unfortunately, so far, most of the previous benchmarks (ie rMBP, etc) that leaked prior to release were spot-on in performance. granted they are using OS 10.9 (still don't understand why people use "OS X 10.x") and there may be bugs with the OS, i'd think performance won't be much further than what was posted.
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
unfortunately, so far, most of the previous benchmarks (ie rMBP, etc) that leaked prior to release were spot-on in performance. granted they are using OS 10.9 (still don't understand why people use "OS X 10.x") and there may be bugs with the OS, i'd think performance won't be much further than what was posted.
At least Apple finally decided to equip Mac Pros with workstation GPUs. That's the only positive thing I have to say about this generation.
The actual choice of GPU is terrible. AMD FirePro only bests the Nvidia Quadro for CAD/CAE. For all other industry-standard applications, Nvidia Quadro reigns in performance. The worst part is that even if I want to connect an Nvidia Quadro, Nvidia Tesla, or Xeon Phi, I have to do it through a Thunderbolt 2.0 Chassis, which is bottlenecked to a measly 4x PCIe 2.0.
Apple is just parading the spec without thinking of the customer, and claiming it's designed for a wide-array of industry apps. The only upside to this is that there are two of the AMD GPUs, but all this really allows for is more, larger screens (inter-GPU communication has never been good). In reality, this is just designed for small- to medium-scale 4k media creators/editors. It reminds me of when Apple paraded the rMBP for CAD despite it not having a mobile workstation GPU.
With two workstation GPUs soldered into an in-house chassis, the pricing is going to be sky-high. At least having only one CPU should bring down costs, but 1866 MT/s ECC RAM isn't cheap, and Apple already overprices RAM as it is. Not to mention the worst component of all – the PCIe SSD. eMLC NAND costs a small fortune, and if it isn't eMLC, every customer with a heavy workload will avoid it like the plague.
The cost would have been excusable if the performance was decent, but with 1.25 GBps Sequential Read and 1.0 GBps Sequential Write, it sits at the low-end of the PCIe SSD market. Even my MLC SSD RAID 0 array pulls around 1.8 GBps for both Sequential Read and Sequential Write. At least Apple provides Thunderbolt 2.0 ports, that's the saving grace for storage (provided they implement the controller correctly for heavy load).
And finally, there's the "innovative" cooling solution. With vents placed all around the circumference of the chassis, how is one supposed to position this machine without obstructing airflow? Does the single large fan on the top of the chassis not scream "SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE" to anyone? (Even high-end fans have a lifespan of 50,000 hrs.) What happens to temps when both GPUs and CPU are under heavy load?
It's ultimately a niche product for an ever-dwindling niche market of media professionals.
The actual choice of GPU is terrible. AMD FirePro only bests the Nvidia Quadro for CAD/CAE. For all other industry-standard applications, Nvidia Quadro reigns in performance. The worst part is that even if I want to connect an Nvidia Quadro, Nvidia Tesla, or Xeon Phi, I have to do it through a Thunderbolt 2.0 Chassis, which is bottlenecked to a measly 4x PCIe 2.0.
Apple is just parading the spec without thinking of the customer, and claiming it's designed for a wide-array of industry apps. The only upside to this is that there are two of the AMD GPUs, but all this really allows for is more, larger screens (inter-GPU communication has never been good). In reality, this is just designed for small- to medium-scale 4k media creators/editors. It reminds me of when Apple paraded the rMBP for CAD despite it not having a mobile workstation GPU.
With two workstation GPUs soldered into an in-house chassis, the pricing is going to be sky-high. At least having only one CPU should bring down costs, but 1866 MT/s ECC RAM isn't cheap, and Apple already overprices RAM as it is. Not to mention the worst component of all – the PCIe SSD. eMLC NAND costs a small fortune, and if it isn't eMLC, every customer with a heavy workload will avoid it like the plague.
The cost would have been excusable if the performance was decent, but with 1.25 GBps Sequential Read and 1.0 GBps Sequential Write, it sits at the low-end of the PCIe SSD market. Even my MLC SSD RAID 0 array pulls around 1.8 GBps for both Sequential Read and Sequential Write. At least Apple provides Thunderbolt 2.0 ports, that's the saving grace for storage (provided they implement the controller correctly for heavy load).
And finally, there's the "innovative" cooling solution. With vents placed all around the circumference of the chassis, how is one supposed to position this machine without obstructing airflow? Does the single large fan on the top of the chassis not scream "SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE" to anyone? (Even high-end fans have a lifespan of 50,000 hrs.) What happens to temps when both GPUs and CPU are under heavy load?
It's ultimately a niche product for an ever-dwindling niche market of media professionals.
I'm not as pessimistic as you. Dual Xeon and it would be neatly perfect.
Costs: Probably 6-12k. Competive compared to HP and Dell. WORKSTATIONS are not cheap. This is not a home personal computer.
Costs: Probably 6-12k. Competive compared to HP and Dell. WORKSTATIONS are not cheap. This is not a home personal computer.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
The most likely scenario is that dual processor Mac Pro sales were so small that it wasn't worth doing.
All of this is related to sales numbers and a lack of growth in the workstation market. Mac Pro sales were small - tiny even compared to Apple's other lines. Tiny sales on systems that last 5-6 years from a demanding customer base. Not worth really focusing on for a company now in Apple's position. We heard rumours that there were internal discussions they wanted to cancel it, the 2012 "update" shows it was on the fence before that.
So now we have a solution that to me looks like it focuses on the majority of their old market, aims to capture new users with its differences/focus, and is likely a lot cheaper to produce. Losing 30,000 sales a year doesn't much matter if you make more per system and manage to grow the market for it beyond what you lose.
my 2006 pro
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2083555
This is what I get for waiting? Just give me a way to install mavericks on my 2006 box and I'll just be happy apple.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2083555
This is what I get for waiting? Just give me a way to install mavericks on my 2006 box and I'll just be happy apple.
Wild-Bill
macrumors 68030
Last edited:
Mac Pro 12-Core 3.33GHz 6 Core Xeon X5680 x2 - Geekbech: 27145
Mac Pro 12-Core 3.46GHz 6 Core Xeon X5690 x2 - Geekbech: 28135
Mac Pro 12-Core 3.46GHz 6 Core Xeon X5690 x2 - Geekbech: 28135
Last edited:
The 3.33 GHz could be mine. It got the same score. I upgraded it from an 8-core 2010 Mac and placed 96 GB of ram on 6-slots to get proper three-channel performance. The graphics card is a GTX580 with 3GB ram and DisplayPort. Samsung 512 GB as system disk and 8TB internal raid-0. It's a good finishing and editing station. When the Red Rocket X arrive, we might by a Cyclone PCI-expansion and put it in there with two additional GPU's. Unfortunately, the new MacPro will probably not be able to compete with this set-up...
True,Until there are some tests running actual programs its not worth getting in a tizzy about , when i see if Photoshop for example has a dramatic performance jump then i will start to take notice.
Renzatic
Suspended
It's comparing raw CPU scores, which isn't entirely useless, just rather generic and vague.
Like if your current computer scores considerably better in Geekbench than your previous one, you can expect CPU intensive applications to perform better on it across the board. You just won't know how much better, exactly.
Dr. Stealth
macrumors 6502a
Ho Hummmmmm
Ho Hummmmm....
I'm at 27,448 with my current 2010 Mac Pro...
Mac Pro 12-Core 3.33GHz 6 Core Xeon X5680 x2
One big step.... Backwards.....
Ho Hummmmm....
I'm at 27,448 with my current 2010 Mac Pro...
Mac Pro 12-Core 3.33GHz 6 Core Xeon X5680 x2
One big step.... Backwards.....
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
THE PAIN!!!! 🙁
Each program is different, and handles tasks differently. For instance an NLE won't tax the CPU until you want to render our a sequence or playback more than one layer of uncompressed footage.
Photoshop is a rather light program, and the biggest boon to the application will be the amount of RAM in the system.
calaverasgrande
macrumors 65816
all benchmarks are a synthetic measurement that does not reflect actual work. However Geekbench is certainly better than Futuremark. If nothing else, it's cross platform.
PunkNugget
macrumors regular
Thanks. I don't know if I got the record for that 6 Core, but I'm sure you found a way to top it. Again, thanks... 🙂
----------
You don't have to build what I have (as what I built took many hours and weeks), but you can just go onto TonyMacX86.com and they have basic system setups that would take a few hours to build. Here's the link and it's pretty much spelled out for you there:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/365-building-customac-buyer-s-guide-june-2013.html
Lastly, you can just look at my builds and use them (the homework is done for you). Plus, you don't even need to water cool them; just get a decent fan cooler and just OC it a bit and you'll be just as fast.
Enjoy your next hackintosh build, later... 😎
Last edited:
Tutor
macrumors 65816
My 6-core Geekbench 2 score still tops out at 23,317. You're the 6-core champ. You've earned that record. Moreover, thank you for re-igniting my interest in Nvidia video cards, helping to spur my interest in learning about CUDA and CUDA programming, and for showing me that a self-build can not only be fast, but also look magnificent.
really?
Dude, Cinema 4D doesn't have fluids. There is only one plugin to add that, but only gaseous fluids and seriously underpowered... If you however really do fluids simulations, then you have Real Flow and Houdini FX for that. Don't know about RealFlow lately, but HoudiniFX can use OpenCL for PyroFX and FLIP fluids simulations. So it looks to me like you are more an amateur not a real pro since you don't use big boys guns.... And you don't know what is the trend in computing, witch is to use the graphics computational power for heavy duty tasks. New MacPro looks like a champ to me in this areas. And if you are really, really, really a pro then you have some form of render farm to your disposal. 😉
Dude, Cinema 4D doesn't have fluids. There is only one plugin to add that, but only gaseous fluids and seriously underpowered... If you however really do fluids simulations, then you have Real Flow and Houdini FX for that. Don't know about RealFlow lately, but HoudiniFX can use OpenCL for PyroFX and FLIP fluids simulations. So it looks to me like you are more an amateur not a real pro since you don't use big boys guns.... And you don't know what is the trend in computing, witch is to use the graphics computational power for heavy duty tasks. New MacPro looks like a champ to me in this areas. And if you are really, really, really a pro then you have some form of render farm to your disposal. 😉
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
I've never had the cash for a full workstation upgrade to my home studio since the PowerMac G5. Things are however picking up for me and I should be looking to replace a well received iMac in another year or two. When the time comes, I want to drop about $7k on a full workstation.
I think my main two options are going to be an HP/Dell dual socket system, or a custom built PC. Maybe I'll throw in the third, iMac option, but even that machine went down in terms of using it as a workstation IMO.
phoenixsan
macrumors 65816
Really....?....
I was hoping for a 30K benchmark, at minimum. Not so impressive. But again, the new Pro is not having a much better CPU that the actual one. Better CPU architecture, yes. Maybe mixed with GPU and Thunderbolt peripherals or in real world usage, the benchmarks showing right now becomes not significant....😀
🙂
I was hoping for a 30K benchmark, at minimum. Not so impressive. But again, the new Pro is not having a much better CPU that the actual one. Better CPU architecture, yes. Maybe mixed with GPU and Thunderbolt peripherals or in real world usage, the benchmarks showing right now becomes not significant....😀
🙂
You are comparing 1 CPU which still beats 2 previous gen CPU's. Also I'm hearing the new intel chipset may not support dual cpu's, at least initially. I'd say that's relevant.