All i'm trying to say is that until someone like diglloyd tests the performance of the Trashcan with apps that i use i'm not going to get excited over the new one.
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
All i'm trying to say is that until someone like diglloyd tests the performance of the Trashcan with apps that i use i'm not going to get excited over the new one.
there is no new chipset
The new CPUs are drop-in replacements for the current C600 chipsets.
We've had NDA presentations by a couple of the major Intel server vendors, and they'll be supporting the Ivy Bridge-EP in dual sockets from day one.
Re: You are comparing 1 CPU which still beats 2 previous gen CPU's.
One CPU which will be crushed by the other workstations with two of the new generation CPUs. Your point?
The new CPUs are drop-in replacements for the current C600 chipsets.
We've had NDA presentations by a couple of the major Intel server vendors, and they'll be supporting the Ivy Bridge-EP in dual sockets from day one.
Re: You are comparing 1 CPU which still beats 2 previous gen CPU's.
One CPU which will be crushed by the other workstations with two of the new generation CPUs. Your point?
Last edited:
Video post production and multimedia.
Since i am a one man shop, I need to get the fastest I can get. Unfortunately, that budget includes displays.
Same. But I work for a large company. I think these machines will likely blow away whatever you're using. Maybe cut render times in half. But sometimes you need a good excuse to take a long lunch.
True, and it's why I definitely see them as an upgrade path for iMac and laptop users. Those of us who are used to having a bunch of external boxes and power cables cluttering our desks and floors.
Right now, I have my two Drobos, a LaCie eSATA adaptor, and a pair of audio monitors plugged in. I had some small hopes of moving my scratch disk into the slots of a tower, but I guess I can leave them in the Drobo for now.
The addition of the Mac Pro will add another power cable (for the second display) but otherwise it'll fit right in if I choose to go that route, and not pony up for a beefier PC rig.
The MacPro user looking for an upgrade? They will have to get used to a whole new way of doing things setting things up.
Last edited:
No - I'm comparing this Mac Pro with a 3-year-old Mac Pro. I'm not comparing CPUs at all.
Hmm, if only the new MacPro would be faster than my current one, I would simply buy an optic TB cable and place all the clutter in the server room.
----------
Benchmarks are not irrelevant to real world efficency and performance!
Exactly. Most of the post houses I work with or have worked with have their systems in a cooled server/master control room. The new Mac Pro makes that somewhat difficult.
Also, I havent seen yet if it's possible to lock the case so no one can get in, or if there's a kensington lock to easily secure it to a table. If not, then I definitely don't see this machine in a high traffic edit suite, like those at universities and such.
It's one thing to not be able to lock the case to keep RAM thieves out, it's another to not be able to lock it to a table to prevent thieves with large bags from just taking it away.
Maybe Apple will sell a giant metal box to secure it - we know that they have a design.
I don't see the issues. MacPro on the desk, all the extra stuff in the server room. It's good to have a computer at the desk to connect client disks too, etc + the MacPro looks cool. To place the entire machine on a shelf in a server room is also possible, with a Thunderbolt cable to connect screen, mice and keyboard + client disks Not a problem at all. In a school? If they teach film, they have much more expensive cameras and lenses. Criminals should not be granted access to high value equipment.
It works both ways, MacPro on desk linked to ISIS, shared storage, or RAID enclosure, or MacPro/ISIS/RAID/etc. in server room with just a keyboard, mouse, displays etc. in suite. The bigger reason to keep the tower in the room is for noise, heat, security, and maintenance issues.
The new Mac Pro on the other hand might be a bit of a problem when it comes to rack space for the machine, the PCIe boxes, RAID boxes, etc. It'll just be a total mess in the server room with cables going every which way even if they are cinched down.
They may have much more expensive cameras and such, but no film school has 40-100+ cameras just sitting in a room with high traffic untethered to a desk. Also, most schools record student info when checking out field gear. Labs are another story.
Maybe Apple will sell a giant metal box to secure it - we know that they have a design.
UGH! I can see it now! A whole new line of accessories for the new MacPro, including a $4000 contraption that makes the thing rack-mountable and allows for PCIe cards to be plugged into it.
Another one that's half the price that only allows for a kensington lock attachment and prevents the theft of RAM and $50 TBolt cables.
Last edited:
Lol that's because the processor is a 2.7 ghz 12-core and you're comparing it to a 3.07 ghz 12-core. If you compare it to the last generation 2.7 ghz 12-core you'll see over a 65% speed increase.
He's comparing the fastest current Mac Pro with the fastest upcoming Mac Pro.
It's irrelevant that there's a slower model of the current Pro.
I'm not sure what I meant, since increasing the diameter actually decreases the airflow without a bigger fan. Anyways I believe the English system was taken from the Atlantis-Mayan standards of 12, 60, and 360. God will punish you for going metric.
What's going to kill this is the $3000-4000 price of the top speed 12-core. (just the CPU part from intel, so we're probably talking about a $12k system.
You'd be much better off with 2x lower priced and higher clocked 6 or 8 cores. Which isn't an option anymore.
Right now with the current lineup/pricing you can get 2x 8 core 2.7's for about $1700 each...
It would not surprise me to see the 12-core 2.7 at the $3000 price level as a premium SKU, sort of around the same price as the 10 core (4way) 2.7 which is $3600
You'd be much better off with 2x lower priced and higher clocked 6 or 8 cores. Which isn't an option anymore.
Right now with the current lineup/pricing you can get 2x 8 core 2.7's for about $1700 each...
It would not surprise me to see the 12-core 2.7 at the $3000 price level as a premium SKU, sort of around the same price as the 10 core (4way) 2.7 which is $3600
The likely cpus are more like $2k retail. I'm not sure how they're priced in volume. I'm not sure about the gpus, but I really doubt the system will be anything near $12k. They wouldn't sell enough units to be viable.
geekbench doesn't benchmark GPUs and hence the results between the 2013/2014 model and current are pretty much irrelevant as the new GPUs are where all the power is in the new Pro.
Also, the CPU is pretty much the fastest available from intel at the moment, and faster than anything ARM, AMD or IBM have to offer in this space.
what are the people whining about the benchmark result expecting?
If geekbench is updated to use openCL i think you'll see the numbers will be MASSIVELY different.
edit:
If they used 2x CPUs the floating point performance would still be way slower than 2x GPU. The apps will need to use OpenCL. Geekbench doesn't. This is why apple deliberately didn't go for NVidia with CUDA here, imho. To force people to use OpenCL so their app is video/processor agnostic (which will free apple to use NVidia, AMD or Intel (or IOS GPU) for OpenCL depending on what is appropriate for the form factor of each individual machine.
They don't want their pro users continually bitching that they want CUDA hardware, because one day Nvidia will go away.
Also, the CPU is pretty much the fastest available from intel at the moment, and faster than anything ARM, AMD or IBM have to offer in this space.
what are the people whining about the benchmark result expecting?
If geekbench is updated to use openCL i think you'll see the numbers will be MASSIVELY different.
edit:
If they used 2x CPUs the floating point performance would still be way slower than 2x GPU. The apps will need to use OpenCL. Geekbench doesn't. This is why apple deliberately didn't go for NVidia with CUDA here, imho. To force people to use OpenCL so their app is video/processor agnostic (which will free apple to use NVidia, AMD or Intel (or IOS GPU) for OpenCL depending on what is appropriate for the form factor of each individual machine.
They don't want their pro users continually bitching that they want CUDA hardware, because one day Nvidia will go away.
Last edited:
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
best quotes of the thread!
tis like viewing 1960s black n white film on a 4k 3d tv, and screaming one can't see the difference
this is like saying the new 4 cyl car from GM is faster than last years 8 cyl model. But only if you drive on these special roads, which aren't all built yet.
We haven't even gotten decent multiprocessor load sharing support in most of our pro applications. Now we are supposed to hold out breath for OpenCL support?
I'm sure applications like photoshop, C4D and After Effects will incorporate OpenCL if they don't already have it. But Avid Pro Tools and other non-graphic, non-video applications will have to hire whole new departments of engineers to take advantage of the GPGPU power. Until then these are underpowered and over provisioned on the video card side.
(actually Avid is a bad example, I'm just in Avid land today so it's on my mind)
In short, yes. The industry is going through a paradigm shift. This isn't exclusive to the Mac - in the Windows world and also specialized compute clusters, the trend is towards GPGPU.
Either the app developers get on board, or new developers will take their customers. The frameworks have been there for at least 4 years now (Snow Leopard), it's time to pull the finger out.
The same thing happened in the gaming market when 3d cards were released. If you didn't switch your libraries over to OpenGL or D3D and tried to rely on software rendering, you'd simply get left behind.
This is called keeping pace with market trends.
Sure, it will suck for people who have vendors who drag their feet, but what is apple supposed to do? Restrict their hardware development to software that exists, and totally ignore the fact that they could get many times better performance by changing the hardware platform?
Sometimes software development needs a prod in the right direction. Sometimes it needs a big stick. Apple provided OpenCL and GCD in 2009 (the gentle prod). If people still aren't at least working on new versions of their apps to use the above, they are well behind where they should be.
If you are using an app which doesn't do heavy math, graphics and can't make use very well of multi core, what could apple have done to help that? Provide more cores (at the cost of dropping a GPU which is much faster at a lot of stuff)? You said we're still having issues with multi core use.
They already stuck pretty much the fastest single socket CPU available in the box.
When Apple jettisoned the floppy it was already on it's way out. When Apple took away the firewire port on the Macbook Pro the first time, there was widespread grumbling. USB2 wasn't very fast.
When they took firewire off of the new Macs it was dandy because there was a faster interconnect.
This is another example of Apple jumping too soon.
GPGPU may be the future or maybe not. It is a trend, not the only trend in One problem I have with the whole concept of GPGPU is that these cards are driven by gamers. Making us dependent on the fickle gaming market.
Adobe has been tapping GPU acceleration in Photoshop for the last 5 years, which is the kind of application many people buy Mac Pros for in the first place. It may be true that gamers drive high end consumer grade GPU's, but they certainly do not drive the concept of CPU/GPU computational acceleration.
I don't think Apple jumped the gun here. I think they are touting a technology that is already being used by MacPro users today.
Either way, I for one, will be standing in line to replace my MacPro 2010, quad core 2.8 ghz machine with the new MacPro.