Mac Pro E5-1680v2

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by wallysb01, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. wallysb01 macrumors 65816

    Jun 30, 2011
    Did anyone else notice that on the front page this benchmark ( of the new Mac Pro was using an 8-core at 3GHz named the E5-1680?

    At first I thought it was a typo, but sure enough its on Intel's ARK pages ( Priced at $1723. Thought its interesting the 1680 doesn't show up on Intel's E5-1600v2 family page ( Could this be a special processor for Apple?

    So, it appears to me Apple will probably skip all 10-core options and just do:

    E5-1620: $294
    E5-1650: $583
    E5-1660: $1080
    E5-1680: $1723
    E5-2697: $2614
  2. Tutor, Sep 27, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013

    Tutor macrumors 65816


    Jun 25, 2009
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    Comparison Time

    Compare an Apple [ ]
    an Orange [ ] in different taste tests.

    Who'd prefer the Orange over the Apple?

    PS - The more I think about the tastes of those Apples and Oranges, I think that I'll stick with my sweet Peaches.
  3. deconstruct60, Sep 28, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013

    deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    For Apple? no. For OEMs? Yes.

    "... There were also two models, not mentioned in those documents: Xeon E5-1607 v2 and E5-1680 v2. ... It is likely that initially both models will be available only in OEM workstations, ... "

    The 1607 v2 is "buried" in ark also (not on v2 summary page, but link can google down into. )

    Could but not really going to shift on price since the 2680 v2 is the exact same price with two more active cores. [ This probably is a mutated 2680 v2 with two cores flipped off and the dynamic clock range set broader and base a bit higher. Paying 2600 series prices for a 1600 series part.] It boils down to whether want something more optimized for fewer cores ( and high turbo clock ) or not. That is the central theme that runs across that line up. A significant amount of 1-2 core, high clock workloads with periodic mix of multi core workloads.
  4. theSeb macrumors 604


    Aug 10, 2010
    Poole, England
  5. Tutor, Sep 28, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013

    Tutor macrumors 65816


    Jun 25, 2009
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    Geekbench data yeilds more than just raw score metrics of a single system.

    And as per wikipedia -[ - "A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared. The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also be used to indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an apple is faulted for not being a good orange." ]. But despite what you, "geekbench themselves," and wikipedia say, I choose either Georgia, Clanton or Verbena peaches over apples and oranges whenever possible. To me, even though they all taste sweet, those peaches satisfy me more. And I submit that rational people make, and are guided by, apple and orange-like comparisons throughout each day.

    N.B. Dave's (Movieman's) Geekbench 2.0 [ - 49,366 ] and 3.0 [ - 48,254 ] scores are eerily similar (a difference within a thousand or so points isn't so great). I've seen that pattern in the case of others who've run both tests, even mine. Compare [ V2 score is 34,089] with [ V3 score is 33,991 ] The scores are close for nearly identical clockings, with the V3 score being the lower of the two and isn't this lower score for Geekbench V3 more consistent with this version's tasking the CPU(s) with a longer, more rigorous and numerous set of tests. Given that pattern, I suspect that Apple's New 8-Core Mac Pro would have score higher under Geekbench 2.0 that it, in fact, did under Geekbench 3.0. Conversely, had the New Edition with the the Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70 GHz been tested under Geekbench 3.0, I believe that its score would have been even lower than it, in fact, was under Geekbench 2.0. That's why I believe that the Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70 GHz performed extremely poorly in comparison to the 8 core and this is even more obvious when you consider the 4 additional cores the E5-2697 has, even taking into account the 8 core's faster clock. If you look below in my P.S., you'll see that I believe and am satisfied that this performance deficit exists due to throttling. Or, maybe the patterns that I see are seen by only me just because, here, Halloween is near.

    P.S. I'm still betting that Apples Inc. maxes out the New Edition with the E5-2695 V2 chip because of thermal (TDP)->throttling->lower performance & more noise/costs/price/sales/profit issues raised by placing the Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70 GHz in the Cylinder with a single fan. Moreover, the Cylinder's intended placement is on the user's desk - close to the user. Additionally, with potentially other little noise makers strung to the Cylinder and also next to the user, the noises are additive. To me, that screams loudly and clearly, "Neither for, nor made by, Apple Inc."

Share This Page