Mac Pro (2010) Intel Xeon 3.20 Ghz (4 cores) with a score of 9713 is where I'm working on
So the new Mac Pro would be more then twice as fast Would be nice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac Pro (2010) Intel Xeon 3.20 Ghz (4 cores) with a score of 9713 is where I'm working on
So the new Mac Pro would be more then twice as fast Would be nice.
...you're typing it wrong... 1921. If you want to teach maths, be sure your students get the lesson. Anyway, the meaning of sharky ii post was quite clear...
Ok...
Fact is, Intel is not pushing the 12core CPU past 2.7 GHz (as far as we know). Apple cannot do anything about that. And it's still questionable if this 12core is able to be put into multi-socket systems.
Using more cores (or sockets) is one thing that could've been possible, but most of the speed gains in rendering, recoding whatever are in fact possible using the GPGPUs in todays modern systems when the software uses the APIs that provides access to the GPGPU system (doesn't matter if it's CUDA, OpenCL or QuickSync or whatever).
For example: using Handbrake with Intel QuickSync loweres the recode times drastically in comparison to just using more cores. CPU doesn't scale as well as using GPGPUs.
So let's wait for real world benchmarks with software that can use GPGPU when doing their work in comparison to the same software using only the CPU for the same task. We'll see how fast the new MacPro (or comparable machines which use GPGPU processing) is then.
Fact is, Intel is not pushing the 12core CPU past 2.7 GHz (as far as we know). Apple cannot do anything about that. And it's still questionable if this 12core is able to be put into multi-socket systems.
Using more cores (or sockets) is one thing that could've been possible, but most of the speed gains in rendering, recoding whatever are in fact possible using the GPGPUs in todays modern systems when the software uses the APIs that provides access to the GPGPU system (doesn't matter if it's CUDA, OpenCL or QuickSync or whatever).
For example: using Handbrake with Intel QuickSync loweres the recode times drastically in comparison to just using more cores. CPU doesn't scale as well as using GPGPUs.
So let's wait for real world benchmarks with software that can use GPGPU when doing their work in comparison to the same software using only the CPU for the same task. We'll see how fast the new MacPro (or comparable machines which use GPGPU processing) is then.
That might be the trend, but it's not the rule. I can think of a number of exceptions, including various revisions of the Mac Pro. It was possible to configure a single CPU 2008 for under $2K, which was a great deal since you could drop another CPU in without needing any other parts (other than the fan/heatsink assembly).
Exactly... why do some blame Apple for the speed of Intels Chips?
The whole "We want a new Mac Pro" thing is about secondary speed increases and thunderbolt connectivity, isn't it?
They are designed for two socket systems. Apple are using them in a single socket system so that they can offer more than 6 cores. There is a hefty price premium for that though, when you consider a 3.4GHz 6-core will be $600 and a 2.7GHz 12-core will likely be in the $2,000-$2,500 range.
What we wanted was:
1. PCIE 3.0 with power for at least 2 REAL GPUs
2. USB 3
3. SATA 3
What we got is......
an abomination that barely gives us one of those things.
Would have been better to say "Mac Pro is discontinued, but check out the new Mini Squared !!!"
The 2008 with 1 CPU was $2,299, a saving of $500 but the 2.8GHz E5462 CPUs they came with were $800 and the heatsinks were $100+. They didn't come down in price for years as the vast majority were inside Mac Pros.
The size is truly important to me. Being able to pack up two of these and move them between locations and merely plug them into an already established setup elsewhere is game changing, for me.
I initially frowned when I saw the comparisons, but as others have said... Beta 1 of an OS on brand new hardware isn't exactly a deal breaker.
One processor vs two seems pretty obviously like a result of thermal issues. Two twelve core processors jamming along near 100% would not only create internal hardware issues, but it would make sitting anywhere near the thing pretty miserable.
Many applications already take advantage of GPU processing. That will only become more common... Not worried.
Any company that is really concerned with its own longevity has already invested on some level in Thunderbolt expansion and storage. That will obviously increase dramatically with these machines and TB2. The advantages are too great and outweigh the likely high costs.
Worst case scenario (for me), I have a Mac Pro with much more expansion- that I've prepared for (maybe even slightly prematurely, although our MBP users use them pretty heavily), its much more convenient to take from location to location, and based off of this single geekbench result, is faster than stock previous gen machines on increasingly insignificant statistic.
I won't modify my machines. We use AppleCare and Joint Venture and its just an asinine move for us to throw that away when the turn around times and loaner machines from Apple are excellent the majority of the time.
We choose to keep our IT staff fairly small. By investing in the solutions we have, including taking advantage of Apple's frankly outstanding services for small businesses, we can afford to do so and easily afford to adopt somewhat cutting-edge technology. I suspect other companies with a larger IT staff is spending a lot of our budget on their head count. Not saying its wrong or bad (I was an IT once upon a time! That job market has been brutal since 2001)... It's just not how we are currently operating.
I don't mind the complaints though. You saw what happened with the XBox One and Apple Maps. Opinions are important and can change things... and if it results in improvements, we'd all be glad there were passionate people out there who have needs that aren't met by the current offering.
Regardless, I believe we will see much better real world performance than many of you are expecting. The nMP will likely launch alongside updates to Final Cut Pro, and possibly even Logic Pro, which is the Mac Pro of software these days- and probably going to see a radical redesign in the same way.
TLDR: It fits my needs quite well, and is faster than my current machines which are fixed in place basically. We are invested in Apple's ecosystem for businesses, so modifying previous gen machines isn't an option. We (my partners and I) are also pretty convinced that this machine will surprise the-currently-disappointed with its hopefully stellar real-world performance (alongside optimized software updates).
I initially frowned when I saw the comparisons, but as others have said... Beta 1 of an OS on brand new hardware isn't exactly a deal breaker.
One processor vs two seems pretty obviously like a result of thermal issues. Two twelve core processors jamming along near 100% would not only create internal hardware issues, but it would make sitting anywhere near the thing pretty miserable.
Many applications already take advantage of GPU processing. That will only become more common... Not worried.
Any company that is really concerned with its own longevity has already invested on some level in Thunderbolt expansion and storage. That will obviously increase dramatically with these machines and TB2. The advantages are too great and outweigh the likely high costs.
Worst case scenario (for me), I have a Mac Pro with much more expansion- that I've prepared for (maybe even slightly prematurely, although our MBP users use them pretty heavily), its much more convenient to take from location to location, and based off of this single geekbench result, is faster than stock previous gen machines on increasingly insignificant statistic.
I won't modify my machines. We use AppleCare and Joint Venture and its just an asinine move for us to throw that away when the turn around times and loaner machines from Apple are excellent the majority of the time.
We choose to keep our IT staff fairly small. By investing in the solutions we have, including taking advantage of Apple's frankly outstanding services for small businesses, we can afford to do so and easily afford to adopt somewhat cutting-edge technology. I suspect other companies with a larger IT staff is spending a lot of our budget on their head count. Not saying its wrong or bad (I was an IT once upon a time! That job market has been brutal since 2001)... It's just not how we are currently operating.
I don't mind the complaints though. You saw what happened with the XBox One and Apple Maps. Opinions are important and can change things... and if it results in improvements, we'd all be glad there were passionate people out there who have needs that aren't met by the current offering.
Regardless, I believe we will see much better real world performance than many of you are expecting. The nMP will likely launch alongside updates to Final Cut Pro, and possibly even Logic Pro, which is the Mac Pro of software these days- and probably going to see a radical redesign in the same way.
TLDR: It fits my needs quite well, and is faster than my current machines which are fixed in place basically. We are invested in Apple's ecosystem for businesses, so modifying previous gen machines isn't an option. We (my partners and I) are also pretty convinced that this machine will surprise the-currently-disappointed with its hopefully stellar real-world performance (alongside optimized software updates).
Last edited:
All this angst and teeth-gnashing amongst the malcontents is hilariously pathetic.
Judge this "metal trash can" when it's actually released and tested in real-life GPU-laden tasks.
Your wallet will be out faster than you can say teraflop.
Judge this "metal trash can" when it's actually released and tested in real-life GPU-laden tasks.
Your wallet will be out faster than you can say teraflop.
Still think one of the configurations should be two processors and one graphics card. There are three sides to the thermal core. Just think what two twelve core processors could do...
Of course that would probably limit SSD space. Compromises, compromises. Not what the Mac Pro used to be about.
Of course that would probably limit SSD space. Compromises, compromises. Not what the Mac Pro used to be about.
Right, so my 2009, 8x3.33 gives me a GB score of about 17-18000. The new 'beast' offers roughly 24000 so that's a gain of 33% over a 4-year old machine. By replacing my two W5590s with two X5680s I'd get 50% more for a fraction of the price of this new MP and would still have a faster machine. Come on Apple, bring on that dual CPU model, it's sorely needed.
1. I want one and need one but did not want to buy outdated gear.
2. I can
3. I just ordered a 960 Gb Crucial M500 SSD to speed up my MBP, I hope that will do until the new Mac Pro is available and the flaws are detected.
So the FirePro's are not real GPUs? And the artist from Pixar is not on the record saying that his experience with the "non production version" of the new MacPro was the fastest out of the box performance for Mari that he has experienced? Maybe Apple slipped him some cash under the table and the live demo really wasn't live?
From a pure "out of box" looking at, personally I would rather have a lot more GPU power than CPU power (3D animation tends to be easier to setup when your GPUs are not choking every second).
If you need raw CPU power, this isn't the machine for you. If you need massive graphics performance, then this machine might be what you need. Sure you could probably beat it with a hackintosh -- but graphic professionals generally don't like using non-supported hardware that has zero tech support options. (there are those rare occasions of pros who roll their own machines, but generally that isn't the rule.)
Any final judgements ought to wait until release versions are tested. All I can say is it looks as though Apple decided not the skimp on the GPU side which is almost always what happens.
-mark
Now i take this number with a grain of salt, knowing full well the hardware and software are still in the development phase, but I'm underwhelmed by these numbers. Like others here, i was expecting to see results in the 30k+ category. Lets not be so quick to rush to judgement and see what improvements come in time.
You watch a demo where no other software that exists or other computers are compared and find that it proves something? It's a bar graph with only one bar.
My List said "PCIE 3.0 with a real GPU"
Guess what? the consensus is that another Apple compromise was PCIE 2.0 on the GPUs. Might even be at 8 lanes. So bus speed cut in half or 1/4 so that all those nifty TB controllers have lanes.
So we waited 1500 days for an 8% boost.
What was the fake geek bench score before he 2008 model came out?
1 & 2,
I don't get all the great comments about it being lighter and smaller? It's a damn desktop. You are not meant to be carrying around in your bag like a laptop. People are suddenly going to start taking a desktop on visiting clients? Packing all the external drives away and taken the as well. That'll look really professional, asking a client to wait 30 minutes while you plug everything. Horsehocky.
3,
Looks better? It's a workstation computer, not a Ferrari. Looks only matter to the sad lot that wont use it to make money.
4, After 4 years to work on this they give a mediocre increase in raw processing power. The GPU's are great but unless you run stuff that is optimised for them they are nothing more than heaters. We should have been seeing motherboards with 4 slots in these machines not a reduction down to 1.
5, Good expandability? HA HA. If you want to double the spend on the initial machine to get a similar set up to what you can already get inside the current systems. As for CopperCripple, don't believe the carp that is said. It was a joke on release, going from optic to copper.
6, Again it's a damn desktop, doesn't need to be carried around. The only time you need to move it is when you take it out of the box and plonk it on the desk.
Or is everyone going to get a plinth and bow down to it every morning?
You seem to give more credence to an easily faked bench mark report then a person who has actually used the machine. You also have a lot of faith in Internet consensus.