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
The old Mac Pro with 2 GPUs had 2 PCI slots left over.
You can, already, today, get at least THREE PCI slots in an external chassis. And you can add up to 36 of those to the new Pro (not that you ever would). You can also attach such a chassis (with desk space to spare) to any machine you need--even a MacBook Pro--instead of being "locked down" to one machine. Even a future GPU card can be moved from machine to machine that way. (Not everyone will want that... I will! Retina TB2 Air, please!)
But this machine is designed for the future, not the past. For Thunderbolt, the future means:
- Falling costs, rising options
- Thunderbolt 2
The Mac Pro is now the hub at the center of the system you used to call "the computer." That hub can be replaced while leaving the rest of your TB2 setup intact. It's a different kind of expandability--maybe worse--but so far it sounds like people complaining about the loss of floppy drives--which bothered ME a lot but turned out fine. I think the sky won't fall as hard as some fear.
The worst you can say is that the TB2-based future looks expensive. It also looks really fast, and really flexible.
2.7GHz only? Am I missing something, or is that really weak for a supposedly fast machine? My 2008 Mac Pro clock speed is 2.8GHz.
EDIT: I found out now that it depends on IPC.
EDIT: I found out now that it depends on IPC.
Last edited:
Yes but the haters love to type nonsense, so either way it's going to be a long few months.
But I am still waiting for thunderbolt 1 to be widely adopted. Now I gotta wait for #2?
They could have just lined that little case like a gatling gun.
----------
sigh...
----------
Thunderbolt was waiting for Mac Pro. They will come. Whether welcome or not.
You're missing that GHz is not a measure of speed. Ghz is cycles per second. Speed must also take into account how much work gets done PER cycle. Note that GHz haven't moved much in years--even though delivered speeds have risen.
Yes, for some things, you will. And I won't pretend that's fun. Sometimes just having "the best of the old, right now" is appealing. But I also won't wish Apple had skated to where the puck used to be. If a tough transition never comes, you never move forward. Apple has proven pretty good at seeing users and developers alike through really big, scary transitions. This is nothing!
And this new machine will only help TB take off faster.
Wait, shouldn't the benchmark also include disk speed tests?
----------
Oh, good. Thanks. It seems like IPS (which I just looked up on Wikipedia) should be advertised instead of clock speed.
----------
Oh, good. Thanks. It seems like IPS (which I just looked up on Wikipedia) should be advertised instead of clock speed.
A facebook post about his new fast Dell he's facebooking on, then WoW.
You really don't want to connect with Aiden Shaw on Facebook - or maybe you do.
But, the new Mac Tube Pro is not available - neither is the much faster Dell Precision Workstation using the same Intel 12-core chips and chipsets.
HAHA! You got me. Yea, you're right. Thunderbolt is just taking off, so adding all the stuff I can get cheap now in PCIe cards, but now in Thunderbolt form won't cost me much at all! All those cheap thunderbolt docks, the super duper cheap thunderbolt cables. All those current technologies that pro's use are available in Thunderbolt variants for pennies on the dollar. And by the looks of it, the dropping price of Thunderbolt accessories will continue!
No, I have a large infrastructure of RAID's, PCIe cards, and video cards that should drop into any modern MacPro. Except we aren't getting a MacPro, we are getting a MiniPro.
And 12 cores on one CPU is pretty awesome. But a real pro machine would have the option of 2, so I could get 24 cores, (48 virtual) and render up a storm. I would have been fine with the existing case with new technology stuffed inside, and I think most pro's would agree.
Not to say there isn't a spot in Apple's lineup for the miniPro, but leave the beast for those of us who need it.
I having a hard time accepting that reasoning. All of apple's recent laptops and desktops sported thunderbolt, but the industry was waiting for the mac pro? I just can't buy that.
Firmware is not part of Mavericks. Throw up another hail mary.
You are saying hypothetically, now that you at least got the right interaction of tech down, that the test box has firmware that has underclocked the processor lower than the reported state IN the exact same firmware to fool us into a false sense of new Mac Pro slowness?
Hate to burst your bubble: TB is new, TB2 is so new it doesn't even exist yet... and you will pay through the nose for TB peripherals. Including a chassis to drop all your old cards into.
You'll pay through the nose at first. Early adopters of new tech always do.
There's really on one measure, but FLOPS is another, and graphics performance has it's own measures altogether. And you're right, storage read/write tests are very important! In my experience, an SSD boosts everyday performance more than any other factor, and the new Pro has insanely fast SSDs. You really have to look for measures of what YOU need the machine for. Like real-world tests using the software you use.
No worries.
I am happy and sticking with my current Mac Pro tower setup and have invested a lot already and no plans for me to migrate to the new 2013 Mac Pro.I already have. OK, I guess disk speed doesn't matter for certain things, but I wish that this benchmark had it so I could see what it reported for the new Mac Pro.
For most of the real extensible PCI based replacements, yes. TB hard drives have been around since almost day one for your iMac and Macmini TB ports.
Who? I don't wanna connect with anyone on Facebook. Did you just refer to yourself in third person?
And the "real" pro will be finished with his design work while you're still doing the drawing.
There are other more all encompassing tests bagel. Geekbench is only for CPU and Memory. And only really useful because it has been a 'line in the sand' for years so there is a database to compare to.
Well, that's kind of my point. It was never widely adopted. It was (and still is) hard to find any options for TB. Of those you can find, they are crazy expensive - and as you say, it is not because TB is new. It has been around for awhile. It just never took off. I don't think it is unreasonable to be skeptical of TB2. There is a history there after all.