nMP Geekbench score

[uaecasher]

I was wondering home come that the Geekbench score for the newest iMac is barley lower than the new Mac Pro? I know Geekbench doesn't test for GPUs, but I still feel that the nMP has better processor and memory speed.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/527178 nMP: 14562

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/530325 iMac: 14457


Thanks

 

[Menel]

Processor Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 @ 3.70 GHz
1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads

Vs

Processor Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3.50 GHz
1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads

Only 200mhz difference and maybe some l2 cache.

----------

And Xeon likely uses slower ECC RAM

----------

E5-1620 is old Ivy Bridge architecture

I7 4771 is new Haswell architecture

 

[bxs]

I was wondering home come that the Geekbench score for the newest iMac is barley lower than the new Mac Pro? I know Geekbench doesn't test for GPUs, but I still feel that the nMP has better processor and memory speed.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/527178 nMP: 14562

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/530325 iMac: 14457


Thanks

It does. Here's just a few things showing the benefits. Performance is not the only consideration. Capability is another consideration for some people.

MP6,1 E5-1620 - Onboard cache is 10MB
iMac i7-4771 - Onboard cache 8MB

MP6,1 E5-1620 - Max memory size 375GB
iMac i7-4771 - Max memory size 32GB

MP6,1 E5-1620 - 4 Memory channels with 51.2 GB/sec
i7-4771 - 2 Memory channels with 25.6 GB/sec

MP6,1 E5-1620 - supports ECC memory
iMac i7-4771 - does not support ECC memory

 

[Macsonic]

I was wondering home come that the Geekbench score for the newest iMac is barley lower than the new Mac Pro? I know Geekbench doesn't test for GPUs, but I still feel that the nMP has better processor and memory speed.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/527178 nMP: 14562

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/530325 iMac: 14457


Thanks

Difference between 3.5ghz and 3.7ghz are very minimal or hard to tell the difference in real world tasks. Note that Geekbench scores does not tell the whole story as it only measures CPU speed. With Geekbench tests, no other apps are open. While in real world tasks you have apps open and some tasks do not maximize the cpu usage. There's also the software limitations to consider and how software responds to the cpu, gpu and ram.

 

[AidenShaw]

MP6,1 E5-1620 - Max memory size 375GB
iMac i7-4771 - Max memory size 32GB

Where did you get "375 GiB"?

The E5-16xxv2 CPUs only support 256 GiB (the E5-26xxv2 support 384 GiB).

The Apple Tube only has 4 DIMM slots, so 128 GiB is it's true limit - with Apple support limited to 64 GiB.

 

[h9826790]

Where did you get "375 GiB"?

The E5-16xxv2 CPUs only support 256 GiB (the E5-26xxv2 support 384 GiB).

The Apple Tube only has 4 DIMM slots, so 128 GiB is it's true limit - with Apple support limited to 64 GiB.

I guess from here http://ark.intel.com/products/64621...-E5-1620-10M-Cache-3_60-GHz-0_0-GTs-Intel-QPI

 

[AidenShaw]

I guess from here http://ark.intel.com/products/64621...-E5-1620-10M-Cache-3_60-GHz-0_0-GTs-Intel-QPI

You should report that typo to Intel - a number that not a power of 2 or multiple of a power of 2 does not make sense.

See here on Ark: http://ark.intel.com/compare/75779,75269

And in any event, for the MP6,1 is 128 GiB or 64 GiB, depending on whether you want to believe OWC or Apple.

 

[Riwam]

You should report that typo to Intel - a number that not a power of 2 or multiple of a power of 2 does not make sense.

See here on Ark: http://ark.intel.com/compare/75779,75269

And in any event, for the MP6,1 is 128 GiB or 64 GiB, depending on whether you want to believe OWC or Apple.

..................................
Everyone can have his opinions and they must be fully respected.
However I read many of your posts, find them very interesting and informative, but do not remember one in which you say anything good about the nMP. (Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, I am only human).

I wonder what will come first:
1) the end of quoting under every post your admiration for the great American hero who courageously saved US democracy by running to the arms of comrade Putin, one of the greatest democrats in the world, particularly appreciated (with very good reasons!) by all of his neighbors and only overshadowed by very few men in the world (like the beloved leader of North Korea).
I believe that by now every member in this forum already knows what you think about him.

2) the day in which you will find something very positive to tell us concerning the nMP, its features and performance and strongly advice the readers of your post to buy one.

I am afraid I will not live long enough to see any of those 2 events ever happen

 

[bxs]

I guess from here http://ark.intel.com/products/64621...-E5-1620-10M-Cache-3_60-GHz-0_0-GTs-Intel-QPI

Yes, correct. I should have posted the Intel references.... sorry about that.

In addition, MP6,1 has 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports, 1 HDMI port, 2 D300 or 500 or 700 GPUs, Dual 1GbE ethernet ports, is not integrated with a display just like for the Mac mini.

The MP6,1 trumps the iMac's capabilities significantly IMO.

As I said earlier, performance is only one thing to consider when comparing systems.

Knowing your specific and future workloads for the computer is essential for deciding on which system can in fact support what it is you want to accomplish.

 

[AidenShaw]

..................................
Everyone can have his opinions and they must be fully respected.
However I read many of your posts, find them very interesting and informative, but do not remember one in which you say anything good about the nMP. (Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, I am only human).

I wonder what will come first:
1) the end of quoting under every post your admiration for the great American hero who courageously saved US democracy by running to the arms of comrade Putin, one of the greatest democrats in the world, particularly appreciated (with very good reasons!) by all of his neighbors and only overshadowed by very few men in the world (like the beloved leader of North Korea).
I believe that by now every member in this forum already knows what you think about him.

2) the day in which you will find something very positive to tell us concerning the nMP, its features and performance and strongly advice the readers of your post to buy one.

I am afraid I will not live long enough to see any of those 2 events ever happen

See ad hominem...

 

[joema2]

I was wondering home come that the Geekbench score for the newest iMac is barley lower than the new Mac Pro? I know Geekbench doesn't test for GPUs, but I still feel that the nMP has better processor and memory speed...

There are only several ways to make a CPU go faster:

(1) Increase the clock speed. Unfortunately designers hit a limit (thermal, also other factors) whereby they can't go any faster using current fabrication technology.

(2) Process more instructions simultaneously, sometimes called SuperScalar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar. This limit is composed mainly of two sub-limits: (a) How much instruction-level parallelism exists in the code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction-level_parallelism Unfortunately they are already exploiting most of the ILP which exists, (b) Ability to do inter-instruction dependency checks. This difficulty scales roughly with the factorial of the in-flight instructions, so going over about 6 is almost impossible. Most new CPUs are already approaching that limit.

You can increase parallel instruction processing by using VLIW but that requires a totally different architecture, entails many issues with legacy software, and commercial efforts to date have not been highly successful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Long_Instruction_Word

(3) Use more threads, one (or more) per core. This is the only remaining CPU technique with any headroom left. However it is limited by Amdahl's Law, and many apps are already approaching that limit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

(4) Use heterogeneous processing, whereby specialized subsystems handle certain tasks using dedicated hardware. One example is Intel's Quick Sync, essentially an on-chip hardware transcoder. It can increase video transcoding performance 5x or 10x for certain codecs. Ironically the Xeon CPU doesn't have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

Another example of heterogeneous processing is a GPU. Those greatly accelerate certain activities, but only those with algorithms that favor GPU acceleration and which have been written to exploit that.

A quad-core nMP doesn't have higher CPU benchmarks than new iMac because they are both affected by the same fundamental limitations that increasingly govern CPU performance.

A nMP with higher core counts can be dramatically faster than a new iMac on certain multithreaded and GPU-oriented tasks.

 

[MH01]

..................................
Everyone can have his opinions and they must be fully respected.
However I read many of your posts, find them very interesting and informative, but do not remember one in which you say anything good about the nMP. (Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, I am only human).

I wonder what will come first:
1) the end of quoting under every post your admiration for the great American hero who courageously saved US democracy by running to the arms of comrade Putin, one of the greatest democrats in the world, particularly appreciated (with very good reasons!) by all of his neighbors and only overshadowed by very few men in the world (like the beloved leader of North Korea).
I believe that by now every member in this forum already knows what you think about him.

2) the day in which you will find something very positive to tell us concerning the nMP, its features and performance and strongly advice the readers of your post to buy one.

I am afraid I will not live long enough to see any of those 2 events ever happen

Forgot.

3. The day you find a truly silent nMP

 

[Riwam]

Not forgotten

Forgot.

3. The day you find a truly silent nMP

.........................................
Not forgotten.
Many people say their nMP is as quiet as Apple promised it to be.
Mine is until now a quiet machine and hope it remains so.
Let's hope this becomes the rule for all of the nMP!

 

[iBug2]

See ad hominem...

It's ironic that you accuse someone of ad hominem while you have called the Mac Pro trashcan pro or macminipro for some time now, which are all ad hominem attacks on the shape and size of the mac pro and have absolutely nothing to do with the tech itself.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's ironic that you accuse someone of ad hominem while you have called the Mac Pro trashcan pro or macminipro for some time now, which are all ad hominem attacks on the shape and size of the mac pro and have absolutely nothing to do with the tech itself.

The shape and size has everything to do with the limitations of the machine - the shape is why it's basically a closed system with no internal expandability or choice of graphics cards.

And, BTW, in no way are those ad hominem attacks - please look at the definition.

 

[Riwam]

The shape and size has everything to do with the limitations of the machine - the shape is why it's basically a closed system with no internal expandability or choice of graphics cards.

.............................................
Your point is clear to everyone and absolutely logical!
Apple should have made a nMP which has small dimensions, allowing it to be easily carried without a van and 2 strong men (as the previous MP), takes very little space in your desktop (making its use much more pleasant), BUT at the same time can be blown up like a Bazooka chewing gum to accommodate all kind of additional components inside and THEN close back to recover its original small measures.
I finally understand your deep disappointment with the nMP! Alas! You are absolutely right!
Apple did only half work... what a shame

 

[flowrider]

^^^^Sarcasm aside, I do believe you are absolutely right. Apple did only half the work. IMHO, they could have designed the nMP using a modular approach. The attachment module would have expansion slots, extra EAM slots, Storage bays, Graphic card slots (to either replace or be an addendum to the onboard graphics), USB ports, BT Ports, and maybe even Optical drives and FireWire Ports.

The user could or could not buy the extra module on purchase or could add it later. The machine could be moved and used without the add-on module.

Just my thoughts. But, IMO, if Apple had done this, it would have eased the pain to those of use who have oMP crammed with all manner of stuff.

Lou

 

[Derpage]

The shape and size has everything to do with the limitations of the machine - the shape is why it's basically a closed system with no internal expandability or choice of graphics cards.

Close. The shape is smoke and mirrors to distract the buyer from the fact that Apple now views there workstations as they do there iPhones and iPads. Just another way to lock you into their ecosystem and keep you upgrading.

 

[bxs]

Close. The shape is smoke and mirrors to distract the buyer from the fact that Apple now views there workstations as they do there iPhones and iPads. Just another way to lock you into their ecosystem and keep you upgrading.

So far this has (being attached/glued to the Apple MacPro products) worked very well for our business and my personal business over the past 25-30 years... apart from FCP taking a rather proprietary path.

----------

^^^^Sarcasm aside, I do believe you are absolutely right. Apple did only half the work. IMHO, they could have designed the nMP using a modular approach. The attachment module would have expansion slots, extra EAM slots, Storage bays, Graphic card slots (to either replace or be an addendum to the onboard graphics), USB ports, BT Ports, and maybe even Optical drives and FireWire Ports.

The user could or could not buy the extra module on purchase or could add it later. The machine could be moved and used without the add-on module.

Just my thoughts. But, IMO, if Apple had done this, it would have eased the pain to those of use who have oMP crammed with all manner of stuff.

Lou

I don't quite understand this view. Apple new MacPro6,1 provides the basic building block which can easily be expanded and added to, to accommodate the rings you've mentioned. Our business has gone from the silver towers to the new MacPro6,1 without any real issues. Yes we've had to spend some extra brass but this is a business capital expense and launches us from 3 to 5 year old technology to the present day goodies. We absolutely love the new MacPro6,1. The one thing we would have liked was an integrated 10GbE port for communicating with a file server.

 

[Riwam]

Right way of thinking

So far this has (being attached/glued to the Apple MacPro products) worked very well for our business and my personal business over the past 25-30 years... apart from FCP taking a rather proprietary path.

----------



I don't quite understand this view. Apple new MacPro6,1 provides the basic building block which can easily be expanded and added to, to accommodate the rings you've mentioned. Our business has gone from the silver towers to the new MacPro6,1 without any real issues. Yes we've had to spend some extra brass but this is a business capital expense and launches us from 3 to 5 year old technology to the present day goodies. We absolutely love the new MacPro6,1. The one thing we would have liked was an integrated 10GbE port for communicating with a file server.

..........................

I entirely agree with you in both points of view.
Buying a computer made by the same designers who build other remarkable products as tablets and phones is an advantage and certainly not a disadvantage!

And "modular" does not need to mean a LEGO like construction attaching physically one part to another!
An external enclosure with a very fast communication to the main body is entirely modular.

 

[AidenShaw]

If only T-Bolt were actually "fast"....

...
An external enclosure with a very fast communication to the main body is entirely modular.

Unfortunately, T-Bolt2 is not "very fast" compared to internal PCIe 3.0. (20 Mbps vs. about 128 Gbps....)

 

[iBug2]

The shape and size has everything to do with the limitations of the machine - the shape is why it's basically a closed system with no internal expandability or choice of graphics cards.

The size may be, but the shape? No. Apple could have made a machine in a doughnut shape with the same limitations if they wanted. So the trashcan nickname is totally irrelevant to the tech. (See the Cube). And while the size brings some limitations, it also brings advantages like it being a semi-mobile workstation. So while you use "mini" it as an attack, I look at it as a compliment. Still no need to use a different name than the actual name of the machine.

And, BTW, in no way are those ad hominem attacks - please look at the definition.

I was so hoping for you to say this, which is another irrelevancy like your attacks on the name itself. While ad hominem is some irrelevant fact about the author, your attacks on the name are as irrelevant to the tech being discussed. Sorry that there is no latin name for that kind of fallacy in logic, but the closest would be ad hominem due to the nature of both being about irrelevancies and both would be listed under the section "irrelevant appeals".

----------

Unfortunately, T-Bolt2 is not "very fast" compared to internal PCIe 3.0. (20 Mbps vs. about 128 Gbps....)

It's very fast compared to USB 3.0. Very fast is subjective obviously. For the majority of the users, T-Bolt2 is faster than they'd ever need. You're still hang up on the idea that a lot of these Mac Pro's (new and old) being used in servers where moving petabytes of data is a daily event. For every computer out there, you can build a faster one. It all depends on where you draw the line and say "that's enough for the masses".

The reason I didn't buy an iMac instead of the Mac Pro is because I wanted a less noisy machine and the option to use 4K displays whenever they got cheaper. Other than that, I actually don't see the need for a machine faster than the iMac for the majority of professionals on the Mac front anymore. Obviously that was also Apple's dilemma for a long time when they were going back and forth about axing the line.

 

[bxs]

The size may be, but the shape? No. Apple could have made a machine in a doughnut shape with the same limitations if they wanted. So the trashcan nickname is totally irrelevant to the tech. (See the Cube). And while the size brings some limitations, it also brings advantages like it being a semi-mobile workstation. So while you use "mini" it as an attack, I look at it as a compliment. Still no need to use a different name than the actual name of the machine.



I was so hoping for you to say this, which is another irrelevancy like your attacks on the name itself. While ad hominem is some irrelevant fact about the author, your attacks on the name are as irrelevant to the tech being discussed. Sorry that there is no latin name for that kind of fallacy in logic, but the closest would be ad hominem due to the nature of both being about irrelevancies and both would be listed under the section "irrelevant appeals".

----------



It's very fast compared to USB 3.0. Very fast is subjective obviously. For the majority of the users, T-Bolt2 is faster than they'd ever need. You're still hang up on the idea that a lot of these Mac Pro's (new and old) being used in servers where moving petabytes of data is a daily event. For every computer out there, you can build a faster one. It all depends on where you draw the line and say "that's enough for the masses".

The reason I didn't buy an iMac instead of the Mac Pro is because I wanted a less noisy machine and the option to use 4K displays whenever they got cheaper. Other than that, I actually don't see the need for a machine faster than the iMac for the majority of professionals on the Mac front anymore. Obviously that was also Apple's dilemma for a long time when they were going back and forth about axing the line.

Professionally, more cores than the iMac offers is a real benefit IMO... for the right kind of work that can consume cores that is.

It's been close to two months now since receiving the MP6,1 12core and it's amazes me just how many Apps that Apple bundles use cores in a big way. I was doing a simple import from my iPhone to iPhoto yesterday and all 24 threads became active and the photo import of around 250 photos simply flew along.

Even though Adobe Premier and AE aren't a big users of the dual GPUs (yet) they sure do get hungry for cores though.

 

[AidenShaw]

The size may be, but the shape?

Note that in the initial reference I said "shape and size" - obviously if the Tube were the size of a kitchen trash can internal expandability would be possible.

 

[iBug2]

Professionally, more cores than the iMac offers is a real benefit IMO... for the right kind of work that can consume cores that is.

It's been close to two months now since receiving the MP6,1 12core and it's amazes me just how many Apps that Apple bundles use cores in a big way. I was doing a simple import from my iPhone to iPhoto yesterday and all 24 threads became active and the photo import of around 250 photos simply flew along.

Even though Adobe Premier and AE aren't a big users of the dual GPUs (yet) they sure do get hungry for cores though.

Doing photo import from iPhone to iPhoto would be bandwidth limited though. I don't see how more cores would help with that since it still transfers the photos at USB 2.0 speed.

And of course more cores help with apps that can take advantage of them. But unless rendering or a similar core intensive process is common for you, then getting more cores wouldn't speed up your workflow more than couple percent.

There was a time when people had to wait for the computer to process their input, and that was the time when getting a faster computer was a big upgrade. Nowadays, the computer handles our inputs faster than we can input anyway, and only sometimes we have to wait for the computer to do some number crunching. So the benefits of more cores is getting less and less important for most of us. And if you need as many cores as you can get, then building a type of cluster probably is a better idea than a single computer.