New MacPro 8c D700 getting annihilated in benchmarks :-(

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by HumpYourWayUp, Mar 8, 2015.

  1. HumpYourWayUp, Mar 8, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2015

    HumpYourWayUp macrumors regular

    HumpYourWayUp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    Europe
    #1
    http://barefeats.com/mpt4k.html

    UPDATED: PRO apps for the "haters" ;-)
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    nMP = New Mac Pro (Late 2013)
    MPt = Old Mac Pro (Tower)
    iMac 5k = Retina iMac
    Hack = Hackintosh

    For a machine of $6,099.00(8c/D700/256GB) it is really sad that an retina iMac with a (modded mobile) GFX card can be just as fast... and the retina iMac in a beefed up configuration only costs about $3,199.00!
    Not to forget the old Mac Pro's (with 980's and even the OLD GTX 680's :eek:) which blast the new Mac Pro away.

    As usual the graphics cards a Mac Pro comes equipped with by default are overpriced and useless against competition.... :(

    Not to forget we still haven't gotten a Thunderbolt 4K Display from Apple.

    It is so sad it is actually funny ...
     
  2. Wahlstrm macrumors 6502a

    Wahlstrm

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    #2
    But the Pro is made for heavy computing, not gaming.
    If you set the nMP to render something it can run 24/7 until done without throttling or hickups..

    The iMac will melt (not really), slow down and sound like a hairdryer while doing it :)
     
  3. PhiLLoW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 31, 2014
    #3
    I owned a maxed out iMac Late 2013 and swapped it against a nMP late 2013 base model. The performance of the nMP is WAYYY better. The iMac became very loud when it was heavy loaded while the nMP is super silent most of the time. I'm not much into gaming but tested a few games which were running fine too.


    Don't forget there's a huge difference between workstation GPU's and consumer GPU's. If you want to play Diablo III the nMP is not the right computer for you.
     
  4. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #4
    Its because, so far, Games programmed for OSX dont utilize second GPU.

    So if they will be utilizing it, count it as x2 ;).

    Now the numbers look way better ;).

    Second thing: In MP is old Tahiti GPU. Nice, but not perfect in terms of gaming performance, and that is a bit sad.
     
  5. santaliqueur macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    #5
    Cool, now let's see the Final Cut Pro benchmarks.

    Oh, right. They don't show any. These limited benchmarks usually intend to make the expensive computer look bad, thereby making it possible for the "reviewer" to say how overpriced Apple computers are. Edit: If they booted into Windows and used Crossfire, let's see those benchmarks again.

    People who don't know any better post these flamebait links and talk about how sad it is. You're not telling us any new information, you're just showing us how little you understand about what the Mac Pro is intended to be used for. Hint: it's not Diablo III.
     
  6. HumpYourWayUp, Mar 8, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2015

    HumpYourWayUp thread starter macrumors regular

    HumpYourWayUp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    Europe
    #6
    Heavy computing with Pro Apps like DaVinci Resolve is even worse!! Dual 980 for example are WAY faster :-/

    [​IMG]

    This benchmark is a little bit more favorable but still underwhelming...
    [​IMG]

    I own a Mac Pro 8c D700 since January 2014 and so far I am not impressed with the graphics hardware...

    The CPU power in the new Mac Pro is amazing but the GPUs where a really bad choice of hardware!

    Just because you don't like the numbers of the benchmark doesn't make the benchmark wrong!

    I own a new Mac Pro myself - I certainly do not want to make that machine look bad but it's performance is a bit sub-par.... I use it primarily for Final Cut Pro, Photoshop and Xcode. Gaming I do on a separate PC with a single 980GTX which even though it is a single card it is way faster than the Mac Pro GPU's in Crossfire :-(

    Final Cut Pro? You know - Lets get a step further - lets got DaVinci Resolve

    [​IMG]
    http://barefeats.com/gtx980d.html

    I owned a 2013 iMac after my tower Mac Pro died and before my new Mac Pro.
    The iMac rendered my video projects for days without problems.
    The new Mac Pro is great however it gets really loud at full load (worst is playing BF4 in Crossfire).

    Somehow people seem to think I do not dig Apple or Mac Pro?!?!
    Quite the opposite is true!
    However I feel a bit cheated with the D700 GPU's - D500 and D300 are even worse!

    "People who don't know any better"? LOL, how dare you!

    And Barefeats - a source for unbiased Mac benchmarks is also biased?
     
  7. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #7
    No, at that time they were the only capable of running at full speed and full power in 125W of thermal and electric envelope.

    GTX980 is Last year technology so its obvious it will be way faster.

    We have to wait for Apple to implement faster GPUs to compare them with latest Nvidia technology 1:1.


    And yes, in this state, as it is, the Mac Pro is not as fast as the price should reflect.
     
  8. HumpYourWayUp, Mar 8, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2015

    HumpYourWayUp thread starter macrumors regular

    HumpYourWayUp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    Europe
    #8
    Quite an understatement.
    Look at it:
    [​IMG]

    A single GTX980 is as fast in a pro app as two D700's!!
    That is not only "way faster" - it is obescenely faster!! LOL
    Even a single R290x is almost as fast as two D700's
    And two old HD7950 are just as fast.

    Considering those facts when hearing "GTX980 is Last year technology " is not really soothing or making too much sense.
    In a way the new Mac Pro is also last years technology as only a tiny fraction of all new Mac Pros where actually shipped in the (very) last days of 2013.

    How true!
    Also a bummer is that instead of giving us a 4K Thunderbolt display Apple released a 5K iMac.
    And best of all: 5K display wouldn't even work with a new Mac Pro because of its Thunderbolt specs :confused:

    Don't get me wrong - I like my Mac Pro quite a bit but the GPU's really are the worst part of the whole machine!
    And compared to CPU, Memory, SSD it seems like you can't upgrade the GPU's.
     
  9. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #9
    Not a big surprise. It's using ancient hardware.

    ----------

    So they should boot into Windows and do a Final Cut Pro benchmark?
     
  10. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #10
    7950 is really just cut down chip that is in D700 but clocked higher.

    R9 290X will obviously be faster than D700 because it has more cores and higher clock count.

    To be fair for Mac Pro, when it was released it was a good value for money when you think of a Workstation Graphics.

    Right now its really overpriced in comparison to what it offers.


    P.S. Only you feel decevied by the price you paid for the MP ;).
    P.S.2 Yes, "GTX980 is last years technology" makes sence ;).
     
  11. fuchsdh macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    #11
    The GPUs are old, definitely. I think that's a primary reason Apple should refresh the machines (because there's nothing exciting happening with any other other possible upgrades.)

    But yeah, as others have said, benchmarks are very often misleading compared to real-world use.

    Real time talk: I had a very long 1080p composition to render out from Adobe After Effects. Which do you think would finish it faster under single-processor rendering: A 2008 2.8GHz Mac Pro with a Quadro 4000, or a 2012 iMac with a much newer 3.2 GHz processor (basically double the Geekbench score), twice the RAM, and a 680MX?

    Answer is the Mac Pro—the iMac turbo'd through the first half of the render but started throttling itself and slowed to a crawl. Slow and steady won that race.
     
  12. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #12
    Ah yes, but no one is mentioning how shiny it is !!

    Or the 6 @ TB2 ports !

    And how tiny it is !

    Do the math...if it is 1/2 the speed but only 1/8 the size that actually makes it 4 times as fast ! *


    (By volume)*
     
  13. scottsjack macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #13
    Exactly, the new standard should be Geekbench 3 all-cores score divided by cubic centimeters of true computer volume. In that case my mini is looking better all of the sudden.
     
  14. Executor macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    #14
    Not to beat a dead horse yet again, but the nMP doesn't hold a candle to a properly upgraded Classic Mac Pro. I brought my Mac Pro 5.1 to the Apple store due to malfunction of the Optical drive bay. The genius was very friendly and while chatting he asked me why I have yet to upgrade to the new Mac Pro. I told him I would upgrade once the new one beats my current one in benchmarks. He retorted that the nMP is smaller and shinier. I couldn't help but laugh.
     
  15. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
  16. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #16
    I wish there would be a gigantic "LIKE" button on forum...


    ;)
     
  17. mattspace macrumors 6502a

    mattspace

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    IMHO it's a version 1 product, like more or less every version 1 Apple product it's compromised in certain areas - it's got a janky usb3 implementation, can only drive 6 monitors, can't drive 5k screens, has a dual graphics card setup that doesn't actually do what a lot of people want dual cards to do etc

    Like the original iPhone, the form factor and use-case was released about a generation ahead of where the technology needed to be for the "actually good" version, eg the iPhone 3G.
     
  18. DonMega, Mar 8, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2015

    DonMega macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    #18
    Do I hear the natives beating dead horses again? :roll eyes:

    I could understand all the bitterness and vitriol if Apple was FORCING you to use the nMP and nothing else. You have choices beyond the nMP in the Apple universe and beyond. Go use something else if the nMP doesn't suit you. Simple...
     
  19. echoout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #19
    It's a frustrating time to be part of an educational institution that orders labs full of computers on a schedule, that need to be under warranty. We came from 2009 Mac Pros to 2013s and it's been pretty frustrating. Not only the lack of a speed jump but also the quirkiness of Adobe software on these machines. I'm kind of at wits end. I'm very happy with the machine's performance in the CPU-intensive Cinema 4D but MAN After Effects is awful.

    So few choices out there for solid machines that run prevalent pro software.
     
  20. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #20
    Yep, an iMac & MacBook Pro throttles due to overheating in long term use. Very short benchmarks might out do a Mac Pro, but long term the Mac Pro is still faster.
     
  21. fuchsdh macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    #21
    Sadly that's a problem with Adobe, and one I'm not sure is going to get any better. There's no competing program for software like Adobe After Effects to push Adobe to make their software better.
     
  22. teagls macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    #22
    I do research that involves OpenCL and GPU heavy computation. I wanted to stay in the mac environment. I purchased the nMP with the hopes of doing that. After using the nMP for awhile I am absolutely disappointed. I had to build another machine because the nMP productivity sucked. The machine I built is easily 2x more powerful and was 1/5th the cost. I can even run Mac OS X on it.

    Plain and simple the nMP does not warrant the price. The GPUs suck balls, even for what they are designed to do. For the price of the nMP I could have built a GPU compute cluster. For anybody who is reading this do not buy the current nMP. You are wasting your money.
     
  23. echoout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #23
    I think it's both of their problems. After Effects users are a pretty good chunk of Mac Pro owners and to release this new machine where the last 3 iterations of AE run so badly is a bit much. AE runs pretty darn well on every other computer I test it on.

    And then Adobe need to just chill out on features and get multi-core processing and GPU processing brought up to modern hardware's capabilities. Now if Apple's hardware would just keep modern.

    My 2 Apple freelance rigs are still blowing away any new one I've tried.
     
  24. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #24
    What the nMP fans don't get is we WISH this weren't the case.

    The nMP SHOULD have been the mid-level step up from an iMac.

    The fact that an cMP can hand the nMP a humbling defeat so easily is very sad. The Dual CPU, SATA 3, USB-3 machine it SHOULD have been would have left the cMP in the weeds.

    The nMP is easy to eclipse with a few upgrades to a cMP because it is weak sauce. (and has been from day 1)

    Apple could have built a techno powerhouse. Instead they shot for the middle.
     
  25. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #25
    Won't matter much. As with any old technology, you can only upgrade it so much, it will eventually be obsolete. Once the new cpu socket change the cMP won't keep up.
     

Share This Page