12 Core Mac Pro vs New MacBook Pro w/ Retina

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by JayJayAbels, Aug 11, 2012.

  1. JayJayAbels, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012

    JayJayAbels macrumors 6502

    JayJayAbels

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    #1
    I just stumbled across this rather recent video where these two fellas run some fairly basic "real world" tests comparing a Mid-2010 12 Core MacPro versus the new 2012 MacBook Pro w/Retina display.

    Not sure how some of the animation pros will feel about this comparison as it is fairly simple but I think I found it pretty compelling.

    I think there is both positives and negatives - depending on how you look at it - to gain from this comparison.

    What do you guys think?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2pm7Vk0tqM


    ^ Link above.
     
  2. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #2
    Take a look at some of these. The tests shown aren't all that definitive. On graphics I don't even believe them, but it should be noted that the 5870 is a very dated option to offer for a new workstation class machine. It is 2 generations old at this point. The Mac Pro itself is a generation out of date, although the consumer lines leverage against it somewhat by being two generations ahead. In that video they did note utilization issues. I didn't take note of the specs, but some of those applications should be able to really take advantage of it if tuned properly. The rMBP is a nice step up, but it should be noted that the 2011 mode was a much greater leap on the cpu end. It brought a much greater speed increase at the time when quad cpus became available in the macbook pros.
     
  3. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #3
    Nifty and nice production value and accents. Problem is they don't understand things like SSD speeds SATAII vs SATAIII 3rd party SSD vs Apples ancient graphs and what SSD they sell you. Any SSD will wipe the floor in booting as it has .5 ms seek times vs. any mechanical RAID set. Just because you can get sequential reads close to same bandwidth an HDD only can get around 2MB/s 4K r/w. An SSD can get up to 90MB/s. They use Cinebench to tell you that the GPU's are similar (Cinebench is lousy at that and a 5770 will test as fast as a GTX 680 or 7970) A 5870 is twice as fast as the 650 in the MBP. I loved how they said the Mac Pro processors are not being used because they are older and not optimized for new software:eek: So all in all a very slanted review. Tells users very little for "real world".
     
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    When it comes to everyday tasks, you will not see a difference between both. Obviously, everyday tasks are just that. Nothing special.

    As far as booting on SSD vs RAID, then it is obvious the SSD will always be faster. Moving part HDDs always are slow. Moreover, you need multiple of HDDs in RAID 0 (which is dangerous for data integrity) to achieve a good speed. Add to that the fact that the Mac Pro is still SATA II speeds vs the retina SATA III speeds (double).

    As far as graphics is concerned, the retina won't hold its ground against games due to its already over tasked crap of a GPU. However, the HD5870 is two generations old and should not even be offered anymore. However, you can go for a GTX680 now on the Mac Pro.
     
  5. bernuli macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    #5
    I stopped watching that video when they compared boot times between a SSD machine and one with a standard hard drive.

    In a related story, my 2001 tiBook boots in half the time that 2008 MacBook Pro. Guess I'd better put up a vid.






     
  6. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #6
    To be fair, they said RAID HDD... still your argument holds validity.
     
  7. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #7
    So what about it's age. Does not matter when it has 2x the pixel fill rate and bandwidth. It also depends on what you are doing. Like if something requires CUDA obviously you want the Nvidia regardless. But if we are talking pure horsepower...

    650m = 2150
    5870 = 4410
    http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+650M/review
     
  8. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #8
    Raw bandwidth and pixel fill rate are meaningless numbers. There are other factors that go along with it as well. Those factors are the ones telling us, the HD5870, although a good card, is past its limit as being offered as premium product.
     
  9. scottsjack macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #9
    I'm sorry but every time I read one of these "Mac Pro or MacBook Pro" threads I have to laugh. I mean really, it's a sign of not really knowing what you want.

    You can see this kind of ill thought out indecision elsewhere too. Consider the question "should I get a Canon T4i/650D or a 5D Mark III. That would be a question from someone who has very little idea what he wants.

    To compare a MP vs a MBP is like comparing a Mercedes-Benz SLK to a GL. They're just not made for the same use. If a user's needs are met by a MBP then a MP should not even be a consideration. Similarly if a MP is needed then a MBP would be far less than useful.

    Because of what I use my computer for I wouldn't trade my 2010 MP for any current Mac other than another MP. How about a fully factory optioned, top of the line 27in iMac? Not a chance even though it's faster and has has joined the modern world with SATA 3 and USB 3. An iMac, as great as they are, will not do the job I need done.

    I recommend that you take a look at why you really want a computer and what you really want if for.
     
  10. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #10
    No one is saying it is "premium product" anymore. It just happens to still be twice as fast at a majority of graphic applications and OpenCL than a 650m. Barring the need to have ONLY Nvidia tech involved (Mercury engine in Premier) Futuremark is not really meaningless numbers. Please enlighten these "other factors" that have not been touched on yet (No CUDA examples).
     
  11. GoreVidal, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012

    GoreVidal macrumors 6502a

    GoreVidal

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    #11
    The Mac Pro will wipe the floor with the MacBook Pro with apps like After Effects, Cinema4D, and anything else that is multi-core aware.

    Also seems the Mac Pro graphics are holding their own against the RMBP after all:

    http://www.barefeats.com/gam12.html
     
  12. Melbourne Park, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012

    Melbourne Park macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    #12
    Did they compare battery life?

    I think the Retina would also have wiped the floor over the Mac Pro on that score too .... ;)


    And where was the Business Class In Plane Convenience Test ?? ...


    And I'd have like to see how the Mac Pro performed under the well accepted test: the Carry-On Conveyor Belt's X-Ray Screen Examination ...
     
  13. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #13
    to be really fair the single worse problem of a 2010 mac pro is the official top of the line video card is the 5870.


    If you could use a msi r7950 or gtx 680 plug n play .

    the mac pro would be okay.

    The second issue is the sata II back plane.

    Since you can drop in a plug n play pcie card that boots like this one.


    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDPHW2R480/

    would you really hate the 2010 hex core if you have that pcie booting trouble free with a msi hd7950 video card?

    Put in 3x 16gb rams sticks and it will kick a$$.. It would also cost $$$ lets see 3000 at the apple store then 350 for the video card and 750 for the pcie ssd that comes to 4100 then add 400 for the 32gb ram and you are at 4500.

    Nice machine is it worth 4500 well maybe more like 3500 or 3000.
     
  14. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #14
    They should compare working times for two people sitting at the computer doing something for 8 hours... which do you thing would win? The one on the MacPro would probably be on a wooden stool while the MacBook guy would be on a padded, full-back, reclining chair in an a/c'd room.
     
  15. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #15
    This actually surprised you:rolleyes:? I posted the generic barefeats link before as they have a number of comparisons, but that this was a troll review (the review, not the OP) should have been obvious to anyone. Is boot time really that crucial of a factor for this machine class? Is anyone really going to buy it on that basis? I'm calling troll tests on the others. If those cores are fed it's capable of wiping the floor with the notebook.

    Beyond that no one will be weighing the rMBP against the 12 core mac pro unless they don't understand their own computing requirements.

    That was so silly, but even taken without the sarcasm/joking nature, your points carry as much validity as that review:p.
     
  16. GoreVidal macrumors 6502a

    GoreVidal

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    #16
    Well I posted a specific link whereas you posted a generic one. Just trying to support the pro argument. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    Yar... well barefeats had a number of similar articles that involved both machines. Overall I kind of dismissed the thing as a troll review. Anyone considering a purchase as expensive as either solution that was specced out in the review should really have a thorough understanding of their needs prior to making a purchase.
     
  18. linuxcooldude, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012

    linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #18
    Heres a comparison between a 2010 Mac Pro 12 core & a MacBook Pro quadcore i7:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF0PXGJBFDQ

    No comparison. Even if its a slightly older Mac Pro and a new MacBook Pro.

    Edit: Looked it up and seems the MacBook Pro is only a 2 core processor.
     
  19. JayJayAbels thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayJayAbels

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    #19
    ^ Well then it should come as a shock to you that I want... neither. I'm picking up the new iMac when it arrives this fall.

    I just found the video interesting and felt like sharing it is all.

    ----------

    Okay so ahhh... never expected to create a flamefest between users of each product. They're both incredible in their own ways.

    I just think this video demonstrates how powerful the Macbook Pro really is for a laptop.

    Obviously a 12x Core MacPro is by far the superior machine when it comes to applications that utilize those cores... it's beastly. But it was a bit surprising to see MacBook Pro hold its own in a few of the applications too.

    If you are a Pro... and you need mobility... the Macbook Pro's a great option to have.

    ----------

    Intel Core i7-3615QM quad-core processor (2.3GHz up to 3.3GHz Turbo Boost, 6MB cache, 45W TDP)
     
  20. derbothaus, Aug 12, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2012

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #20
    You should have known what to expect. You asked for opinion and "thoughts". My thoughts are that it is a review from people that should tell their viewers the truth It isn't very hard if you understand what you are reviewing which they don't. The Mac Pro is not very amazing if you ask me it is a sum of it's parts in a cool and clean case from sourced parts. I'll sum it up albeit very anti climatic for the marketers.
    "For most general use with standard muti-processor aware apps and regular single core aware use the rMBP is a great bet as it is faster than anything before it and is a suitable desktop replacement if you need a desktop replacement. However, if your work is specific or you have apps that can fully utilize multi threaded applications it is no match for a Mac Pro under heavy load. The noise, heat, GPU, and processing power are not even close." I own both products power wise. 6-core Mac Pro w3680 and 2.6GHz 2012 Macbook pro i7-3720QM.
     
  21. tony3d macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #21
    I had to laugh at the 3d rendering test. No reflection, no transparency, no refraction, single light source. My iPad could render that fast. You kick on those features, and say goodbye to the MBP!
     
  22. JayJayAbels thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayJayAbels

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    #22
    Not. That. Serious. Slow. Down.
     
  23. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #23
    Sorry. Drunk.
     
  24. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #24

    Must-not-do-floating-point-math-so-as-to-achieve-desired results......:rolleyes:.

    Still drunk from the prior evening?

    On another note, how do you like this yellow font:D?
     
  25. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #25
    No. Just ashamed:eek:
    Thanks for helping me puke it out with that font color. Blech!
     

Share This Page