New 12-Core Mac Pro Once Again Shows Up in Benchmarks

[clibinarius]

Not to "hate", I'm sure it's a great machine... but I can't help but look at bench marks and see 10%-20% increases over the mac pro that came out 4 years ago... and I might add, the older version had much more expansion and upgrade options at a lower cost.

It looks cool, like something you might see darth vadar using for his computing needs but were professionals clamouring for a 'designer' desktop that sacrificed expansion and upgrade options? Was that really a rallying cry over the past few years? I owned a mac pro for 3 years and it worked great but I didn't buy it for its looks.

If I was in line for an upgrade I think I'd really have to mull this one over and weigh it against the alternatives.

I'd probably get a Hackintosh.

Seriously, Mr. Schiller-Can't innovate anymore my-this would be a GREAT computer FOR CONSUMERS. Not professionals. No one's disputing the casing is innovative. I think the dispute is that this is for people who demand expandability and not for people who want something that's a little between the Pro and Mini.

Honestly, for a machine that just sits there, yeah, it probably runs cooler, but removable media without need for a RAID card means so, so much more when I'm at work.

When I saw the price I didn't know what to make of it. Two tops of the line haswell chips (not even, though, they'll be ivy bridges on Intel's scheduling I'm sure), a soupy graphics card, and a gig of flash ram isn't so impressive nowadays. At Apple's discount on parts, $2000 would be more than they'd pay, and would be more than I'd pay putting together the equivalently spec'ed machine.

So is OS X worth over $1000? Methinks not unless you're a die-hard fan. Unless you need to market something ONLY on OS X.

Given the prices of computer goods, there's no reason Apple can't release an entry "Mac Pro" for $1500 using similar, just fewer, parts. Hence the hate. I don't see who this machine will attract aside from Mac die-hards developers. I'd target the iMac as a standalone mid-range model. But what do I know, I'm not a billionaire like Tim Cook, just someone who wants to buy a high end computer.

 

[gugy]

Damn, my MP 2010 12 core still rocking in comparison to the new machines. I guess I will keep it for another year or two before jumping in the nMP bandwagon.

 

[lilo777]

if you were a boss paying a talented graphics or video editor a 20% performance boost means that 20% of this guys expensive time is not spent watching spinning balls or crawling status bars. It also might mean getting the work done on schedule 20 % more often. Apple does a good job striking a ballance on the hard ware and has always had a rep of going for stable rather than fast as it can go and if any one on a roll has ever forgotten to hit "save as " in the heat of the desire to get the work one more step forward when the poo hit the fan stable is a good thing. so haters and knockers go buy an empty shell and build your own and run whatever you want on it and leave us Mac guys to our "misery"

Of course if you are a smart boss you'd buy a much more powerful PC for less (or even the same or a little more) money and have your talanted editor produce way more than he would with the underpowered Mac "Pro"

 

[RobertMartens]

When you spout a bunch of stuff that you know nothing about, that's hate.

That's hate? I thought hate was "to have a strong aversion to something"


Maybe you are thinking of Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information

Dislikers gotta dislike!

 

[MacDav]

For the price of the 12 core, I would expect better results. But more important than the results is the lack of a swappable GPU. No point in having Firepro GPU for sound engineers or those who don't need it. A standard GPU like an AMD 280 would suffice and bring the cost down. I'd be all over the new Mac Pro if it weren't for Apple's continued stupidity in the graphics card department.

Well it depends of whether openCL is supported in Logic X or not. If it is not going to be supported then yes, what are they thinking? They have talked a lot about openCL, but not given any real specifics regarding which Apps will use it.

 

[Michael73]

For all those out there complaining about the small Geekbench score increase over the previous model, remember there are plenty of us out there still running with MP 2,1 3,1 and 4,1 models who have stretched the life of their current machine 6+ years and will see enormous benefit in upgrading to this machine

To follow up since I just looked at the full list of Geekbench scores, my 2008 MP 3,1 scores 10,387 while a new 2013 8 core machine scores 24,429 (a 2.3x increase!).

I wonder how many MP owners who will buying the new machine are using the most current version versus older machines like myself, who likely will see a huge increase.

 

[MacDav]

Personally I wouldn't buy one because it isn't expandable enough for me but I do think it's a really cool product and I'm eagerly awaiting reviews.

Not expandable enough? The whole point of this new MacPro is to increase expandability. Of course if you don't want to use Thunderbolt for your expansion needs then yes, it's just a boat anchor.

 

[digitalhen]

Pretty pleased with my MP 2010 results (hexacore). Still equalling the new Mac Pro on single core activities, and getting half the score for multicore --- it has half the cores.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/270710?baseline=273282

 

[groovyd]

cost per clock

The GPUs - D300 equate to W7000 which are $600 each approx so $1200 and the CPU is about
The CPUs are
$294 - 4core
$583 - 6 Core
$2614 - 12 core

Interesting to think that for the same price as the 12 core you could have 36+ cores using 9+ of the 4 core version. Right here I see a pretty serious argument for the advantages of having 2 smaller core count cpus over one high count cpu... simple cost per clock. Also having multiple lower core cpus would be better at distributing the heat which would then result in even higher average clock rates for the same work load.

I do wonder why Apple doesn't offer an option to swap out one of the GPU for a second CPU card. I get the OpenCL argument but the reality of today is that some types of code just run better on a CPU then a GPU, compiling code for example. I am a programmer and would much rather prefer 2 CPUs and one GPU for faster builds. I'm not a compiler designer but I am pretty sure dividing up the compiler's tasks across a ton of relatively useless GPUs isn't practical.

 

[Quu]

Not expandable enough? The whole point of this new MacPro is to increase expandability. Of course if you don't want to use Thunderbolt for your expansion needs then yes, it's just a boat anchor.

Can't upgrade the graphics on it, only four RAM slots. Only one PCIe SSD slot. Thunderbolt 2 is 20Gb/s per port. A single X16 PCIe 3.0 slot (which the CPU in the Mac Pro supports two of ) are 126Gb/s each.

Not to mention I personally don't want my desk looking like I have a squid on it. I prefer having disks and things in a single case.

Another thing: 4K, At the moment the Mac Pro can drive three 4K displays. But that uses up the thunderbolt ports. We know it has six ports and that's great but only three of them support displays and we aren't yet aware how using three 4K displays will affect overall thunderbolt bandwidth on the remaining three ports.

Honestly I just have too many reservations about this system. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's a neat product. I'm still very interested in reviews but for a desktop system it is simply too closed down for me, it's a lot of money to buy something that will become outdated quickly with no real way to upgrade any of it when I could just build something that would last 2-3 times longer with very easy GPU and CPU upgrades along the way for a fraction of the overall cost of buying a new Mac Pro every 12 months.

And finally, Haswell-E with 8 Core chips standard and DDR4 next year. Already this thing isn't out yet but within 6 months from now it will be architecturally outdated in multiple ways. This is a cause for concern to me especially when you cannot upgrade it. Some of you may say, that happens all the time in computing and you're not wrong however the architecture the new Mac Pro is using technically came out in late 2011. I built my system based on the same architecture in March 2012. Over a year ago. Basically Apple is getting in on this architecture at the end of its three year life cycle.

 

[Umbongo]

Interesting to think that for the same price as the 12 core you could have 36+ cores using 9+ of the 4 core version. Right here I see a pretty serious argument for the advantages of having 2 smaller core count cpus over one high count cpu... simple cost per clock. Also having multiple lower core cpus would be better at distributing the heat which would then result in even higher average clock rates for the same work load.

I do wonder why Apple doesn't offer an option to swap out one of the GPU for a second CPU card. I get the OpenCL argument but the reality of today is that some types of code just run better on a CPU then a GPU, compiling code for example. I am a programmer and would much rather prefer 2 CPUs and one GPU for faster builds. I'm not a compiler designer but I am pretty sure dividing up the compiler's tasks across a ton of relatively useless GPUs isn't practical.

Two 4-core CPUs that will work together, and that you'd want in a workstation, are $1,000 a piece (3.5GHz). Two 2.7GHz 6-cores are $600 each so you do have a point, but Intel don't really make it cheaper for the most part. Two 3.5GHz 6-cores are ~$1,600 each, for example.

As for why a GPU and not a CPU? A GPU just requires a PCI-E connection, a CPU requires a lot more and you'd have the motherboard split over 2 cards and where would the memory go? Just wasn't worth it to Apple to try and do all that.

 

[leyton]

It must be Monday morning in Australia and New Zealand. Has it launched there yet? If the rumours are true I hope it's in the Apple Store asap as I'm dying to see what it looks like the flesh so to speak.

nothing there..

http://store.apple.com/nz/buy-mac/mac-pro

Check out how much NZ has to pay for the MP!

 

[wiz329]

I understand the reservations from various users here, esp in regards to the expandability options. Apple knows more about the roadmap heading forward than anyone here, and they ain't silly. I'm holding back judgement until they reveal their hand completely.

But for pure lust, I don't care what anyone says, I want one!

The question isn't whether Apple is making a calculated decision, and has some end goal in mind (ie they're doing everything for a REASON). But problem is, their goal is to make a profit, not necessarily to build me the best machine for ME. Sometimes the two go along. Sometimes they don't.

Sounds to me like the roadmap is heading towards more proprietary designs/connections, and more of an appliance-like model.

That doesn't really sound like its in my best interest.

Proprietary flash storage = higher cost.
Nonstandard GPU slots* = fewer options, higher cost for remaining options.
Expansion exclusively via Thunderbolt (vs. PCIe) = fewer options, higher cost, slower speeds, increased convenience (connection via cabling).

The new Mac Pro is hell of a piece of engineering -- don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by it.

I'm just not convinced its the best thing for the "pro" world. Hopefully I'll be wrong. And hopefully Apple will start working to develop standards (for PCIe based flash storage, for example) that aren't closed or proprietary. But ... knowing Apple, I'm not holding my breath.

----------

Two 4-core CPUs that will work together, and that you'd want in a workstation, are $1,000 a piece (3.5GHz). Two 2.7GHz 6-cores are $600 each so you do have a point, but Intel don't really make it cheaper for the most part. Two 3.5GHz 6-cores are ~$1,600 each, for example.

As for why a GPU and not a CPU? A GPU just requires a PCI-E connection, a CPU requires a lot more and you'd have the motherboard split over 2 cards and where would the memory go? Just wasn't worth it to Apple to try and do all that.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18328909#post18328909

Good explanation why it's not possible just to swap dual CPUs for dual GPUs.

----------

Finally, I'm curious as to what the thermal limits and acoustic properties of this new machine will be. I can't imagine that something that tiny would be able to handle the heat of all three components running at max load. Some sort of throttling must occur.

I also wonder what the machine will sound like under load. That a lot of heat, and not a lot of room.

 

[groovyd]

...

Two 4-core CPUs that will work together, and that you'd want in a workstation, are $1,000 a piece (3.5GHz). Two 2.7GHz 6-cores are $600 each so you do have a point, but Intel don't really make it cheaper for the most part. Two 3.5GHz 6-cores are ~$1,600 each, for example.

As for why a GPU and not a CPU? A GPU just requires a PCI-E connection, a CPU requires a lot more and you'd have the motherboard split over 2 cards and where would the memory go? Just wasn't worth it to Apple to try and do all that.

Currently where is the memory, on the CPU card or the GPU? Seems the second CPU card could have it's own memory and a shared bus between the two for syncing common data. Really I have no idea how 2 CPUs physically connect but it seems plausible to split big jobs in half in a way 2 CPUs could work on them independently. Compilers already perform parallel builds for example by just threading the files of the project across all available cores.

Architecting how 2 CPUs share memory can't be an entirely new concept as there are plenty of multi cpu units out there had they designed this in from the start. I do see that they are losing out on the market that does require CPU over GPU performance. Perhaps it isn't a big market but it seems that it would include pretty much all programmers out there who don't get much use out of the GPU.


Edited - Took a look at the explanation given as to why not. The thing about it is it assumes you still want 2 GPUs as opposed to replacing one with another CPU. It also assumes each CPU needs the same amount of memory the current single CPU uses.

 

[wiz329]

I'd probably get a Hackintosh.

Seriously, Mr. Schiller-Can't innovate anymore my-this would be a GREAT computer FOR CONSUMERS. Not professionals. No one's disputing the casing is innovative. I think the dispute is that this is for people who demand expandability and not for people who want something that's a little between the Pro and Mini.

Honestly, for a machine that just sits there, yeah, it probably runs cooler, but removable media without need for a RAID card means so, so much more when I'm at work.

When I saw the price I didn't know what to make of it. Two tops of the line haswell chips (not even, though, they'll be ivy bridges on Intel's scheduling I'm sure), a soupy graphics card, and a gig of flash ram isn't so impressive nowadays. At Apple's discount on parts, $2000 would be more than they'd pay, and would be more than I'd pay putting together the equivalently spec'ed machine.

So is OS X worth over $1000? Methinks not unless you're a die-hard fan. Unless you need to market something ONLY on OS X.

Given the prices of computer goods, there's no reason Apple can't release an entry "Mac Pro" for $1500 using similar, just fewer, parts. Hence the hate. I don't see who this machine will attract aside from Mac die-hards developers. I'd target the iMac as a standalone mid-range model. But what do I know, I'm not a billionaire like Tim Cook, just someone who wants to buy a high end computer.

1. You wouldn't get a hackintosh if your work depended that much on your computer. (Speaking as a hackintosh owner).

2. There's a great reason why Apple doesn't release such a machine -- cannibalization.

 

[groovyd]

space heater

wondering how long it is until someone designs a small oscillating unit that sits on top and redirects the hot air like a space heater and comes with a remote control app with hotkey support

 

[wiz329]

Edited - Took a look at the explanation given as to why not. The thing about it is it assumes you still want 2 GPUs as opposed to replacing one with another CPU. It also assumes each CPU needs the same amount of memory the current single CPU uses.

The whole explanation doesn't hinge on there being 2 GPUs.

Having memory slots for each CPU is quite a reasonable assumption. I'm not sure if technically speaking they could share the same memory (my gut says that's not possible, but an EE would have to verify). But beyond that, that's part of the advantage of having a dual socket station, is more memory slots.

Finally, as mentioned, You probably wouldn't want to run a QPI link (much different than running PCIe lanes) across boards. They would likely have to be on the same (larger) board.

I'm sure if it were technically as easy as most folks around here seem to think it is, Apple would have offered that option. They wouldn't have anything to lose, after all.

More likely is the fact that within the constraints they've chosen, it isn't technically possible (or perhaps feasible.)

 

[MacDav]

Can't upgrade the graphics on it, only four RAM slots. Only one PCIe SSD slot. Thunderbolt 2 is 20Gb/s per port. A single X16 PCIe 3.0 slot (which the CPU in the Mac Pro supports two of ) are 126Gb/s each.

Not to mention I personally don't want my desk looking like I have a squid on it. I prefer having disks and things in a single case.

Another thing: 4K, At the moment the Mac Pro can drive three 4K displays. But that uses up the thunderbolt ports. We know it has six ports and that's great but only three of them support displays and we aren't yet aware how using three 4K displays will affect overall thunderbolt bandwidth on the remaining three ports.

Honestly I just have too many reservations about this system. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's a neat product. I'm still very interested in reviews but for a desktop system it is simply too closed down for me, it's a lot of money to buy something that will become outdated quickly with no real way to upgrade any of it when I could just build something that would last 2-3 times longer with very easy GPU and CPU upgrades along the way for a fraction of the overall cost of buying a new Mac Pro every 12 months.

And finally, Haswell-E with 8 Core chips standard and DDR4 next year. Already this thing isn't out yet but within 6 months from now it will be architecturally outdated in multiple ways. This is a cause for concern to me especially when you cannot upgrade it. Some of you may say, that happens all the time in computing and you're not wrong however the architecture the new Mac Pro is using technically came out in late 2011. I built my system based on the same architecture in March 2012. Over a year ago. Basically Apple is getting in on this architecture at the end of its three year life cycle.

Yes, you make valid points. I will wait to see what the next gen of this looks like. CPU's will always be outdated quickly, and trying to time your purchases to line up with Intel's release dates is kind of a no win proposition. At some point you have to bite the bullet and put your money down. It's hard to know what the future will bring. I think there will be mounting racks for the MacPro that will allow you to keep a tidy desktop if that is your desire. For me a lot depends on how well the implementation of openCL is done. How many pro apps will actually support it. We will know a lot more by the middle of next year. It will be fun watching this roll out.

----------

I do rendering and all cores go full when I do. Rendering 3D is not that common though.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how OpenCL affects your workflow.

 

[Parasprite]

And even for 1080p format, the MBP does sometime take HOURS to transcode and SD card full of video.

Wait, you are transcoding the video directly off of the SD card? I hope you mean that you move the files first...

 

[clibinarius]

1. You wouldn't get a hackintosh if your work depended that much on your computer. (Speaking as a hackintosh owner).

2. There's a great reason why Apple doesn't release such a machine -- cannibalization.

Ah, but is it more cannibalizing just to outsource people with needs to Linux or Windows completely?

This isn't a pro computer. It is a high level consumer computer with some pro Applications. A real pro computer would be expandable. This is not, and it isn't impressive. You can get a more powerful machine for half the price that runs windows from what I can see. This is a major problem for genuine power users.

I think most people trying to defend what Apple is doing here aren't professionals. I don't see any real defense for forcing pros to use consumers. This is different than locking down iOS and making an "iToy"-this is a dramatic "We don't care about your needs" to any content creation. You know, Apple as nothing more than an entertainment provider-the ultimate media company.

Frankly, it'll probably do alright. And I can see Jobs signing off on this-remember where a lot of his money came from (Disney)-but, I think it is a very bad idea because this is the final nail in the coffin after recent problems on things like Final Cut for Apple products to be the products of producers and artisans. It is an easy, convenient to use platform and little else-there's no actual reason I can see to invest in this-none-that you couldn't do on a combination of Linux/Windows, aside from the OS X platform itself.

And that's asking for a $1000 premium for the right to run OS X and get yourself a nifty little container for the package. Again, highly innovative-in consumer space. It isn't cannibalization to make a bigger one of these with expandability, and charging more. I am not interested in an iMac, for instance, but would be interested in this competitively priced. And I'm not gonna shell out for one of these unless they're actually worth it beyond being a nice piece of art.

 

[NewbieCanada]

wondering how long it is until someone designs a small oscillating unit that sits on top and redirects the hot air like a space heater and comes with a remote control app with hotkey support

People will be upset when they make it and it's USB instead of Thunderbolt.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

As a software developer I'm a little bit disappointed about the new Mac Pro. It seems to be aimed only at people who do heavy graphical stuff and not so much at other professionals who need a fast workstation.

For me the Mac Mini seems to be the best choice, but I would love to see something in between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro that isn't an all-in-one solution like the iMac. I guess I'm not the only one who needs/wants this...

I still think it's a great developer box, but it comes with a price premium. If you want a headless Mac for development, this is the only one with the fastest available CPUs and PCIe SSD.

The top end minis don't have the fastest CPU, and who knows if the eventual update with have the fast SSD.

And if someone would someday build OpenCL acceleration into compilers and IDEs... it would be a monster. That's just a dream, though.

 

[garya73]

Maybe Tony Fadell took the Red one out for a test drive before returning it to its' owner?

 

[Quu]

CPU's will always be outdated quickly, and trying to time your purchases to line up with Intel's release dates is kind of a no win proposition. At some point you have to bite the bullet and put your money down. It's hard to know what the future will bring.

It's not that hard at all because Intel has a very well defined roadmap.

The situation is as follows: The Mac Pro (the new one) uses the LGA 2011 socket. This socket became available in November 2011. This is an enthusiast, workstation and server socket. It has so far been used for two architecture of chip Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E which come under both Core i7 and XEON branding.

I built my LGA 2011 system in March 2012. A bit after the November 2011 date and I stuck a six core CPU in to it. I could if I wanted to stick the same 12 Core CPU the Mac Pro is going to ship with in my system right now.

Now you might be thinking okay that was 2011 technology surely the 12 core XEON processor doesn't work in all those motherboards released in November 2011? Well actually .. they do. Just stick the chip in to the motherboard and you're done.

This why this is a big deal because with Haswell-E which is releasing in 6 months Intel is making a new socket to replace LGA 2011. This means Haswell-E will not physically fit in to the LGA 2011 socket that the new Mac Pro uses.

This is what I'm talking about with regards to Apple getting in on the end of an architecture. With the old Mac Pro (LGA 1366) Apple got in at the ground floor and some people who bought those systems upgraded the CPU when new architectures came out because LGA 1366 spanned three years just like LGA 2011 has done. But with the new Mac Pro there is no CPU upgrades because its at the end of its life architecturally speaking.

So with the new Haswell-E architecture coming in 6 months time it changes the socket, the CPU architecture and the memory system. It no longer utilises DDR3 memory it now uses DDR4 memory and where in Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E the chips start at 4 and 6 cores for the low and midrange it goes to 6 core and 8 core for low end and midrange.

My whole point I'm trying to make here is the Mac Pro in my opinion missed its boat about a year and a half. It's just too late to ship a brand new system with LGA 2011 now at the prices Apple is talking when it's going to be completely outdated with no upgrade path.

The 2014 Mac Pro probably released in Oct-Dec 2014 will be the one to buy in my opinion, at that point it will still have 2.5 Years worth of chip upgrades coming.

 

[FX120]

I would think at this point it would be painfully obvious to anyone that Apple made choices in the design and engineering of the Mac Pro so that it would first be attractive and small rather than flexible, powerful, and capable.

Instead of making the chassis fit the computer, they made the computer fit the chassis and spent a ton of time and resources engineering proprietary hardware to make it all possible. Sacrifices were made but that's OK because Apple didn't set out to make the best computer (Dell, HP and others have had Apple beat for years.), they just set out to make a good looking "workstation" so they can continue to claim they care about the professional. In reality they're just going to sell to wannabes who care about what the box looks like rather than how it actually performs.

But why is anyone surprised? This is Apple, and sacrificing usability and function in the pursuit of iconic design is what they do.