Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 14, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    Just days after Apple teased its upcoming radical redesign for the Mac Pro back in June, a Geekbench 2 result appeared to offer some data on just such a Mac Pro running a 12-core 2.7 GHz Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 processor, 64 GB of RAM, and a custom build of OS X Mavericks. Many observers were disappointed to see that the machine received a Geekbench 2 score of just under 24,000, only marginally higher than a top-end 2012 Mac Pro, a machine that was considered by many to be outdated from the day it was launched.

    Others had noted that prototype hardware, beta software, and a 32-bit Geekbench run were likely to have limited the performance seen in the benchmarks, with the final shipping version of the Mac Pro due for launch later this year perhaps seeing substantial improvements under a 64-bit version of Geekbench 2.

    Tom's Hardware has now gotten its hands on this exact processor expected to make its way into the Mac Pro and put it through rigorous testing in a Windows setup, subjecting the system to numerous benchmarking tools including the 64-bit version Geekbench 2. While the results do not provide an exact answer to how well the chip will benchmark in a Mac Pro, it does offer some perspective on what kind of performance might be possible.
    [​IMG]
    Strong performance in multi-threaded Blender 3D modeling benchmark
    The full set of testing benchmarks pitted the high-end 12-core Ivy Bridge-EP Xeon processor against a variety of Sandy Bridge and other Ivy Bridge chips, as well as a Core i7-4770K Haswell chip, finding that the Xeon E5-2697 V2 generally topped the performance charts in multi-threaded tests but was beaten in many single-threaded tests by the faster chips with fewer cores.

    [​IMG]
    Relatively poor performance in single-threaded iTunes benchmark
    As noted, the benchmark scores for the Xeon E5-2697 V2 generated from these tests won't necessarily translate exactly to a Mac Pro running OS X Mavericks, but they do provide some confidence that the redesigned Mac Pro will indeed be a significant improvement over its predecessor for the most demanding multi-threaded tasks.

    Article Link: Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #2
    Now if only Apple would put TWO of these in the new Mac Pro, instead of only offering a single socket configuration...
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    #3
    Glad to see that some upgrades will make it worth the years of waiting!
     
  4. brock2621, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    brock2621

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #4
    Hmm... And I just finished building my render machine with 2x 2687w xeons (16 cores) with 64gbs of ram and a GTX Titan.

    I feel like I should have waited a few months?
     
  5. macrumors G5

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Wow... impressive. Now, like others have said, can I get two?
     
  6. macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #6
    No one knows if there is only one configuration.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    phoenixsan

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #7
    If the new Mac Pro......

    actually can go 25-40% faster running Mac OS X in most tasks, that would be a good incentive toward an investment on one.

    Still, I would like to wait the initial wave and see how the real thing goes in the real world, productive enviroments and so on....


    :):apple:
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #8
    It's big...and it's black...IT'S THE NEW MAC PRO!

    EDIT: But it's not really "that" big...it's small and it's black :)
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #9
    I really want one; but I really don't need a 4th mortgage.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    yadmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Western Spiral
    #10
    Really curious to see the price points on the new MP.

    Also, hoping for a new display.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #11
    I really want one, but I can't figure out how I will fit four hard drives in the thing.
     
  12. macrumors G5

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #12
    Why are Mac fans excited about the performance of a Windows system?

    Especially when they know that there will be Windows systems with two of these chips - but Apples will have only one....
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    carbonrain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #13
    Keep in mind that the PCI-e SSD with also significantly boost performance!
     
  14. donutbagel, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    #14
    It's really annoying to have a really powerful Mac Pro bottlenecked when you press "open with..." on something and have to wait for an external hard drive to wake up while Finder hangs.

    Edit: I know that you can disable hard drive sleep but don't want to have them always awake, and I have already excluded them from Spotlight search.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    #15
    How were they able to run benchmarks on a computer that hasn't been released? Secondly, Mavericks is still in Beta, I would never rely on Beta benchmarks on hardware that wasn't released. Not to be weird, but I would wait until the final release.
     
  16. xnu
    macrumors regular

    xnu

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    #16
    It may turn out that it has been worth the wait... As with anything price is a huge factor... if the entry model, as i expect is $2500... very good... if they can find a way to give us a base model for $2000, revolutionary... if it is $3000 I am sticking with a Hackintosh. (I will still buy it, but i will be grumbling the whole time)

    I need to replace all my CAD stations... and I will not use iMacs... I really don't want to deal with trying to build and maintain Hacks.... I don't need huge drives on everyone.. I just need graphic and processor power.. and this looks like a great machine.
     
  17. donutbagel, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    #17
    I think the answer is obvious. That Windows machine's CPU will be in the new Mac Pro, there could actually be 2 instead of 1 for all we know.

    Edit: For some reason, strikethrough doesn't work as normal. Apple's site says up to 12 cores.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #18
    I am excited that the chip shows some sizable improvement over the Westmere...I am not excited about the "new" Mac Pro being a single-processor machine with no other options presented by Apple. Dual Processor power is one thing that made the high end Mac Pro so great....for power users that could afford it, you got a helluva machine. Now Apple appears to be offering us no more than a souped up headless iMac with a Xeon processor and a tricked out custom graphics card set, that appears to be soldered onto the board.

    The fact of zero internal expandability has me a bit perturbed about the thing...it's a MiniPro, not a Mac Pro. This is a power mini with better parts than a Mac Mini...a true Pro would have better internal expandability options and not require 20 cables coming out of the thing to get PCIe and hard disks.
     
  19. yadmonkey, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2013

    macrumors 65816

    yadmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Western Spiral
    #19
    There will be 1. The MP page on apple.com clearly says "configurations up to 12 cores".
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #20
    Why stop at 2? What if someone needs 4?
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    #21
    The reason i can see why Apple decided not to use 2 processors is that it generates a LOT more heat, requires a bigger power supply, more cooling, and that costs MONEY. The amount of speed increase in a MP version isn't 2x, plus they have to add more room for RAM, which requires MORE space, bigger Power Supply, more cooling, etc. and costs more. Most MP systems get a marginal speed improvement and the ROI just isn't that great. Most of the high end apps that are going to be used on these systems are more GPU intensive and you probably won't see that much improvement in having multiple CPUs.

    If Apple can get MP to the point where it's cost effective and enough people will see enough speed improvement, then maybe they'll do that, but MP for workstations in a lot of ways is not exactly getting the best ROI for what it costs for a marginal increase in speed if most apps don't even use MP.

    I think they are putting the expense into faster SSD, 2 GPUs instead. Again, I'm just speculating what Apple's decision making process of why they decided not to deploy MP.

    What applications are you using or plan on using that requires more CPU than GPU that would need a second CPU? I'm just curious.
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #22
    Maybe Apple will be realistic and price this headless iMac MiniPro with one SINGLE processor and NO Drive Bays, not PCIe slots, No Optical Drive...

    At the ridiculously low price of $1799!
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    #23
    It's too bad they will stuff this beast in a trash can.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    inscrewtable

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #24
    You can set external drives to not sleep in system prefs.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    #25
    Then you probably should get a Supercomputer and get a couple of hundred, why stop at 4.

    I think Apple knows what apps are going to be used on these systems the most and I think they are mostly GPU intensive or just adding more CPUs doesn't justify the added expense of requiring more space, more RAM, bigger power supply, more fans, etc. etc.

    I think they decided that the ROI on what it takes puts them back into having a big expensive tower that most people won't really need the second CPU.

    In order to run these MP Xeons with all of the extra stuff inside, they are now having to rely on MANY MANY fans, even water cooling and it just gets ridiculously expensive and the average user isn't going to want that.

    I think they decided to get rid of certain types of bottlenecks instead and wanted to make the box smaller rather than just being another HUGE box that costs too much to mfg, and requires so much cooling, that most people aren't going to want that.

    Just a hunch.

    I would think that users using CAD, Animation, Graphic arts apps, NLE, etc. type apps probably won't see much difference in 2 CPUs when they would see more difference in 2 GPUs.

    Pro Tools HD and HDX users don't really use the CPU, they use the cards themselves that they install and I'm sure having one 12 core processor handles a fully loaded down Pro Tools, Logic, native app where if you actually needed more CPU power, you'd be using HD and HDX cards instead.

    It will be interesting to see how much the processor is actually taxed when running most applications to their fullest load levels. I wonder if the CPU will ever max out. I'm sure it will be a rare occasion.

    Heck, I used an older iMac to do video conversion and would max out the CPU where I couldn't do anything. I was running multiple video conversions on a newer i5 with 16G of RAM and I'm barely taxing the CPU I have and it's just an i5. It will be interesting to see what apps doing what things will push the 12 core to the point where it's maxed out. I'm sure for those people, they should probably get a supercomputer and get something that has LOTS of processors because it's an app specifically for CPU crunching that's more supercomputing. I don't think Apple wants to play in that space since it's probably not a good ROI. That's why Apple kind of got out of those massive Supercomputer installs. Sometimes, it's best to let others spin their wheels in certain small niche markets for bragging rights.
     

Share This Page