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
Same here. Given the scores one could say that the new Mac Pro is only marginally faster, and given the price of a refurbished model that has expansion slots one could say the previous gen is still a rather enticing deal.
This was the 32-bit test folks...calm yourselves.
From the link: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2064275
"Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.4.3 Tryout for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)"
The scores matched up from the previous generations are also their 32-bit results. In 64-bit I'm sure the performance increase is far higher % over previous generation then is shown here.
From the link: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2064275
"Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.4.3 Tryout for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)"
The scores matched up from the previous generations are also their 32-bit results. In 64-bit I'm sure the performance increase is far higher % over previous generation then is shown here.
That's the point. Apple've switched from offering the most CPU performance to offering the most performance per watt a few years ago. That's why all the focus is on weight/thinness, efficiency, green power, and so on.
They have zero intentions of going back to brutal power for the sake of it.
They have zero intentions of going back to brutal power for the sake of it.
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 $$ERFORMANCE ratio is not improved.
We know, you love the cylindrical shape, but for most people it's not a primary concern.
First of all, <10% improvement over 3yr old tech is not "ass kicking".
Second, who cares, that single CPU machine will cost just as much if not MORE than the dual CPU. So your $$
We know, you love the cylindrical shape, but for most people it's not a primary concern.
you're crying over a useless benchmark, a machine that hasn't been priced yet, and then the shape of said machine. sounds about right.
Just fell out of my chair laughing.
Can't wait til the Kool Aid Crew tries to spin this.
Going to point my 2009 w/5680s at this test.
Should be interesting.
"Can't be upgraded, My Ass"
If I can stop laughing long enough to run it....
Can't wait til the Kool Aid Crew tries to spin this.
Going to point my 2009 w/5680s at this test.
Should be interesting.
"Can't be upgraded, My Ass"
If I can stop laughing long enough to run it....
Oh yeah... a few hardware tweaks and OSX Mavericks is gonna change that 10% improvement to 25%. Freakin hilarious.
PS: Writing something in big bold font does not make it true. Also, Phil Schiller saying anything, does not make it true.
But then the doubters will have to admit they were wrong. It never happens. They always pretend like they were on board since day one.
Someone needs to get your name to the rightful owner.
It has everything to do with Apple. Who choose to use 1 chip? ...Apple.
Who could have used 2 and run the performance to 46,000? ...Apple. This would mean possibly making a larger 2 fan case that was 1/6th the current Pro size instead of 1/8th.
Mac Pro's were built to run chips at full bore for days on end. That's why you pay premium for the binned Xeons. Otherwise just get the i7. My W3680 runs all cores AND HT flat out with 1 turbo bin for 3.46GHz indefinitely. The W3690's run flat out at 1 bin and 3.6ghz. The Sandy bridge chips have more bin biasing and can reach higher saturated turbo speeds. It is the software that sometimes can't run the chips at full speed. Not the chips themselves. Maybe you have been doing laptop research. In that case you are closer to correct.
But that's not really an apt comparison. It is impressive that there are now 12 core chips that can offer this performance but it's still the same number of cores.
Geekbench shows only a portion of the entire viewpoint. Once the new Mac Pro is released and into actual usage then we can gauge it's actual performance specially grinding the long hours and how it handles heat. Might be too early to make conclusions. Like what the article says, maybe Apple is still refining this machine and fixing some glitches. Notice in the WWDC, Apple left out many details and pricing. Usually in past events, with new announcements they have all the details accompanied by the price. Maybe in a few months we'll get more info.
I personally don't care if it is powered by one processor or 16, nor do I care that it's smaller. Those are meaningless references (almost gimmicks) to most pros. It could be twice the size of the old system for all I care, I just want a mac pro with significantly more horse power and more configuration options than its predecessor.
Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool, but I just don't see this thing as a step up.
Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool, but I just don't see this thing as a step up.
That and the test ran is 32-bit. Once they run it in 64-bit we'll see a bump over previous gen 64-bit higher then 15%. 15% is the bump in performance the previous best did from 32-bit to 64-bit but these newer chips are far higher quality and much more apt to take advantage of things.
Geekbench also doesn't account for GPU power which we all know is taking more and more of the weight today.
So frustrating to see people so hasty and whiny. Go buy something else people lol. I'm not even an Apple fanboy. I enjoy their products though and for goodness sake, can we get some more level headed people around here? They see a number and wig out without even thinking things through. Are we all 12 on here or what? *sigh...*
THIS IS COMING FROM A MAC PRO WHICH IS 1/8 IN SIZE OF THE CURRENT MAC PRO!
CAN'T INNOVATE MY ASS INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry i had so say this...
I couldn't agree more.
Upvoted!!
but with 1/2 the cpu's as I stated twice. some of you guys aren't good at math.
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.
A bit of an overreaction to more or less a beta-build computer, perhaps?
Lol, true...
But then again, who cares? People routinely buy more power/size/luxury/whatever than they need. No reason computers should be different. If they're not taking the food out of their kids' mouths and they want a $4000 Xeon-based workstation for Facebook then more power to 'em.
Just hush and go buy a HP or a BoXX then. Spend your $15,000 and buy 20-24 cores.
Why waste your time here?
This was the new MP in 32-bit mode, don't assume its 64-bit test is going to provide the same performance bump 32-bit to 64-bit mode that your current machine does.
Does your current MP have PCIe storage and Dual GPU's up to 6GB VRAM a piece?