6-Core Version of Apple's New Mac Pro Appears in Benchmarks

[ChrisA]

This 6 core is the model I'm interested in, with a score about 50% higher than my old 8 core MP it should provide a nice improvement. The huge improvement in single core performance is especially nice. And those aren't even 64 bit scores.



Unsurprisingly? Since the 6 core is 3.5 and the 8 is 3.0 (15% higher clock speed), shouldn't the 6 be a bit faster in the single core test? The 8 core does have a bit bigger cache but I would think the clock speed would generally make a bigger difference.

No. It's always memory bandwidth that matters the most. Clock speed is easier to understand so that is what advertisers use. But what matters is memory bandwidth

How to computer It? A simple answer for access time is (speed of cache)x(probability that what you want is in cache) + (speed of RAM)x(1-probability that what you want is in cache)

So you see the important number is (probability that what you want is in cache) and this depends on the size of the cache. The bigger it is the higher chance what you need is in it.

The one cases where speed is exactly proportional to clock speed is if all the data and code fits in the cache.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I'm a little underwhelmed by those numbers. Hopefully the 64 bit version of geekbench will yield better results.

Processors just aren't getting much faster and that's the path we are on for transistor based CPUs.

The future is parallel, and I think that's one of the reasons Apple went for dual GPUs instead of dual Xeons to fill the precious little space in the Mac Pro enclosure. They're betting on a GPGPU future for high performance computing.

Maybe somewhere in the next few generations they'll find a way to cram another Xeon in anyway.

 

[HurryKayne]

Please,replaceable Gpus.
Don't make this a Mini with steroids.

 

[gnasher729]

The MP quad core is also 3.7 as opposed to that chip at 3.5 so hopefully it will be faster even on the 32 bit. The 12 core is a 2.7 so that will bring down single core performance, we'll have to see to what degree once there are tests on GB 3 and of course 64 bit tests for all models.

It doesn't work like that.

The published GHz means "12 cores can run at 2.7GHz forever without overheating", and "4 cores can run at 3.7GHz forever without overheating". As heat goes up, the clock speed goes down. The 12 cores would produce 3 times more heat than 4 cores at the same clock speed.

But if you only use four cores on the 12 core machine, its four cores will run at the same 3.7GHz. Using six cores, it will run at the same slightly lower speed as the advertised number for a six core machine. _And_ with four cores running, you still have the massively bigger shared caches of the 12 core machine to give you more speed.

Since the 6 core is 3.5 and the 8 is 3.0 (15% higher clock speed), shouldn't the 6 be a bit faster in the single core test? The 8 core does have a bit bigger cache but I would think the clock speed would generally make a bigger difference.

See above. The clock speed isn't fixed, it depends on the number of cores that are in use right now. The fewer cores in use, the higher the clock speed. The advertised number is the one with all cores running.

 

[patent10021]

The writer accidentally the words.

How ironic. Isn't that calling the kettle?

 

[imageWIS]

Fixed

You win the internets!

 

[tevion5]

Everything can always be faster.

My 1986 Macintosh 512Ke running MacOS 6.0.8 boots in 5 seconds and types text files as fast as a 12 core Mac Pro

 

[milo]

Theoretically for the same single threaded workload both the 4-core and 6-core will peak at 3.9ghz. Very curious to see this myself, though.

Thanks for pointing that out, that makes sense. 8 core also peaks at 3.9 while the 12 peaks at 3.5 so I assume that one will have a bit lower single core score.

But if you only use four cores on the 12 core machine, its four cores will run at the same 3.7GHz.

Are you sure about that? Intel's specs say the 12 core maxes out at 3.5 for turbo mode.

 

[Unreal.Reality]

only 18309?

little disappointing score. when macbook Pro 15" scored over 13.000. so not that big of a difference.

 

[Larry-K]

Isn't that single-core performance a good deal below the new iMacs?

 

[DaveN]

Few people actually do only those things. If you use a computer for any kind of work at all, you always benefit from more horsepower, even if it's just faster application launch times.

"Pros" love to scoff at people who want to edit YouTube videos on a Mac Pro, as if saving several seconds on each render operation couldn't possibly be of any benefit to that person.

I get scoffed at for being "just a software developer", not a "real pro". The creatives really don't understand how bogged down a real enterprise development environment gets.

I'm not saying that the difference is worth it for those who ONLY do those processor intensive tasks but that it really is only worth it, at least when I am paying for it, if it significantly increases my productivity. As for launch times, the speed of your data drive is generally the limiting factor and you will get a much better bang for your buck by updating to a SSD drive from a hard disk drive.

In your case, if you get bogged down with what you have, by all means you are a candidate for an upgrade. If you are the receptionist, you really don't need such a high-powered system.

 

[rGiskard]

2k points higher than my 3.46 hex

That's comparing your 64 bit score to the new MP's 32 bit score.

Our 3.46 hexacores are almost 30% slower than this new beast. But I'm not in any hurry to give up my 8 drive bays: four 3.5" HDD, 1 ODD, and a custom 3 2.5" bay adapter for the lower ODD. I just don't see myself pouring thousands into Thunderbolt enclosures for a $3K computer.

 

[RoastingPig]

my 5.1 12 core will take this garbage can's school money

 

[derbothaus]

So I see the 12-core testing out slower than the 8-core.
8 = 24429
12 = 23901

2.7GHz vs. 3GHz would not make up that core deficiency with 300MHz. Seems like one of them is wrong.

 

[flottenheimer]

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.

 

[jetjaguar]

I might not get one and just go rmbp

 

[iMcLovin]

I wonder what a maxed out Mac Pro will cost. Will be interesting.
I would love the top model visible at apple.com now with 1tb ssd and 128gb ram and a brand new 4k cinema display. That would be the best xmas gift ever.

 

[robogobo]

You seem to have made a mistake
(not actually saying the MP's are expensive, just that it's a lot of money)

Have you seen what a top end coffee machine can run?

----------

my 5.1 12 core will take this garbage can's school money

My 1,1 doesn't go to school anymore. It's a dropout - a derelict. It'll be waiting in the back alley for you to pass by.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Impressive, but too fast for my needs

Impressive, but too expensive for my needs.


(Dear Apple, please add a discrete GPU option back to the Mini lineup. Thanks.)

 

[osx11]

How ironic. Isn't that calling the kettle?

I don't think understand the joke....

----------

Impressive, but too expensive for my needs.


(Dear Apple, please add a discrete GPU option back to the Mini lineup. Thanks.)

Are they just going to ignore the Mini this year?

 

[prowlmedia]

meh. For what 4000€?!

People seem shocked at the price of these things but a london taxi for example cost £30K and a hell of a lot more to run!

It's a just a tool to use. I imagine the 12 core maxed spec out with 1tb pcie-ssd onboard 64gb ram and best GPU is going to cost me near $8-10K - but it'll make it's money back for me in a few weeks.

Oh and they are tax deductible so essentially free over time anyway.

 

[guzhogi]

Processors just aren't getting much faster and that's the path we are on for transistor based CPUs.

The future is parallel, and I think that's one of the reasons Apple went for dual GPUs instead of dual Xeons to fill the precious little space in the Mac Pro enclosure. They're betting on a GPGPU future for high performance computing.

Maybe somewhere in the next few generations they'll find a way to cram another Xeon in anyway.

It's not just how many CPU cores you have& how fast they are, but it also depends on speed of memory (RAM & hard drives/SSDs). If the CPU can't read & write to the memory fast enough, doesn't matter how fast the CPU is.

 

[jamesryanbell]

How ironic. Isn't that calling the kettle?

you didn't get the joke.

 

[milo]

Isn't that single-core performance a good deal below the new iMacs?

Not for the 32 bit results. For single core performance there's not that much difference between the chips, particularly when the tests can ramp up to similar top turbo speeds. The high end chips and machines really are designed for software that is optimized to use all the cores.

my 5.1 12 core will take this garbage can's school money

Are we supposed to be surprised or impressed by a 12 core machine being faster than a six core? And how much did you pay for that machine?

So I see the 12-core testing out slower than the 8-core.
8 = 24429
12 = 23901

2.7GHz vs. 3GHz would not make up that core deficiency with 300MHz. Seems like one of them is wrong.

12 core result was on geekbench 2, not comparable.

 

[deconstruct60]

(Dear Apple, please add a discrete GPU option back to the Mini lineup. Thanks.)

With the moves with Intel Iris Pro, not going to happen. Effort far better spent on wishing/asking for lower priced Intel Iris Pro next iteration so that it can make it into the Mini line up.

Out of the the 2005-2012 run of Mac Minis (10 versions ) only the PPC (where there was no iGPU available at all ) and one sub-entry that had a dGPU. It just isn't part of the mini design points since aligned with what goes in the MBP 13".