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

Nehalem Mac Pros Arrive: Unboxing and Benchmarks

gmcalpin said:
The ATI card you're thinking of needs 10.5.7 to run. Mac Pros ordered with those are not shipping yet, because 10.5.7 isn't finished yet (and, maybe, the cards aren't available yet).
Click to expand...

Um.. The machine in this post has the ATI card (the big red part in the picture). They are shipping them, its the standalone card that needs to wait. Apple can do custom builds for shipping CPU's :)
 
gmcalpin said:
$6000? No, I have a dual 2GHz G5, and any of these machines will be a noticeable improvement over your already fast machine.

If you're actually concerned about performance and not just having the fastest Mac available, though, you have no compelling reason to upgrade until after Snow Leopard comes out and the programs you use are rewritten for it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that as well. And I do want the fastest Mac available. I have been racking my brain over getting a maxed out quad core 2.93/8GBRAM/etc. but that RAM cap is killing me. 16GB would have been a done deal, but 8 is something I just can't get over.

And just to not sound like a gear head, I do use all 4GB in my MBP on a daily basis and all 5GB in my tower from time to time.
 
I am glad I kept my machine.
around 25% speed increase doesn't justify the premium in price to upgrade.
Adding the economic times to the equation, it feels, I am waiting for the next revision. Sorry Apple.
 
tufaw said:
The quad core supports a maximum of 8 GB ram, the 8-core supports 32 GB. I'm pretty sure you've made the right purchase.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Apple did this! Previous 4-core Macs had 8 slots and supported 32GB of ram. Now they've not only cut down the number of slots, but also limited them to 2GB modules. I wonder if it's possible to put in 4GB modules and get a total of 16GB?

Basically, they're forcing people to spend a lot more money just to have the option of putting in more than 8GB of ram. I don't believe this was the case with previous intel-based Macs.
 
gugy said:
I am glad I kept my machine.
around 25% speed increase doesn't justify the premium in price to upgrade.
Adding the economic times to the equation, it feels, I am waiting for the next revision. Sorry Apple.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be looking for an upgrade from the previous generation anyway.

The person that owns the quad 2.66 or quad 3.0 at least should be looking for an upgrade. Anyone that using a machine older than that is a certainty given their needs and money.

Anyone with any version of last years model shouldn't be concerned about upgrading simple because the speed increase is minor, and (like you said) it's not with it given the price of the tower.
 
The weird thing is though, why does 2.93 perform much much better than 2.26 on single threaded render? The multiplier is only 1.29 but the multiplier on the single threaded render is 1.76. How can a 2.93 Ghz core perform 1.76 times faster than a a 2.26 Ghz one?

Something fishy there. Either the 2.93 Ghz Core used turbo boost, while 2.26 one didn't, even that doesn't explain the gap, or something else is going on.
 
Digital Skunk said:
You shouldn't be looking for an upgrade from the previous generation anyway.

The person that owns the quad 2.66 or quad 3.0 at least should be looking for an upgrade. Anyone that using a machine older than that is a certainty given their needs and money.

Anyone with any version of last years model shouldn't be concerned about upgrading simple because the speed increase is minor, and (like you said) it's not with it given the price of the tower.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Apple expected everyone to upgrade with each revision to a product, it would space them out much further and make more dramatic leaps each time. Still, up to 2x the performance (probably around 25% increase in real-life performance, max) is quite impressive for a single generation. I would think anyone who depends on their machine for a living should be considering an upgrade every 2-3 years, which is 2-3 generations for the Mac Pro line, it seems.

jW
 
Constable Odo said:
The high bench marks of this Mac Pro sure got eclipsed quickly enough by a 32-core machine.
Click to expand...
Not surprising there.

gmcalpin said:
I just noticed that all the clock speed fanatics who were ranting up and down about how the new systems were slower (they aren't, clearly), and that there was a massive price jump (there wasn't, in performance over performance), seem oddly silent today.
Click to expand...
So are all those claiming the Nehalem is 2x as fast as Penryn. Actually, they've been silent for a while now.
 
Help with Graphics card

I won't be buying one. Can only afford the price that Macs have always been (between 2700 and 3300) and the speeds in this price range are no different from what I have now. 8 Core 2.8 14 G's ram. 6500 dollars for the premium Mac with basic ram is unheard of from Apple. Shame.

Anyhow. I would love to get the new 4870 but when I look on newegg there are 20 different brands. How do you know which one will work for the MacPro 2008? I don't care about having mini video connector. Two DVI's is fine with me.

thanks! Sorry to be a grouch but come on.....$6500 for top end mac???? Since when?
 
iBug2 said:
The weird thing is though, why does 2.93 perform much much better than 2.26 on single threaded render? The multiplier is only 1.29 but the multiplier on the single threaded render is 1.76. How can a 2.93 Ghz core perform 1.76 times faster than a a 2.26 Ghz one?

Something fishy there. Either the 2.93 Ghz Core used turbo boost, while 2.26 one didn't, even that doesn't explain the gap, or something else is going on.
Click to expand...

I think it may be Turbo Boost. I read that it's only available on the 2.93 versions of the quad and octo core.

Mal said:
Agreed. If Apple expected everyone to upgrade with each revision to a product, it would space them out much further and make more dramatic leaps each time. Still, up to 2x the performance (probably around 25% increase in real-life performance, max) is quite impressive for a single generation. I would think anyone who depends on their machine for a living should be considering an upgrade every 2-3 years, which is 2-3 generations for the Mac Pro line, it seems.

jW
Click to expand...

This is exactly how a lot of pros in my area think, and where I get my "Every 2-3 year" upgrade path from. It's been about that long since the first Mac Pro and the quad 3.0. If you are using the last quad G5 it's been 4. Anything lower than that and yes, you could get the quad and be blown away if you can get over that 8GB RAM cap which I will keep brining up to remind me why I want the octo. :cool:
 
Digital Skunk said:
You shouldn't be looking for an upgrade from the previous generation anyway.

The person that owns the quad 2.66 or quad 3.0 at least should be looking for an upgrade. Anyone that using a machine older than that is a certainty given their needs and money.

Anyone with any version of last years model shouldn't be concerned about upgrading simple because the speed increase is minor, and (like you said) it's not with it given the price of the tower.
Click to expand...

Yep,
I guess I only hope Apple will update their displays soon. maybe at WWDC. I would love another 30". The lack of updates on that front, plus the current prices is very annoying.
 
ikir said:
This post proved you didn't have a clue lol.

The single quad core it is still power as the old 8-core only in cpu power!!! These new machines shines with other apps thanks to nw gfxcards, memory speed and hyperthreading. And cost less. It is an impressive improvements, but also old 2,8Ghz are cool machines and even faster for single core apps.

I would buy the new quadcore over the old 8-core.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trade my 2.8 for a new 4 core. The ram limitation and reduced performance makes it 100% not worth it.
 
ChrisA said:
That did not last long. Already the new MP is no longer on the top of the benchmark list. IBM beat it with a score of 22,000. to Apple's 17,000

Also the Sun server that the mew Mac Pro beat was not Sun's top of the line. So I imagine Sun have one of their larger systems benchmarked. They might even beat IBM.
...
IBM beat it using older Xeons but more of them and at much higher price.
Click to expand...

It's FUNNY that IBM (sorry we can't build a g5 laptop chip that doesn't melt...) couldn't let Apple hold the top spot for more than a day.

It's IRONIC they chose to use Intel processors to do it :)

-fate
 
Scottsdale said:
That's why I said the NEW Quad-Core is essentially an overpriced xMac and NOT REALLY A MAC PRO...

That's my belief. It's NOT affordable, and it sticks with the "Mac Pro" branding for marketing purposes, but I believe our desired xMac was introduced last week at a hefty price tag.

It is hard for all of you real Pros who have to go backwards or spend so much more for the same performance. I really disagree with Apple's forward thinking here. I think Apple should have started the Mac Pro at Dual 2.66 GHz Octacore Nehalem to compete with its last generation.

HOWEVER, I think March 24 may show us all that Apple has some actual software to back up the numbers behind the new Octacore 2.26... at least I hope Apple can back it up somehow... someway...
Click to expand...

Might wanna check the benchmarks on the quad, it's FP performance is through the roof and it's is smoking the i7 920's at same clock by 20%.
 
Look, the Sun box (x4450) wasn't even the top of the line x4450. It's a 2.4 GHz machine with "only" 64 GB of RAM. Not to mention it was only the free 32bit version of geekbench. (I'm cheap, so sue me.) And that benchmark stood on top for 10 months.

I wanted to run the geekbench stuff with newer 7460 x4450's but we put them into production before I had a chance.

I'm still confused how they got 32 cores into an IBM 3850/3950 m2 unless they're somehow using hyperthreading (which isn't really an option). It's a 4-socket box, so if you put 4x 6 core 7460's in it... I'm not seeing how that top score can stand.

And yes, Sun'x x4600 m2 is their high end 8 socket box (with up to 512GB of RAM). So if you slap 8x 8284's in one of those, I'm sure it would blow the doors off of the current top score.

However, the point is simply this: if a 2 processor Nehalem box can literally crush a 4 proc 7450, it's time to reevaluate how many procs you really need.
 
talkingfuture said:
That picture is great, I have always liked the internal design of the Mac Pro. It looks so industrial and futuristic. My PC tower at work is hideous in comparison.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to compare the cleanliness of a Mac with the innards of a PC...that's why they are junk compared to an Apple, hands down. Not to mention these benchmarks, which clearly show the new MacPros as the MOST POWERFUL personal computers on Earth. And to say that there were people still complaining...

By the way, today another friend of mine from work switched to Macs...and I am sure he is not turning back to the inferior world of PC users...

GO APPLE!
 
Wow I feel sorry for people who passed up on the octo 2.8ghz system last year to wait for Nehalem.

Boy was that a great deal!


These new ones need a lower price to be worth it.
 
Chaos123x said:
Wow I feel sorry for people who passed up on the octo 2.8ghz system last year to wait for Nehalem.

Boy was that a great deal!


These new ones need a lower price to be worth it.
Click to expand...

Actually some Apple stores still have the '08 Octo 2.8s in stock for $2499. I'm still on the fence as to get that or the new 2.66 Quad. I wish someone would benchmark those two.
 
Chaos123x said:
Wow I feel sorry for people who passed up on the octo 2.8ghz system last year to wait for Nehalem.

Boy was that a great deal!


These new ones need a lower price to be worth it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I actually feel quite good now that I sold my Quad 3.0 and bought a octo 2.8 a year ago. Not to mention I've been using it at almost 3.2 Ghz OC'd.
 
ChrisA said:
That did not last long. Already the new MP is no longer on the top of the benchmark list. IBM beat it with a score of 22,000. to Apple's 17,000

Also the Sun server that the mew Mac Pro beat was not Sun's top of the line. So I imagine Sun have one of their larger systems benchmarked. They might even beat IBM.

Still the Apple product looks good. Sun and IBM beat it using older Xeons but more of them and at much higher price.

To bad those old rumers about a Sun/Apple merger were wrong. Would be nice to be able to buy Mac OS X on Sun hardware. Sun covers the high end so much better than Apple and Apple has the desktop which Sun lacks
Click to expand...

Sun has quad-core desktops/workstations starting at $1,095.

Sun Ultra 24 workstation
k3_ultra24_1.jpg
 
I'm so confused. Am I looking at this graph correctly? Why is the 2.26 slower than last year's 2.8? I mean I understand it's not significantly slower, but I mean come on! Every update should be a little faster. Can someone explain this? I just don't understand it.
 
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