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

[wildmac]

Curious as i don't have these stats myself.

how does this compare to similarly built hardware thats not the Mac Pro?

say, build your own desktop with similar internals. are we looking at similar performance? Worse? better? is there something to the Mac Pro that makes this somehow "better" than building your own?

I know there are subjectives, such as OSx, and design of the casing itself.

But when it comes to raw performance and numbers, What is the cost to performance?

Well, look at the cost options...

A Hackintosh with an i7 at similar speeds and specs to the base MacPro will run you $2k+, depending on your video card choice. Pro: You will likely get a better video card and more RAM. Con: No idea the bus speeds on those ASUS motherboards, so a likely performance hit there.

Then there's a loaded iMac 27" for ~$2700+, with a good cpu, ok graphics, and a questionable lifespan.

Then there's the rMBP, loaded for ~$2700+ with decent cpu, soso graphics, but likely a better lifespan than the iMac, and portability.

And finally the MacPro, starting at $3k.

We really need real-world benchmarks, to see how well optimized those GPUs are for regular work as well as hardcore crunching.

 

[kappaknight]

Am I the only one that thinks these abitrary number "scores" from some program is meaningless??

It's about as useful as hooking up a crate motor to a dyno and saying that the engine can go up to 9000rpm. Hey... that's awesome... but until you put it in a car, you have no idea if that's a good number or not.

Personally I don't care too much for the scores, though they're fun to use as comparisons to earlier models. However, when I do see a score, for me it means there's at least one finished product out in the wild that they're no longer tinkering with and are hopefully putting into production.

 

[Macsonic]

Personally I don't care too much for the scores, though they're fun to use as comparisons to earlier models. However, when I do see a score, for me it means there's at least one finished product out in the wild that they're no longer tinkering with and are hopefully putting into production.

Yep. I also look at the scores but try not to depend too much on this as there are other hidden factors involved in real time speed and the scores normally reflect the CPU and not much involving other components.

 

[staveb]

America is a continent, not a country...as in "South America", "Central America" and "North America" - unless you still believe in the Monroe Doctrine, of course

What world are you living in? America is the shortened name for "the United States of America." Everyone knows that. But I'm betting you're being sarcastic...which if so, I love Jerry Seinfeld!

 

[dugbug]

The value of the Mac Pro is to go to _more_ than 6 cores. 12 Ivy Bridge cores (if you can utilize them all simultaneously like we can) will be WAY faster than 4 Haswell cores...

IMHO there is the matter of the dedicated OpenCL hardware

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Well, look at the cost options...

A Hackintosh with an i7 at similar speeds and specs to the base MacPro will run you $2k+, depending on your video card choice. Pro: You will likely get a better video card and more RAM. Con: No idea the bus speeds on those ASUS motherboards, so a likely performance hit there.

Then there's a loaded iMac 27" for ~$2700+, with a good cpu, ok graphics, and a questionable lifespan.

Then there's the rMBP, loaded for ~$2700+ with decent cpu, soso graphics, but likely a better lifespan than the iMac, and portability.

And finally the MacPro, starting at $3k.

We really need real-world benchmarks, to see how well optimized those GPUs are for regular work as well as hardcore crunching.

You've hit on a lot of the points I've made justifying a Mac Pro purchase for someone who just wants a really high end Mac and isn't necessarily a "pro".

If you want:

1. A desktop machine
2. To use OS X, but don't want to deal with the hassle of a Hackintosh
3. One of the fastest CPUs available
4. A headless setup, because you already have a monitor investment and don't want a system with an integrated monitor
5. Want discrete graphics performance

What choice do you have? iMac is out, MBP is out, mini is out.

You pay definitely pay a price premium, but not an unjustifiable one if this is really what you want.


I guess I'm making the argument for the xMac, but this is as close as it gets. I also guess that if you're of a certain age, $3000 doesn't really sound like a lot of money for a high end PC. That used to be about what any decent PC cost in 80s and 90s, not even adjusting for inflation. And regular people and families bought them.

 

[wildmac]

You've hit on a lot of the points I've made justifying a Mac Pro purchase for someone who just wants a really high end Mac and isn't necessarily a "pro".

If you want:

1. A desktop machine
2. To use OS X, but don't want to deal with the hassle of a Hackintosh
3. One of the fastest CPUs available
4. A headless setup, because you already have a monitor investment and don't want a system with an integrated monitor
5. Want discrete graphics performance

What choice do you have? iMac is out, MBP is out, mini is out.

You pay definitely pay a price premium, but not an unjustifiable one if this is really what you want.


I guess I'm making the argument for the xMac, but this is as close as it gets. I also guess that if you're of a certain age, $3000 doesn't really sound like a lot of money for a high end PC. That used to be about what any decent PC cost in 80s and 90s, not even adjusting for inflation. And regular people and families bought them.

Yep, I'd love an xMac, but we aren't getting one. (Remember when Apple had 4-6 desktop models at the same time?)

The real risk with a $2k+ hackintosh is that you are one firmware update or OSX kernel update from it all coming crashing down.

If I'm spending $2k+ on a desktop, I want it to last 5+ years (6.5 on my current MacPro) so I'd rather spend $3k on the MacPro and be good, rather than $2k+ for the hackintosh and be afraid of every software update.

 

[portishead]

I don't understand the overkill argument. I've never met a computer that was fast enough for anything. Everything can always be faster.

It's called the law of diminishing returns. You're spending $1000 to load a webpage .1 seconds faster, or have your iPhoto library boot up 1 second faster. That's called overkill.

----------

The price of this machine is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount I cost my company. If it saves me even 2% of my time over _one_ year it will already pay for itself. Each year after that is gravy.

2% is nothing. Nobody is going to notice that, and nobody is going to fund that.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

It's called the law of diminishing returns. You're spending $1000 to load a webpage .1 seconds faster, or have your iPhoto library boot up 1 second faster. That's called overkill.

You picked the wrong fight with iPhoto. That application is a hog. If you have a library of any significant size, and make any sort of real use of it, you're always going to benefit from faster CPUs, faster memory bus, faster IO and faster graphics. It's not just launch times there.

 

[mrhick01]

It's called the law of diminishing returns. You're spending $1000 to load a webpage .1 seconds faster, or have your iPhoto library boot up 1 second faster. That's called overkill.

----------



2% is nothing. Nobody is going to notice that, and nobody is going to fund that.

It depends upon how much you make.

If you make (or are worth to your company) $100,000 or more, even a 2 percent improvement matters.

 

[StephenCampbell]

Hmm, a 6-core Xeon Mac Pro is only about 5,000 more than my iMac (both 32-bit). That's interesting.

 

[Bibbler]

Well, look at the cost options...

A Hackintosh with an i7 at similar speeds and specs to the base MacPro will run you $2k+, depending on your video card choice. Pro: You will likely get a better video card and more RAM. Con: No idea the bus speeds on those ASUS motherboards, so a likely performance hit there.

Then there's a loaded iMac 27" for ~$2700+, with a good cpu, ok graphics, and a questionable lifespan.

Then there's the rMBP, loaded for ~$2700+ with decent cpu, soso graphics, but likely a better lifespan than the iMac, and portability.

And finally the MacPro, starting at $3k.

We really need real-world benchmarks, to see how well optimized those GPUs are for regular work as well as hardcore crunching.

Ahhh, But will it be magical, sexy, elegant, delicious, and thin!!!! Those appear to be the "features" most Mac Fanatics look for in their computers.

 

[wildmac]

You picked the wrong fight with iPhoto. That application is a hog. If you have a library of any significant size, and make any sort of real use of it, you're always going to benefit from faster CPUs, faster memory bus, faster IO and faster graphics. It's not just launch times there.

Indeed. But even with the hoggish web browsers these days. Go open Chrome, and open 7 tabs with content rich sites, and then see how much system resources are being chewed up.

 

[Beta Particle]

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

Xeons are a generation behind the consumer line, and are focused more on parallel performance.

Even though a single core may be slower, they can have more of them. It's also possible to use multiple CPUs.

Questionable. The 8 and 12 core versions come at E5 2600 prices; not E5 1600 prices. You'll be paying around $500 per core for those additional cores. That is actually more than a whole haswell 4 core model in the iMacs. (even the top end one).

Which is why many of us would rather have two CPUs and a high-end GPU in there, rather than a single Xeon and two midrange GPUs.
I have a friend that would be buying one with two of those $3000 12-core Xeons if it were available as an option, and it sped up his work enough to justify the cost. He has a $10,000 budget for his workstation and if he can go from rendering video at <3fps on a highly overclocked 3770K to 10fps or more, the system pays for itself. (highly specialized and won't benefit at all from GPU encoding)

Which means it is questionable (or at least worthy of getting/measuring answer to the question). The cost/benefit analysis may or may not work for some other folks. 4 and 6 core Mac Pros are useful and far more cost effective for a large group of folks. That is exactly why they are announced standard configs and the 8 and 12 core models are only optional BTO configs.

It would be far more cost-effective to build a Windows desktop machine using consumer Haswell chips than a Mac Pro using Xeons if you're only going to buy a 4 or 6-core model, in most cases.

If you want:
...
2. To use OS X, but don't want to deal with the hassle of a Hackintosh

This is the key point. Most workstation tasks don't require OS X. Really, the only thing I can think of is if you want Final Cut, or if you're building games for OS X. (or more likely handling the OS X port)

If you actually need a Mac workstation, and you're not just some Mac fan that wants something faster than an iMac, a hackintosh is not even an option. I don't know anyone that would consider using one for serious work.

how does this compare to similarly built hardware thats not the Mac Pro?
say, build your own desktop with similar internals. are we looking at similar performance? Worse? better? is there something to the Mac Pro that makes this somehow "better" than building your own?

Apple is using standard parts from Intel and AMD. Performance will be the same, or potentially better if you build your own, as you don't have to rely on Apple to update graphics drivers etc. OS X is getting better, but graphics performance still tends to lag behind Windows.

Am I the only one that thinks these abitrary number "scores" from some program is meaningless??
It's about as useful as hooking up a crate motor to a dyno and saying that the engine can go up to 9000rpm. Hey... that's awesome... but until you put it in a car, you have no idea if that's a good number or not.

That's not how computers work.

 

[wildmac]

This is the key point. Most workstation tasks don't require OS X. Really, the only thing I can think of is if you want Final Cut, or if you're building games for OS X. (or more likely handling the OS X port)

If you actually need a Mac workstation, and you're not just some Mac fan that wants something faster than an iMac, a hackintosh is not even an option. I don't know anyone that would consider using one for serious work.

Key issue here...

Apple is force-feeding iMacs to Creative-Suite creative professionals (and smi-pros) who don't need a workstation. But there are a whole lot of us that want something more reliable, and with a longer lifespan. So the MacPro is the only option.

 

[flat five]

Does someone have links for this?

I would think not, other than the normal stuff:
(1) using the GPU to render the screen contents -- which they've been doing all along, though there are ongoing improvements.
(2) they updated the versions of OpenCL and OpenGL supported, which gives software developers more options.

But maybe they are starting to use OpenCL themselves for appropriate things like maybe computing the spotlight index or something?
To speed things up day-to-day using GPU power, they'd have to somehow use OpenC/GL for day-to-day stuff. I don't know what things (beyond screen rendering) that would benefit.

Anyway, links would be appriciate. It would be very cool if they've come up with something interesting to use that GPU power for.

at a very basic level, a computer needs memory and a processor (CPU & RAM) in order to perform calculations (typical linked with a 64bit bus these days).. and at a similar basic level, a GPU is nothing but a specialized CPU with a crapload of cores and VRAM with a 128-bit connection between them.. with the right set of instructions (openCL), a GPU can be used for the same type of calculations as the more traditional CPU/RAM.. only a lot faster..


check wiki too for some more detailed info..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units

General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU, rarely GPGP or GP²U) is the utilization of a graphics processing unit (GPU), which typically handles computation only for computer graphics, to perform computation in applications traditionally handled by the central processing unit (CPU).[1][2][3] Any GPU providing a functionally complete set of operations performed on arbitrary bits can compute any computable value. Additionally, the use of multiple graphics cards in one computer, or large numbers of graphics chips, further parallelizes the already parallel nature of graphics processing.[4]
OpenCL is the currently dominant open general-purpose GPU computing language. The dominant proprietary framework is Nvidia's CUDA.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

This is the key point. Most workstation tasks don't require OS X. Really, the only thing I can think of is if you want Final Cut, or if you're building games for OS X. (or more likely handling the OS X port)

If you actually need a Mac workstation, and you're not just some Mac fan that wants something faster than an iMac, a hackintosh is not even an option. I don't know anyone that would consider using one for serious work.

This is a couple of really strange comments. You don't know anyone that would consider one for serious work - are you just saying you don't personally know anyone? You do realize lots of people use them for serious work, don't you?

As to workstation tasks not "requiring" OS X, well, you seem to be forgetting it is a preference. There's more to using a workstation than just the application software. I suggest reading this Ars Technica article that compares the pros and cons of OS X, Windows, and Linux for a creative content workflow:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...timate-creative-content-os-ubercreate-os-1-0/

As a software developer, I am simply more productive in OS X than Windows, period. It's a real UNIX environment, for starters, and no matter how many customizations I weld onto a Windows workstation it can never compare.

 

[Beta Particle]

This is a couple of really strange comments. You don't know anyone that would consider one for serious work - are you just saying you don't personally know anyone? You do realize lots of people use them for serious work, don't you?

I might not have been clear in my comment - I don't know anyone that would consider using a hackintosh for work, which is what a lot of people seem to recommend rather than that Mac Pro.

I'd be happy using a Windows machine of similar spec if the task doesn't require OS X, but I'd never use a PC with a hacked install of OS X for work.

And while I like my Retina MacBook Pro, and have had iMacs in the past, I just don't seem to get on well with OS X on the desktop with a keyboard and mouse and a large display for some reason. I wish I could be more specific, but it just doesn't feel right. Even things like mouse movement just feel weird like there's a lot of latency in the UI or something.

Most of the software I use these days is cross-platform now anyway, so I'm comfortable with a Windows or OS X workstation.

As to workstation tasks not "requiring" OS X, well, you seem to be forgetting it is a preference. There's more to using a workstation than just the application software. I suggest reading this Ars Technica article that compares the pros and cons of OS X, Windows, and Linux for a creative content workflow:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...timate-creative-content-os-ubercreate-os-1-0/

As a software developer, I am simply more productive in OS X than Windows, period. It's a real UNIX environment, for starters, and no matter how many customizations I weld onto a Windows workstation it can never compare.

That was an interesting read. Some of those things are not quite up to date. I don't know why those CR2 images were not showing up, because on Windows 8.1 without any other software installed (just the latest system updates) all my Canon and Sony RAW files show thumbnails in Explorer.

The lack of good native PDF support is always something that has bothered me in Windows, but it's not difficult to spend 2 minutes installing the required software once, and never thinking about it again.

Multitasking can definitely be a problem with CPU-based rendering. It's not something I encounter in my work, but I can definitely see where it might be a problem, and I can't believe it's still an issue. That said, if I'm rendering something, I'm typically wanting it done as quickly as possible and won't be using that machine.

 

[freiheit]

Faster 6 core runs slower than slower 8 core on single core test

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.

I too was perplexed by the lower single-core score for the 6-core 3.5GHz compared to the 8-core 3.0GHz. In a single-core test, only one core should be getting maxed regardless of how many cores the system has. The faster chip (faster per-core clock) of the same processor generation should produce a higher score IMHO. I feel like there must be something else going on. I would say the benchmark is somewhat incomplete without showing what the total system CPU usage was during the test. Were they transcoding video on 4 of the cores while running the test on the 6-core machine? Who knows.

 

[Larry-K]

Xeons are a generation behind the consumer line, and are focused more on parallel performance.

Even though a single core may be slower, they can have more of them. It's also possible to use multiple CPUs.

Sad, but true. At this point I still have more Single-Core Predominant programs than I have multiple GPU aware programs. Still want to see the 12-core specs, but I suppose it'll be even slower.

 

[AidenShaw]

IMHO there is the matter of the dedicated OpenCL hardware

...and the question of whether the apps important to you will ever be able to use OpenCL.

If not, the trashcan is a waste of money for you.

 

[portishead]

It depends upon how much you make.

If you make (or are worth to your company) $100,000 or more, even a 2 percent improvement matters.

You'd have to make millions before 2% would even matter. Nobody is going to spend thousands just for a couple minutes of productivity a day. The fact is, even if you improve your productivity by 5-10%, you're just going to have more free time to waste, and since they're paying you anyway, most employers won't really care.

----------

You picked the wrong fight with iPhoto. That application is a hog. If you have a library of any significant size, and make any sort of real use of it, you're always going to benefit from faster CPUs, faster memory bus, faster IO and faster graphics. It's not just launch times there.

Can you tell me with a straight face you would recommend a Mac Pro for iPhoto?

 

[RoastingPig]

And what OS do you run? Winblows? Hackintosh?

Get real...

i have a 12 core mac pro my dude

 

[portishead]

Key issue here...

Apple is force-feeding iMacs to Creative-Suite creative professionals (and smi-pros) who don't need a workstation. But there are a whole lot of us that want something more reliable, and with a longer lifespan. So the MacPro is the only option.

iMac has plenty horsepower for "creative suite pros" and semi-pros. I agree there is a gap between the iMac & Mac Pro, but you're pretty much at Apple's mercy there.

 

[lolkthxbai]

I think it's actually "next"

D'oh!