New 2.66 vs. 3.0 Mac Pro benchmarks

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by MovieCutter, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    Well, barefeats.com updated their benchmarks to include gaming, and it appears that the 3.0 Ghz mac pro isn't that much fast than the 2.66 at all, especially in games...certainly not worth the $800.

    http://barefeats.com/quad10.html
     
  2. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #2
    Cool link MovieCutter- I thought that there would be a larger difference between the 3GHz Mac Pro and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro when gaming. :) Seems to make sense just to stick with the stock Mac Pro and upgrade the graphics card if you plan on using your Mac Pro for gaming.
     
  3. stevo86 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    #3
    good lord, the stock Mac Pro performed like a peice of garbage! seems i'll have to order myself up a X1900 pretty much right away! :eek:
     
  4. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #4
    .. but it's something we 'all' assumed, since games are generally harder on gfx cards and that's the weakest part of the 'stock' Mac Pro?

    Will be more interesting to see the results once they test the X1900XT

    (" We fully expect the Radeon X1900 XT to give the Mac Pro the edge once it arrives in our lab")
     
  5. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #5

    Not so sure that I would call it's performance "garbage" with the stock video card, but I would agree that anyone looking to do any serious gaming should upgrade the Mac Pro to the Radeon X1900 XT. :)
     
  6. macgeek2005 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    #6
    I was surprised at the results of the stock Mac Pro. Pleasantly surprised. Quake 4 at high quality is not something easy to do, and it got well over 20 fps on that.

    The X1900XT should kick the 7800GT in the ass.
     
  7. Lollypop macrumors 6502a

    Lollypop

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #7
    Im not really surprised by the results, games are GPU intense, not CPU... Also hate to say it, but I think serious games will rather have a dedicated game console... or a PC :eek: :eek: Still sad that the stock card isnt a decent card and that the only decent option costs a arm and a leg. :(
     
  8. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #8

    And that you have to wait for an eternity before it ships with the ATI Radeon X1900 XT.... :rolleyes:
     
  9. glassbathroom macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #9
    Is the small difference maybe because the graphics card is holding both of them back a great deal. Maybe we will see a greater difference between the 2.66 and the 3.0 when they run with the X1900XT.
     
  10. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #10

    Possibly, the results could have been skewed due to the game being gpu bound. :)
     
  11. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a

    Clydefrog

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
    #11
    remeber the fastest component is has fast as your slowest, so the 7300GT is def holding the 3.0ghz back
     
  12. aiongiant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #12
    just got my MacPro 3ghz

    benchmarked it with Handbrake..converting an episode of the Office DVD to Quicktime H264
    G5 2ghz = 10fps
    Mac Pro 3Ghz = 50fps!! :eek:

    so sweet!
     
  13. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #13
    Geez the 7800 is 3 times faster than the 7300 in some of those games! Definately going to upgrade! :eek:
     
  14. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #14
    This is what we call "GPU-limited" in the gaming world. High-resolution + a high-end, GPU-demanding game. I doubt you'll see a difference between the 3Ghz and 2.66Ghz until you get to SLI or Crossfire setups...

    Oh wait, Macs have neither...yet?! :confused:
     
  15. MovieCutter thread starter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Understandable. So are we saying that with a card like the x1900/1950, it will allow more headroom for the 3.0Ghz Xeon to pull further ahead of the 2.66? Or are the two processors hitting the ceiling and the only thing that will increase performance from here on in is the GPU?
     

Share This Page