How Much Faster Could A New Mac Pro Be?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by relbbircs, Nov 4, 2011.

  1. relbbircs macrumors regular

    Nov 26, 2007
    I've got an early 2008, 2 X 2.8 quad core Mac Pro and have been waiting for the new 2012 Mac Pros to upgrade. Now, with the uncertainly about whether Apple will even release any new model I'm thinking maybe I should "upgrade" to a 2010 machine. So my question is: how much faster within the relative price categories might a 2012 Mac Pro be, compared to the 2010 vintage?
  2. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Sep 12, 2007
    I'm estimating the following from my 2.66Ghz Quad 2009:

    180+ (more like an average of 200%) faster in CPU speed (for the 6 core mid SP option).

    200%+ for GPU speed.

    So I'm looking at essentially double performance in 3 years.
  3. Gav2k macrumors G3


    Jul 24, 2009
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

    Depends what your doing tbh web browsing etc exactly the same. Encoding files well depending on config it'll eat your 08'
  4. deconstruct60, Nov 4, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011

    deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    It is really the "2011 but arrived in 2012" Mac Pro. But 2012 is shorter. :)

    Depends upon what you are bottleneck on in your workload.

    The I/O increases should be quite significant. 6Gbps SATA versus 3Gbps (without resorting to filling a PCI-e slot). Similarly the PCI-e lanes will double in speed ( v3.0 versus v2.0). If you are not maxed out on slots (3 or four filled) the 2010 model with upgrades can negate that disadvantage somewhat.

    If don't need many cores then the 2012 quad core should dominate the 2010 version. The entry 2012 Mac Pro should have the highest base clock rate (3.6GHz). The highest single package (SP) 2012 Mac Pro's value proposition is buying more cores but the same max Turbo rate. The SP 2010 versions are worth passing up if you can wait. At base rates though SP top end 2010 3.3GHz and 2012 3.3 GHz look the same but should see greater than 10% increase on broad spectrum on non I/O impacted apps. However, both are substantively better than your 2008.

    IMHO the only reason to upgrade now would be that either

    a. absolutely required the speed increase now for business reasons. (projects need to finish faster).

    b. think that Apple would nuke the 2012 versions and not launch something that is already essentially finished.

    The first I have no insights on. The second, I doubt will happen. (if it was half done maybe high probability. But finished, at least 90% chance they will launch. ). If 10% is too risky one option is to buy now take a small mark down selling into used market after introduction. [ some "I need to boot Snow Leopard to run Rosetta" person will probably take it off your hands for a tolerable small mark down. ]
  5. relbbircs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 26, 2007
    My objective is to speed up audio processing w/ Soundtrack Pro and iZotope RX. Looks like the 2008 to 2012 upgrade would be a much bigger improvement. Probably the sensible thing is to wait and see what's announced (assuming the stock of 2010 models holds out for at least several days if the announcement were to be a Mac Pro discontinuation).
  6. Amethyst macrumors 6502a

    Aug 8, 2006
    Mac Pro Single Processor

    1) Entry-Level 3.6 GHz Quad Mac Pro 2012 (Assume it use i7 3820)
    Faster than iMac i7 ~5-10% (From it's clock)
    Faster than 2010 2.8 GHz Quad Mac Pro ~ 35-40%
    Slightly Slower than 2010 3.3 GHz 6-Core Mac Pro ~5%

    2) Mid-Level 3.2 GHz 6-Core Mac Pro 2012 (Assume it use i7 3930K)
    Faster than iMac i7 ~20%
    Faster than 2010 2.8 GHz Quad Mac Pro ~50-55%
    Faster than 2010 3.3 GHz 6-Core Mac Pro ~10%

    3) HighEnd-Level 3.3 GHz 6-Core Mac Pro 2012 (Assume it use i7 3960X)
    Faster than iMac i7 ~25%
    Faster than 2010 2.8 GHz Quad Mac Pro ~55-60%
    Faster than 2010 3.3 GHz 6-Core Mac Pro ~15%

Share This Page