Given how some folk were willing to write-off the new machines before seeing any actual benchmarks or performance tests, I rather doubt that too
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.
New Barefeats Tests for Nehalem Mac Pros
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Given how some folk were willing to write-off the new machines before seeing any actual benchmarks or performance tests, I rather doubt that too
Are you quite so sure about that? Link and link.
I'm sure the 2.26 Octo will redeem itself in some ways but its performance is hugely disappointing. Actually I'll phrase that differently, the performance of Apple's entry level Octo model is hugely disappointing in comparison to the previous (cheaper) entry level Octo model. The chip's fine, the choice of chip and the cost of the machine aren't. Had Apple reduced their margins a little (although would have still been higher than the previous model) and started the Octo line off at 2.66GHz at the price point of the 2.26GHz model then people wouldn't have been as perturbed. The price rise would have thrown some people off but it could have been easily justified by the boost in performance. As it stands, my ageing 2.66GHz 2006 Quad Mac Pro looks to be faster at single core stuff than the 2.26GHz Octo. Not by much admittedly, but certainly not enough of an improvement for me to have justified the purchase of an entry level Octo Mac Pro.
Naw its been proven that the first early benches were not accurate and has been discarded. I've seen many threads where people benched them multiple times and it hovers around 3100 points all the time.
The real question is how do these benchmarks actually measure or compare when the cpu is using turbo boost.
Are you quite so sure about that? Link and link.
I'm sure the 2.26 Octo will redeem itself in some ways but its performance is hugely disappointing. Actually I'll phrase that differently, the performance of Apple's entry level Octo model is hugely disappointing in comparison to the previous (cheaper) entry level Octo model. The chip's fine, the choice of chip and the cost of the machine aren't. Had Apple reduced their margins a little (although would have still been higher than the previous model) and started the Octo line off at 2.66GHz at the price point of the 2.26GHz model then people wouldn't have been as perturbed. The price rise would have thrown some people off but it could have been easily justified by the boost in performance. As it stands, my ageing 2.66GHz 2006 Quad Mac Pro looks to be faster at single core stuff than the 2.26GHz Octo. Not by much admittedly, but certainly not enough of an improvement for me to have justified the purchase of an entry level Octo Mac Pro.
I'm actually in the same boat. I have a 1st-gen Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, but I am definitely upgrading to the new 2.26.
The benchmarks that were out there initially were way off for the 2.26 -- way too low. With more data points, the scores are looking far more promising. I won't post this at full resolution (I've done that elsewhere) but have a click and see that the 2.26 is actually on par with the Octo 2.8 and begins to approach the 3.2 for multi-core apps.
I'm actually in the same boat. I have a 1st-gen Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, but I am definitely upgrading to the new 2.26.
The benchmarks that were out there initially were way off for the 2.26 -- way too low. With more data points, the scores are looking far more promising. I won't post this at full resolution (I've done that elsewhere) but have a click and see that the 2.26 is actually on par with the Octo 2.8 and begins to approach the 3.2 for multi-core apps.
Yeah I've seen those results now. They're not too bad anymore. Still, I was expecting a boost in performance compared to the 2.8GHz more like something along the lines of the 2.66GHz Nehalem. These chips have been hyped about for so long and the Core i7 has been shown to be significantly faster in the same price bracked as Core 2 chips that I was really expecting a big leap in performance, not just a 'similar' performance. The top end Mac Pro is simply breathtaking but the price takes the wind out of you. I don't think I can justify upgrading until the prices either come down or they throw a speed bump in. As far as Nehalem workstations go, the 2.26GHz model is underpowered in my opinion.
I'll be very interested to see what kind of models Dell bring out in a few weeks time and what their pricing structure will be like. Not that I'm planning on switching to a Dell but when other manufacturers sell similar spec machines, we'll know if the price hike is Apple only or not.
This is why I'm considering a 2.66ghz octad though for the overall best performance boost/price.
Now maybe someone will believe me....the past 3 days everyone bashed me for stating the new 2.26 was a better buy than the old 2.8. Funny.
Well, the single-core benchmarks of the 2.26 eight-core seem to be improving, which makes me feel much better about that configuration. The only question for me is whether I'll be able to swing the cash for the 2.66 Octad or settle for the 2.26. That extra $K is a hard pill, but since I plan on keeping it as my main workstation for 6-8 years, I may go that route. However, if I just can't afford it, perhaps the 2.26 will be a worthy Plan B.
Either way, I'm sure I'll love it, especially compared to my current set-up (G5 Dual from 2004).
Yup, I'm in the exact same situation as well. I think I'm really going to get the 2.66GHz model. The performance is just too good but not too slow from the 2.93GHz and the price is a bit expensive but I might try to swing the student adc it'll knock it down to $3919.
Yeah the 2.66GHz model is the only one I'd feel happy considering. It'd match up clock for clock with my current model but has twice the number of processors and then I'd get the full faster-because-its-nehalem effect. Alas, there's no way I can justify the added expense. The step up in cost here in the UK for the baseline model was bad enough as it is. I'll just wait and see what they do down the line. Hopefully they'll either bring the prices down or bump the speeds up a notch in the mean time while I wait.
single and multi thread apps...
Possible a newbie question here but I'm about to buy the octo 2.66 and will be running photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Premier Pro, a 3D rendering program and possibly Pro Tools. Which ones are single and which ones are multi thread apps? Thanks
Possible a newbie question here but I'm about to buy the octo 2.66 and will be running photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Premier Pro, a 3D rendering program and possibly Pro Tools. Which ones are single and which ones are multi thread apps? Thanks
I'm annoyed the octo 2.66 is not in the 2.26 price slot, so I'm holding off buying anything new right now. I may pick up a used 2.8 octo in the meantime and use that until the next refresh. I'm currently on a 2004 dual 2.5 G5 so anything Intel is better than this antiquated rig.
Yeah the 2.66GHz model is the only one I'd feel happy considering. It'd match up clock for clock with my current model but has twice the number of processors and then I'd get the full faster-because-its-nehalem effect. Alas, there's no way I can justify the added expense. The step up in cost here in the UK for the baseline model was bad enough as it is. I'll just wait and see what they do down the line. Hopefully they'll either bring the prices down or bump the speeds up a notch in the mean time while I wait.
I MIGHT wait until summer as well. I have a strong feeling when the 3.2GHz hits the specs will be bumped down making the 2.66GHz model $3299.. but then again I'd think, "man I was going to originally buy the middle of the pack model which was the 2.66GHz and now the same price for the middle model cost the same for a 2.93GHZ!!
God I Love apple but hate them as well!
My thoughts exactly. Apple simply has to move them all down a performance slot, or up depending on your perspective. The 2.26GHz model looks to me a bit like the 1.5GHz Core Solo Mac Mini compared to the G4 Mac Mini. A brand new architecture promising much faster performance ended up looking a bit crap due to a stingy choice in hardware. My optimism hopes that they will bring the 2.66GHz model down to the 2.26GHz mark but my pessimism tells me that if Apple were to boost up the speeds, they'd only raise the 2.26GHz up to 2.4GHz and only when the chip prices drop down a bit and they can still make the massive markup they're making now.
Is it possible that the chips are in such limited supply right now that Apple has priced them to keep demand in check with supply and maximize margins on the few chips that are available? After all, Apple is shipping product that Intel itself hasn't even announced yet!
Is it possible that once supply picks up in a couple of months that a price drop or performance boost for the same price might occur?
I have no history with Apple's pricing strategies which is why I ask this question that might be obvious to many.
Is it possible that once supply picks up in a couple of months that a price drop or performance boost for the same price might occur?
I have no history with Apple's pricing strategies which is why I ask this question that might be obvious to many.
The only time I've ever seen Apple reduce prices on current products is when it's at the end of the cycle and they are trying to clear them out of inventory. Also the MP is a slim piece of Apple's profit pie so I'm guessing they didn't set a high bar for meeting sales goals.
Also, a lot of people are theorizing that new pro apps will really take huge advantage of the new architecture. As such any serious A/V business will have to upgrade to the new models to be competitive, thus Apple can demand, and get its price.
It is possible in regards to the pricing. Its a bit hard to tell until competitors get their Nehalem based workstations out on the market, which is going to take a couple of weeks since Nehalem hasn't been officially released yet.
There are other examples like the Cube, where the price was cut a fair bit because initial sales were so poor (I believe it's generally reckoned that at that point, Apple had only shipped one-third of the anticipated amount) - but that that's not going to be the case here!
With regards to the revenue share of the MP, I believe the sales are only half the story - and this relates to your second point - as these drive pro apps revenue.
Intel has a single 45nm fab in full operation (Costa Rica), but a second one (Vietnam) should be just about there, if not already. (Full production presumably to coincide with the announcement). They were looking for people to staff it a few months ago, but pulled the ads off Careerbuilder.com after they announced layoffs at other semi fabs.
So supply may not be much of an issue, unless it's intentionally being limited. As mentioned, Apple's the only vendor producing products AFAIK. Others may have managed some stock, but are still in the initial assembly/testing phase, just prior to full production for sales.
Slower slightly slower single threaded performance and a sub-1000 point difference in multithreaded performance are worth $1,000? The 2.8 is still a better deal, especially now that their prices have dropped considerably.
The new Mac Pros on the other hand are still over-valued for their modest performance gains.