6-core 3.33 benchmarks really dissapointing

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by the editor, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. the editor macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    #1
    If you look at some benchmarks from the 6-core 3.33 in comparison with the 8-core 2.4, i'd say the 6-core is really disappointing isn't it?

    stements on this forum (before benchmarks were released) said that the 6-core would smoke the 8-core, run circles around it...put the 8-core to shame...etc

    i really don't see anything of the above to be true...on the contrary i'm starting to lean more towards the fact that the 8-core is a way better machine specially since you could just put in two 6-cores in the future.

    how do you guys feel about the 6 or 8 core now that we have some benchmarks, does the 6-core live up to the hype/dissapointing performance.. or is the 8-core faster than everyone thought it would be.


    http://www.barefeats.com/wst10.html
     
  2. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #2
    The benchmarks are "synthetic" in that it's showing the scores if ALL cores are being used 100% of the time. Since hardly any programs do so, the hexacore, with it's much greater higher clock speed, will be much faster in "real world use" with apps that everyone uses.

    Not to say that the results are flawed, this kind of shows exactly what people were saying . . . Considering they are about the same price, the hexacore will be much much faster in everday tasks, and even in multi core tasks. The only advantage to the Octo is that you have more ram slots, and someday you can upgrade the CPU if you want. Otherwise, as diglloyd says, the hexacore will be the best option for 90% of users, and never will he recommend the base octo over the hexacore.
     
  3. allupons macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    #3
    The benchmarks you are looking at are pushing the computers to their theoretical max, and just as expected the 6 core mac pro is besting the 8 core even at their theoretical maximum. In the real world though, you can expect the much higher clock speed of the 6 core to absolutely wreck the much slower clock speed of the 8 core for most any application you would ever use.
     
  4. Weepul macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #4
    To back up sboerup's point, compare the marks for single-threaded and multi-threaded performance for the 6-core and 8-core using Geekbench. Multi-threaded performance is very close; single-threaded performance is 30-40% higher with the 6-core.

    Bear in mind that the 8-core system can use more RAM and can be upgraded to a larger amount more cheaply.
     
  5. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    This is true, but benchmarks are false

    The thing is that 90% of all applications cant take advantage of multicore cpus. Now things are moving on, alot support 2-3 cores but not efficiently. So applications will be better off from a high clock speed rather than multiple cores.

    Benchmark software runs algorithms which test the cpus at 100% in a multicore situation hence the results, but put the 2.4 8 core vs 3.33 6 core in a photoshop test the 6 core will win by quite a margin. For now the 6 core is faster, and by the time programs can efficiently make use of all processors you will be ready for a new machine.

    In real world conditions the 6 core is faster, but depending on what software you are using the 8 core could be faster but there is only about 2-3% of software, which is very specific that it will be faster. So the 6 core is better for 97% of computing at the moment unless you are one of the people using very specific software.

    Look at these....

    http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere.html

    http://www.barefeats.com/wst10.html
     
  6. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #6
    I don't think those are disappointing at all. When you look at theoretical maximum performance, they are about the same, and that's consistent with the synthetic benchmarks.

    When you look at benchmarks of real world apps, the 6 has more of an advantage. With apps that aren't optimized for multiple cores well (or at all), the 6 has a major advantage. All in all, the 6 seems to be priced pretty appropriately compared to the 8, the only bummer is only 4 memory slots.
     
  7. beto2k7 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Location:
    ::1
    #7
    the good thing about having a mac pro with more cores is that you can always disable them using the processor preference pane included with xcode tools in case you want to run things more efficiently until apps become more core-aware. You know... future proof.
     
  8. allupons macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    #8
    This would be true if the 8 core 2.4 mac pro was faster under ideal conditions. However, the 6 core is faster both in real world application AND in synthetic benchmarks. It is simply a faster machine both now and in the future. Now the 12 core machines would certainly be faster in the future if all cores were utilized to their maximum, but by that time you will likely want to upgrade again to the 50 core machine etc...
     
  9. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #9
    The 6-core is faster in every regard, not just right now, but even in the future and for multi-core aware apps.
     
  10. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #10

    Both.

    The 6-core has the advantage in everything but memory capacity/bandwidth. It will never be slower than the 8-core in terms of processing (except in very specific scenarios). And for the near future will be faster for most tasks.

    Choice supportive bias means I will say the 8-core is better than most people think it is. It's really not a "dud" by any means (as diglloyd puts it). But it's the most niche of all the Pros at the moment. You have to know why you want one to buy it.

    As the years go on, we'll likely see a practical evening out of speeds between the two. But if you need raw horsepower now, the extra $$ is justifiable.
     

Share This Page