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.
High-End Retina 5K iMac Benchmarked Faster Than Low-End Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
5k allows watching 4k video in full resolution while still having space left on the screen for the editing interface.
Yes, 1 TB SSD. How would I tell how many lanes it's using? I could run BlackMagic on it and share the results.
I don't care if you let them off the hook or not. Either way you'll be making that judgement with limited information.
I'm sure they have a clear roadmap about which CPUs they plan to use on the platform, and I'm willing to bet that a number of them simply aren't available from Intel yet.
Regardless, my statement was a simple response to the folks that think the decision to not have a quad Mini was driven by the perceived comparison to the MP.
I've been shooting 5K with my Red Epic camera for about 3 years, and just now got the new 6K version of the same camera.
Delivery is still (for the most part) 4K or less.
Gone Girl was shot in 6K and finished in 4K
So some of us really want a 5K screen
Everyone in the " know" knows that the Mac Pro upgrade is delayed by The delay in Broadwell! Apple Might decide to wait for Skylake since they both are out in 2015! Anybody that has seen the benchmarks on these new chips know these are a game changers! These current iMacs will be at least 30% behind!
Well the more obvious observation is:
A 4ghz quad core is faster than a 3.7.ghz quad core... no sh** sherlock.
This was a stupid headline.
Nice CPU Performance.
My 6 Core Mac Pro gets
Code:
Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score
3272 18506Be careful with heat, though.
Unfortunately you can't put one of these in an iMac:
I'm sure Apple has done their homework on adequate heat dissipation in such a small chassis.
But I wouldn't push it too far.
I am so glad I don't do that stuff any more. I lost a lot of hearing due to the jet engine that lived under my desk all those years. I hope heaven (or hell depending) doesn't have any fans.
Why? Because the top BTO model of the iMac is faster than the entry level model of the Mac Pro?
You're comparing top of consumer vs bottom of Pro. That's just silly.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks are one thing.
How does it behave in sustained crunching? What happens if you ask it to crunch for hours? How about heat dissipation? Does the CPU throttle automatically? That's one of the key things with a Mac Pro, they are designed to crunch for hours and hours without slowing down.
What happens with an iMac on the same workload?
Benchmarks are one thing.
How does it behave in sustained crunching? What happens if you ask it to crunch for hours? How about heat dissipation? Does the CPU throttle automatically? That's one of the key things with a Mac Pro, they are designed to crunch for hours and hours without slowing down.
What happens with an iMac on the same workload?
Either way it's a judgement that's going to get made. When a product gets downgraded, "but intel made our jobs hard!" isn't going to get much sympathy from potential buyers.
Yeah the 2014 Mini is in no way a good deal if you're a power user. I opened up my 2.3 i7 and jammed a 2nd SSD in it, maxed out the RAM and it was such a great machine... I just sold it last month for $1000 bucks too! Used it for about a year and a half... I found a 2 month old Mac Pro Quad for $2860 that included 3 years of Applecare and was upgraded to 16gb RAM. Couldn't pass that baby up.
----------
You're comparing a pick up truck (Mac Pro) with a sports car (iMac) ... yeah the iMac looks nicer and is faster. But I wouldn't use it to do any heavy lifting.
Yes because of course the iMac has 6 thunderbolt 2 ports to connect all the stuff pros need and dual workstation graphics cards. Apple are really ripping people off arnt they
Haswell beats Ivy Bridge. Surprise surprise
True. But Apple's molasses like update schedule for the Mac Pro is the real concern.
Regardless, fussing about quad core Minis is way off topic for this thread.
I thought someone might comment on that, but isn't the thread really about the questioning the supposed superior processing power of Mac Pro compared to cheaper options?
The iMac is faster in single-threaded applications. When it comes to multi-threaded applications, the quad-core Mac Pro is faster and the 6/8/12-core models are even more so.
And honestly, if you're work is predominately single-thread, a Mac Pro is really not the cost-effective option.
It appears the 4Ghz iMac is 13.6% faster than the quad-core New Mac Pro on the GeekBench 3 64-bit *multi-threaded* benchmark:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/21/high-end-retina-imac-benchmark/
I guess it's remotely conceivable the 4Ghz iMac will only be faster on benchmarks than the quad-core Mac Pro, and running actual CPU-bound multi-threaded applications the iMac will be slower.
However that seems quite a stretch.
If you are arguing that real-world applications which have radically different workload characteristics than this benchmark could produce different results, of course that's true. However that has always been the case. I don't see the need to state that caveat every time a benchmark is mentioned -- it is an unavoidable consequence of testing.
Yeah Baby!!! I ordered mine on Monday! Upgraded CPU, & Video, 256 SSD and I'll add my own RAM thank you.
I feel like I'm going to pee myself I'm so excited.
I feel like I'm going to pee myself I'm so excited.
In all the discussions about when it's cost effective to run a MP vs an iMac, I'm constantly amazed that almost never is virtualization ever brought up. By having an 8-core I can run most any programs I want in either OS side-by-side devoting 4 cores to Mac and 4 cores to my VM with absolutely no performance hit on either side. Way back when I had the original MP '06 4 core (and currently have a 2011 MBP quad core) and let me tell you a dual core side-by-side doesn't cut it.