Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
66,545
35,766



mac_pro_2013-250x422.jpg
Yesterday, we noted that a 6-core version of Apple's upcoming Mac Pro had shown up in the results database of popular benchmarking tool Geekbench, the third variety of the machine to appear there since June. We compared performance of that machine to an 8-core version from late September but noted that a 12-core version from June was tested using an older version of Geekbench with a different baseline, making direct comparisons with that machine difficult.

John Poole of Primate Labs, the company behind Geekbench, has now put together a good overview of what users should expect for the new Mac Pro when it comes to processor options and performance. With Geekbench being a cross-platform tool, Poole has taken several results from Windows machines running the processors that will be offered in the Mac Pro to develop an estimate of performance of the various Mac Pro models.

As we noted in yesterday's report, the 6-core and 8-core versions showed nearly identical Geekbench scores for single-core tests, and Poole highlights how that will be expected to hold true for the as yet unseen quad-core model due to consistent Turbo Boost frequencies of 3.9 GHz. The 12-core version will, however, score approximately 15% lower on single-core tests due to its slower 3.5 GHz Turbo Boost.
These estimates suggest that single-core performance will be similar for the 4-, 6-, and 8-core models. Since all of the processors have the same Turbo Boost frequency, and since the processors run single-core tasks at the Turbo Boost frequency, this isn't surprising news. However, it is welcome news since users will not have to sacrifice single-core performance when choosing between the 4-core and the 6- or 8-core models.
Where the 12-core version unsurprisingly shines is in multi-core situations, showing roughly 20% improvement over the previous high-end 12-core model and scores approaching 30,000. Other processor options also compare favorably to their corresponding models from the previous generation of Mac Pro.

mac_pro_2013_geekbench_estimate.jpg
CPU capability is of course only one part of the overall system performance, and the new Mac Pro will also offer significantly improved graphics performance in the form of standard dual AMD FirePro GPUs. In addition to the systems being able to drive up to three 4K displays simultaneously, Apple clearly expects developers of high-end software to embrace OpenCL to allow Mac Pro users to tap into that vast GPU power for general computational tasks.

Apple's new Mac Pro is launching in December, and the company has so far only released pricing on base configurations of the quad-core ($2999) and 6-core ($3999) models. Customized configurations boosting to the available 8-core or 12-core CPU and the high-end D700 GPU, as well as other options such as RAM and flash storage, will push prices much higher for customers interested in maximum performance.

Article Link: A Closer Look at Processor Options and Performance for Apple's New Mac Pro
 
Meh.... The hackint0sh is sounding more and more appealing every day. Better performance, upgradability, and expandability.
 
I'm actually quite disappointed at the over-the-year performance increase. And for audio-engineers the dual graphics will sit there doing nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
push notification in safari is sweet :D its exactly the topic i have been waiting for, i wanted to see the difference between the quad and 6 core :) can't wait for the release ;) see it on 4k
 
Oh, I thought the entry-level Mac Pro was faster than the fastest old Mac Pro... :(

In terms of processing power – of course it wouldn't be, 12 core vs 4 core – how do you figure that? :rolleyes:

It's true for single-core performance. Macrumors only included the results for multi-core. As designaholic pointed out, it would require the single-core performance to jump 3x to get equivalent performance with 1/3 the cores. That's not going to happen in a single processor generation. (Or even two, since I think Apple skipped one of the Intel lines.)

Here are the single-core results:
http://www.primatelabs.com/images/blog/2013/mac-pro-estimate-2013-2012-sc.png
 
Damn, my 2010 12 core still beasting on these tests. I guess it's a keeper for another couple years. Just wished I could buy another 2 years of AppleCare.
 
I find it annoying how people see these numbers and get instantly dismayed... cpu is but one factor.

Also, these are estimates based on pc machines only running the same processor. Maybe wait and see actual scores when the actual machines are tested.
 
Meh.... The hackint0sh is sounding more and more appealing every day. Better performance, upgradability, and expandability.

If you build a hackintosh with same spec as Mac pro .. it will cost almost same or even more (if you add legal softwares).

Its unProfessional to compare Mac pro with xeon/fire pro TO custom built i7 / GTX

its like compare HP Z820 workstation with HP ENVY 700 Desktop
 
Damn, my 2010 12 core still beasting on these tests. I guess it's a keeper for another couple years. Just wished I could buy another 2 years of AppleCare.

Sure, if all you care about is CPU performance. All depends what you use your machine for I guess. You may (probably for sure) find the new Pro kicks your machine in terms of graphics power and overall speed due to things like new architecture and SSD.
 
Cuda

In my opinion, this thing is worthless unless you are using Final Cut Pro, and even then I'd probably save a ton of money and get an iMac because it's plenty fast enough for FCP X.

Of course, the 2 people out there who are doing 4K with Final Cut Pro X will probably buy the new Mac Pro.
 
Meh.... The hackint0sh is sounding more and more appealing every day. Better performance, upgradability, and expandability.

Maybe for a personal machine.

But, as a Hackintosh owner, I can tell you its definitely not worth the headache unless it's a hobby-machine for you.

It's fun to get everything together, and build it. But when you just can't get the installer to boot no matter what, or bluetooth just randomly doesn't work sometimes ... it can be infuriating.

Also, a Hackintosh has NEVER been a replacement for the Mac Pro. If you need that type of power (ECC memory, Xeon processors, dual socket), (1) a hack job won't cut it, the time isn't worth it, and (2) there aren't really many (ANY) stable dual socket builds anyways.

A hackintosh is more of a replacement for a headless iMac, into which you can put as many cards and drives as you want.
 
Last edited:
If you build a hackintosh with same spec as Mac pro .. it will cost almost same or even more (if you add legal softwares).

Its unProfessional to compare Mac pro with xeon/fire pro TO custom built i7 / GTX


its like compare HP Z820 workstation with HP ENVY 700 Desktop

LOL. Wrong on ALL counts.
 
So it's up to 2x faster than a 2010 computer, and people are still going to bitch? Not to mention everything else is faster. But of course you won't buy it because heaven forbid you have to connect a usb drive to it.
 
In terms of processing power – of course it wouldn't be, 12 core vs 4 core – how do you figure that? :rolleyes:

exactly. With the PCIe Flash, it's gonna be blazingly faster than the 12-core 2010 MP. My late '12 27" 3.4GHz i7 iMac with 32GB of RAM and 1TB Fusion Drive outperforms (and out-renders in After Effects and Cinema 4D) my 2010 12-core MacPro with 32GB of RAM and 1TB 7200rpm drive. On my iMac, booting (16 seconds) and launching large pro apps (Photoshop/After Effects/Cinema 4D) is almost instant (2-4 seconds), whereas the MP seems like it's got a hamster in there trying to launch Photoshop (11 seconds). So if my iMac can outperform the old 12-core MP, then the new MP should leave the last gen in it's dust. :D
 
Disappointed...

My 3 year old 12-core Mac Pro still beats the newest 6-core…
Kind of a let down having to wait 3 years for a machine that is slower at the entry level and can't be expanded…
I have 6 internal hard drives on my Mac Pro (I removed the CD Drive), plus a 1TB PCIe SSD and 64GB of RAM and USB 3.0.
You can find great deals on ebay on 2010 Models at the same performance but at 1/3 the price of the new Mac Pro. :rolleyes:
I will definitely get the 12-core 2013 Mac Pro but I calculate it will be over $6000 the way I want it… :eek:
I will still get good money on mine on ebay but I am still disappointed at the numbers. I was expecting at least double the performance.
 
What are the chances of this Mac Pro line-up getting an update in 2014? What sort of upgrades can be expected based on what we know now about processors and graphics cards? Is a yearly update a possibility?
 
Sure, if all you care about is CPU performance. All depends what you use your machine for I guess. You may (probably for sure) find the new Pro kicks your machine in terms of graphics power and overall speed due to things like new architecture and SSD.

Great thing about the older Mac Pros is you can upgrade the video card and get an interface card for SSD.

I'm guessing that an older Mac Pro with a GTX Titan is much faster than the new Mac Pro in a large selection of CUDA-based apps - Cinema 4D, Maya, Davinci, Premiere Pro, After Effects...
 
My 3 year old 12-core Mac Pro still beats the newest 6-core…
Kind of a let down having to wait 3 years for a machine that is slower at the entry level and can't be expanded…
I have 6 internal hard drives on my Mac Pro (I removed the CD Drive), plus a 1TB PCIe SSD and 64GB of RAM and USB 3.0.
You can find great deals on ebay on 2010 Models at the same performance but at 1/3 the price of the new Mac Pro. :rolleyes:
I will definitely get the 12-core 2013 Mac Pro but I calculate it will be over $6000 the way I want it… :eek:
I will still get good money on mine on ebay but I am still disappointed at the numbers. I was expecting at least double the performance.

It's only measuring processing speed. If it really bothers you to have something connected externally, you're probably worried too much about physical appearance. I know Apple is all about design, but it's still just a computer.
 
exactly. With the PCIe Flash, it's gonna be blazingly faster than the 12-core 2010 MP. My late '12 27" 3.4GHz i7 iMac with 32GB of RAM and 1TB Fusion Drive outperforms (and out-renders in After Effects and Cinema 4D) my 2010 12-core MacPro with 32GB of RAM and 1TB 7200rpm drive. On my iMac, booting (16 seconds) and launching large pro apps (Photoshop/After Effects/Cinema 4D) is almost instant (2-4 seconds), whereas the MP seems like it's got a hamster in there trying to launch Photoshop (11 seconds). So if my iMac can outperform the old 12-core MP, then the new MP should leave the last gen in it's dust. :D

I have a OWC 1TB Mercury Accelsior PCIe SSD http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAIDand I get 700-800MB/s speeds. There is nothing faster in the market now and it makes the 2010 Mac Pro faster on every level… The best $1500 I've ever spent. I am hoping OWC will release updated versions of the Accelsior to add to the new Mac Pro.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.