So they will be releasing a new case to update that new case? Understanding available components is not rocket science. Apple is far from that kind of magical.
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
So they will be releasing a new case to update that new case? Understanding available components is not rocket science. Apple is far from that kind of magical.
Exactly. It will still be $2600 for the base model with 8gb of RAM and a 256gb ssd. Hardly a pro machine, and no option for mutliple chips.
Looks like the xMac came out 7 years too late and $1000 over budget
.
And the trolls are out commenting on something that has yet to be released.
Agree. So tempted to go dell or HP right now. Heck even the current Mac Pro is looking nicer now that I know it's the last ever real Mac Pro.
I am 99% postive, the reason why the geek bench score is low is because OSX is not yet fully optimized for Ivy Bridge EP(or SandyBridge EP for that matter). As I said in another post, last summer someone made a dual Sandy Bridge EP E5 2690 hackintosh that only did 10000 in geekbench under OSX and 40000 in geekbench under Win7. The geekbench makes no sense when Sandy Bridge EP was a 30% increase over Westemere and Ivy Bridge should be a 5-8% increase over Sandy Bridge.
This is "Macrumers". Hear that in the name? It implies speculation. Go wade through 'CurrentTruths.com' if this bothers you. Macrumers is all Troll.
I searched for the latest on POWER right before posting. Didn't see anything about IBM laying off their team last week. Not arguing with you it didn't happen, just saying I'm not aware of news about it that recent. Fact remains though that in the desktop / server world x86 hasn't been gaining performance as fast as POWER has since Apple switched.
Oh my god oh my god oh my god I want one! Anyone have any clues as to price? I'd better start saving now...
I'm confused by your statement. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a base model to come in at $2000 (although unlikely). But a base model will not be the 12 core. The CPU alone will cost that much.
So how do you figure on a better performing machine at 1/3 the cost?
Got it... You hate the new not-yet-released Mac Pro with specs that are not yet finalized and an OS that is still in beta. You want a Dell, so go get one. There is no need to be so angry!
Well, the anger could have its uses.
An outraged professional base might convince Apple to alter the design to accommodate two CPUs (which a prototype or two is likely already in the "evil lab"), and/or more RAM slots, and/or other additions such as direct access to pci-e v3 perhaps through some new proprietary cable or something.
The main unit appears to be highly customized mini-ITX like boards surrounding a prism-shaped heatsink with a large, slow-spinning fan on top. I am sure the Mac Pro is whisper-quiet.
Can you explain to us realists what changes Apple can make between now and production that will significantly improve the performance, upgrade options, and price of this little computer?
IBM is in the process of laying off 8,000 people world wide. Reports from people inside the power design and support groups have said most of them were part of IBMs first round of layoffs that occurred last week.
Also from what I understand, overall, Power7 is not faster than Intels current offerings, especially if you take into account the release of the 15 core Ivy Bridge EX(there was no Sandy Bridge EX) later this year.
But again, Intels design focus isn't aimed at raw power these days, its aimed at efficiency.
Last edited:
There are MacPros on Geekbench that also score 40,000+... doesn't mean they're valid.
I think the results are fine. The speed is about 2x my 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro, which works for me. And Geekbench doesn't even measure the speed of the GPUs, which was the point of the new Mac Pro.
Apple is replacing the CPU compute engine with the GPU compute engine. Geekbench really needs to look at incorporating GPU compute into their benchmarks. Some of the benchmarks should be perfect for GPU compute, such as Mandelbrot, dot product, Blur, and so on.
In fact, I don't even know why they're using those benchmarks in the CPU side, since most people perform those functions in GPU now.
Geekbench seriously needs to be updated to move those functions into the GPU.
Can you explain to us realists what changes Apple can make between now and production that will significantly improve the performance, upgrade options, and price of this little computer?
Nobody can know anything about the shipping Mac Pro 2013 at this point beyond what Apple has already revealed. I am not even convinced the Geekbench "results" are even valid.
Not when you can configure 2x 8 core SB-E at over 3GHz out of the box .. Apple should have kept a larger enclosure to accomodate that along with HDD bays and optical media! I understand the new concept though, I just wish it had more CPU power.
----------
I'm guessing that's a 12 core CPU, how else would it out perform the other 24 thread models?
Everyone here bitching needs to go watch the Pixar demo from WWDC.
I couldn't care less about Geekbench benchmarks.
What I do care about is a professional from Pixar using a nMac Pro to kick ass using real world applications.
I couldn't care less about Geekbench benchmarks.
What I do care about is a professional from Pixar using a nMac Pro to kick ass using real world applications.
Exactly. It will still be $2600 for the base model with 8gb of RAM and a 256gb ssd. Hardly a pro machine, and no option for mutliple chips.
Looks like the xMac came out 7 years too late and $1000 over budget
.
And lacked the expansion capabilities we wanted as well. A regular atx board in a mid tower case would have been a much better replacement than this monstrosity they gave us.
Again, it looks like, at this moment, OSX is NOT optimized for the Ivy Bridge E5 2697. Which isn't entirely surprising as the processer isn't finished with validation testing. We will see what the processor is capable of when we see it in Geekbench tests using Win7.
Scratch that, Windows isn't currently optimized for it either. Dual 2697 v2s with 15774 geekbench score on Windows Server 2012.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2057228
Its obvious validation, other testing, and optimization is no where near done on either OSX or Windows. These geekbench numbers are obviously not final numbers.
Last edited: