This picture seems to suggest otherwise, although I don't know much and I could be wrong.
edit: this is what I was referring to:
The bigger chip, nearest to radeon card is ESB2 (Enterprise SouthBridge), which is actualy old ICH7 chip
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The bigger chip, nearest to radeon card is ESB2 (Enterprise SouthBridge), which is actualy old ICH7 chip
http://www.evan.se/logicprobenchmark/
Here is a very simple benchmark test. Download the zipfile located on the link above.
Open with Logic 8.02. Then un-mute tracks one by one and check how many tracks your computer is able to run.
Audiobuffer:256 samples will give the best results.
Feel free to email your results to me, evan@evan.se
The chart below is missing reports from the older dual 2x2.66ghz MacPro running 10.5.3 or higher when huge improvements in multicore handling was introduced.
We are also LONGING for reports from the new Nehalem MacPro´s !
Edit: It seems that the new dual Quad Nehalem is not working well with Logic 8.0.2. Hope we will see a fix in 8.0.3.
Here is a very simple benchmark test. Download the zipfile located on the link above.
Open with Logic 8.02. Then un-mute tracks one by one and check how many tracks your computer is able to run.
Audiobuffer:256 samples will give the best results.
Feel free to email your results to me, evan@evan.se
The chart below is missing reports from the older dual 2x2.66ghz MacPro running 10.5.3 or higher when huge improvements in multicore handling was introduced.
We are also LONGING for reports from the new Nehalem MacPro´s !
Edit: It seems that the new dual Quad Nehalem is not working well with Logic 8.0.2. Hope we will see a fix in 8.0.3.
The 2009 SP Mac Pro has 4 RAM slots instead of the 8 slots of previous Mac Pros and the 2009 DP Mac Pro.
So prev gen 3.2 is $4100
It seems I can get a refurb 3.2oct for $4099 with Nvidia card OR the current 2.66 Octo for $4699. Leaving aside the peripherals (RAM, Disk), performance wise which is the better value? I plan to use Fusion, code development and some rendering.
It seems I can get a refurb 3.2oct for $4099 with Nvidia card OR the current 2.66 Octo for $4699. Leaving aside the peripherals (RAM, Disk), performance wise which is the better value? I plan to use Fusion, code development and some rendering.
2.93 Quad
Looking at the Cinebench, the 2.66 Quad or 2.93 Quad should not be a bad choice.
The 2.93 Quad with approx. 4,074 Single Core and 16,818 Muliple Core which
would mean 25% better at Single Core and 12% slower at Multiple Core speed compared with the 2.8 Ghz MacPro.
The 8GB memory limit is not really nice but if you really process more data at once, the harddisk speed is slowing down the machine anyway.
Looking at the Cinebench, the 2.66 Quad or 2.93 Quad should not be a bad choice.
The 2.93 Quad with approx. 4,074 Single Core and 16,818 Muliple Core which
would mean 25% better at Single Core and 12% slower at Multiple Core speed compared with the 2.8 Ghz MacPro.
The 8GB memory limit is not really nice but if you really process more data at once, the harddisk speed is slowing down the machine anyway.
A/V Gear head here.
I would seriously consider both quad or oct core. The Vienna symphonic instruments are machine hogs. I use finale, Sibelius, and Logic Pro Studio. Creative Suite 4 is also a huge processor/ and huge ram hog. Plan to have the most ram you can afford and plan to be able to add more in the future.
I would put in the 32 gb if I could afford to. The new Open GL of CS4 is a godsend and the new ATI card would help enormously. I would also say plan to look at fibre as an option for your hard drives as you need a lot of bandwidth for your drives to stream samples.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=BU-001-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=
12gb for 200 pounds including VAT for PC i7 Single socket motherboards...
Is it safe to assume that the 8 Core 2.26Ghz is actually SLOWER both in Multi-Thread and Single-Thread application when compared with the previous genereation 2.8Ghz 8 Core???
I am trying to figure things out here and based on the graph alone, that is my assumption..
Please correct me if I am wrong..
I am trying to figure things out here and based on the graph alone, that is my assumption..
Please correct me if I am wrong..
Very impressive, my Q9400 Hackintosh gets a 6247 Geekbench Score. Maybe I should have sprung for the i7. 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
Absolutely beautiful and powerful innards. When Snow Leopard is released, I suspect we'll see a new Mac Pro with more cores as the octo becomes entry level.
Absolutely beautiful and powerful innards. When Snow Leopard is released, I suspect we'll see a new Mac Pro with more cores as the octo becomes entry level.
It depends on the exact application. For some, the single 2.26 *WILL* be faster. For most, it will be the dual 2.8. (For example, with a properly-compiled H.264 encoder, the single 2.26 will be faster, because the new processor includes new instructions that make video encoding faster.)
Divide the single thread benchmark numbers by the clock speed in GHz. If we increase GHz and keep the RAM subsystem the same, we would expect increasing benchmark numbers, but not quite increasing as fast as GHz. So if we divide by GHz, we would expect that the quotient (benchmark / GHz) should get smaller for the faster GHz. That is not the case here. The 2.26 GHz has only 1021 points per GHz, the 2.66 has 2340, and the 2.93 has 1390. That's 37 percent more performance per GHz for the fastest clock speed, when performance per GHz should actually go down. So something is fishy here. Could be a mistake of the benchmarker, could be some performance bug in the application, but something is wrong there.
Such assumptions without proofs worth nothing.
How can lower clocked 8 virtual cores beat higher clocked 8 real cores ?
2 HTT virtual cores gives booth average 20-30% in multithreaded apps comparing to 1 real core (of same cpu, with same clocks).
A lot of pc users disable HTT because it doesnt worth it.
old 3.0Ghz vs. 2.26 Octo nehalem.
My opinion for whoever is tempted to get an old octo core at 3ghz instead of a pumped out 2.94ghz quad or a 2.26 octo nehalem is to go for the nehalem.
Why?
Well, in term of money invested, imo it's a LONG TERM investment, we're talking about 3000-5000, so it has to have some lifespan! I guess that the 24th of march we could see a Final cut studio 3, wich should be designed especially for multi threading computing. If it's not the 24th, it will be a bit later, but not that much. Then we will see snow leopard, wich will focus on multiple processors use (aka Grand central). And gaming is slowly going toward multiple proc. (PS3 and Xbox360 are the best examples)
So I wouldn't have a doubt and go for the nehalem, wich computes MUCH BETTER on multi threading than the old generation, even with slower clocks. I could be wrong, but for me the future of software and operating system is on exploiting multiple processor power, and if you HAVE to invest on a new computer, this should be sticked into your mind. (And wallet)
Flavio
My opinion for whoever is tempted to get an old octo core at 3ghz instead of a pumped out 2.94ghz quad or a 2.26 octo nehalem is to go for the nehalem.
Why?
Well, in term of money invested, imo it's a LONG TERM investment, we're talking about 3000-5000, so it has to have some lifespan! I guess that the 24th of march we could see a Final cut studio 3, wich should be designed especially for multi threading computing. If it's not the 24th, it will be a bit later, but not that much. Then we will see snow leopard, wich will focus on multiple processors use (aka Grand central). And gaming is slowly going toward multiple proc. (PS3 and Xbox360 are the best examples)
So I wouldn't have a doubt and go for the nehalem, wich computes MUCH BETTER on multi threading than the old generation, even with slower clocks. I could be wrong, but for me the future of software and operating system is on exploiting multiple processor power, and if you HAVE to invest on a new computer, this should be sticked into your mind. (And wallet)
Flavio
Multithreading help games more and more, but Hyperthreading only hurts games performance
Seriously?
The ps3 and xbox are not great examples, and ignoring the technicalities, who wants 'specialist' consoles as the development platform for games that are then ported to pcs?
There's a big list of games that have 'multiple cpu support' splashed across the advertising blurb, which has little or negative effect on framerate and performance.
There's a big list of games that have 'multiple cpu support' splashed across the advertising blurb, which has little or negative effect on framerate and performance.
Or like most software, use any extra power as an excuse to write bad, bloated (and ported) code as easily and quickly as possible
It's not hugely simple to have multiple cores work at making your tasks hugely quick. To simplify it quite horrificly with games as an example, once any 'data has been crunched', it still has to be 'synced up and dumped' onto your display, which is a pretty bad bottleneck.
We've had multiple cpu's and gpu's (although the manufacturers seem incompetant at writing drivers) for a long time, and little to show for it.
It's not hugely simple to have multiple cores work at making your tasks hugely quick. To simplify it quite horrificly with games as an example, once any 'data has been crunched', it still has to be 'synced up and dumped' onto your display, which is a pretty bad bottleneck.
We've had multiple cpu's and gpu's (although the manufacturers seem incompetant at writing drivers) for a long time, and little to show for it.
Or like most software, use any extra power as an excuse to write bad, bloated (and ported) code as easily and quickly as possible
It's not hugely simple to have multiple cores work at making your tasks hugely quick. To simplify it quite horrificly with games as an example, once any 'data has been crunched', it still has to be 'synced up and dumped' onto your display, which is a pretty bad bottleneck.
We've had multiple cpu's and gpu's (although the manufacturers seem incompetant at writing drivers) for a long time, and little to show for it.
With the recession i guess the future is all about optimizing the (low-cost) software instead of adding raw (expensive) computing power
The time of dumb energie's overconsumption is coming to an end. Now it's all about renewable energy, recycling, and of course, optimized code lines Let me see:
8 REAL cores at 3.00GHz + up to 32GB (of "slower") RAM
4 REAL cores + 4 virtual cores at 2.93GHz + up to 8GB (of "faster") RAM
8 REAL cores + 8 virtual cores at 2.26GHz + up to 32GB (of "faster") RAM
...
8 cores is already a lot of cores, very few apps can benefit from that, Snow Leopard may help a little, but don't get your hopes too high...
For most apps, the GHz is still the best way to get performance.
The new 2.93GHz quad, looks good, if it was not for the RAM limitation and the price (after all, it is just a 2.93GHz Core i7 cpu with ECC enabled, you can find similar desktops for half the price).
Yeah, the new dual-quad 2.26 gives you 16 "cores", but what? 2.26GHz... Is this a joke? $3299? Is this a joke? April 1st? Most benchmarks show that the 2.26GHz model is far from being a rocket. I'll take the old 3.0GHz over it any day.
Then you speak about LONG TERM... Next year Intel will release Gulftown: a 6-core version of nehalem on a 32nm process. So next year, you'll have single cpu models with almost the same number of threads (if that's what you looking for) as your dual-quad 2.26GHz but at speeds around 3.00GHz and at the price of the current quad 2.93GHz...
We all know that every year (or so) there will be a new Mac Pro, some updates will bring huge improvements, some will bring huge price increases, the current one is from the latter category unfortunatly.
Looking at your numbers, if we divide the single thread scores by the processor speed for the Nehalems we get:
4074/2.93 = 1390 per ghz
3572/2.66 = 1343 per ghz
2039/2.26 = 1022 per ghz
Why is the 2.93 36% faster than would be predicted by the clock difference compared to the 2.26 alone? The 2.26 nehalem is even 10% slower than the harpertowns (~1150 per ghz) when compensating for clock frequency. What is going wrong with the 2.26, and shouldn't turbo boost be doing something here!?
EDIT: just saw gnasher made the same point!