A Closer Look at Processor Options and Performance for Apple's New Mac Pro

[Bibbler]

no no .. prove that system you will recommend is cheaper & better than nMP

As I mentioned before, my current PC setup is:

An ASUS P8Z77-I Deluxe motherboard, 16 GB of DDR 3, and I put a Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz. I scrimped a bit on the video card with a MSI N670GTX, but not bad considering I am not a gamer. The onboard Realtek audio is good enough for basic tasks but I have add a HD2 Protools card as I use this machine as my home studio (replacing my former BOSS standalone multitrack porta-studio). My main hard drive is a Seagate 600 Series SSD 240 GB with a Seagate barracuda 3.5 TB HDD for data. I use a Corsair power supply, But I forget which one, it was around $70.... Case and fans have been around since 2 computers ago, and they are cheapo Hamfest items... Besides Windows 7 it will Dual Boot to 10.8, which I installed from original Apple File (from a 8GB jump drive). Put an Apple sticker on it, and it would be my idea of the perfect xMac.


The machine is not overkill, but it's strong. Most importantly, it can be easily upgraded....

As far as the "Case" is concerned (as you proudly mentioned in your OP), I could care less. I think this particular case cost me about $25 at a Hamfest 3 or 4 years ago. Who cares??? I'd happily mount the MB in a cardboard box if I had to. I'd much prefer that than a computer that has components glued and soldered in and is not internally expandable or user serviceable..

What is "better" is up to the user, and my needs are pretty much what is shown - plus the (Very Important) ability to expand and service the system easily...

 

[Snowshiro]

Just ran across this... Hmm.....

http://fairerplatform.com/2013/10/original-mac-pro-run-os-x-mavericks/

Better than a hackintosh, and far cheaper... only need a new video card.

One of the largest and most active threads on this forum, is in the Mavericks sub forum, dealing with exactly this topic. Installing Mavericks on a MP 1,1 is surprisingly easy.

Given that we're comparing benchmarks here, for the record my Mac Pro 1,1 scores 10,503 in geekbench (with upgraded processors), which is within about 5% of a 2012 base Retina MacBook Pro 15".

 

[wallysb01]

Kinda my point, people can but very few do. And the days where Intel goes through several generations while keeping the same socket are pretty much over since most of their changed involve a smaller die. I think my old Woodcrest chip would upgrade through Nahelem, but as I sold the five year old 2006 for $900 what 's the point. In the PC world where there is no resale value maybe upgrades make more sense, but not so much on this side. The speed of the 2009 machines is also part of my point. The problem is not that the 2013 MP is not that much faster than the 2012, but that the 2012 is not that much faster than the 2009 (other than the megabuck 10 grand 12 core beasties) and that is the rub with the state of processor upgrades.

Actually, the 4-core Nehalem to 6-core Westmere upgrade was pretty damn good. The top 4-core 2009 machane geekbenchs 8540, while the six core geekbenchs 15564.

And now you can get the W3680 (the 6-core in the 2010 machine) for $600 instead of $1000, which it originally retailed for. That has made it a very attractive upgrade for lots of folks. Now, I doubt a ton of people have done that relative to total 2009 4-core Mac Pro sales, but the speed improvement is certainly large.

That is especially true if you buy in at the bottom of first generation on a socket, then in a few years get something closer to the top of the line on the second generation on the same socket. For instance, one could go from the E5-1620v1 to the E5-1680v2. You'd double your core count, base clock would go from 3.6 to 3.0, but top turbo boost actually goes from 3.8 to 3.9, so low threaded stuff may not actually take any hit (depending on cooling for turbo boost, but also because of the 10% clock for clock increase). All in all, that jump is probably close to 2x the speed increase, if you can use all 8 cores. Sure, the 1680v2 is $1700 bucks now, but in 2-3 years that might be cut in half. So, theoretically, one could have bought a Sandy Bridge computer with 4-cores at 3.6-3.8 GHz (a $300 CPU) in mid 2012, then in 2015 double your performance with a $1000 upgrade.

Assuming that whole process lasts maybe 6 years, you're probably getting much better value than simply changing out your entire machine every 4 years. For example, a 12 year cycle might be considered for the 2 possibilities: A) Buy entry level machine with major upgrade in 3 years and new machine after 6, repeat. B) Buy mid level machine every 4 years, no major upgrades.

A) $4000 first mahine + $2000 upgrade x 2 cycles = $12,000
B) $5500 machine x 3 cycles = $16,500

Of course, that's just the quick and dirty. And you'll need to take into account performance needs. For example, it won't make as much sense to do this if you can't get buy on the low end CPUs for a couple years, as upgrading from say the E5-1650v1 to the E5-1680v2 isn't going pay off as much.

 

[wildmac]

Still probably not worth upgrading a 1.1 system if you really plan on doing stuff with it though..

 

[wikiverse]

I've always wondered why companies like HP or Dell never released a hackintosh.

I'm not saying they should release a computer with OSX installed, but release a computer with components that are all OSX compatible and sell the computer with Windows installed.

Then put out the info on sites like this saying 'HP Laptop' or 'Dell Desktop' work with OSX right out of the box - just BYO OSX.

If it were priced right and people caught on I'm sure they would get an increase in sales - particularly in the Pro Desktop market.

 

[wookl]

I have a 2010 MacPro 6-core with 24gb ram and four drives with a Geekbench score of 15713. I am more than a little concerned about how I should access my storage drives with a new MacPro. I think an 8-core MacPro would be more than sufficient for my tasks, with 512gb storage. Do I use a NAS server with raid, like Synology, or somehow try to access the four drives on the old MacPro, or get four USB3 cases, and go that route? 8TB would be sufficient. I can do TB with separate or combination cases as well. I could also buy all new SSD or PCI-E drives. Cost is not paramount, but it needs to be reliable and not slow. BTW, I am 74yo, retired math prof and just use the MacPro for ripping, editing home movies, making web pages, editing created artwork with Photoshop. Way too much computer for me, but I don't care.

Any ideas?

nas 4 free, ibm m1015 and zfs?

 

[Ploki]

I'm actually quite disappointed at the over-the-year performance increase. And for audio-engineers the dual graphics will sit there doing nothing.

What exactly do you *need* as an audio engineer?

Everybody is listening to MP3s the only thing 12core would be good for is doing 192/24 5.1 surround which nobody cares about anymore.


Jesus people in this thread... CPU speed the only thing dragging you down? I envy you

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.

yes it is, retina mbp is faster.

----------

Like many times in the past Apple is pointing to the future here. Single core processing gains are not happening nearly as fast as they did in the past and GPUs are able to perform certain tasks much, much, much faster than CPUs.

Once Apple makes the hardware the software will come, and then eventually everyone else will be making similar workstations with multiple GPUs.

thank you for some sense in this thread.

Assuming that things like audio can be ported to openCL. Supposedly convolution is a good fit but most other audio calculation doesn't translate well.

Supposedly you could do 5.1 96/24 on a 2008 C2D macbook pro.

Audio has been catered for with a laptop. You can do 192/24 mix on a laptop. Why on earth do you want 24/48thread Mac Pro for audio is beyond me

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



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.

FIR filters... its part of half FIR algorithms.

About audio not being able to be broken down: do you remember ProTools HD rigs? What did those rigs do?

So, my 2009 4,1>5,1 Hex 3.33 slightly bests the nMP Quad in the Geekbench Multi-core Performance metric, which is the score relevant for audio work.

Cost to build, including a fast GPU: about 1/2 of the nMP Quad.

Yeah, if you load up ********s of plugin. Multitrack editing benefits from fast drive (like PCIe in Mac Pro), fast externals via Thunderbolt or USB3.0, fast transient detection etc etc etc.

Its cool that you justify your purchase but don't go prancing around that 0.5% CPU bump will benefit audio more than magic fairy dust

 

[mrxak]

Like many times in the past Apple is pointing to the future here. Single core processing gains are not happening nearly as fast as they did in the past and GPUs are able to perform certain tasks much, much, much faster than CPUs.

Once Apple makes the hardware the software will come, and then eventually everyone else will be making similar workstations with multiple GPUs.

Apple is usually ahead of the curve when it comes to hardware decisions in-the-box. Examples abound, both in taking stuff away and in putting new stuff in. The problem is, if you're one of those users who likes Mac OS X, and still needs some of the old stuff, Apple may be moving a little too quickly for comfort, at times. For everyone thrilled about Apple including wifi standards very early on, there's somebody complaining about losing their floppy disk drive.

So yes, I think Apple is once again ahead of the curve. Workstations will start looking more and more like the new Mac Pro, at least in terms of hardware choices. There's going to be plenty of folks who think they're simply too far ahead of the curve, but in 2-3 years, this sort of Mac Pro will make a lot of sense to everybody (that is, everyone who needs a workstation).

Hopefully software catches up very quickly. If not, Apple may be dangling out on the precarious edge a bit too long and risks a flop. Probably the best news is, Apple has shown that they do care about the future of the Mac Pro, so I think even with some early stumbles, the model line isn't going anywhere soon. They'll keep their focus on this sort of machine, and eventually the world will catch up and everything will be right again.

Probably the most important thing to watch out for now is what Mac OS 11 will be like. If it has a heavy focus on multithreading and OpenCL, that'll be good news for everybody. APIs that help developers take advantage of hardware like in the new Mac Pro will help solidify the new Mac Pro's direction as a good thing. There's already been some of that in past versions of OS X, but more will be needed to encourage those last few developers to take the plunge.

I think Apple's three main focuses right now are battery life, cloud storage, and multithreading. If Apple keeps focusing on that third one, we'll see the Mac Pro thrive.

 

[Ploki]

Probably the most important thing to watch out for now is what Mac OS 11 will be like. If it has a heavy focus on multithreading and OpenCL, that'll be good news for everybody. APIs that help developers take advantage of hardware like in the new Mac Pro will help solidify the new Mac Pro's direction as a good thing. There's already been some of that in past versions of OS X, but more will be needed to encourage those last few developers to take the plunge.

I think Apple's three main focuses right now are battery life, cloud storage, and multithreading. If Apple keeps focusing on that third one, we'll see the Mac Pro thrive.

Not only that, by eliminating PCIexpress and working exclusively on Thunderbolt, apple is effectively concentrating the whole expansion market for their whole line-up, meaning every expansion will work on every single mac.

This is amazing because it allows much more flexibility and also easier upgrade.

 

[wildmac]

I've always wondered why companies like HP or Dell never released a hackintosh.

I'm not saying they should release a computer with OSX installed, but release a computer with components that are all OSX compatible and sell the computer with Windows installed.

Then put out the info on sites like this saying 'HP Laptop' or 'Dell Desktop' work with OSX right out of the box - just BYO OSX.

If it were priced right and people caught on I'm sure they would get an increase in sales - particularly in the Pro Desktop market.

I also wonder what Apple's response to the hackintosh community will be now that they are giving the OS away for free. Might we see kernel changes that lock out these systems, or the ones suggested above?

----------

Hmmm...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bitfenix-Pr...1118815681?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item27d779e9c1

 

[LaDirection]

Meh.... The hackint0sh is sounding more and more appealing every day. Better performance, upgradability, and expandability.

Your ignorance is sad to behold. Do you really believe a PC workstation is cheaper?? Look at the HP or Dell workstations for example, they cost far more than a Mac Pro with equal specs.

----------

I've always wondered why companies like HP or Dell never released a hackintosh.

I'm not saying they should release a computer with OSX installed, but release a computer with components that are all OSX compatible and sell the computer with Windows installed.

Then put out the info on sites like this saying 'HP Laptop' or 'Dell Desktop' work with OSX right out of the box - just BYO OSX.

If it were priced right and people caught on I'm sure they would get an increase in sales - particularly in the Pro Desktop market.

Because both Dell and HP are more expansive than Apple. Compare EVERY line of product with the exact same specs, screens etc and Apple is nearly always cheaper.

 

[wiz329]

Not only that, by eliminating PCIexpress and working exclusively on Thunderbolt, apple is effectively concentrating the whole expansion market for their whole line-up, meaning every expansion will work on every single mac.

This is amazing because it allows much more flexibility and also easier upgrade.

Only if the TB peripheral market actually fills the market to the degree that PCIe currently does, and if bandwidth increases accordingly.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Only if the TB peripheral market actually fills the market to the degree that PCIe currently does, and if bandwidth increases accordingly.

Remember when Apple switched to TB and staked their future on it? It took YEARS for just a few manufacturers to produce TB products. The TB peripheral market was seen as small and risky by most manufacturers…and it showed…big time. In hindsight "ThunderBolt" should have been renamed "Glacier" to reflect not data speed, but how fast it would take to actually be a useful technology to the average Mac user. For many, TB STILL boils down to just being a wasted port.

 

[wikiverse]

Your ignorance is sad to behold. Do you really believe a PC workstation is cheaper?? Look at the HP or Dell workstations for example, they cost far more than a Mac Pro with equal specs.

----------




Because both Dell and HP are more expansive than Apple. Compare EVERY line of product with the exact same specs, screens etc and Apple is nearly always cheaper.

It's not about being cheaper. It's about offering flexibility, additional features and being able to upgrade.

Right now there Apple has no 17" laptop model, no non-retina 15 inch laptop, no laptop with PCI-Express (for SxS cards out of Alexa), no computer with integrated optical drive or PCI card expandability, no computer with the ability to add extra internal hard drives - including solid state, no laptop without a glossy screen...

There are all features that people might want to choose but don't have an option for if they want to use OSX. Offering at least a 17" laptop would be a viable option because it's something Apple don't even offer.

But considering price, Apple computers aren't cheaper for the same specs because they are missing features the others build in like PCI expandability and additional hard/optical drives. It's not a small amount of money to fork out $1000 for a PCI chassis, and $1500 for an external thunderbolt HDD array. If you incorporate those costs into the price of a Mac Pro, it is far more expensive.

 

[flat five]

I've always wondered why companies like HP or Dell never released a hackintosh.

I'm not saying they should release a computer with OSX installed, but release a computer with components that are all OSX compatible and sell the computer with Windows installed.

Then put out the info on sites like this saying 'HP Laptop' or 'Dell Desktop' work with OSX right out of the box - just BYO OSX.

If it were priced right and people caught on I'm sure they would get an increase in sales - particularly in the Pro Desktop market.

it's illegal. a company named pystar tried doing it 5 or 6 years ago.. apple sued and won.

I don't really know the details and not sure if they were selling the hacks with OSX preinstalled

 

[wiz329]

it's illegal. a company named pystar tried doing it 5 or 6 years ago.. apple sued and won.

I don't really know the details and not sure if they were selling the hacks with OSX preinstalled

They were.

 

[wikiverse]

it's illegal. a company named pystar tried doing it 5 or 6 years ago.. apple sued and won.

I don't really know the details and not sure if they were selling the hacks with OSX preinstalled

They were.

Yea. They were shut down because they were selling hackintoshes with OSX installed.

I'm suggesting that a company just build a computer that is OSX compatible, but ship it with windows pre-installed.

 

[TonyTech]

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?

I think is safe to expect a minor update. A logical one would be to update the hdmi output to the 2.0 standard.

 

[goobot]

Yea. They were shut down because they were selling hackintoshes with OSX installed.

I'm suggesting that a company just build a computer that is OSX compatible, but ship it with windows pre-installed.

They wouldn't be allowed to say it can be a hackintosh tho since that is advertising piracy.

 

[DPUser]

What exactly do you *need* as an audio engineer. Everybody is listening to MP3s the only thing 12core would be good for is doing 192/24 5.1 surround which nobody cares about anymore. Jesus people in this thread... CPU speed the only thing dragging you down? I envy you. Why on earth do you want 24/48thread Mac Pro for audio is beyond me.

Your apparent ignorance of what many Mac Pro users do with audio is exceeded only by your obvious arrogance.

 

[eltaurus]

Smoking the crack pipe lately? Win7 is a solid OS. After dumping my 2008 mac pro and building my dual xeon 2.93 westmere system for a 2/3 of the price of a comparable mac pro, have never experienced an issue, not one. The problem folks having issues on purchased workstations is the crapware software they add on top of the OS. Buy the OEM version. No crapware. Rock solid.

hahahahahah ... Yes you are right win 7 is solid OS ... hahahah .. Sorry I don't smoke,.. Like I am not using win7 in my life.. I am using win 7 since its release in office with all legal softwares & Mac pro with OSX in Home ... DO you know how many times IT have to format and re-install win7 ? and how many times I clean up my OSX .. hahahah

again its not 2/3 price if spec are same .. you must have skip components (may be you don't need)

 

[eltaurus]

As I mentioned before, my current PC setup is:

An ASUS P8Z77-I Deluxe motherboard, 16 GB of DDR 3, and I put a Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz. I scrimped a bit on the video card with a MSI N670GTX, but not bad considering I am not a gamer. The onboard Realtek audio is good enough for basic tasks but I have add a HD2 Protools card as I use this machine as my home studio (replacing my former BOSS standalone multitrack porta-studio). My main hard drive is a Seagate 600 Series SSD 240 GB with a Seagate barracuda 3.5 TB HDD for data. I use a Corsair power supply, But I forget which one, it was around $70.... Case and fans have been around since 2 computers ago, and they are cheapo Hamfest items... Besides Windows 7 it will Dual Boot to 10.8, which I installed from original Apple File (from a 8GB jump drive). Put an Apple sticker on it, and it would be my idea of the perfect xMac.


The machine is not overkill, but it's strong. Most importantly, it can be easily upgraded....

As far as the "Case" is concerned (as you proudly mentioned in your OP), I could care less. I think this particular case cost me about $25 at a Hamfest 3 or 4 years ago. Who cares??? I'd happily mount the MB in a cardboard box if I had to. I'd much prefer that than a computer that has components glued and soldered in and is not internally expandable or user serviceable..

What is "better" is up to the user, and my needs are pretty much what is shown - plus the (Very Important) ability to expand and service the system easily...

Do you know you lost me at i7.. Please have little common sense how can you compare Xeon with i7 .. & I think your work is related to sound/music .. you don't need a PRO SYSTEM .. sound/ music work isn't that heavy .. MAC PRO dual xeon / pro GFX card is for real Pro's who work in 3d Animation and graphics field ..

Exactly I agree with your last part. You don't need Mac pro for your work field. like people working with Office suites don't need gaming system. So please stop bitching about thing you don't need.

Therefore I said in being .. Will you compare HP z 820 With HP envy i7 system ? NOOOOO

Here is one more thing .. instead of comparing your Gaming system to mac pro compare it with PC workstations from HP / DELL / Boxxtech

 

[eltaurus]

What exactly do you *need* as an audio engineer?

Everybody is listening to MP3s the only thing 12core would be good for is doing 192/24 5.1 surround which nobody cares about anymore.


Jesus people in this thread... CPU speed the only thing dragging you down? I envy you




yes it is, retina mbp is faster.

----------





thank you for some sense in this thread.



Supposedly you could do 5.1 96/24 on a 2008 C2D macbook pro.

Audio has been catered for with a laptop. You can do 192/24 mix on a laptop. Why on earth do you want 24/48thread Mac Pro for audio is beyond me


FIR filters... its part of half FIR algorithms.

About audio not being able to be broken down: do you remember ProTools HD rigs? What did those rigs do?




Yeah, if you load up ********s of plugin. Multitrack editing benefits from fast drive (like PCIe in Mac Pro), fast externals via Thunderbolt or USB3.0, fast transient detection etc etc etc.

Its cool that you justify your purchase but don't go prancing around that 0.5% CPU bump will benefit audio more than magic fairy dust

well done .. good response to rookie (audio) Professionals ..they are like a Office secretary sitting on Gaming System saying I can work in Microsoft office on my 5yr old core 2 duo .. hahhahahah

----------

I'm actually quite disappointed at the over-the-year performance increase. And for audio-engineers the dual graphics will sit there doing nothing.

.. here is a hint You don't need Mac Pro .. You know you sound like

a Office secretary sitting on Gaming System saying I can work in Microsoft office on my 5yr old core 2 duo ..


Audio work isn't that complex/heavy as 3d animation & graphics ..

 

[kendall69]

MY External 3TB USB 3 Time Machine hard drive just died today… Disk Utility and Disk Warrior can't repair it. External Drives are problematic and messy. Cables, power supplies and noisy enclosures are a pain.
Internal Drives have always been more reliable and convenient.
I will definitely get the new Mac Pro but I will miss the ability to stuff 7 HD's in just ONE box...

That's what hard drive towers are for. I have a 5 HD tower with 5 4T hd's only cone able,. internal power supply and quiet fan hot swappable for back ups - beats ant old mac pro box

 

[.:Aleph:.]

I think is safe to expect a minor update. A logical one would be to update the hdmi output to the 2.0 standard.

Thank you.

I want to buy it, but I'm not sure that this year is the time to do it.

Perhaps by next year they will release their new displays, too.