the 64 bit support.
I run logic with huge orchestral sample libraries. Current OSX/Logic only allows about 3 gigs of samples loaded up, with 64 bit support the limit is moved much higher. The AU plugin has been ported to 64 bit support, so at this point the weak link is OSX and Logic.
So yes, I am currently being held back by the limitations of 10.4, and the workaround is to run multiple computers (or get a Vista machine).
Does that answer your question?
Sunrunner
macrumors 6502a
It will be interesting to compare these benchmarks with some on a machine running 10.5, considering how much differenty the new OS is supposed to handle multiple "cores".
gugy
macrumors 601
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
SPUY767
macrumors 68020
World of warcraft, notably the only game with a mildy appreciable gain in frame rate is already using a multi-core version of OpenGL.
The poor scaling probably stems from a combination of factors.
1) Intel's x86 line scales poorly past 4 cores in a system compared to AMD's Opteron processors because Intel still rely on the ancient FSB architecture that is quite restricting(*). 4 cores on a 1333MHz bus gives each core 333MHz of bus bandwidth, aside from cache coherency traffic. That sucks for a 3GHz core - the original P4 had 400MHz and that was limiting past 2GHz even with no coherency traffic.
Intel's CPUs are a better design (currently) than AMD's simply because they're quite a lot newer, so are a good choice for 1 and 2 core machines, and 4 core machines are still good. I don't need to mention that AMD will bring the situation back on par with their next core due out soon, and that Intel will remove the FSB in some future products.
2) FB-DIMMs are also an issue. Yet Another Intel Memory Messup.
3) Mac OS X might also have issues scaling nicely to 8 cores. It's not so hot with massive threading either (as per AnandTech's tests) but it shouldn't be an issue at this level.
4) Of course the application support for 8 cores is the major issue, but can't fix the above issues once done.
Apple are only a factor in one of the above list, given that they're using Intel for the processors exclusively. There's probably not a lot they can do here though.
(*) you can use specialist chipsets instead of Intel's standard chipsets to improve the situation a lot however. Of course these would increase the cost vastly, and probably not be suited for a workstation.
1) Intel's x86 line scales poorly past 4 cores in a system compared to AMD's Opteron processors because Intel still rely on the ancient FSB architecture that is quite restricting(*). 4 cores on a 1333MHz bus gives each core 333MHz of bus bandwidth, aside from cache coherency traffic. That sucks for a 3GHz core - the original P4 had 400MHz and that was limiting past 2GHz even with no coherency traffic.
Intel's CPUs are a better design (currently) than AMD's simply because they're quite a lot newer, so are a good choice for 1 and 2 core machines, and 4 core machines are still good. I don't need to mention that AMD will bring the situation back on par with their next core due out soon, and that Intel will remove the FSB in some future products.
2) FB-DIMMs are also an issue. Yet Another Intel Memory Messup.
3) Mac OS X might also have issues scaling nicely to 8 cores. It's not so hot with massive threading either (as per AnandTech's tests) but it shouldn't be an issue at this level.
4) Of course the application support for 8 cores is the major issue, but can't fix the above issues once done.
Apple are only a factor in one of the above list, given that they're using Intel for the processors exclusively. There's probably not a lot they can do here though.
(*) you can use specialist chipsets instead of Intel's standard chipsets to improve the situation a lot however. Of course these would increase the cost vastly, and probably not be suited for a workstation.
Obviously you never run 3d programs... run a Global Illumination and 4x Anti-Aliasing render in cinema 4d and you'll change your tune.
Also, perhaps you never work with horrid deadlines? Try compressing mpeg2, rendering in after effects, and manipulating massive photoshop files, all at once - yes, you need lots of RAM for this, but twice the processors would/should help massively as well, as long as the software, the rest of the hardware, and the OS can utilize them.
I use all my processors!
People are saying that no one uses all of their cores/processors, well I do! Maybe it won't happen today, but soon it will happen. Invariably EVERY computer that I've ever touched that was new I thought, "I'll never be able to max it out", and then shortly after... I do.
I remember lucidly having a conversation with a friend over the Alpha x86 500mhz processors years ago. This was when most people were using 486's on average, and a Pentium 90 was considered top of the line. We both had a long history in computers, and he is a very smart guy. I thought, "Wow, that's so cool that they wer getting that fast!", and his thoughts were, "WTF would you use that for? Windows and *nix flies on a 90mhz processor! The average person will NEVER need that".
Well, each of us now carry around Treos which I think have more processing power than our desktops back then, and we have long passed maxing out 500mhz processors.
What I do like about these systems is that (with limitations) they come closer to "longer lasting" computers that are more future proof. Nothing is future proof mind you, but my G4 MDD on my desk (which almost ALWAYS has it's processors pegged when using Logic Pro or Aperture) is over 4 years old now. I'm guessing that the 8-core systems will last about 5 years perhaps in some environments. Not bad IMHO for a computer.
I think that in the future we will be able to take more and more advantage of multiple cores, and the systems will seem faster as we use the cores more effeciently. Kinda like how they were able to make prettier/more complex games for the PS2 as the years went on. Same hardware, better programming.
I'm going to purchase a 4-core machine soon, and just load it up with memory however, and I think the economics at the moment do show it to be a better idea for what I do. If I were doing research, 3d rendering, etc... I would go for the 8-core.
People need to stop assuming that the technically fastest product on the market will the be best for their needs, just because they consider their needs "pro" or "heavy use". A Ford Mustang with a 1500hp blower on it, doesn't make it the best car for every use. A 400hp BMW might smoke it in many/some uses.
Get the product you NEED, not the product that you want to need.
People are saying that no one uses all of their cores/processors, well I do! Maybe it won't happen today, but soon it will happen. Invariably EVERY computer that I've ever touched that was new I thought, "I'll never be able to max it out", and then shortly after... I do.
I remember lucidly having a conversation with a friend over the Alpha x86 500mhz processors years ago. This was when most people were using 486's on average, and a Pentium 90 was considered top of the line. We both had a long history in computers, and he is a very smart guy. I thought, "Wow, that's so cool that they wer getting that fast!", and his thoughts were, "WTF would you use that for? Windows and *nix flies on a 90mhz processor! The average person will NEVER need that".
Well, each of us now carry around Treos which I think have more processing power than our desktops back then, and we have long passed maxing out 500mhz processors.
What I do like about these systems is that (with limitations) they come closer to "longer lasting" computers that are more future proof. Nothing is future proof mind you, but my G4 MDD on my desk (which almost ALWAYS has it's processors pegged when using Logic Pro or Aperture) is over 4 years old now. I'm guessing that the 8-core systems will last about 5 years perhaps in some environments. Not bad IMHO for a computer.
I think that in the future we will be able to take more and more advantage of multiple cores, and the systems will seem faster as we use the cores more effeciently. Kinda like how they were able to make prettier/more complex games for the PS2 as the years went on. Same hardware, better programming.
I'm going to purchase a 4-core machine soon, and just load it up with memory however, and I think the economics at the moment do show it to be a better idea for what I do. If I were doing research, 3d rendering, etc... I would go for the 8-core.
People need to stop assuming that the technically fastest product on the market will the be best for their needs, just because they consider their needs "pro" or "heavy use". A Ford Mustang with a 1500hp blower on it, doesn't make it the best car for every use. A 400hp BMW might smoke it in many/some uses.
Get the product you NEED, not the product that you want to need.
guzhogi
macrumors 68040
What does AMD use instead of a FSB? I don't follow AMD that much.
I know. Just curious to see how much a bottleneck the OS and other software is, you know?
Something else I'd like to see is how fast OS 7 would be if they made it run on a Mac Pro. I kinda miss the days of OS 7. The games & simplicity of the OS itself. I know, not many features, but I liked how the only thing you needed to boot up the computer was the Finder and System suitcase in the same folder at the root of your hard drive. W/ Mac OS X, you need 1000s of files all over the place. Oh well.
SMM
macrumors 65816
Multimedia
macrumors 603
8 Core Is FCS 2 Ready But Not As Multi-Threaded Ready As Stoakley-Seaburg-Penryn
I know some here like to accuse me of always telling people to wait for the next big thing - not really true. I think if I was a big money making FCS shop that can use all the improvements in FCS2 right now, buying at least one 8 core MP makes sense. The issue of waiting or not for the Penryn SS 8 core is really individualistic according to your circumstances. One fellow here was in a situation where he was being offered one by his employer for all but free. I'm in a simular situation but i don't want to squander the opportunity without getting the model I've had in my mind's eye since almost a year ago or at least since November when I first read that SS article.
Perhaps. But one of the biggest missing elements for optimum 8 core performance among multi-threaded workflows is a 2007 Stoakley-Seaburg (SS) motherboard. Without those memory and core management chips, a lot of efficiencies are being wasted. The new Compressor 3 in FCS2 does use all 8 cores very efficiently which is great. But I still can't see buying the 8 core MP until it has the SS motherboard so at least when Leopard finally ships in SIX (6) more months 😱 I'll know it can do the best possible job that 8 cores can do for a group of applications running together - not just one. At this point I think I may even decide to wait for Penryn on that SS motherboard. So I've got a lot of patience.
I know some here like to accuse me of always telling people to wait for the next big thing - not really true. I think if I was a big money making FCS shop that can use all the improvements in FCS2 right now, buying at least one 8 core MP makes sense. The issue of waiting or not for the Penryn SS 8 core is really individualistic according to your circumstances. One fellow here was in a situation where he was being offered one by his employer for all but free. I'm in a simular situation but i don't want to squander the opportunity without getting the model I've had in my mind's eye since almost a year ago or at least since November when I first read that SS article.
Normally I wouldn't wait for hardware, but I think the Leopard delay is a good excuse to wait on buying a new mac (unless you absolutely need one right now).
AMD use Coherent Hypertransport (marketing name: Direct Connect) between the CPUs in their systems, and an on-CPU memory controller (dual-channel DDR2). Direct Connect is 8GBps per link currently, going up to 20GBps later this year. Registered DDR2 is available at 667MHz, maybe 800MHz now, so that's 10-12GB/s per CPU (theoretically).
That means in a 4 CPU (8 core) system you have 8 DDR2 memory controllers, which provides a boat-load of bandwidth. With Barcelona in a couple of months you'll have a 2 CPU (8 core) system with 4 DDR2 memory controllers, so not as good, but more compact (and better than accessing memory over the FSB).
Assuming the latter, and ignoring coherency traffic for an 8 core system:
AMD Barcelona: 21 - 25 GBps memory = 2.6 - 3.2 GBps per core.
Intel: 2x1333MHz FSB = 20 GBps memory = 2.6 GBps per core.
(note however that coherency traffic will be *very* significant on an 8-core system)
Intel make up for it with good prefetchers in their cores, but these are less effective with more cores, and a high amount of cache. Barcelona has better prefetchers however, and larger cache, so it's probably a wash in the end. So AMD's greater memory bandwidth per core is what seals the deal.