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

It´s pretty crazy...

A

ApplesAOranges

macrumors 6502
Original poster
…that the hell of a lot more expensive (+ $3000) 12-core computer is actually slower computer than for example the faster 6-core.

No wonder everyone is buying the 6-core, when it´s faster and you save 3000$!!!

I wonder what Apple was thinking? 😱
 
Yes, because you can perform more calculations with 6 cores at 3.5GHz than 12 cores at 2.7GHz 🙄

Far out, in Australia we save $3600! So much I think Apple actually pays you for the Mac Pro!
 
Apps that utilize every core will sing on it. Apps that don't utilize all of the cores won't. I think it's safe to say those who buy the 12-core model will know exactly what they're getting and why. It's a specialty machine.
 
Demigod Mac said:
Apps that utilize every core will sing on it. Apps that don't utilize all of the cores won't. I think it's safe to say those who buy the 12-core model will know exactly what they're getting and why. It's a specialty machine.
Click to expand...

People are foolish and buy into marketing terms. NOT everyone who buys a 12-core will know what they're getting and why.
 
For the record, per Marco's chart, max turbo boost on the 12-core with all cores in operation is 3.0 GHz, vs. 3.6 GHz on the 6-core with all cores in operation. This means that for well-threaded tasks, the 12 core will be ~67% faster. There are customers (e.g. me) who have such tasks and for whom that's a big deal.

It's not like Apple decides this stuff anyway; they're offering the parts Intel has. What are they supposed to do, not offer an option that will let some of their most demanding customers finish jobs 67% faster just because some other people might spend money on that option without understanding it?
 
ApplesAOranges said:
…that the hell of a lot more expensive (+ $3000) 12-core computer is actually slower computer than for example the faster 6-core.

No wonder everyone is buying the 6-core, when it´s faster and you save 3000$!!!

I wonder what Apple was thinking? 😱
Click to expand...

Using that logic, you may as well buy the 4-core as it runs at an even faster clock speed.
 
goMac said:
Means in the end it's a faster chip, if you can use all the cores.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Doesn´t look that way…

http://www.macworld.com/article/2082022/the-new-mac-pro-first-impressions.html

Let me quote:

we can say that the first time we ran GeekBench 3, the eight-core Mac Pro got a single-core score of 3599 and a multi-core score of 25997. For comparison, a 12-core 2012 Mac Pro (two 2.4GHZ Xeon processors) had GeekBench 3 scores of 2142/22886, and a 2013 27-inch quad core iMac with a 3.5GHz Core i7 processor GeekBench 3 scores of 3859/14705.
Click to expand...

So it would be pretty stupid for anyone to buy the 12-core, since it´s not faster than the 6 or 8-core. In fact it´s slower.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
…that the hell of a lot more expensive (+ $3000) 12-core computer is actually slower computer than for example the faster 6-core.

No wonder everyone is buying the 6-core, when it´s faster and you save 3000$!!!

I wonder what Apple was thinking? 😱
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking. If you don't need the cores, then obviously, as has been the case since multi-core processors and turbo existed, the lower turbo on the models with more cores will be slower for you since you don't utilize them.

However, if you do, as I and many others do, it's not even a question. That said, I am confident that the vast majority of people who can pony up for the 12-cores are the ones who actually need them and know exactly what they're getting.

You are clearly not one of them. So save yourself the $3000 and get the six-core.


----------
ApplesAOranges said:
Oh really? Doesn´t look that way…

http://www.macworld.com/article/2082022/the-new-mac-pro-first-impressions.html

Let me quote:



So it would be pretty stupid for anyone to buy the 12-core, since it´s not faster than the 6 or 8-core. In fact it´s slower.
Click to expand...

Also, I guess you can't read either; that's a comparison of the nMP to the *last-gen* 12-core MP. Good job there, Sherlock.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
Oh really? Doesn´t look that way…

http://www.macworld.com/article/2082022/the-new-mac-pro-first-impressions.html

Let me quote:



So it would be pretty stupid for anyone to buy the 12-core, since it´s not faster than the 6 or 8-core. In fact it´s slower.
Click to expand...

As was mentioned, you can't run the newest generation CPU against an older one as the latest version will be more efficient then the last one.

A better comparison would be the 2013 Mac Pro 6 core vs 2013 Mac Pro 12 core. I think you will find on multicore based software the 12 core would get the job done the fastest.

That said, I am confident that the vast majority of people who can pony up for the 12-cores are the ones who actually need them and know exactly what they're getting.
Click to expand...

And let me add for the people who know what their doing.
 
Last edited:
Geekbench reported >30000 for the 12 Core E5.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/14/upcoming-12-core-xeon-cpu-destined-for-apples-new-mac-pro-posts-impressive-benchmark-scores/
 
This thread is a joke, surely? Mods, please delete before the ignorance spreads. You have to cut the source of infection as quickly as possible.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
So it would be pretty stupid for anyone to buy the 12-core, since it´s not faster than the 6 or 8-core. In fact it´s slower.
Click to expand...

No, it would be pretty stupid to compare a 2012 Mac Pro (12 core) with a new 2013 one.

The 12 core 2013 has a geekbenchscore of over 30000
 
There's a lot of fuzz in this thread, from some people being obsessed with looking at gigahertz's and turbo speeds to some comparing apples (nMP) to oranges (MP 2012).

One item though has not been addressed, namely whether the pricing of the 12-core model makes any sense...

In the 2012 model, those users running software which was scaleable could go from 6 to 12 cores for as little as 800 $ (3,33 6-core to 2,4 12-core) (prices from everymac.com).

With the nMP, the lower-end 12-core models are no longer, and the price difference between the 6-core and 12-core models is a whopping 3000 $

What this actually means is that users of scalable applications (i.e. those which care more about cores than processor speeds) are not as well served by the current lineup as they were by the old lineup.

It remains to be seen, whether apple will at some stage also start offering the 2,4 Ghz 12 core version as a BTO -alternative...

RGDS,
 
Even on the Tower then the single socket 6 core was the sweet spot for many people.

In many tasks that cannot utilize the extra cores then the slower core speed of the 8 and 12 cores meant that a task would actually take longer on the 8 or 12 core systems then on the 6 core. ie if can only use 4 cores on a 2.4GHZ 8 core then the 6 core will provide 4 cores at 3.33GHz vs 4 Cores at 2.4GHz. Strange that the 6 core would be fast in this no.

This really isn't anything new, and comes down to buying the right system for the job, not just buying the biggest baddest most expensive computer you can.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
Well the clock speed on those are virtually the same, but on the 12-core the clock speed is way way down. Almost 1 GHz!
Click to expand...

The 12 core has a turbo boost of 3.5GHz. The 6 core has a turbo boost of 3.9GHz. The base clock has very little to do with how the machine will actually perform.

Even if you only used a 12 core for single threaded apps, the difference would be negligible, anything that can take advantage of 7 or more cores will be much faster. Something that can use all 12 cores will blow the 6-core out of the water.
 
flat five said:
personally, i wouldn't consider a 3hr render into a 2hr render "blowing out of the water" but i guess ymmv.
Click to expand...

I would. A 33% time reduction for any task is remarkable, especially since tasks are generally done is succession, not isolation. So add up all the renders, and the time savings are significant both in absolute terms as well as a percentage.
 
ybz90 said:
I would. A 33% time reduction for any task is remarkable, especially since tasks are generally done is succession, not isolation. So add up all the renders, and the time savings are significant both in absolute terms as well as a percentage.
Click to expand...

this is remarkable to you?

min16.png


versus

min12.png

??


dunno.. they both look the same to me and have an equal lameness.


.
 
ybz90 said:
I would. A 33% time reduction for any task is remarkable, especially since tasks are generally done is succession, not isolation. So add up all the renders, and the time savings are significant both in absolute terms as well as a percentage.
Click to expand...

I demand Apple eliminate the render time entirely or else it doesn't mean anything significant!

/unreasonableExpectation
 
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
Back