I agree Apple should offer Dual CPU config also .. make size little bit big I don't mind. Bcz Software companies will take time to take advantage of openCL .. specially like maxon(C4D) / sidefx (Houdini) / autodesk(Maya)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Closer Look at Processor Options and Performance for Apple's New Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree Apple should offer Dual CPU config also .. make size little bit big I don't mind. Bcz Software companies will take time to take advantage of openCL .. specially like maxon(C4D) / sidefx (Houdini) / autodesk(Maya)
Maybe, but I use mostly for Photoshop and After Effects work. That said I can always add more RAM and SSD PCI cards on it to speed it up my workflow.
Looking at this first tests seems to me makes more sense finance wise to keep it for couple more years.
Still, I will wait and see after they launch the nMP.
1. Why build the same spec, you can do better.
2. legal software? You only get OS X with a mac pro
3. Unprofessional to compare? what? There are rules in which one compares.... same rules that must frawn on overclocking
4. HP Z820 workstation to a HP Envy 700 desktop.... ?????? No... no .... no...
Is it really true that anyone can build a hackintosh that has twice the processing power for half the price? Are there any numbers to prove that? If that's the case, why does Apple bother to spend so much time building Mac Pros if they're not all that powerful. Jony Ive seems to be wasting his time if users aren't satisfied with the new Mac Pro. It certainly does seem like a very powerful computer for the 5% or so people that need it. However, to hear people saying that it's overpriced and underpowered is a good reason for Apple to stop building them if individuals can easily build their own ersatz Apple computer to get far better results at a much cheaper price. It seems as though Apple is just throwing R&D money down the toilet.
Once you are running a hackintosh you're not really working with a Mac anymore. You may be able to put something together that has better performance in one or two dimensions, but only if you don't include downtime and ongoing problems resolution in your performance numbers. You're really better served switching to a Windows workstation if all you care about is the hardware.
If you're running your own shop you can make that questionable decision if you want to, but its a non-starter in any organization of any size.
All looks fine to me:
new quad much better than old
new hex much better than old
new octo = old 12 core
new 12 much better than old
The only little weird one is the quad which looks on par or slightly less than a current imac. But there will always be an overlap case! THey could have left the quad off IMO but it lets them "claim an entry price". $3499 for a base hex would have made more sense to me...
All in all - looks totally right....
Not to mention all the under the hood advancements. FWIW - not the machine for me as Audio guy but if I needed more than an i7 imac - I would buy the hex here in a heartbeat...
new quad much better than old
new hex much better than old
new octo = old 12 core
new 12 much better than old
The only little weird one is the quad which looks on par or slightly less than a current imac. But there will always be an overlap case! THey could have left the quad off IMO but it lets them "claim an entry price". $3499 for a base hex would have made more sense to me...
All in all - looks totally right....
Not to mention all the under the hood advancements. FWIW - not the machine for me as Audio guy but if I needed more than an i7 imac - I would buy the hex here in a heartbeat...
Oh, I thought the entry-level Mac Pro was faster than the fastest old Mac Pro...
Depends what you mean by "fast" (single or multi-core)
But it would take a hell of a lot of improvements to make a 4-core machine beat a 12 core machine in a multicore benchmark. For that to happen, each core would have to be performing at 3x the level of the previous generation. That's a lot to expect.
Oh, I thought the entry-level Mac Pro was faster than the fastest old Mac Pro...
Seems to be a good deal buying an "obsolete" 2012 12-core Mac Pro...
But the 2013 will be far ahead in single core performance, internal disk performance, and graphics performance. lol?
1. Why build the same spec, you can do better.
2. legal software? You only get OS X with a mac pro
3. Unprofessional to compare? what? There are rules in which one compares.... same rules that must frawn on overclocking
4. HP Z820 workstation to a HP Envy 700 desktop.... ?????? No... no .... no...
1. Do it .. just one question Which CPU you will use (i7 or Xeon) ?
2. iLife / iWorks
3. So follow the rule and configure a HP/Boxxtech Workstation Not hackintosh
4. Yes ... Yes .. Yess .. When stupid ppl compare Hackintosh with MAC Pro why not HP Workstation with i7 Desktop
& here is one more thing you might bring up Bench mark ...
I have Mac pro dual CPU (Xeon) from 2009 & retina macbook pro(i7) .. in benchmark both score almost same but when it comes to rendering actual 3d work .. MP render 1 frame in 30mins & rMBP takes 1 hour
Here's a guy who tried to spec out a PC with equivalent components. Result? Not much savings. And he had to make a few concessions because several things just aren't available on the PC side yet (like TB2)
http://dylanreeve.com/computers/2013/building-the-mac-pro.html
Looks like this list is all estimates of 32 bit results? It would be nice to see similar estimates of the 64 bit versions.
Apple's website also says the quad core base model can switch to the six core with BTO (and not have to add the extra ram and upgraded video cards), so six cores should be available for less than $3999.
Of course he was comparing the same number of cores (either comparing both low end or both high end models). What sense would it make to compare the old high end to the new low end?
If you think that having that disk internal would have let DW or DU repair that disk, you're living in a fantasy. They're the same drives, so there's no way that internals fail less often.
Apple's website also says the quad core base model can switch to the six core with BTO (and not have to add the extra ram and upgraded video cards), so six cores should be available for less than $3999.
Of course he was comparing the same number of cores (either comparing both low end or both high end models). What sense would it make to compare the old high end to the new low end?
If you think that having that disk internal would have let DW or DU repair that disk, you're living in a fantasy. They're the same drives, so there's no way that internals fail less often.
It remains to be seen if any audio software is going to be updated to leverage OpenCL. If this happens then these cards will give amazing performance for audio processing.
It seems like these benchmarks explain exactly why Apple chose to build the new Mac Pro this way. CPU performance has not been growing as fast as it used to grow. We can see that for single threaded tasks even some laptops are on par with the new Mac Pro. This is not Apple's fault, this is the result of the evolution of the chips.
The new Mac Pro is built for multi-threaded tasks. OpenCL is the underlying technology that justifies this machine. CPU benchmarks alone will leave almost all of us disappointed, but benchmarks with applications that take advantage of OpenCL will show that this machine is a beast.
I am a researcher and write code to perform complex analysis. I really want to get the 6-core machine, not because of the processor so much, but for the GPUs.
The new Mac Pro is built for multi-threaded tasks. OpenCL is the underlying technology that justifies this machine. CPU benchmarks alone will leave almost all of us disappointed, but benchmarks with applications that take advantage of OpenCL will show that this machine is a beast.
I am a researcher and write code to perform complex analysis. I really want to get the 6-core machine, not because of the processor so much, but for the GPUs.
so the entry level mac pro is about as powerful as one from 3.5 years ago? terrible results...not to mention that you can probably get a 2010 Mac Pro on ebay for way less than what the 2013 mac pro will be, plus have better expendability and a respectable looking machine as part of your workstation.
Because as so many people have pointed out, parallel processing of the GPU is way way faster then the CPU. All apps could make use of the GPU not just graphics and in fact the GPU should just be renamed to processing engine or something.
And it's not about showing off. It's the future. It's throughput is going to be incredible. The Speedy Ram and insane SSD are perfect for pros.
And of course it a specific machine! It's for creating content! You've not said what it is you need a pro machine for. You said in another post you are off to windows? So I am guessing it's not FCPX?