Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MP 7,1 Has anyone seen a benchmark?

vel0city

vel0city

macrumors 6502
Dec 23, 2017
347
510
chfilm said:
Yea, was happy to discover this just now, finally a professional who's not a youtuber talking about the thing, also in a more real life config at 16, 2xVega and 192gb of ram.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. Just what I wanted to read. It's made me excited for new creative possibilities and pushing through some of the brickwalls that have held some of my ideas and execution back. The feeling that anything is possible and your machine isn't going to hold you back from letting rip with your creativity is truly liberating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chfilm
D

danwells

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 4, 2015
778
610
Geekbench 5 isn't perfect, but it has begun to crop up - there are now a lot of things claiming to be MacPro7,1 that may actually be... MacPro designators are always tricky, because a lot of Hackintoshes use the MacPro IDs, so anything reporting a "wrong" processor is almost certainly a Hackintosh (and there may be Hackintoshes using or reporting Mac Pro CPUs).

The other problem with brand-new machines is Spotlight and friends killing CPU for the first couple of days... The safest thing to do is to take only the HIGHER numbers for just-released machines - it's far more likely that there's a machine reporting an anomalously low score due to some setup process than a high one due to a "golden sample" chip. That said, if I saw 20 scores right in the same range and one 15% higher, I might suspect an overclocked Hackintosh was responsible for the high score.

The 8 core is scoring right around 8000 (multi-core) in the Geekbench browser list - some scores around 6000 are probably affected by Spotlight or other setup processes. One user posted a score over 8400 here in another thread.

The 12 core is right around 12000, with a few scores a little over (a few hundred points).

There are a lot of 16 core Hackintoshes using "wrong chips" (including Ryzens), so I'm not confident that none of the 16-core results showing a Xeon W-3245 are also Hackintoshes - but there are quite a few right under 15000 - at least many of which are probably Mac Pros. There is one score just over 15500, while nothing else breaks 15000 - that could be the first machine that finished its setup process fully - or it could be a slightly overclocked Hackintosh? The user has posted a lot of scores from confirmable Apple devices (and no obvious Hackintoshes), so it's relatively likely to be a Mac Pro.

There's one 24 core posting over 19000, with the rest around 16500 - my guess is that the higher number is what we'll end up seeing, and the two or three lower numbers are Spotlight. It doesn't make sense that the 24 core isn't faster than the 16 - unless there's a bug in Geekbench about large numbers of cores (but where did that higher number come from then)?

No 28 cores in the browser yet, but Marques Brownlee put a score around 21500 on YouTube.
 
  • Like
Reactions: basehead617 and chfilm
chfilm

chfilm

macrumors 68040
Nov 15, 2012
3,306
1,987
Berlin
danwells said:
Geekbench 5 isn't perfect, but it has begun to crop up - there are now a lot of things claiming to be MacPro7,1 that may actually be... MacPro designators are always tricky, because a lot of Hackintoshes use the MacPro IDs, so anything reporting a "wrong" processor is almost certainly a Hackintosh (and there may be Hackintoshes using or reporting Mac Pro CPUs).

The other problem with brand-new machines is Spotlight and friends killing CPU for the first couple of days... The safest thing to do is to take only the HIGHER numbers for just-released machines - it's far more likely that there's a machine reporting an anomalously low score due to some setup process than a high one due to a "golden sample" chip. That said, if I saw 20 scores right in the same range and one 15% higher, I might suspect an overclocked Hackintosh was responsible for the high score.

The 8 core is scoring right around 8000 (multi-core) in the Geekbench browser list - some scores around 6000 are probably affected by Spotlight or other setup processes. One user posted a score over 8400 here in another thread.

The 12 core is right around 12000, with a few scores a little over (a few hundred points).

There are a lot of 16 core Hackintoshes using "wrong chips" (including Ryzens), so I'm not confident that none of the 16-core results showing a Xeon W-3245 are also Hackintoshes - but there are quite a few right under 15000 - at least many of which are probably Mac Pros. There is one score just over 15500, while nothing else breaks 15000 - that could be the first machine that finished its setup process fully - or it could be a slightly overclocked Hackintosh? The user has posted a lot of scores from confirmable Apple devices (and no obvious Hackintoshes), so it's relatively likely to be a Mac Pro.

There's one 24 core posting over 19000, with the rest around 16500 - my guess is that the higher number is what we'll end up seeing, and the two or three lower numbers are Spotlight. It doesn't make sense that the 24 core isn't faster than the 16 - unless there's a bug in Geekbench about large numbers of cores (but where did that higher number come from then)?

No 28 cores in the browser yet, but Marques Brownlee put a score around 21500 on YouTube.
Click to expand...
How to filter geekbench so that it actually shows Mac pros? When I enter Mac Pro all I I get is 15 pages of MacBook Pros.
 
jccmaxon

jccmaxon

macrumors member
Dec 13, 2013
79
11
chfilm said:
How to filter geekbench so that it actually shows Mac pros? When I enter Mac Pro all I I get is 15 pages of MacBook Pros.
Click to expand...
142341A0-0B4D-401A-8F79-5926BC7C4981.png
55B9D443-A897-4766-A873-4A27CC04A278.png
 
D

danwells

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 4, 2015
778
610
If you type in MacPro7,1 (no spaces), it gives you Mac Pros plus Hackintoshes posing as Mac Pros (and it filters to the latest generation). Putting in spaces treats each as separate search terms, so you do get MacBook Pros (and mostly old ones if you leave the 7,1 in there).

You have to take the Hackintoshes out by hand - check the CPU, and eliminate anything that's obviously using a non Mac Pro CPU - that should get most of them, although there may be one or two that actually use Xeon-W 3000 CPUs (and I'm not sure if CPU ID can be spoofed, or whether there's any reason to do it - will MacOS install better on some CPUs if it thinks it's got one that's used in Macs)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chfilm
S

SanderB80

macrumors newbie
Dec 17, 2019
9
3
Hmmm, those 8 core benchmarks aren’t too good. I have a 5,1 Mac Pro (12-core) and I get 663 Single Core score and 6767 Multi Core score. A Multi Core Score of 7432 for the new Mac Pro isn’t much of a difference for a machine that‘s 10 years newer and twice as much money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 09872738
D

danwells

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 4, 2015
778
610
There is a real logjam of modern 8-core Macs right around the same score (all within a little over 10% - the fastest score I've seen from a Mac Pro or a Core i9 iMac is about 8400, and the MacBook Pro can do 7400)...

Mac Pro
iMac Pro (8 core)
iMac (Core i9)
16" MacBook Pro (Core i9 9980HK)

Listed in declining order of processor cooling - the Mac Pro will sustain performance longer... The real problem for Apple in trying to sell the iMac Pro and 8-core Mac Pro is that the iMac and MacBook Pro are too close for comfort, though. The 16" MBP is FAR better about thermals than its predecessors, and has darned good sustained performance.

Of course the Mac Pro, and to a lesser extent the iMac Pro, were never designed to be 8-core Macs. The only reason for the 8-core Mac Pro is to run the OS while the real computing happens on quad GPUs... If the application wants CPU power, it wants a 16-core or higher.
 
S

spoonie1972

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2012
573
153
I haven't looked into it, but i'm actually interested as my 2010 x5690 machine is making me feel the forced-burn of non-software-update hell. Does the Ryzen architecture support thunderbolt?
 
MagnumOP

MagnumOP

macrumors regular
Jul 5, 2010
193
12
The thermal performance of the Mac Pro is what really has me excited. The iMac and Mac Mini can't really compete, and I question if the iMac Pro can keep up. This is my last 24 hours, my last 7 days look near identical.

I know the benchmarks don't seem to be that impressive, but I'm super excited to be ordering one. Probably the 12 core.

1576615652510.png


Edit: this image is from my 4-core Mac Pro (2013)
 
chfilm

chfilm

macrumors 68040
Nov 15, 2012
3,306
1,987
Berlin
MagnumOP said:
The thermal performance of the Mac Pro is what really has me excited. The iMac and Mac Mini can't really compete, and I question if the iMac Pro can keep up. This is my last 24 hours, my last 7 days look near identical.

I know the benchmarks don't seem to be that impressive, but I'm super excited to be ordering one. Probably the 12 core.

View attachment 883367

Edit: this image is from my 4-core Mac Pro (2013)
Click to expand...
What values does this graph show?
 
MagnumOP

MagnumOP

macrumors regular
Jul 5, 2010
193
12
defjam said:
User versus kernel utilization?
Click to expand...

User (blue) vs System (red).

Really, it is all user. My virtual machine shows up as system for some reason.

I keep my machine pegged at near capacity for most of the time. I once went 9 days straight at 99% CPU utilization. This trash can has been super reliable for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flint Ironstag
H

H. Flower

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2008
721
802
chfilm said:
Thats a bit low for multi I would say, no?
Click to expand...

I don't know. ? I looked at some other 16 core scores and it seemed pretty good.

What i DO know is: Compared to my 2009 mac pro and 2018 MacBook pro, Premiere, Resolve and Cinema 4D are VASTLY faster and better, and After Effects is just a little better than my MacBook pro, which speaks more to the program itself (and should improved once i update graphics card).

That works for me!!!
 
chfilm

chfilm

macrumors 68040
Nov 15, 2012
3,306
1,987
Berlin
H. Flower said:
I don't know. ? I looked at some other 16 core scores and it seemed pretty good.

What i DO know is: Compared to my 2009 mac pro and 2018 MacBook pro, Premiere, Resolve and Cinema 4D are VASTLY faster and better, and After Effects is just a little better than my MacBook pro, which speaks more to the program itself (and should improved once i update graphics card).

That works for me!!!
Click to expand...
Sigh... after effects....not sure how much the GPU is gonna help you. It’s just a crap piece of software that we all have to rely on. Thanks adobe!
[automerge]1576622355[/automerge]
mikeboss said:
Geekbench 5 scores for the 8-, 12-, and 16-core Mac Pro are now available on the Mac Benchmark Chart:

https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
Click to expand...
Sweet! Looks like us 16core buyers made the right choice! It sure seems like the sweet spot :)
I just ordered my 192gigs of Ram. Now let the beast arrive and let’s hope the single VEGA II is pushing hard as well! Would rather save that budget for a 2nd one on that XDR :)
 
D

danwells

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 4, 2015
778
610
Looks like 16 cores is where it really breaks free of the pack of similarly performing 8-core Macs... Clearly beating the 18-core iMac Pro, and more economical in many configurations due to the user upgradeability - many 18-cores probably have a ton of RAM bought at Apple prices because they're such a pain to upgrade!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macintosh IIcx and chfilm
D

danwells

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 4, 2015
778
610
Has anyone got Cinebench r20 numbers yet? I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac Pro did very well in Cinebench compared to Geekbench, because of its powerful cooling...
 
  • Like
Reactions: shuto
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom