Mac Pro 2010 vs. 2009 -- confused

[sash]

I'm most probably wrong, but ok.

According to Apple's Synthetic Performance Tests, Mac Pro 12-core beats the previous generation Mac Pro 8-core by 1,3 (1,2). Which seems pretty normal.

But by doing quite a simple equation, comparing the power of the new MP 8-cores to the previous generation MP 8-core (based on these ∆ 1,3 / 1,2), the new 8-core system seems to be about 0,87 / 0,8 of the previous one, which is considerably less powerful.

Is my math completely wrong? If I'm right, what's the reason of buying this new 8-core system (what I'm planning to do)?

sash

 

[Umbongo]

The 2010 2.4GHz 8-core is faster than the 2009 2.26GHz 8-core. It is slower than the 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz 2009 models.

 

[sash]

The 2010 2.4GHz 8-core is faster than the 2009 2.26GHz 8-core. It is slower than the 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz 2009 models.

Thanks!

These SPT are based on 2,93 GHz configurations...

Umbongo, I presume, your data is not just a guess?

sash

 

[Umbongo]

Thanks!

These SPT are based on 2,93 GHz configurations...

Umbongo, I presume, your data is not just a guess?

sash

There is negligible difference between a Westmere core and a Nehalem core running at the same speed. The improvements are mostly in power usage.

 

[Ravich]

How significant are the improvements in power usage? Someone told me that a 2009 8 core running at full power is the equivalent of a 400 watt light bulb...

But I'm not sure what that says anyway.

 

[sash]

There is negligible difference between a Westmere core and a Nehalem core running at the same speed.

Not a joyful news for all the folks who was waiting for this upgrade for months... 12-core is way too expensive; honey(exclusive)moon with Intel is over, thus the prices.

 

[hazza]

I have to say having seen the specs and prices of the new machines I decided to take the plunge and grab myself a good deal on a 2009 2.26GHz 8-core on ebay (£2100). Just didn't think the minor upgrade was worth the considerable hike in price on the base 8-core.