Looking for Mac Pro 12 Core 3.06GHz Geekbench

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Zwhaler, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
  2. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #2
    I don't think anyone has bothered to buy one/
    Just add a couple hundred points to the 2.93GHz score. Done.
    I will guess around 24000 in 32-bit.
     
  3. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #3

    Just imagine how high it would have been with a real update (not that I would've bought the top model given the price):(.
     
  4. Zwhaler thread starter macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #4
    The 2 x 3.1 GHz (which Apple probably wouldn't have used) gets around 41,000
     
  5. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #5
    Oh man that is insane. I was hoping to see something like an E5-1650 in a single package configuration + updated gpu options. That would beat what we have now by a significant margin even after the price adjustments.
     
  6. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #6
    Yeah, no way in hell Apple would have used the 3.1! They cost $1890 per chip whereas the old top of the lines were $1440.

    They would be using the E5-2665 16 core, 2.4GHz chip with what would have been the SB update to the Mac Pro. Still a very fast chip with a turbo frequency of 3.1GHz and totally trounces what we got instead.

    However, I'll be receiving my 3.06 model on Monday apparently so I'll be happy to do you a geekbench.
     
  7. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
  8. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #8
    The geekbench 2 score of the top of the line "New" Mac Pro may be around 25,259. I base my projection of the score on the performance on my dual Xeon 5675s that are clocked at 3.06 Ghz in my Mac Pro 2009 -> 2010 system. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/590250 But if you had it in a tweakable, underclocked turbo biased system the performance would be about 1.35x higher or 34,089. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/568507
     
  9. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #9
    Don't worry, I'm probably the only fool person who actually bought one.
     
  10. scottrichardson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    Ulladulla, NSW Australia
    #10
    Since it's almost a given that Apple will be employing the currently unreleased Ivy Bridge based XEONS in the 2013 model Mac Pro, you will be looking at over 41,000. Likely 46,000 or so since they're presumed to be 10 - 15% faster than the current XEON E5's that Apple are not using yet.
     
  11. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #11
    I don't think so. If Apple were to sell a 2013 Mac Pro model with two top of the line IvyBees, I'd agree with you. However, Apple has never offered a top of the line processor, not even now in the 2012, and will not do so because of TDP/heat and pricing concerns. Thus, you be very lucky to see a 40,000 Geekbench from a 2013 Mac Pro because, at best, it would probably have a low to middle of the line IvyBee. Moreover, Apple' most recent behavior, putting middle of the line Westmeres from 2010 into a 2012 system, raises the suspicion that it would have the gall to put low to middle of the line 2012 Sandy Bridge Xeons in a 2013 machine just to extract from purchasers the highest margin while calling those systems "New."
     
  12. SR2Mac, Jun 16, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2012

    SR2Mac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    #12
    It's like I mentioned in another post, Tutor is going to be the king for the next two years like you've been for about the same with your current GBS of 40,100. Amazing that a machine like ours are able to reach that type of render power at 1/3 the cost and stay on top for 4 years... That's a very wise purchase... I hope to reach from 32,000+ to over 40,000 soon. At least that's my goal. If any of you have an EVGA SR-2 mobo setup with dual X5680s or X5690s (or are looking to build something similar) then you should check out Tutor's Way of Underclocking here:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1333421

    to reach those same scores or even better... :cool:

    Lasty, Tutor's right, Apple has NEVER put in TOTL CPU on any MP as a result of what he just mentioned. For a company like Apple, they will sell you the higher priced machine for marginal better performance in order to make more $$$... That's the name of the game in almost any business though, isn't it? BOXXTech.com (for example) is the same; if you want to customize your PC on their site and decide you want more RAM they charge a premium for it. Let's say you want to go from 12GB of RAM to 48GB of RAM they're going to charge you $1,323 MORE for the same exact RAM you can buy at newegg.com for $300.00. To me, it's not worth it... I respect guys like Tutor who not only do themselves but actually take the time to Pay It Forward to help guys like me push ourselves to not only reach the same rendering power, but EXCEED IT.
     
  13. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #13
    You buy when you need or give up waiting for what you need:)
     
  14. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #14
    My 3.06 turned up today. It got a very respectable 26039 on Geekbench:
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #15
    Very good score.
     
  16. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #16
    Also, incase anyone didn't notice, it has a model identifier of 5,1, not 6,1
     
  17. SR2Mac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    #17
    Also, by looking at your GBS, I noticed that you have 2 x X5675's running on that new model. I wonder why Apple haven't highlighted this?... mmm... BTW, decent GBS... :cool:
     
  18. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
  19. gpzjock, Jun 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012

    gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
  20. peabo, Jun 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012

    peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #20
    1600MHz RAM would just throttle down to 1333 if you put it in there.
     
  21. gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #21
    What a shame, explains the 5,1 model no. if they didn't even apply a bump to the memory speed. :(
     
  22. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #22
    The memory controllers of the chips max out at 1333 Mhz *rated*.

    Apple would essentially be overclocking the chips to run them at 1600mhz.

    Besides, going from 1066 to 1333 yielded basically sod all performance gains in day-to-day tasks and 1-2% in memory intensive tasks.

    So really, who cares?
     
  23. gpzjock, Jun 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2012

    gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #23
    If that is all the change would bring then who cares indeed.
    My only experiment in improving RAM speeds involved adding 2 matching 800 MHz 2Gb sticks to an elderly AMD Athlon dual core system and switching the BIOS to use the extra speed. Compared to the 1Gb of mismatched RAM at 200MHz it had an overall improvement of around 15% and the memory test scores in Geekbench went up about 50%.
    I was looking at the significantly higher GBS of the i5's RAM I tested below and wondering if a MP would benefit from the same kit:

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/581489/609923

    Forgive my expectation of more difference.
    I sincerely hope the next MP board and controller can make more out of whatever speed hikes in RAM we see in the future.
     

Share This Page