"new" 12 core benchmark

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by blurobot, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. blurobot macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    #1
    I'm searching for the "new" mac pro benchmark. Especially the 12 core 2.4 ghz. I'm unsure if the 2.4ghz was a BTO option but I can't find benchmark info.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

    This URL has only 2 12-core options and none are 2.4. I know clock speed is not THAT important but it does seem a bit low so I'm wondering if it would make that much of a difference for what I do .

    I'll be using it for photoshop, web design and programming and running 2 or more VMs: 1 linux (web server) and 1 Windows 7 which will run constant Mutlicharts day trading strategies (multi charts is multi core aware).

    Just trying to decide if I'll go for a 12 core or if a 4 or 6 core would be ok. It's a bad update but the price is actually not that bad compared to what it was for 12 core.

    I don't think I can wait until late 2013 for a (possible) upgrade which may suck (who knows they may try and go all SSD or something strange like that). Don't really care for usb 3 or thunderbolt either.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #2
  3. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #3
    It's been less than a day. Benchmarks for the 2 x 2.4 and 2 x 3.06 will come soon. Honestly you could take the numbers for the 2.66 and 2.93 which are already out and calculate the difference.
     
  4. blurobot thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    #4
    I read all about that before and I know the 6 core is considered "better" usually. But surely on math apps like multi charts and multiple VMs more core could potentially be better right? Else why even have a 12 core @ 2.4 at all?

    I wasn't sure if the 2.4 was a BTO before the update. I calculate about 17 300 as a benchmark score which is still pretty good and better then all the 6 and 8 core but we know what benchmark scores are worth. :/

    I guess the 6 core could be better but I'm unsure if you give 8 core to multi charts via win 7, 2 core to linux VMs and 2 core remaining, it might be better. And yes I know I can't dedicate cores like that but y'know what I mean...
     
  5. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #5
    First, that is not what the referenced performance guide says at all.

    "... General recommendations

    Very few users can benefit from more than six cores, and the large majority of users are well served by a quad-core Mac Pro. Users with multiple programs running (and doing real work all at the same time) should determine how many CPU cores are being used, then choose a 4/6/8/12 core Mac Pro accordingly.

    For peak interactive performance (eg working with brushes, drawing, etc), as well as a "sweet spot" in terms of CPU cores, the 6-core 3.33GHz is the smart move— the combination of fast clock speed and 6 cores addresses 98% of the computing challenges out there. ... "
    http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-CoresExplained.html


    Second, that was written in 2010. There have been a couple of substantive updates to Photoshop and other apps over the last two years. Software has stayed no more static than hardware has over the last two years. It is funny how 2 year old hardware is "evil" and yet many folks cling to 4-6 year old software. The software is "good" because it is old.


    In short, there are more Apps now that will leverage 6 cores. 12 may be debatable but the general recommendation of 6 above still has some legs to it.

    If it was just photoshop then 6 would like still be the sweet spot but the multiple VMs. That depends. Are they large machines images or moderate sized ones. You can kill the Photoshop performance of a 3.33 6 core box if there isn't enough RAM or I/O operations to go around.

    The 12 core model can be bumped up to 48GB relatively easily. The iMac can't. Likewise if the VMs need 2 real cores assign to them then 2 VMs is 4 real cores. The iMac is tapped out. If there are no low latency work being done by the VMs then can do more sharing.
     
  6. fox10078 macrumors 6502

    fox10078

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #6
    If I'm not mistaken this has dual 2.4ghz procs Mac pro
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500630

    But hell if you look at the e5s 16 core windows is only 43k compaired to the 40k.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/top

    But still theres alot more to this then processors. (TB/SataIII/USB3/GPU)
     
  7. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #7
  8. fox10078 macrumors 6502

    fox10078

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #8
    Ah I see. I jumped the gun and only looked at clock speed. Looking at Apples site I see that they are different procs. Quite a beast you have there. How does it feel to have the fastest OSX computer on geekbench?
     
  9. Tutor, Jun 12, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012

    Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #9
    In 2009, I felt it was a big deal - http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update . From 2010 ( http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/334835 [contrary to pic, it was actually running at 4.273 GHz w/ turbo ratio of 1,1,1,1,2,2]) to now ( http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500630 [running at 2.483 GHz w/ turbo ratio of D,D,D,D,E,E or 13,13,13,13,14,14]), the glow has faded a tad, particularly since Intel has locked down the Sandy Bridge E5s so that tweakers, like me, cannot similarly discover the sweet spot(s) for the latest Xeon CPUs. But all-in-all since my run spans almost 4 annuals, I'm satisfied that I discovered that underclocking and biasing toward higher turbo ratios can surpass overclocking (note the lower frequencies yet better performance over time). Plus, it has allowed me to avoid the anxiety I now sense in many lions who have allowed themselves to be led to believe that they are mere sheep (note in this forum the comments in many post-10 am PST posts of June 11, 2012 - a day which might live in infamy) . I also have the fastest Win7 2 proc pre-Sandy Bridge E5 on geekbench ( http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/639653 ) but that achievement hasn't stirred my juices as much. I've been trying to mirror my State's college football prowess with a more purely technical/intellectual pursuit.
     
  10. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #10
    Close enough and a good place to start if someone needed to ask in the first place. Get some history first and tack on the changes that have happened since and BAM! you have your answer. Pretty simple. If everything you need this box for is supremely multithreaded and memory dependent then it is a good choice. In all other circumstances it is a bad choice. Or at least not as good as even the 3.2GHz Quad.
     
  11. bwcmusic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    #11
    What you wanted.


    I just ran one on mine that I got today. It's the base 12 core, only with a 5870. Alterations to come, of course!

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/796902
     
  12. blurobot thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    #12
    thanks! sounds like a good deal for the price (yes, I know we can build a hack for below that price, no usb3 blabla) :)
     

Share This Page