Sidebar Sidebar
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

handsome pete said:
And doesn't the same hold true for those who build PCs rather than buy pre-configured workstations from HP, Dell, etc.?

Workstations have always been expensive and the new Mac Pro doesn't change anything on that front. I just don't know why the outcry seems much more pronounced this time around. Were people really expecting a more affordable machine with desktop parts?
Click to expand...

I think people were expecting a machine you could upgrade down the road, like CPU, HDD, GPU, add-on PCI-e cards. Hell, how about the ability to swap out even one (mechanical) hard drive?

Apple's aim is to make the iTrashcan just as consumable as their laptop line so you have a buy an entirely new machine to get upgrades.
Think Apple likes the fact that there are still Mac Pros chugging along after 5+ years of service?
 
Wild-Bill said:
I think people were expecting a machine you could upgrade down the road, like CPU, HDD, GPU, add-on PCI-e cards. Hell, how about the ability to swap out even one (mechanical) hard drive?

Apple's aim is to make the iTrashcan just as consumable as their laptop line so you have a buy an entirely new machine to get upgrades.
Think Apple likes the fact that there are still Mac Pros chugging along after 5+ years of service?
Click to expand...

(1) You can upgrade the GPU.

(2) Not sure why you'd want to upgrade the CPU. By the time you'd need to do that, you'd also need to upgrade the mobo, in which case you'd be better off buying a new machine.

(3) This machine is not designed to store data. It's designed to process the data. Most likely scenario is connecting it via TB to a large storage array (larger than 4xHDDs anyways) that is accessed by multiple machines. I was initially put off by this as well, but I'm not so concerned.

But the lack of PCIe support is somewhat of a problem in my opinion (can't add things like SAS expanders, fibre channel etc.). Hopefully this will be mitigated by an increased market for TB peripherals, as well as the ability to channel bond, offsetting the speed gap between PCIe and TB.

And I doubt their goal is just to make iTrashcans and make people upgrade. While this new machine isn't for everyone that the old Mac Pro used to serve, it is a pretty capable workstation.
 
RoelJuun said:
I'm actually quite disappointed at the over-the-year performance increase. And for audio-engineers the dual graphics will sit there doing nothing.
Click to expand...


You and I can both grumble about audio getting left behind with this machine, or the lack of internal expandability, etc. But a 37%/24%/57%/20% (for 4/6/8/12 core models) year-over-year performance increase is nothing to scoff at. I don't remember any of the Mac Pro revisions having that kind of performance bump.
 
Last edited:
mrwheet said:
There's a 2011 paper (so not that recently, really) that came out of Dolby labs (working with nVidia) that presents some interesting ways to exploit GPUs for audio.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link? I haven't found it yet.

Mr. Retrofire said:
iThought™ that audio software (filters, et cetera) can use OpenCL. Why not!?
Click to expand...

Latency. OpenCL gets power from tons of cores in parallel. Audio for the most part can't be broken down effectively that way. There is one specific kind of processing called convolution that supposedly OK on openCL but for the most part it is used just for reverb.
 
So I wonder where the current 27" iMac sits in all this, I can't find it listed in the Geekbench browser. Anybody have that info? Seems like the current top end iMac might bench at around 14000. My early 2011 15" Macbook Pro benches at 9900.
 
wiz329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just need to save this quote for every time a there’s a herp-a-derp-hackint0sh comment in the context of the MP. :D
 
I like this new Mac, but it's not Pro at all. Same problem with the new retina laptops with no upgradable ram and battery; not Pro at all...

I'd like to have a larger Mac Mini with the power of an iMac, but without the screen... This new macpro is a nice machine for professionals, I guess, but it's not the beast it was before, not at all...

Apple should reduce the price in half and make the specs in line with the new iMac, and it would sell a lot. Still, not pro.

Maybe thunderbolt 2 graphic cards are on the way?
 
trainwrecka said:
Oh, I thought the entry-level Mac Pro was faster than the fastest old Mac Pro... :(
Click to expand...

You know it's not just a question of CPU performance, yes? The new Mac Pro has 6 Thunderbolt 2.0 and 4 USB 3.0 connectors, the old one doesn't. The base GPU's can drive 4K displays, not so on the old one.

----------
Lolito said:
I like this new Mac, but it's not Pro at all. Same problem with the new retina laptops with no upgradable ram and battery; not Pro at all...

I'd like to have a larger Mac Mini with the power of an iMac, but without the screen... This new macpro is a nice machine for professionals, I guess, but it's not the beast it was before, not at all...

Apple should reduce the price in half and make the specs in line with the new iMac, and it would sell a lot. Still, not pro.

Maybe thunderbolt 2 graphic cards are on the way?
Click to expand...

Where is it written that 'pro' means user-serviceable hardware?
 
Wild-Bill said:
But the lack of PCIe support is somewhat of a problem in my opinion (can't add things like SAS expanders, fibre channel etc.). Hopefully this will be mitigated by an increased market for TB peripherals, as well as the ability to channel bond, offsetting the speed gap between PCIe and TB.
Click to expand...
There are already fibre channel thunderbolt devices- it's how you can use Mac minis as XSan metadata controllers for example.


Lolito said:
I like this new Mac, but it's not Pro at all. Same problem with the new retina laptops with no upgradable ram and battery; not Pro at all...
Click to expand...

But if you max out the RAM, it's the same as buying an older macbook pro with slots where you max out the RAM- need to buy it up front but I don't see what that has to do with professionals (who would likely... max out the RAM).

There's absolutely nothing that isn't "pro" about the new Mac Pro. I can guarantee you plenty of professionals do not need PCI slots, and most of those that do might even get more benefit out of Thunderbolt (like the ability to swap hardware on a whim).
 
Wild-Bill said:
Apple's aim is to make the iTrashcan just as consumable as their laptop line so you have a buy an entirely new machine to get upgrades.
Think Apple likes the fact that there are still Mac Pros chugging along after 5+ years of service?
Click to expand...

No, they probably don't like that. But most professionals have always been on a three-year upgrade cycle on the Mac Pro (and the PowerMac before that). Most of these machines probably are probably used in corporations and educational institutions, and Apple knows a one or two-year upgrade cycle isn't going to happen. But as for your 5+ years of service metric, that's entirely Apple's fault for not providing consistently strong updates to the product and not giving us any clarity about their plans.

Personally I think Apple started listening to video production people too closely. Video people that I've seen work often have tons of removable drives, which they deliver to clients, pass off to another vendor, share between coworkers, etc. So this Mac Pro seems to have been built around that idea.

So yeah, for the rest of us (audio pros, graphics pros, programmers, scientists, et al) this thing is a real pain in terms of expandability needs and having a clean working space. But at least we can still replace the RAM, and possibly the on-board GPUs.
 
BreuerEditor said:
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
Click to expand...

I think that's just because the Fusion Drive (ssd) is much faster than that oldscool hd in your MacPro.
 
twietee said:
I was exaggerating, so yeah you're right. But building a render farm with 12c nMPs don't strike me as really efficient either. Especially as a freelancer/small office. I don't really care for this discussion tbh though. It is what it is and I'm rather lucky since the licensed programs I use are multiplat. I just don't get the reasoning of a lot of people over here as if we're somehow missing 'the future' when GPGPU isn't the big deal now, 64GB ram limit on the other hand...;)
Click to expand...

oh, i agree. It can get hard having reasonable discussion around these parts when there are those "Apple can do no wrong, you aren't open minded enough, etc." people and the other "Apple blew it, they don't know what they're doing, etc." folk.

Wild-Bill said:
I think people were expecting a machine you could upgrade down the road, like CPU, HDD, GPU, add-on PCI-e cards. Hell, how about the ability to swap out even one (mechanical) hard drive?
Click to expand...

Of course they were. So was I. But most of the nonsense I've seen since the pricing announcement has been about that, pricing. The price for what you get isn't unreasonable at all and the comparison to building a Hackintosh is pointless.

Now the items you mention are an entirely different argument altogether. And it's along the lines of what I would have wanted. However, I'm sure we're in the minority of Mac Pro/workstation users that would actually benefit from a lot of the accessibility you mention. Not many out there upgrade the CPU. Hell, in all my years in different studios, shops, agencies, etc. I've rarely ever seen them upgraded on any level. If anything, it's usually just RAM.

Aside from GPU, thunderbolt would cover PCIe cards and storage (even though you have to pay for the enclosure). That's not nearly as big a deal to me as the limitation with GPUs.
 
tallscot said:
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...
Click to expand...

That's only true if your MacPro is new enough to run 10.8, if you are stuck on 10.7.5, you are SOL.

----------
eltaurus said:
Prove it .. here is a hint "mac pro" like case will cost more then the processor..
Click to expand...

Those video cards are way overkill, and the wrong ones, to compare to the base MacPro.. try GTX 680s.

----------
eltaurus said:
I wasn't comparing xeon with i7.. I just quoting people who compare mac pro with hackintosh and say its much cheaper & better.

if you see my Post & post images you can see I compare mac pro with titan ws and conclusion Mac pro is cheaper & is better value
Click to expand...

But your comparison is flawed... pick different cards, and build it from available hackintosh compontent lists.. But I already did.

The hackintosh will cost you $2k-$3k depending on your video card choice.

----------
Constable Odo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The hackintosh will start at $2k to get in the same range, and then go up depending on your video card choices...

Go here and pick your parts...

http://www.tonymacx86.com/393-building-customac-buyer-s-guide-october-2013.html
 
wiz329 said:
(1) You can upgrade the GPU.
Click to expand...

Evidence?..

Of course, the other question is, will there be GPUs to upgrade to in 3 years? We got stuck with Radeon crap for many years with the current MacPros.

----------
flottenheimer said:
—and all this power will be ninja-silent.
Can't say that about the old MacPro.
Click to expand...

and my cats won't have a warm spot on the shelf above the old MacPro either... :D
 
Well I gotta say that I find nothing compelling in these numbers that would push me off the fence to buy the entry level nMP (only one I can afford).

First, $2499 was my target price (turns out its $500 more...)
Second, I was hoping it would smoke (2x) a similar quad core model from 3.5 years ago. Not seeing that here.

Gonna wait for real world performance numbers against not only Mac Pros but other types of Macs as well. Also, want the final word on what is upgradeable and what is not.

But as it stands today I'm leaning towards to NOT buying a nMP. In the end budget trumps tech lust...at least for this prosumer. :(
 
Last edited:
designaholic said:
Yep... it's horses for courses, although I use Adobe Premiere / After Effects and the Pro will be a very good machine for those too. I am heading towards doing 4k work and already do a lot of After Effects rendering on my i7 iMac which, at full RAW image size, takes forever. There is just no iMac around right now as capable as the Pro for my particular needs.

The Pro suits me perfectly, it won't suit everyone. I for one don't want to spend my time faffing around with hackintosh stuff, I'd rather pay more money and get on with creating.
Click to expand...

Premiere Pro and After Effects are many times faster if you have a CUDA compatible video card (nVidia). The new Mac Pro isn't CUDA compatible. So if you wanted to stick with OS X, it would be much smarter to get a used Mac Pro and put in a CUDA compatible card at a fraction of the price than it would be to get a new Mac Pro with OpenCL. In fact, my guess is most 2013 Mac Pro customers are people who already have an older Mac Pro. My guess is those Macs with a new nVidia card are going to be faster in CUDA software like Premiere Pro than the new Mac Pro.

Google "Octane Render", for example.
 
Long time reader, first time poster.

petsounds said:
You and I can both grumble about audio getting left behind with this machine, or the lack of internal expandability, etc. But a 37%/24%/57%/20% (for 4/6/8/12 core models) year-over-year performance increase is nothing to scoff at. I don't remember any of the Mac Pro revisions having that kind of performance bump.
Click to expand...

Is the math right? :confused:

W3530 vs. E5-1620: 13944/7490=1,86 1,86^(1/3)=1,23=23% year-over year performance increase?

Is it me or does it seem like the W3530 GB3 score in the article to be on the low side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back