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

Anyone else disappointed by the 2.26ghz 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro's performance?

jjahshik32 said:
Great work! But how about adding a 2.66GHz Octad on that list?? Someone on this forum ran a geekbench test.
Click to expand...

I have no data for a 2.66 octad. Do you? Where is it? I'll add it if I have it. :)

The 2006 Octad specifies "(Upgraded)". This is my own machine. I purchased it with the standard X5150 2.66 dual processors in it and then later dropping in two X5355 2.66 quad processors.

Ah... I just saw Grimace's post. Kewl! I'll add them from now. Just refresh the page after an hour or so and they'll be there! :D
 
Grimace said:
Collected from around the interwebz. (The 2.26 got unfairly thrashed originally, but still won't outdo the 3.2 Penryn.)

bench.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow taking an actual look at those cinebench the 2.26GHz and the 2.8GHz seems about the same just with the 2.26GHz showing a bit more multithread power.

Its confusing because under geekbench the overall benches of the 2.8 GHz Octad shows around 8000 something points while the 2.26GHz shows around 13,000 something points.

I guess its just showing the multithread speeds only? But the overall speed bump is quite the difference among the two.


neh03_g64.gif
 
Tesselator said:
I have no data for a 2.66 octad. Do you? Where is it? I'll add it if I have it. :)

The 2006 Octad specifies "(Upgraded)". This is my own machine. I purchased it with the standard X5150 2.66 dual processors in it and then later dropping in two X5355 2.66 quad processors.

Ah... I just saw Grimace's post. Kewl! I'll add them from now. Just refresh the page after an hour or so and they'll be there! :D
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't know that was yours. I'll take it out, just to keep folks from being confused! :D

(quoted posts will still show the old)
 
jjahshik32 said:
Wow taking an actual look at those cinebench the 2.26GHz and the 2.8GHz seems about the same just with the 2.26GHz showing a bit more multithread power.

Its confusing because under geekbench the overall benches of the 2.8 GHz Octad shows around 8000 something points while the 2.26GHz shows around 13,000 something points.
Click to expand...

GeekBench's overall scores are weighted quite a lot towards multi-threaded
performance. The 2.8GHz machine outperforms the 2.26GHz machine in
every single-threaded category except for the memory tests.

Also, looking at your numbers it sounds like you are comparing 32-bit and
64-bit GeekBench results. Around 8000 (when I ran it I got 8635) is what
you're going to get for a 2.8GHz machine and 32-bit GeekBench. If you
run 64-bit GeekBench, you can get more than 9000 for that machine.

Looking at the barefeats charts, it's about 11000 for 32-bit GeekBench
on the new machines. Which is actually pretty decent, due to the
spectacular improvement in threaded performance with Nehalem.
 
Infrared said:
GeekBench's overall scores are weighted quite a lot towards multi-threaded
performance. The 2.8GHz machine outperforms the 2.26GHz machine in
every single-threaded category except for the memory tests.

Also, looking at your numbers it sounds like you are comparing 32-bit and
64-bit GeekBench results. Around 8000 (when I ran it I got 8635) is what
you're going to get for a 2.8GHz machine and 32-bit GeekBench. If you
run 64-bit GeekBench, you can get more than 9000 for that machine.

Looking at the barefeats charts, it's about 11000 for 32-bit GeekBench
on the new machines. Which is actually pretty decent, due to the
spectacular improvement in threaded performance with Nehalem.
Click to expand...

neh03_g64.gif


No the 2.26GHz octad on this chart shows an overall geekbench 64-bit 13,000 something points and it shows the 2.8GHz 8 core 2008 model around 9000 something points at 64-bit.

Both ran on the 64-bit geekbench. Now that is a pretty BIG difference with the 2.26GHz beating the 2.8ghz 8 core. I think the speed difference is more than significant enough, now I'm convinced.

Also cant wait to see how it fares in real world usage and especially when snow leopard is around it could be even bigger jump in performance when you add the 40% latency reduction + 2x memory output test (I'm still amazed by how fast the memory tests are) and throw in the quick path interconnect and we have ourselves a nice next gen CPU architecture worthy of upgrade!

The part that I was confused under was how did the overall score on the 64-bit or the 32-bit geekbench of the 2.26ghz octad to the 2.8ghz octad is so much higher but under multitasking in cinebench its almost the same (well pretty much the same on the single thread) but higher on the multithread).

I'm so glad I waited I think I'll opt for the 2.66GHz Octad. :)
 
The real question is how do these benchmarks actually measure or compare when the cpu is using turbo boost.

Or is the cinebench and geekbench actually utilizing turbo boost in those results.
 
Consider this a general warning to everyone...knock it off with the insults.

We've had to clean up this thread several times due to insults by a number of people. There's a lot of good info in this thread and we'd rather not close this and/or start handing out bans like they're candy.

Thanks for your cooperation, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled benchmarks. :)
 
WildCowboy said:
Consider this a general warning to everyone...knock it off with the insults.

We've had to clean up this thread several times due to insults by a number of people. There's a lot of good info in this thread and we'd rather not close this and/or start handing out bans like they're candy.

Thanks for your cooperation, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled benchmarks. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks WildCowboy!
 
There were insults? Hmm, I think I missed them. Or I'm just so used to such things that I'm desensitized. :( I hope my "Oh! Thanks a lot - J/K" wasn't considered as an insult of any kind??!
 
jjahshik32 said:
You make some great points. I'm really considering a 2.8GHz 8 core model if I can score one on the cheap, which would be even better.
Click to expand...

They seem to be right around $1000 for minty grade with minimum spec:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro::...itemZ270354920490QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182

Upgraded decently they seem to hit around $2000 or so:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mac-Pro,-8-Core...itemZ110361503414QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-MacPro-8-...itemZ150330878801QQcmdZViewItem#ht_688wt_1167
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro--...itemZ290300410326QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182

Sometimes as much as $3K when beefy and minty but usually under (so it seems).
 
Tesselator said:
They seem to be right around $1000 for minty grade with minimum spec:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro::...itemZ270354920490QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182

Upgraded decently they seem to hit around $2000 or so:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mac-Pro,-8-Core...itemZ110361503414QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-MacPro-8-...itemZ150330878801QQcmdZViewItem#ht_688wt_1167
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro--...itemZ290300410326QQcmdZViewItem#ht_500wt_1182

Sometimes as much as $3K when beefy and minty but usually under (so it seems).
Click to expand...

Those are all under auction only and probably end up around $2500-$2800ish.

I can pick up a new one at the apple store, I believe my local store has a 2.8ghz 8 core with student discount and after taxes comes out to be $2489. That is still almost $800 cheaper than the lowest end Nehalem.

I can just get that and add a ATI 4870 card.. but then again its $350 for that, then I'd have to add 16GB of RAM that cost around $550 from Transintl and it'll be jacked up in price to $3450ish.

Still not too bad.
 
I've been following this thread because I'm about to purchase my first Mac Pro. If I choose the 8core 2.8GHz 2008 (I have located several, all at ~£1800), I'd still have to upgrade the memory, graphics card and HD to obtain somewhat equal spec to the 8core 2.26GHz 2009. After the upgrades, I would save about £400 and even then it would still be slower.
I don't pretend to know much about Mac Pros but I've put a lot of thought to it and the 2.26GHz is looking like the better deal due to the new architecture and future proofing. The 2.26GHz clock speed does seem disappointing, and I wish I could foot the extra £1K for the 2.66GHz. But everything I've read seems to indicate the clock speed is not an accurate gauge when evaluating the Nehalem. I've read elsewhere in this forum that the cpu's are upgradeable and are reported to be among the more affordable Intels. I'm hoping to upgrade cpu's in a few years or more likely move onto whatever the new Mac Pro will be.
I don't think I'll actually be disappointed by the performance of the 2.26GHz 8core 2009 MP, especially since this will be my first Mac Pro. I just need to get in and get working. For me, a few hundred benchmark points or a few hundred £s are not worth delaying over any longer.
 
ekoe said:
I've read elsewhere in this forum that the cpu's are upgradeable and are reported to be among the more affordable Intels.
Click to expand...

Yes. For a pair of the right 2.66GHz Nehalem CPUs, you'd be looking
at roughly $2000, i.e., approx £1430. That's assuming you buy in
quantities of 1000 at a time. If you don't, it'll cost you more. To go
to 2.93GHz, you'd be looking at about £2000 on top of the cost of
the machine. So very affordable ;)

Prices may drop over time. How far they drop, I wouldn't like to guess.
 
This may be severely naive of me, but I've noticed 3.2GHz Intel Core i7 cpu's from November 2008 can be found for ~£120 cheaper than their original £720 price/1k. If the 3.2GHz Core i7 dropped this much in 4mnths, is it unrealistic to imagine that in 3-4yrs the Nehalem Xeon 2.66GHz or 2.93GHz may also be found affordably for a cpu upgrade in a 2.26GHz MP 2009? Or, at least more affordable than the £1K or so bump in price between the 2.26GHz and 2.66GHz MP 2009? I'm asking because I really don't know about these things but I'm hopeful. What about QPI speed? Would the 2.66 or 2.93GHz cpu's be compatible with the 2.26GHz MP?
 
All of the machines whether it's a 2008 2.8 or a 2009 2.66 have to be upgraded from their base-line specs depending on what what you're doing with them. The new 2009 only comes with 1 extra gig or ram. Not really noticeable.

I just wrote the following in another thread. It explains my logic on the matter:

1998 Apple Releases a 1 core G3 266MHz (AV) $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2000 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 450MHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2002 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 1.00GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2004 Apple Releases a 2 core G5 2.00 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2006 Apple Releases a 4 core 2.66 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2008 Apple Releases a 8 core 2.8 GHz $2800 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X

See this is about how it's supposed to go. Since about 1980 this has been pretty much the case with every vendor. Every two years we get 2X the speed for about the same price. But what about this year?

2009 Apple releases a 8 core (w/HT) 2.66 GHz $4700 ... Speed difference = between 0.9X ~ 1.68X

Yeah, between slower and only about 70% increase when heavily multitheading - but almost TWO THOUSAND dollars more???​

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/665054/

These are the actual prices, models, speeds, and dates too! (well actually Apple has always charged $2499 and not $2500 - I rounded it up)
 
Tesselator said:
All of the machines whether it's a 2008 2.8 or a 2009 2.66 have to be upgraded from their base-line specs depending on what what you're doing with them. The new 2009 only comes with 1 extra gig or ram. Not really noticeable.

I just wrote the following in another thread. It explains my logic on the matter:

1998 Apple Releases a 1 core G3 266MHz (AV) $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2000 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 450MHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2002 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 1.00GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2004 Apple Releases a 2 core G5 2.00 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2006 Apple Releases a 4 core 2.66 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2008 Apple Releases a 8 core 2.8 GHz $2800 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X

See this is about how it's supposed to go. Since about 1980 this has been pretty much the case with every vendor. Every two years we get 2X the speed for about the same price. But what about this year?

2009 Apple releases a 8 core (w/HT) 2.66 GHz $4700 ... Speed difference = between 0.9X ~ 1.68X

Yeah, between slower and only about 70% increase when heavily multitheading - but almost TWO THOUSAND dollars more???​

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/665054/

These are the actual prices, models, speeds, and dates too! (well actually Apple has always charged $2499 and not $2500 - I rounded it up)
Click to expand...

While I agree with your reasoning, all the previous examples go in 2 year jumps with this last one being a one year jump. The big issue is is the price hike. The 2.26GHz 8 core Nehalem isn't a *bad* machine, its just seriously overpriced. Its very evident that Apple has increased their profit margins with these Mac Pros by about $1000.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
While I agree with your reasoning, all the previous examples go in 2 year jumps with this last one being a one year jump. The big issue is is the price hike. The 2.26GHz 8 core Nehalem isn't a *bad* machine, its just seriously overpriced. Its very evident that Apple has increased their profit margins with these Mac Pros by about $1000.
Click to expand...

knowing that apple doesn't budge with their prices over the span of the product cycle, does that kind of profit margin increase indicate anything about the length of this product cycle? should we expect another bump in 140 days? 518, perhaps?

anybody think we should expect a 3.2 nehalem at the 2.93 price point by the end of '09?
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
While I agree with your reasoning, all the previous examples go in 2 year jumps with this last one being a one year jump. The big issue is is the price hike. The 2.26GHz 8 core Nehalem isn't a *bad* machine, its just seriously overpriced. Its very evident that Apple has increased their profit margins with these Mac Pros by about $1000.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so too. Tho is it $1000 increased margin or a $1700 increase. Someone posted all the bulk rates on macrunors a few days ago. ;)
 
Sorry but as long as I can keep using my Octo 2.8 OC'd to 3185, it's a lot better than octo 2.26. Cinebench results:
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 168
Tesselator said:
All of the machines whether it's a 2008 2.8 or a 2009 2.66 have to be upgraded from their base-line specs depending on what what you're doing with them. The new 2009 only comes with 1 extra gig or ram. Not really noticeable.

I just wrote the following in another thread. It explains my logic on the matter:

1998 Apple Releases a 1 core G3 266MHz (AV) $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2000 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 450MHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2002 Apple Releases a 2 core G4 1.00GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2004 Apple Releases a 2 core G5 2.00 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2006 Apple Releases a 4 core 2.66 GHz $2500 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X
2008 Apple Releases a 8 core 2.8 GHz $2800 ... Speed increase from previous = more than 2X

See this is about how it's supposed to go. Since about 1980 this has been pretty much the case with every vendor. Every two years we get 2X the speed for about the same price. But what about this year?

2009 Apple releases a 8 core (w/HT) 2.66 GHz $4700 ... Speed difference = between 0.9X ~ 1.68X

Yeah, between slower and only about 70% increase when heavily multitheading - but almost TWO THOUSAND dollars more???​

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/665054/

These are the actual prices, models, speeds, and dates too! (well actually Apple has always charged $2499 and not $2500 - I rounded it up)
Click to expand...

Depends on what you look at.

2008 Quad 2.8 = $1999 (was it? It was $2499 canadian)
2009 Quad 2.66 = $2499 ~ 2X increase in performance
 
Tesselator said:
I just wrote the following in another thread. It explains my logic on the matter:
Click to expand...
It would be better to compare the 2007 8-core 3.0 GHz Mac Pro to the 2009 8-core 2.67 GHz Mac Pro, or the 2008 8-core 2.8 GHz Mac Pro to a presumed 2010 12-core Gulftown Mac Pro. The most concrete clock speeds on Gulftown (which isn't really concrete) are somewhat similar clocks to Gainestowns.

I do see your point though…the new Mac Pro isn't as good value as its predecessor.

Abidubi said:
Depends on what you look at.

2008 Quad 2.8 = $1999 (was it? It was $2499 canadian)
2009 Quad 2.66 = $2499 ~ 2X increase in performance
Click to expand...
It was $2299 or so. And I highly doubt the 2009 2.67 GHz quad is 2x as fast as the 2008 2.8 GHz quad in general.
 
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