MP All Models How many Mac Pro cores would you get?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Jordan XP, Aug 15, 2019.

Tags:
?

What number of cores would you buy?

Poll closed Thursday at 5:41 PM.
  1. 8-core

    11.4%
  2. 12-core

    27.3%
  3. 16-core

    47.7%
  4. 24-core

    2.3%
  5. 28-core

    11.4%
  1. Jordan XP, Aug 15, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019 at 5:17 AM

    Jordan XP macrumors member

    Jordan XP

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2019
  2. now i see it macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    #2
    For 3D rendering, the 28 core will kick ass with apps that render via the CPU.
    (Cinema 4D)
    But the 28 core mMacPro makes for a very poor choice as a rendering box because it's waaaaaaay too expensive.
     
  3. sirghost macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2014
    #3
    Number of cores and the need for them depends on what you are using them for.

    So, what exactly is your use?

    For me personally, the 8 core would be more than plenty.
     
  4. Zen_Arcade macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2019
    #4
    The number of cores purchased will depend a lot on pricing.
     
  5. TIOATIOA macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2016
    Location:
    SC, USA
    #5

    20. It’s 20 better.
     
  6. ScreenSavers macrumors 6502a

    ScreenSavers

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Location:
    Bloomingdale, GA
    #6
    Each core is a single processor capable of processing data. Many Mac laptops in use today are dual core. So imagine 14 times that in processing power.
     
  7. mikehalloran macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Location:
    The Sillie Con Valley
    #7
    As opposed to the $150,000 Win10, 56 core 1TB RAM rendering machines that are already being used by the film industry? I don’t think so.

    If you read the TechCrunch articles, you’ll see the film industry is the target customer.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 16, 2019 ---
    In the Keynote, Apple demonstrated 1,000 VIs with plugins on each track running in Logic. Thy didn’t state how many cores in the demo, however.

    Since a 10 core iMac Pro can handle 300 — there are YouTube demos of this, I suspect that high end scoring studios are also eying the 28 core.
     
  8. greenmeanie macrumors 65816

    greenmeanie

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    AmigaWarez
    #8
    Doesn't matter how many cores if the Software doesn't take advantage of it.
     
  9. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #9
    And even worse if we're looking at "false cores" (AKA SMT). Not only do you have an issue with the software being unable to scale to more cores - but for most all workflows SMT2 is not twice as fast as physical, SMT4 is not twice as fast as SMT2, SMT8 is not twice as fast as SMT4...

    I use some big systems, and usually turn SMT2 off - it's slower than physical cores. I will turn it on for a few highly threaded workflows that may get a 10% to 30% boost from SMT2 - but those are uncommon.
     
  10. mikehalloran macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Location:
    The Sillie Con Valley
    #10
    as has been true since the first dual-core Macs in 2005. Multi-core Macs have been around in some form for 14 years.

    There is no such thing as a single-core Intel Mac, is there?

    The apps that will benefit support multiple cores. If the apps you use don’t, then you aren’t the intended customer.

    Is there a single pro AV app that doesn’t take advantage of multiple cores? None that I know—certainly none that I use.

    There’s a lot of incorrect info on some Adobe apps in this regard. Actually, ancient history that keeps being brought up as if current.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 18, 2019 at 11:26 AM ---
    So... more physical cores are better for these apps that you don’t name.

    Got it!
     
  11. DPUser macrumors 6502a

    DPUser

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Location:
    Rancho Bohemia, California
    #11
    Cost/Benefit analysis required. I'd take as many as I could afford for Audio use.
     
  12. Jordan XP thread starter macrumors member

    Jordan XP

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2019
    #12
    Thank you for your very informative answers!
    It will help me to make my selection!
     
  13. ScreenSavers macrumors 6502a

    ScreenSavers

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Location:
    Bloomingdale, GA
    #13
    You’re gonna buy a new 2019 Mac Pro when they’re released?
     
  14. goMac macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #14
    The goal of SMT isn’t to double/quadruple speeds. It’s that the CPU fan pipeline more efficiently in that configuration. If one thread is stalled waiting on memory or something it can jump to another.
     
  15. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #15
    Nice theory, but real world numbers don't offer much support unless you have crazy numbers of runnable threads.

    WhHYH[1].png

    See https://superuser.com/questions/1166529/performance-impact-of-hyper-threading for some interesting analysis.
     
  16. telequest macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Location:
    NJ
    #16
    I'd welcome configuration suggestions for video editing using the Adobe CC suite (Premiere Pro, After Effects, Media Encoder, etc),. Will eventually replace my upgraded 5,1 as 4K becomes more common. Seems there is likely a "sweet spot" as well as a tradeoff between spending on the processor vs video card & RAM. Back in 2010, the 6-core 3.33GHz seemed to fit that sweet spot (good combo of high clock & decent number of cores vs the other options at the time) ... not the fastest clock or the greatest number of cores, but sort of a Goldilocks "just right." Any similar option for 2019?
     
  17. Blair Paulsen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Location:
    San Diego, CA USA
    #17
    Most of the key content creation software packages have added more multithreaded operations as they iterate. That said, there's a lot of variance - even within a particular package. If, for example, you do a lot of NR (noise reduction) and your software of choice is updated to leverage multi-core performance for that operation, more cores are likely worth the bigger spend. If compositing is your wheelhouse but your primary package doesn't scale well past a single core, or does most of it's compute on the GPU, then not so much. (These are just arbitrary examples to make a point.)
    Without drilling down into the specifics of key workflows, or, having real world performance metrics for unreleased hardware, as of today I'd consider us more at the "educated guess" stage.
    If you made me select the best price/performance option based on what we know or can infer, it looks like the 16c, 96G RAM, MPX Vega2 Duo with 1TB SSD in the T2/3 garden would keep the cost semi-reasonable with enough guts to qualify as a legit workstation.
     
  18. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #18
    It would be hard to suggest any Apple system if your workflow is only multi-platform apps - especially considering the steep entry price for the mMP.
     
  19. telequest macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Location:
    NJ
    #19
    While I'm not thrilled with the high entry price, it's a long-term business investment for the next 5+ years, central to how I make a living. So reliability (first and foremost), an OS that makes sense to me, upgradeability are all critical. So if the mMP can save me even a few hours per year over the next few years vs. dealing with a new OS or less reliable hardware, the mMP will earn its keep. But I do want to make sure that I make good initial choices for components that are not easily (or economically) swapped out and upgraded, which I assume is the case for the CPU. Which is why I welcome suggestions.
     
  20. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #20
    The reliability of the MP7,1 is unknown. The MP6,1 had some serious issues.

    Apple will make you haul a broken system to a store and leave it for service. Dell and HP will come to your home/office the next day for repairs, and offer 5 year service warranties.
     
  21. mmomega macrumors 68040

    mmomega

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #21
    What my machine would be doing would be my first piece of the decision making.

    Example, I have owned the last Mac Pro and now the 18Core iMac Pro.
    I would never own either of these machines for strictly personal home use, my reason is because for me, the machine is a tool to do a job and at the higher prices of the iMac Pro/Mac Pro, it needs to be producing income rather than simply consuming it.

    But to stay on topic... 28 CORES!!!!
     
  22. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #22
    Have you looked at the price tag for the 28-core upgrade?
     
  23. goMac macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #23
    Again, it's not meant to double or quadruple speeds. It's to allow the CPU to stage more efficiently. The benchmarks are exactly in line with that.

    It needs to be exposed as a separate core to software for pipelining, but in no way is it architected to act as a core. Trying to infer it's there to be a virtual core is completely misleading.

    There may be situations where a CPU is never waiting on memory (which is rare, but possible) in which case things would be even. But generally it's a small optimization that allows the CPU to work on one thing while waiting on another to load it's data.

    I work on this sort of stuff. It's not a "theory." It's actually how the CPU was designed. If you want to know more about the "theory", here's a whole article on CPU pipelining:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipelining
     
  24. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #24
    I'm not sure why you think that pipelining and SMT are related. Pipelining is mostly "per thread".

    But 10% throughput improvements on massively multithreaded apps just aren't that exciting - unless you have a web server cluster with a million active requests.

    I'd like to see actual application (not synthetic like Geekbench) benchmarks comparing Xeon CPUs with and without SMT2 enabled, and the same for SMT4 and SMT8 CPUs.

    And I'd like to see an analysis comparing the microarchitectures - since some of the POWER9 CPUs are "12 core/96 thread" (SMT8) and others are "24 core/96 thread" (SMT4).
     
  25. goMac macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #25
    10% is about the intended speed difference.

    You just said it benchmarked about a 10% difference. That's about the correct number. We're in agreement about what the performance boost is. You just think Hyperthreading is something extra that it is not supposed to be.

    The only thing we're in disagreement about is saying that it's about "massive" multithreading. It's about scheduling, not really multithreading. The scheduling is about 10% more efficient. Threading is just the tool the CPU uses to get more instructions at once to schedule more efficiently.

    If a CPU has a wider or deeper pipeline, more threads per core will be more efficient. Nothing to do with massive multithreading, although you'd need at least that number of threads to see the improvement.
     

Share This Page

32 August 15, 2019