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

Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks

Rog210 said:
They're making one hell of a gamble. People use MPs for all kinds of things. For me as an audio guy, if Steinberg choose not to use GPU processing for Cubase (and why would they, I can't even imagine the work they would have to do) then my current MP will be the last Apple desktop I buy. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars for some fast GPUs I won't ever use.
Click to expand...

Not much work, there is an API for it.

----------

Benchmarks like these aren't good indicators of performance. It could very well be the case that geekbench just doesn't perform well with a 12 core processor. It has long been known that performance DEGRADES the more cores you add to a processor.

That doesn't mean it's worse.

----------
ArchAndroid said:
Mac Pro 2013

Customer desires:
- Slightly smaller
- Exponentially faster

Apple delivers:
- Slightly faster
- Exponentially smaller.

Oh... and one more thing. You'll no longer be able to upgrade any of the internal components when Intel or AMD upgrade their processors.

Classic :apple:
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that CPU will not be upgradable. It's also very possible that GPU manufacturers will still be able to release a form factor of GPU to replace the ones inside.
 
The Floating Point is not that impressive at all. This is what Pixar was bragging about?
 
Rog210 said:
They're making one hell of a gamble. People use MPs for all kinds of things. For me as an audio guy, if Steinberg choose not to use GPU processing for Cubase (and why would they, I can't even imagine the work they would have to do) then my current MP will be the last Apple desktop I buy. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars for some fast GPUs I won't ever use.
Click to expand...

What you're not understanding is that you can't get better CPU performance elsewhere because Intel is hitting its limit. So at least Apple is providing a dual GPU solution for developers to use for general compute. But even without, Mac Pro performance will be on a par with others using the same Xeon CPUs. So why would you buy a Dell, HP, or whatever else that runs the same CPU at the same speed as Apple?

Silly.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
What you're not understanding is that you can't get better CPU performance elsewhere because Intel is hitting its limit. So at least Apple is providing a dual GPU solution for developers to use for general compute. But even without, Mac Pro performance will be on a par with others using the same Xeon CPUs. So why would you buy a Dell, HP, or whatever else that runs the same CPU at the same speed as Apple?

Silly.
Click to expand...

Because with Dell/HP/etc for $10k+ they will be able to get dual CPUs.
 
Makes me wonder if the older 3.33 ghz 12-core upgraded mac pro is more powerful then the new minimacpro... Only an 8% increase over the 3.06ghz 12 core? Doesnt seem like enough...
 
ThisIsNotMe said:
I call shenanigans...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2056270/2064275
Click to expand...

You know, you're right.

That 3.06 is equal to the iCan.

Looks like my 5680s should have "kicked the can"

Going to see if I need to optimize.

jmpnop said:
Cmon, this is really impressive for a trashcan:eek::apple:
Click to expand...

It is NOT just a trash can. With the proper attachments, it can also be a very nice vacuum. You can even add a HEPA filter and it is then good for those with allergies.
 
Last edited:
marsmissions said:
There is no evidence that CPU will not be upgradable. It's also very possible that GPU manufacturers will still be able to release a form factor of GPU to replace the ones inside.
Click to expand...

Everything is going toward more integrated solutions. Fits perfectly in with planned obsolescence for the hardware, so you have to buy a whole new machine.
 
Seriously, optimized or not, this simply is not impressive. I'll stick with my 3.06 12 core, add the GTX680, and the OWC PCIe SSD, and I'm good to go.
 
It also seems that people are attaching no importance to the hugely improved memory performance. This will have tremendous actual-use implications that Geekbench doesn't reflect.
 
Wreckem said:
You are basing your opinion on incomplete/inaccurate data.

If I had to guess it will eventually hit ~30000 on geekbench and cost less than half the price as those machines hitting 40000-45000.
Click to expand...

How can you say that it is inaccurate data. They ran Geekbench in 32 bit mode, and thats what they got! Sounds accurate to me.
 
Mackan said:
Everything is going toward more integrated solutions. Fits perfectly in with planned obsolescence for the hardware, so you have to buy a whole new machine.
Click to expand...

If apple meant for this computer to be an entirely integrated disposable solution they wouldn't have even engineered it in the first place. They simply would have made the mac minis better.
 
ScottishDuck said:
Pretty sure we're looking at a 6-core CPU that's multithreaded and not a 12-core CPU...
Click to expand...

It's 12 cores.

Wreckem said:
Again, it looks like, at this moment, OSX is NOT optimized for the Ivy Bridge E5 2697. Which isn't entirely surprising as the processer isn't finished with validation testing. We will see what the processor is capable of when we see it in Geekbench tests using Win7.

Scratch that, Windows isn't currently optimized for it either. Dual 2697 v2s with 15774 geekbench score on Windows Server 2012.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2057228

Its obvious validation, other testing, and optimization is no where near done on either OSX or Windows. These geekbench numbers are obviously not final numbers.
Click to expand...

We know how Ivy Bridge performs already, how Westmere performed and how Sandy Bridge-EP performs. Ivy Bridge-EP is pretty much more of the same, which certainly isn't a bad thing, but there aren't going to be some big magical behind the scenes features we aren't aware of. Once those CPU numbers leaked on Friday it was clear that a new 12-core Mac Pro won't be much better than what was already available with the Mac Pro.

That said I agree these numbers will go up. This is a 32-bit run, and with it still having the score it has I think it indicates that an E5-2697 V2 in the new Mac Pro is capable of turboboosting up a few bins across all cores which is a good sign.
 
Am I the only one wondering what the new Mac Mini will look like? A tiny cylinder would actually be pretty cool.
 
I dont understand why people complain so much. Geekbench testing only CPU power.
The result is fine..
 
Deplorable.. absolutely deplorable.. so, this is Apple's new iCan.. a measily 3 percent faster over the 12-core 3.06? Deplorable.

GraniteTheWolf said:
Makes me wonder if the older 3.33 ghz 12-core upgraded mac pro is more powerful then the new minimacpro... Only an 8% increase over the 3.06ghz 12 core? Doesnt seem like enough...
Click to expand...
 
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