Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals

MacRumors · 06:26 PM

Compiled by Grimace

Since more of the new Mac Pros have been delivered, it seems some of the early benchmarks underestimated the 2.26GHz Mac Pro's performance in single threaded tasks. The latest numbers show that the new 2.26GHz 8-Core machines appear to have both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance equal to or better than the previous generation 2.8GHz 8-Core machines. Another set of benchmarks are also compiled in this graph by Tesselator.

Meanwhile, Engadget posted a nice video showing the internals of the Mac Pro including the new CPU and Memory drawer which can easily slide out of the chassis.

Article Link: Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals

darthraige · Mar 14, 2009, 05:57 PM

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

jayhawk11 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:00 PM

Isn't this how Judgement Day starts? The Mac Pro's become self aware?

fluidedge · Mar 14, 2009, 06:02 PM

I'm just staggered by the new breed of MPs. I've said it before, but what were Apple thinking!?

fiercetiger224 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthraige

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

Haha same here. Basically a 2.26 Ghz is equivalent to the last gen 2.8 Ghz Mac Pro. Maybe slightly faster here and there between the two. So it's a toss-up...Who says I wanna pay 500 bucks more for the newer one instead of the older one?

BRLawyer · Mar 14, 2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthraige

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

RAS admin · Mar 14, 2009, 06:16 PM

Now that's more like it.

dfs · Mar 14, 2009, 06:25 PM

What is most striking about these speed tests is what a large amount of computing power is largely going untapped in these computing monsters (in the Mac Pro, the performance gap between single-threading and multi-threading is getting greater all the time). We all hope that Snow Leopard will begin to turn this situation around. But the cynic in me wonders exactly how much difference Snow Leopard is really going to make. Multithreading seems largely a vision concocted by hardware manufacturers, I'm not sure how effective they are at evangelizing software developers. How many developers are going to show any eagerness to get aboard the multithreading train? I'm not holding my breath waiting for a multithreaded MS Office or Adobe CS suite. The result may be that, the better the Mac Pro gets at handling multithreading, the more of a niche product it becomes (gaming, of course, may be a different issue altogether).

AidenShaw · Mar 14, 2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world....

For the next week or two, that is....

fabian9 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:30 PM

wow those heat exchangers are massive! I'm surprised they're passive though, but I haven't looked at any new desktop internals in 2-3 years now so have these been around for long? Less fans = less noise = good stuff.

TheThirdMan · Mar 14, 2009, 06:31 PM

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

DoFoT9 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:33 PM

quite impressive, was hoping for a bit more but you cant really complain i guess...

BRLawyer · Mar 14, 2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheThirdMan

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

And since when the 2008 entry level was 8-core? There has always been a 4-core option...check your facts before posting, please.

BTW · Mar 14, 2009, 06:34 PM

The video of opening the Mac Pro was pretty neat. I love that the system board with the memory and processors can slide out easy. Man those were some big heat sinks.

There's an abundance of space in a Mac Pro. One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4.

Overall its still a good system. Just desire a smaller brother of a system (not Mac Mini).

Doc69 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:35 PM

It doesn't make any sense for Apple to release a new Mac Pro model that has the same speed as last years model and is almost 20% more expensive. Because of that, there has to be plenty of advantages with the Nehalem processor that will make it much faster than the previous model when Snow Leopard is out and when other software is updated to take advantage of the Nehalems.

For this reason I'll probably buy a 2.26 over the old 2.8, even if it's $500 more. But I'm as bummed out as anyone that the clock frequency of the core model is only 2.26. If it was 2.66, everyone would probably be very happy, even with the $500 increase. My expectations for the new Mac Pros were that the clock frequencies and price would stay the same, just a new and faster generation of processors. In other words, a 2.66GHz Nehalem Mac Pro for 2799. I guess Intel screwed this one up for Apple with the Nehalem pricing.

Tallest Skil · Mar 14, 2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTW

One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4.

For crying out loud, MAKE IT BIGGER.

Smaller? What, you want them to cut four more DIMM slots? Maybe take a PCIe slot or ODD out?

They couldn't even fit Tylersburg in the current case. It needs to be bigger.

Longey Nowze · Mar 14, 2009, 06:38 PM

Are the new mac pros cheaper turn by consuming less power?

DoFoT9 · Mar 14, 2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheThirdMan

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

it doesnt beat it...doesnt it???

twoodcc · Mar 14, 2009, 07:02 PM

well, i'm glad to see that the 2.26 version isn't as bad as we thought. i would love to have one (but my 1st gen mac pro is still working fine)

Lesser Evets · Mar 14, 2009, 07:08 PM

I don't edit major video or render 3D, or play hyped up games, so my old 2.66 is quite fast enough and should be for 4 more years...

... I still lust for the newest Octo-cores.

Tesselator · Mar 14, 2009, 07:09 PM

Thanks arn !!!

And Thanks for the video Engadget!!!

Both much appreciated!

mattcube64 · Mar 14, 2009, 07:12 PM

So, without any bias, what might I be better purchasing if I were to buy this week.

When it comes to the old 2x 2.8 "Octo" versus the new 1x 2.66 "Quad", which is better?

Which would you buy if they were the same price? And which would you buy if the 2.8 was a few hundred cheaper?

I really am curious, but everyone and everything says different.

rxse7en · Mar 14, 2009, 07:20 PM

My 2.66 Quaddie is three years old now and for the graphic design work I do it's still blazing. It's really the first Mac that I've owned that hasn't seemed to slow down over the years. I can't imagine the speed of this thing. Anyone else feel that with the advent of the Mac Pro that the Macs have extended their lifespans by at least two more years than they used to last?

quagmire · Mar 14, 2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

And since when the 2008 entry level was 8-core? There has always been a 4-core option...check your facts before posting, please.

In the last gen the stock MP had 8 cores standard. But, then the option to bump down to 4 cores as optional to make it cheaper.

Eidorian · Mar 14, 2009, 07:30 PM

Nice to see some more numbers on the new Mac Pro hardware.

Mar 14, 2009, 05:54 PM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals Compiled by Grimace Since more of the new Mac Pros have been delivered, it seems some of the early benchmarks underestimated the 2.26GHz Mac Pro's performance in single threaded tasks. The latest numbers show that the new 2.26GHz 8-Core machines appear to have both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance equal to or better than the previous generation 2.8GHz 8-Core machines. Another set of benchmarks are also compiled in this graph by Tesselator. Meanwhile, Engadget posted a nice video showing the internals of the Mac Pro including the new CPU and Memory drawer which can easily slide out of the chassis. Article Link: Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals Last edited by arn : Mar 14, 2009 at 06:26 PM.

Mar 14, 2009, 05:57 PM	#2
darthraige macrumors 65816 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Boston, MA	Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha __________________ MacPro 2 x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Harpertown" 6GB RAM, 4TB, 2600XT, 1 SuperDrive, 1 Blu-Ray Burner MacBook 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

Mar 14, 2009, 06:00 PM	#3
jayhawk11 macrumors regular Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Lawrence, KS	Isn't this how Judgement Day starts? The Mac Pro's become self aware? __________________ 15" MacBook Pro Classic, 2.2 GHz; 32 GB iPhone 3G S⃣ Rock Chalk Jayhawk, Go KU.

Mar 14, 2009, 06:16 PM	#7
RAS admin macrumors regular Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Berkshires, Mass.	Now that's more like it. __________________ www.SolarSystemStudio.com MacPro 3.2GHz., 30" Cinema Display, 15" MacBook Pro 2.8GHz., iPhone 3G S⃣ , iPod Nano 4GB

Mar 14, 2009, 06:25 PM	#8
dfs macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2008	Mac Pros What is most striking about these speed tests is what a large amount of computing power is largely going untapped in these computing monsters (in the Mac Pro, the performance gap between single-threading and multi-threading is getting greater all the time). We all hope that Snow Leopard will begin to turn this situation around. But the cynic in me wonders exactly how much difference Snow Leopard is really going to make. Multithreading seems largely a vision concocted by hardware manufacturers, I'm not sure how effective they are at evangelizing software developers. How many developers are going to show any eagerness to get aboard the multithreading train? I'm not holding my breath waiting for a multithreaded MS Office or Adobe CS suite. The result may be that, the better the Mac Pro gets at handling multithreading, the more of a niche product it becomes (gaming, of course, may be a different issue altogether).

Mar 14, 2009, 06:02 PM	#4
fluidedge macrumors 65816 Join Date: Nov 2007	I'm just staggered by the new breed of MPs. I've said it before, but what were Apple thinking!?

Mar 14, 2009, 06:30 PM	#10
fabian9 macrumors 6502 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Crawley, UK	wow those heat exchangers are massive! I'm surprised they're passive though, but I haven't looked at any new desktop internals in 2-3 years now so have these been around for long? Less fans = less noise = good stuff.

Mar 14, 2009, 06:31 PM	#11
TheThirdMan macrumors regular Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: London, UK	So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade?? __________________ Mac Pro:2xQuad 2.8ghz, 8gb Ram, 4tb, 8800gt, Airport Extreme Dell 2407wfp, Dell 2408wfp

Mar 14, 2009, 06:33 PM	#12
DoFoT9 macrumors 601 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: NSW, Australia	quite impressive, was hoping for a bit more but you cant really complain i guess... __________________ MBP CD2.16ghz, 500gb, 2GB Ram, X1600 OC'd, 19" iMac24" 2.8ghz 750gb 4gbram Hackintosh E4600 3GHz 10.5.4 8500GT MozyMac

Mar 14, 2009, 06:34 PM	#14
BTW macrumors 6502 Join Date: Mar 2007	The video of opening the Mac Pro was pretty neat. I love that the system board with the memory and processors can slide out easy. Man those were some big heat sinks. There's an abundance of space in a Mac Pro. One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4. Overall its still a good system. Just desire a smaller brother of a system (not Mac Mini). __________________ Tory Hagen Break the Wedge!

Mar 14, 2009, 06:35 PM	#15
Doc69 macrumors member Join Date: Dec 2005	It doesn't make any sense for Apple to release a new Mac Pro model that has the same speed as last years model and is almost 20% more expensive. Because of that, there has to be plenty of advantages with the Nehalem processor that will make it much faster than the previous model when Snow Leopard is out and when other software is updated to take advantage of the Nehalems. For this reason I'll probably buy a 2.26 over the old 2.8, even if it's $500 more. But I'm as bummed out as anyone that the clock frequency of the core model is only 2.26. If it was 2.66, everyone would probably be very happy, even with the $500 increase. My expectations for the new Mac Pros were that the clock frequencies and price would stay the same, just a new and faster generation of processors. In other words, a 2.66GHz Nehalem Mac Pro for 2799. I guess Intel screwed this one up for Apple with the Nehalem pricing.

Mar 14, 2009, 06:38 PM	#17
Longey Nowze macrumors regular Join Date: Apr 2001	Power Consumption Are the new mac pros cheaper turn by consuming less power?

Mar 14, 2009, 07:02 PM	#19
twoodcc macrumors 603 Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Right side of wrong	well, i'm glad to see that the 2.26 version isn't as bad as we thought. i would love to have one (but my 1st gen mac pro is still working fine) __________________ tville pump Smarter than the average bear

Mar 14, 2009, 07:08 PM	#20
Lesser Evets macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2006	I don't edit major video or render 3D, or play hyped up games, so my old 2.66 is quite fast enough and should be for 4 more years... ... I still lust for the newest Octo-cores. __________________ 2x2.66 Xeon, 13GB RAM, 4 1TB SATA, 30" & 20" C.Displays, X1900, OSX 10.5.6, Sound Sticks, iSight, 1 TB TimeMach, 16GB iPT 2G

Mar 14, 2009, 07:09 PM	#21
Tesselator macrumors 68030 Join Date: Jan 2008	Thanks arn !!! And Thanks for the video Engadget!!! Both much appreciated!

Mar 14, 2009, 07:12 PM	#22
mattcube64 macrumors 6502a Join Date: May 2006 Location: Missouri	So, without any bias, what might I be better purchasing if I were to buy this week. When it comes to the old 2x 2.8 "Octo" versus the new 1x 2.66 "Quad", which is better? Which would you buy if they were the same price? And which would you buy if the 2.8 was a few hundred cheaper? I really am curious, but everyone and everything says different. __________________ 24" iMac - 2.8Ghz C2D "Extreme Edition" - 2600HD - 4GB -500GB 15" MBP - 2.53Ghz C2D - 9600M - 4GB - 128GB SSD 16GB White iPhone 3GS

Mar 14, 2009, 07:20 PM	#23
rxse7en macrumors 6502 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Jacksonville, FL	Dayum My 2.66 Quaddie is three years old now and for the graphic design work I do it's still blazing. It's really the first Mac that I've owned that hasn't seemed to slow down over the years. I can't imagine the speed of this thing. Anyone else feel that with the advent of the Mac Pro that the Macs have extended their lifespans by at least two more years than they used to last? __________________ I like my computers without Windows and my cars without Pistons

Mar 14, 2009, 07:30 PM	#25
Eidorian macrumors G3 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Indiana	Nice to see some more numbers on the new Mac Pro hardware. __________________ MRoogle it! hikari T7500 2.2 GHz / 4 GB / 320 GB / GMA X3100 / 10.5.8 chobimaru Core i5 750 2.66 GHz / 4 GB / 640 GB / 4830 / Windows 7

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode