Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks

[tony3d]

I'm finding these tests hard to believe, but if they are accurate then my computer's tests are relative to it, and thats simply unimpressive. So maybe this is a farce or something.

 

[Mackan]

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.

In case you haven't noticed, everything Apple designs is thinner, using more integrated solutions, and less upgradeable.

 

[Wreckem]

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.

Don't be daft.

Again, look at the geekbench scores from the dual 2697 machine I posted. It scores even lower.

Also refer to my post about dual 2690s posting an incredible 10000 on MacOSX via hackintoshing back last July(they are currently hitting much higher).

 

[donutbagel]

In case you haven't noticed, everything Apple designs is thinner, using more integrated solutions, and less upgradeable.

Well, not the current Mac Pro.

 

[Umbongo]

And RAM. The result isn't very good, but I highly doubt that this is the final result. In fact, I think it's fake. It says it was running on a 32-bit Mac OS X.

That's just the free version of geekbench.

 

[donutbagel]

removed

 

[AppleDroid]

Oh puh-leaze.

A 12-core chip that's 10% faster than 12-cores of 3 year old chips isn't "kicking the crap" out of anything.

And what are these magical missing optimizations? (links, please)

Apple has killed the power mac, and finally produced the xMac. Too bad, though, for the people who needed Power Macs.

Plus the people who wanted an xMac wanted a cheaper, non server grade solution but with some expansion options under $2k. This gives people who didn't want an xmac a non-upgradable system.

 

[donutbagel]

That's just the free version of geekbench.

OK, it's just the wording that was confusing. I went ahead and did a free trial test myself. It says Mac OS X x86 (32-bit), but it means that the test was run in 32-bit mode, not that the OS is 32-bit.

 

[tony3d]

Plus the people who wanted an xMac wanted a cheaper, non server grade solution but with some expansion options under $2k. This gives people who didn't want an xmac a non-upgradable system.

You bet because this thing is not coming in below $2499.00 count on that.

 

[DaveChapin]

One factor that will substantially increase the "real world speed" far more than these posts indicate, is the PCIe SSD system. This is RAMDISC on steroids. That alone will about double the experienced speed for "some uses". The unified 12 core will increase speed for others. The very substantially increased I/O of TB2 will massively improve yet others. The substantially larger and more integrated graphics still another. Taken together this is a huge overall speed and CAPACITY update. The fact it will take months to arrive is frustrating, but between Intel CPU's and Intel TB2's and the graphics chips, it will certainly be worth the wait. The other "PC" vendors have to wait too.

Rocketman

Exactly

Geek bench measures mainly CPU performance and perhaps not so well. And the fact is this single 12 core Xeon part is not much faster than two of last years Xeon parts in the last Mac Pro.

And if your work is purely CPU bottlenecked there's not much to cheer here apart from the incredible portability -- which I will be taking advantage of by the way. A Mac Pro I can actually pack and take with me!

This Mac Pro is about overall system performance. I mean ****, look at that fast ram, look at that INSANELY fast storage. CPUs are not islands folks. Computers are only as fast as their weakest link and this new Mac Pro just destroyed those rather massive weak links.

Oh yeah and there are two FirePro GPUs in there too.

 

[Wreckem]

Plus the people who wanted an xMac wanted a cheaper, non server grade solution but with some expansion options under $2k. This gives people who didn't want an xmac a non-upgradable system.

It doesnt appear Apple is ever going to have a headless mac that is inbetween the iMac and the MacPro. Its a shame really but thats the reality of it. If you want that you should make a hackintosh.

Also, I further call ******** on the numbers because a 4core i7 4770K hits 22000 in 64bit mode.

 

[donutbagel]

It doesnt appear Apple is ever going to have a headless mac that is inbetween the iMac and the MacPro. Its a shame really but thats the reality of it. If you want that you should make a hackintosh.

There is absolutely no room between the iMac and Mac Pro in terms of performance. They overlap. The best iMac beats the worst Mac Pro.

 

[G4DP]

Last time I checked intel is the one with the x86 processor roadmap, not Apple.
Also can't we expect a more powerful chip configuration than this anyway?

I feel like people don't think about these things before they make judgement.

Nope 2.7GHz is the fastest 12 core CPU in the current line up.

 

[Yamcha]

Yeah, not what I was expecting, the benchmarks seem rather low. But of course Geekbench scores alone don't mean as much, you'd have to do some real-life benchmarks and see how it really performs.

But generally speaking, Geekbench can give a bit of an idea. Either way I suspect the upgrade is most likely not worth it If you have the last generation..

 

[Tutor]

Mac Score
Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 3070 MHz (12 cores) - 21,980

AAPLJ90,1 - 23,901

Thus, currently, the AAPLJ90,1's Geekbench 2 score is 1.09x higher than the 2012 Mac Pro.

 

[tony3d]

Mac Score
Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 3070 MHz (12 cores) - 21,980

AAPLJ90,1 - 23,901

Thus, currently, the AAPLJ90,1's Geekbench 2 score is 1.09x higher than the 2012 Mac Pro.

I don't know where there getting 21980 these are my scores.

 

[Wreckem]

There is absolutely no room between the iMac and Mac Pro in terms of performance. They overlap. The best iMac beats the worst Mac Pro.

Not quite fair comparing a current Imac to a several year old MacPro

But I'll bite. While there is basically only the 6 core i7 CPUs in between the iMac and MacPro, the iMac is weak in terms of GPU power. So yes there is most definately space in between the iMac and the MacPro, but that space will only be fulfilled by Hackintoshes.

 

[MacDav]

Here's what's up -- lack of significant advancements in CPU technology is a real restriction. There just isn't much to do other than add more cores, and all those cores are hot, which then comes at the expense of clock speed. It's a tricky balance.

In light of that, Apple's decided that the big leap forward in the new generation of Mac Pros will come from the GPU side. Geekbench is a CPU-only test, so you're not seeing the important part. The important part is that on a GPU test it would obliterate any out of the box mac ever, probably by an order of magnitude. From here on out, it's all eggs in the GPU basket.

If the software creators don't take advantage of the dual workstation GPUs, it won't do anyone any good. If they do, then it'll make this new Mac Pro wipe the floor with the old model in real world use (not Geekbench).

Of course, you can always add GPUs to the old model. But it's the change in philosophy that I'm commenting on.

Yes, and "if" Apple can optimize all their pro software (Final cut, Logic ect.) to take full advantage of these GPU's, it could push them out front in these segments. Interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[mac666er]

Mac Score
Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 3070 MHz (12 cores) - 21,980

AAPLJ90,1 - 23,901

Thus, currently, the AAPLJ90,1's Geekbench 2 score is 1.09x higher than the 2012 Mac Pro.

Well, getting a refurbished min spec 2-processor "old" Mac Pro and putting two x5690s doesn't seem that bad of a deal, specially since it has been possible for a while...

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=13424813#post13424813

Still, I would be interested in getting a "new" Mac Pro with TWO 12 core processors, a geekbench of 46,000 or, OK, one around 35,000-ish to 40,000 would seem attractive to spend around 7,000 to 8,000 USD which I imagine is what this 2 processor mac would cost.

 

[MacVidCards]

How to Hot Rod the new iCan

I just put a couple ideas together.

Apple hints that this new machine is ALWAYS running at it's thermal limit when they tell you that if one of the GPUs isn't using all of it's thermal capacity then it can be used by one of the other member's of the triangle.

The other half of this hint is the text from article about the iCan approaching thermal limits causing these low Geekbench scores.

So maybe higher scores would be possible if you installed a larger/faster fan in top.

Or added a base fan.

Or even set the iCan on top of a box fan or AC register.

Or maybe put it in fridge/freezer?

 

[Lancer]

Can we assume this is the base model new Mac Pro and other models will be much high? They did say up to twice as fast.

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

As for the price, I'm betting the base model will still be around the same, add an Apple LED and its probably over $1000 more than the top iMac with extras.

JMO

 

[Tutor]

I don't know where there getting 21980 these are my scores.

It's just an average of the 32-bit scores and yours is above average. So you should probably stick with what you've got.

 

[JoEw]

Nope 2.7GHz is the fastest 12 core CPU in the current line up.

sad.

 

[MacVidCards]

Can we assume this is the base model new Mac Pro and other models will be much high? They did say up to twice as fast.

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

As for the price, I'm betting the base model will still be around the same, add an Apple LED and its probably over $1000 more than the top iMac with extras.

JMO

Nope, top of the line.

The entry level machines should really help sell Minis and iPads.

 

[tony3d]

It's just an average of the 32-bit scores and yours is above average. So you should probably stick with what you've got.

I'm happy. If I add the GTX680, and a PCIe SSD i'm set for rendering in Lightwave. Apple just saved me a lot of money.