Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 24, 2012, 10:40 AM   #1
bernuli
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
speed comparison within current Pro lineup

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone who has access to a new mac pro with the dual processor configuration or 3.33GHz single recently could run a command for me.

The Apple Stores have in stock the single CPU 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon. So I am able to test that configuration. The following command completes in 29.6 seconds on the low end Mac Pro.

uptime; time perl -e 'for (0 .. 1000000000) {}'

I would love to see how long this takes on the other available configurations.


B
bernuli is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:03 PM   #2
derbothaus
macrumors 601
 
derbothaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
6-core 3.33GHz, 12GB Memory

1st run:
real 0m30.146s
user 0m30.115s
sys 0m0.022s

2nd run:
real 0m29.558s
user 0m29.552s
sys 0m0.004s

No amazing insight I can see. Single thread crank.
__________________
Mac Pro W3680, GTX 680, 12GB DDR3, SSD; MBP, 2.6GHz Core i7, 16GB DDR3, SSD; Eizo fs2333
derbothaus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:03 PM   #3
thepawn
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2009
On my 2009 2.66ghz Quad:

13:02 up 23 days, 10 hrs, 2 users, load averages: 0.42 0.38 0.31
real 0m37.728s
user 0m37.477s
sys 0m0.006s
Tron:~ daniel$
__________________
Machine Mac Pro '09 2.6Ghz
thepawn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 06:51 PM   #4
bernuli
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Not super amazing on its own.

But if you run 2 of these at the same time they should complete in the same amount of time. The store Mac Pro is a quad core and 4 at a time all complete in 30.38 seconds. When do 5 at a time, it slows to 37.07 seconds and down for there of course.

Could you do 5 at a time, then 6 then 7 for me? You can do multiple terminal windows or run the command with an & on the end so:

time perl -e 'for (0 .. 1000000000) {}'&

then press the up arrow and return 5 times quick


B
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbothaus View Post
6-core 3.33GHz, 12GB Memory

1st run:
real 0m30.146s
user 0m30.115s
sys 0m0.022s

2nd run:
real 0m29.558s
user 0m29.552s
sys 0m0.004s

No amazing insight I can see. Single thread crank.
bernuli is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 10:37 PM   #5
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
The following command completes in 29.6 seconds on the low end Mac Pro.

uptime; time perl -e 'for (0 .. 1000000000) {}'

I would love to see how long this takes on the other available configurations.
Not sure why. It is basically going to tell you what the clock speed is of the CPU. You can find that on a data sheet. All you are doing is loading a loop up inside of the L1 cache and executing it. The vast majority of normal apps execute outside of the L1/L2/l3 cache. That's where the Mac Pro is differentiated; I/O outside of memory.

The Mac Mini that turbos up to 3.6GHz is probably the best bang-for-the-buck for this benchmark.


If the perl optimizer had any brains it would take almost 0.00 ms since it doesn't do anything. The whole loop can be optimized away.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 10:56 PM   #6
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
Could you do 5 at a time, then 6 then 7 for me? You can do multiple terminal windows or run the command with an & on the end so:
5 at a time only expands it to a L2/L3 cache problem. Still just measuring clock rate.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 11:10 PM   #7
bernuli
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by deconstruct60 View Post
Not sure why. It is basically going to tell you what the clock speed is of the CPU. You can find that on a data sheet. All you are doing is loading a loop up inside of the L1 cache and executing it. The vast majority of normal apps execute outside of the L1/L2/l3 cache. That's where the Mac Pro is differentiated; I/O outside of memory.

The Mac Mini that turbos up to 3.6GHz is probably the best bang-for-the-buck for this benchmark.


If the perl optimizer had any brains it would take almost 0.00 ms since it doesn't do anything. The whole loop can be optimized away.
I am not sure that faster clock speed directly relates to faster time. Maybe I should look at the spec sheets, but there is lots of info in those sheets, and I am trying to get a real world speed comparison. Though you seem to be pointing out that this test is not exactly real world.


B
bernuli is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2012, 11:46 PM   #8
Sirobin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California
Send a message via AIM to Sirobin
This is on my 2012 12 core (2.66 Ghz) with 20 GB of RAM, all running at the same time.

Code:
real	0m32.695s
user	0m32.673s
sys	0m0.018s

real	0m32.751s
user	0m32.715s
sys	0m0.033s

real	0m32.679s
user	0m32.652s
sys	0m0.023s

real	0m32.684s
user	0m32.666s
sys	0m0.014s

real	0m32.754s
user	0m32.724s
sys	0m0.026s

real	0m32.666s
user	0m32.653s
sys	0m0.010s

real	0m32.744s
user	0m32.723s
sys	0m0.017s

real	0m32.714s
user	0m32.684s
sys	0m0.026s

real	0m32.730s
user	0m32.689s
sys	0m0.037s
__________________
Mac Pro, 2.66 Hexacore, 20 GB RAM, 6870, 256GB SSD
MBP, 2.5 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, HD 4000
iPhone 5 32 GB (Black)
Sirobin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:52 PM   #9
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
I am not sure that faster clock speed directly relates to faster time.
Since the core of your benchmark primarily consists of just doing an addition operation.

i := i + 1

it is basically going to be driven by how long it takes to do that "instruction" in Perl. There is some overhead in starting up the perl runtime (and shutting it down at the end ), but by in large your benchmark primarily just consists of that single expression. Adding a single variable to a single literal small number.

On most modern processors the addition instruction takes about one clock. The loop branching instructions you have wrapped around this expression will be just noise. The branch predictors will negate that impact by the 3rd-4th iteration of the loop. Since there is absolutely nothing inside the body of the loop the predictors will grab the calculation for the next iteration right away. So effectively the processor will sequentially execute the above expression.



Quote:
Maybe I should look at the spec sheets, but there is lots of info in those sheets,
It has very little to do with specs. It has much more do with understanding what the program does. Namely, nothing substantive. You are basically asking the processor to do 1st or 2nd grade simple math. That typically happens at approximately clock speed.

Last edited by deconstruct60; Dec 3, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:00 PM   #10
bernuli
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Wow, thanks for the response! So what you are saying is nothing happens in this loop, so the iteration is complete in no time. Then the program actually has to wait for the next clock cycle to do the next iteration? Makes sense.

The only thing I don't understand is my MBP, 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo does it in 48 seconds. My new mini is 2.3 GHz i5 and does it in 32 seconds.

So it is faster with a slower clock rate. Is that because of the turbo to 2.9 which the spec sheet (i5-2415M) talks about?

Thanks again for the explanation.


B


Quote:
Originally Posted by deconstruct60 View Post
Since the core of your benchmark primarily consists of just doing an addition operation.

i := i + 1

it is basically going to be driven by how long it takes to do that "instruction" in Perl. There is some overhead in starting up the perl runtime (and shutting it down at the end ), but by in large your benchmark primarily just consists of that single expression. Adding a single variable to a single literal small number.

On most modern processors the addition instruction takes about one clock. The loop branching instructions you have wrapped around this expression will be just noise. The branch predictors will negate that impact by the 3rd-4th iteration of the loop. Since there is absolutely nothing inside the body of the loop the predictors will grab the calculation for the next iteration right away. So effectively the processor will sequentially execute the above expression.





It has very little to do with specs. It has much more do with understanding what the program does. Namely, nothing substantive. You are basically asking the processor to do 1st or 2nd grade simple math. That typically happens at approximately clock speed.
bernuli is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 11:46 AM   #11
Concorde Rules
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
This is more relevant than your single line of code:

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2012/11/imac-215-late-2012-benchmarks/

The 6-core 3.33ghz is fastest for single thread, then the 12-cores are fastest for apps that can take advantage of so many cores.
Concorde Rules is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 11:59 AM   #12
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Here's mine
Attached Images
 
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 04:35 PM   #13
bernuli
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Here's mine
19 seconds? What is that on? Fastest I have seen is 25.55 on the new iMac 2.9 GHz Intel Core i5.


B
bernuli is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 04:37 PM   #14
All Taken
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
19 seconds? What is that on? Fastest I have seen is 25.55 on the new iMac 2.9 GHz Intel Core i5.


B
He's running a hackintosh.
All Taken is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:16 AM   #15
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
yes..

I'd guess close to 30 on my MP.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 09:13 AM   #16
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
.... My new mini is 2.3 GHz i5 and does it in 32 seconds.

So it is faster with a slower clock rate. Is that because of the turbo to 2.9 which the spec sheet (i5-2415M) talks about?
It is not a slower clock rate. Pragmatically with the current AMD/Intel offerings the 'base'/nominal clock rate is just an indication of normal lower bound when Turbo cannot be leveraged. It is not the speed at which will see on average. The CPU will operate over a range of frequencies between this lower and the "max" turbo speeds. The frequency can be automatically adjusted over 30 times during these 30s runs. There is no single clock rate it will run at. If you want a rough approximate estimate pick halfway between the two.

Intel and AMD don't spec an average speed because what the average is will highly depend upon your workload. Simplistic stuff like this benchmark would be closer to max than min.


If there are multiple micro-architecture generations then that will have a smaller impact too (faster memory ) in this narrow "do a trillion additions" context.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 09:53 AM   #17
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernuli View Post
19 seconds? What is that on? Fastest I have seen is 25.55 on the new iMac 2.9 GHz Intel Core i5.


B
It was the HMMWV
2700k@4.6
560Ti 448
32GB DDR3 1600
10.8.2
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:50 AM   #18
Lance-AR
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Little Rock, AR
Mid 2011 Mini i5 2.3Ghz
real 0m30.966s
user 0m30.851s
sys 0m0.070s
__________________
My reproduction oil paintings
Lance-AR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 02:46 PM   #19
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Here is the 8 core MP 1,1
Attached Images
 
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC