MacPro Mid 2010 First Impressions?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Nautigar, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. Nautigar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    #1
    Hello,

    as the first few lucky ones here get their new MacPros, I thougt it would be interesting to hear about their first impressions and maybe even see some pictures or benchmark results.

    Those of you who owned a 2009 MacPro before, can you tell differences other than the processor tray and graphics card?

    Best wishes,

    Matthias.
     
  2. wnarv macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    #2
    I am also very interested in hearing your first impressions of the new mac pros (especially the hexacore which I plan to order in the next 10 days or so)
     
  3. drml macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    #3
    There are some benchmarks of the hexcore and the base 2.4 quad here:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10879619&posted=1#post10879619

    On the processor benchmarks the hexcore beats the 2009 2.93 8-core as well as the 2010 2.4 8-core
     
  4. Fiete5401 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #4
    Yes, you get a 9,78% higher Geekbench score by spending 12,50% more money for the SP MP 3.33 GHz with 6 GB RAM.
    I compared the 64-bit results and the prices in the german Apple Online Store.
     
  5. drml macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    #5
    What you say is true, but somewhat misleading. The Geekbench score is multithreaded. If you focus on the single-threaded results you will find:

    Integer performance:
    6-core 34.47% faster

    Floating point performance:
    6-core 35.52% faster

    Memory performance:
    6-core 34.09% faster

    Stream performance:
    6-core 39.62% faster

    The reality is that most people will see much better performance from the 6-core than the 2.4 8-core. The vast majority of tasks that users perform will not fully tax the 6 or 8 cores. Even under full load (like Handbrake) the 6-core will be faster due to the higher clock speed.
     
  6. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #6
    Does the Kernel run in 64 bit mode?
     
  7. Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #7
    Can anyone who has already received their Mac Pro that didn't BTO an SSD drive tell us if 2.5" hard drive adapters are included?
     
  8. twoodcc macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #8
    i would like to know that as well
     
  9. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #9
    Completely agree.

    The reasons why I got the octo were specific: my workload nowadays is more about lots of simultaneous processes and VMs, not raw powerful computing. So the 8-core seemed like a good fit due to:

    - Greater RAM capacity (and cheaper to expand)
    - More physical cores benefits virtualization
    - Cheaper with the potential to try upgrading the CPUs later
    - I didn't pay for it, so I was more willing to risk a different approach than the 6-core


    So far I'm loving it. But I still have tons of work left to get it set up. :D
     
  10. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #10
    I didn't see anything extra. And I added a normal HDD to the second bay...
     
  11. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #11
    Yes, it defaults to booting into 64-bit mode.
     
  12. Fiete5401 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #12
    I completely agree with your conclusion. How did you do your calculations?
    Did your extract the single threaded results from the integer and floating point sections and compared these numbers? I'm currently putting an excel sheet together by copy&paste.
     
  13. drml macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    #13
    Yes, I just pulled the single threaded results from all four sections from two geekbench runs by other forum members (my 6-core is still in Honk Kong :(). Then, I put the numbers into a spreadsheet and calculated the averages by section.

    Here are the 3.33 6-core results:
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280534

    and here are the 2.4 8-core results:
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280564
     
  14. Nautigar thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    #14
    That's interesting! The 3.3 GHz 6-core is even a bit faster on average with multithreaded applications than the 2.4 GHz 8-core. Well, actually not so surprising since 8*2.4 = 19.2 whereas 6*3.33 = 20.

    Strange though that Geekbench lists the 8-core as 16 cores/16 threads and the 6-core as 6 cores/12 threads ....?

    Thanks for posting!!
     
  15. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #15
    Might be the version. I was using 2.1.2 vs 2.1.6.

    Edit: I just upgraded to 2.1.6 and ran the test again for the 8-core.

    It showed the processors/cores correctly.
     
  16. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #16
    My 8-core Nehalem 2.93 is 20% faster than the 6-core Westmere 3.33 running Geekbench 64-bit. Specifically the Integer and FP scores are higher but the Westmere memory scores win.

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280193

    It will be interesting to see how they compare on real world apps like AE CS5, Photoshop CS5, FCP, Aperture, etc.
     
  17. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #17
    Any Logic users with one of the new machines?
     
  18. Fiete5401 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #18
    How do the memory scores translate into real world performance?
     
  19. drml macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    #19
    The 8-core Nehalem 2.93 machine is a great machine. It is close in speed to the 3.33 6-core. If you look at the single-threaded scores, the 3.33 is 10-15% faster than the 8-core. If you load the computer completely (like with Handbrake) the 8-core will probably be a bit faster because it has 33% more cores (vs. the 6-core) but is only 10-15% slower on average.

    So, there probably won't be a huge rush to upgrade the 2.93 machines unless they go for the 12 core machines. The 12-core should be 5-10% faster on single threaded tasks, but will be much faster (30%+) when you fully load the machine.

    In my experience, running your machine fully loaded very rarely happens for most users. Digilloyd recommends the 6-core machine as the sweet spot in terms of performance and I have to agree.
     
  20. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #20
    Oh man are my VMs quick with 4+ cores assigned...

    I'm enjoying this.

    :D
     
  21. 2contagious macrumors 6502a

    2contagious

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Can anyone with a new Mac Pro (I'm interested in the 6 core) comment on how noisy it is?
     
  22. eponym macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #22
    It's not bad (I have the 8-core). There's a pretty constant low fan noise which I think is coming from the GPU.
     
  23. reel2reel macrumors 6502a

    reel2reel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #23
    Which GPU do you have installed?
     
  24. beto2k7 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Location:
    ::1
    #24
    Can someone please dump both gpu rom and EFI rom of the new MP's
     
  25. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #25
    How exactly do you dump the EFI on a Mac? :confused:
     

Share This Page