Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks

[derbothaus]

The test is using OS X 32bit...

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=AAPLJ90,1

So add another 3000 points to the e-peen in 64-bit.
That is the fastest clocked 12-core variant Intel supposedly has so the scores are not going to get any better and it most likely IS using all available turbo bins while saturated for geekbench. Really need to look at what Intel has done vs. single X5690 or W3690 for real improvements. Not their fault Apple didn't want to use dual procs.
The 10-core variety crank up to 3.4GHz. But everyone is OK with small, right? Blame Apple engineering for the lower than expected outcome.

 

[wizard]

The test is using OS X 32bit...

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=AAPLJ90,1

That is suspect right there as I didn't think Apple shipped a 32 bit OS anymore.

 

[iLilana]

...

still getting one

 

[derbothaus]

That is suspect right there as I didn't think Apple shipped a 32 bit OS anymore.

Try again.

 

[billystlyes]

And unlike the MacBook Air, they can't tout about battery life.

 

[AidenShaw]

This will be a beast.

Yes, it's a tiny bit faster than the older, expandable system.

Not.

 

[iChrist]

23901 - 21980 = 1912

EDIT: Unless I'm not understanding something correctly?

Exactly. <10% increase from a 3 year old machine that was hardly cutting edge even back then. What a joke.

But hey, it's smaller! Good job Fat Phil Schiller.

 

[derbothaus]

still getting one

And you should. It is one processor doing what took 2 previously. It's all about context. It's great for the size but the laws of physics don't just magically disappear in the 'distortion field'.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Geekbench is just such a useless benchmark.

Says nothing about x264 performance, 7-zip performance, OpenGL performance, OpenCL performance, LLVM performance and so on.

 

[derbothaus]

Exactly. <10% increase from a 3 year old machine that was hardly cutting edge even back then. What a joke.

You're looking at it wrong.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'll bet this thing is going to have major thermal issues.

But it has a special thermal something or other - it can't be.

 

[derbothaus]

Geekbench is just such a useless benchmark.

Says nothing about x264 performance, 7-zip performance, OpenGL performance, OpenCL performance, LLVM performance and so on.

Not as useless as Cinebench. But you are right it'll rule on single threaded stuff or at least back into fast iMac territory.

 

[AidenShaw]

THIS IS COMING FROM A MAC PRO WHICH IS 1/8 IN SIZE OF THE CURRENT MAC PRO!

How many people asked for faster and more expandable, and how many asked for smaller and more proprietary?

 

[portishead]

The benchmarks look kind of...underwhelming.

What? That's 1 CPU kicking the crap out of 2 previous gen CPU's without proper optimizations! Wow people...

 

[MikhailT]

Beats the crap out of? It's 10% faster than the score they have listed. It's not impressive when X5680s and X5690s are that much faster than the X5675 3.06GHz CPUs. Good for a single CPU box? Absolutely, but that CPU is likely $2,200+

10% faster, while 1/8th of the previous MP size, silent, much reduced overall power TDP and so on? Yes, it beats the crap out of it for what Apple have designed, a workstation for creative pros.

If you want pure CPU power, Mac Pro was never going to be it.

X5675 still cost $1400+ and Mac Pro had twos, so at least $2800+, at least 180+ TDP compared to $2200 and ~130W.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Just another sign of Apple failing.

Use the proper benchmark tools and you get the proper results. Geekbench is just a toy.

 

[AlBDamned]

Try again.

Haha, yes, try again.

I do find it funny that Apple's technicians are running the freebie geekbench. They would have to know it would get reported on.

The pro version is $12 or something and if anyone can claim to be a pro it's these guys!

 

[Irishman]

Judging by that score I don't think so. I also don't think this was a 64bit version. I was expecting it to push past 35K. Had they done updated hardware in the current case that would be the case.... We will only know when people get their hands on one.

You were expecting it based on what?

 

[wizard]

we simply don't have enough info to jump to conclusions

So add another 3000 points to the e-peen in 64-bit.
That is the fastest clocked 12-core variant Intel supposedly has so the scores are not going to get any better

Actually depending upon the amount of debug code running in the OS it could get much faster. This is beta Mavericks after all.

and it most likely IS using all available turbo bins while saturated for geekbench.

This could be a problem or they might simply have Turbo turned off. It isn't uncommon on development hardware to turn off features while stabilizing a product. The point is we don't really know if this is indicative of real world performance.

Really need to look at what Intel has done vs. single X5690 or W3690 for real improvements. Not their fault Apple didn't want to use dual procs.

This has nothing to do with Apple, it is rather the reality of thermal management in modern chips. Very few chips can run all cores flat out.

The 10-core variety crank up to 3.4GHz. But everyone is OK with small, right?

Apple will most likely offer a variety of processor including 6 and 10 core. It is up to the user to choose the ideal chip for their intended usage. If single threaded performance is important choose fewer cores.

Blame Apple engineering for the lower than expected outcome.

Again You don't have the info to blame anybody. You need a shipping platform with a shipping OS to make definitive comments.

 

[Orlandoech]

Nothing about this screams cheap. Especially after the "Can't innovate my ass" comment.

 

[Umbongo]

10% faster, while 1/8th of the previous MP size, silent, much reduced overall power TDP and so on? Yes, it beats the crap out of it for what Apple have designed, a workstation for creative pros.

If you want pure CPU power, Mac Pro was never going to be it.

X5675 still cost $1400+ and Mac Pro had twos, so at least $2800+, at least 180+ TDP compared to $2200 and ~130W.

Yes it's more efficient in performance per Watt and per dollar. Great. Only problem is this is the top end, the most CPU performance offered and you could get that same performance 3 years ago. I really don't see how the term "beats the crap out of" applies, but oh well.

 

[AidenShaw]

What? That's 1 CPU kicking the crap out of 2 previous gen CPU's without proper optimizations! Wow people...

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.

 

[animatedude]

How many people asked for faster and more expandable, and how many asked for smaller and more proprietary?

Ask? oh you never ask, honey.This is Apple.

 

[iChrist]

What? That's 1 CPU kicking the crap out of 2 previous gen CPU's without proper optimizations! Wow people...

First of all, <10% improvement over 3yr old tech is not "ass kicking".

Second, who cares, that single CPU machine will cost just as much if not MORE than the dual CPU. So your $$ERFORMANCE ratio is not improved.

We know, you love the cylindrical shape, but for most people it's not a primary concern.

 

[glsillygili]

meh not worth it