8-Core (Clovertown) Mac Pro Benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    Intel officially introduced its family of quad-core processors on Tuesday. The new processors include the Xeon 5300 (Clovertown) and Core 2 Extreme (Kentsfield) models.

    The quad-core Xeon 5300 (Clowertown) represents a pin-compatible replacement for the current dual-core Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest) processors that currently reside in the Mac Pro. This possibility was previously demonstrated by AnandTech when they successfully dropped Clovertown samples into the current Mac Pro. No benchmarks were available at that time, but CNet has now posted benchmarks of this same configuration:

    Benchmarks compared 3.0GHz 4-core Mac Pros (Woodcrest) vs 2.66GHz 8-core Mac Pros (Clovertown) and showed a 31% improvement in highly multithreaded benchmarks such as Cinebench. iTunes and Quake saw much less improvements. Their conclusion was that "unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."

    Apple had been rumored to be introducing 8-Core Mac Pros as early as this month.
     
  2. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #2
    8-Core Mac Pro! :eek:

    ***drool*** :D :cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  3. macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #3
    Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #4
    They say that the changes in speed aren't going to effect most people because the programs aren't written for multiple cores. Do you think that we are going to see more consumer apps optimized for multiple processors, or do you think that it just isn't needed?

    P-Worm
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #5
    How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?













    (joking)
     
  6. macrumors regular

    andrew050703

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Location:
    Portsmouth, U.K
    #6
    yup, and my webpages will load in the blink of an eye... definitely worth whatever apple will charge. ;)

    seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
     
  7. macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #7
    They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.

    They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.


    Next Tuesday...
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    speakerwizard

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #8
    well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    jholzner

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Champaign, IL
    #9
    I noticed that too. Wonder how Vista will do. XP is 5 years old while Apple has had multiple OS updates since then which were probably optimized for this sort of thing.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    paeza

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    #10
    So funny
     
  11. Guest

    shecky

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    #11
    [incredibly naive question]

    is there any way to tell what software is multithreaded and will take advantage of the quad cores? (on the tech specs, etc...)

    [/incredibly naive question]
     
  12. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #12
    Oh good! :D

    ***gets credit card ready***

    I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).

    One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.

    If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Location:
    NEK
    #14
    The heck with the MacBook Pro.....how about the Mac MINI!!!
    :p ;) :D
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Bonte

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    #15
    I'd love to see these test done in Vista, slower than XP i suspect. :cool:
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    #16
    Perhaps this would allow me to play a large map on Civ4 without the terrible huge long pauses...
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern Ontario
    #17
    Parallelizable

    That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.

    The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.

    On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.

    Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.

    So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.

    Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
     
  18. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #18

    Maybe, although the lag in Civ IV may have more to do with the program itself, rather than the hardware (depending on what type of Mac you are using). :)
     
  19. SMM
    macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #19
    How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
     
  20. macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #20
    This is very cool, however I think the article says it all:

    "unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."

    Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
     
  21. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  22. macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #22
    It depends whether Civ IV was coded to take advantage of multiple cores or not. If it is indeed a multi-threaded app, then fine, it could probably share the load across all 8 cores, however this may not be the case as the app may not be able to to take advanatge of all 8 cores. Not sure, guess you'd need to test it out...
     
  23. macrumors regular

    jwa276

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #23
    If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:

    Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.

    Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.

    I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
     
  24. macrumors 601

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #24
    I wonder how Handbrake, iDVD encoding, or Quicktime encoding will take advantage of the extra cores?
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    #25
    The negative for me is the tiny caveat at the bottom of the article. Apple releasing 8-core Mac Pros this month? Highly doubtful, in my opinion.

    Also, negative sometimes just means you don't believe it (as in this case) not that it's a "negative" announcement.
     

Share This Page