Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Performance to be expected in 2013 Mac Pro

A

avemestr

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 14, 2012
177
23
So, after I checked up on the history yesterday, I'll look into the future today :)

As my post yesterday showed, the performance of the fastest iMac about doubled (4185 to 8330) when the platform switched from C2D to iX.

What kind of performance increase can we expect, when the 2013 Mac Pro arrives?

SP Mac Pro
For the SP Mac Pro, the current W3565@3.2GHz has a PassMark score of 6027. We don't know which CPU will go into a new Mac Pro, but the E5-1650 might be a good guess with 6 cores ($583). Or an E5-1620 with only 4 cores ($294).

1620 has a PassMark score of 9673.
1650 has a PassMark score of 13242.

Based on this we would see an performance increase in the range of 60-120%, of course depending on how much of the PassMark score that translate into Geekbench points.

Now, this performance increase might seem ludicrous, but it is worth noting that the current maxed out iMac have a geekbench score of 11447 vs. the low-end Mac Pro which scores 9739. It is not unreasonable to expect the 2012 top iMac to have a GB of about 13-14000.

In other words, the 2013 low-end Mac Pro have to see an performance increase of about 44% just to match the 2012 high-end iMac. If a SP Mac Pro should maintain its relevancy, even the E5-1620 seem a bit on the low side. So, we'll probably see a 1650 which bumps the CPU performance compared to the current with 120% (and the GB score with about 100%?).

DP Mac Pro
For the DP Mac Pro, the E5645 might be replaced by 2630 and the current X5650 will have a successor in 2650.

PassMark scores:
E5645: 13931
X5650: 15528
2630: 19031
2650: 21661

So the DP Mac Pro will see a performance increase of about 37-40% it seems, based on CPU alone.

This is in same range as Anand reported: He experienced increases of 30-60%, probably because of other improvements found in the architecture.

If these numbers hold true, we could easily see a mid-range DP 2013 Mac Pro hit more than 30000 GB points.

Conclusion
As mentioned yesterday, a revolution is needed for Mac Pro. But with the CPUs most obvious to use, that revolution is kinda expected.

If we see the SP Mac Pro go to 19000 in GB points, while maintaining current pricing, it will $/GB-point be competitive with the strongest iMac again.

Bottom-line: There's so significant performance increases to be expected in the 2013 Mac Pros, that there's no reason whatsoever of purchasing a current-gen. Even purchasing a pre-gen and upgrading the CPU seems a poor proposition. Except, of course, that you need it right now. But then a Hackintosh might be a better way to hold over until next year.
 
Last edited:
good writeup. yeah it's exciting to think what these things will be able to do. can't wait:)
 
Interesting

I am also interested in the performance of the next mac pro. I see 10 core xeons are available now, are they just too expensive and unsuitable for the pro ? I need maximum CPU performance for rendering, currently i am eyeing quad socket tower systems from super micro, they have an AMD 4x16 core for about 5k sterling. The big daddy is 4xE7 10 core giving 80 cores with hyper threading !!! But it has a 17k price tag hmmmm. I don't think a mac pro is economically viable as a render node but i'd like to stay with osx, of course they make great primary workstations. Personally i want max power.
 
chedda said:
Personally i want max power.
Click to expand...
Suggest your build your own to save money and have more power for your hard earned dollars. I built a dual X5670 westmere system with 24GB ram, gold rating 850 PSU, super micro workstation motherboard and an ATI 6950 for 4200 bucks. A comparable mac pro was over 6000 at the time. Yeah, I wasn't pleased at first when going back to windows after about 6 yrs hiatus with apple. Dont regret it now. Win7 64 is a great operating system. Not like the XP days. Sure, the mac pro's are great machines. But for the price and limited options on GPU, sorry but not worth it.
You can dream of what might come down from the apple heavens hoping for a great update. Will it happen? Dont think folks will be happy if they do come out with one due to price or configuration. Good luck.
 
chedda said:
I am also interested in the performance of the next mac pro. I see 10 core xeons are available now, are they just too expensive and unsuitable for the pro ? I need maximum CPU performance for rendering, currently i am eyeing quad socket tower systems from super micro, they have an AMD 4x16 core for about 5k sterling. The big daddy is 4xE7 10 core giving 80 cores with hyper threading !!! But it has a 17k price tag hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Yes they are too expensive. They are priced to meet the server market, not content creators.

With 3.2GHz 4-core, hyper threaded, Ivy Bridge, 1U servers available for £600; render farms are often a better option for real performance than big boxes. Obviously there are power usage and physical space issues to consider and licensing if your rendering software has a silly license, but you can't do better for CPU performance per £/$ and fault tolerance - really the two big considerations of rendering.
 
After 3 years, I'd hope for a 100% increase in processing/benchmark.

We'll see. I'd love to see a compressed package with screaming speed, TBolt and USB3, and stuff. My need for greater speed in HD video getting-editing-output is growing and growing, and I'd buy a new MacPro in 2013 if it is a brilliant 1080 workhorse.
 
karsten said:
:eek: did i read that right 4xcpus?
Click to expand...

You read it right if you came to the conclusion of 4 cpus. Each has 8 cores, running at 2.7 GHz (non-turbo) and turbo is:
3.1 GHz max turbo 7-8 active cores,
3.2 GHz max turbo 4-6 active cores,
3.4 GHz max turbo 3 active cores and
3.5 GHz max turbo 1-2 active cores.

After I finish installing each OS and tweaking them, my next build will use 8 - 10-core CPUs or 4 - 10-core CPUs using Ivy Bridge Xeons. For me, rendering ability is key and sadly I am not buying in on the notion that the 2013 Mac Pro will either have the horses that I need or reinforce the performance superiority that Apple had in 2009-2010 in the workstation/non-server grade market. They set the goal for next year really low by their June 2012 petty update. Apple's made it abundantly clear that they don't really care about marketing a basic/introductory, credible, server grade product by dropping the X-serve (rather than by strengthening it). Nor do they care about having the Mac Pro fill the void. They didn't get out a strong Sandy Bridge lineup at all (or build an update using top of the line Westmeres -5680s/5690s). Their top of the line trucks aren't that important to them now. I can't wait on them to get their intentions and messages straight. I am responding by satisfying my needs elsewhere. I'm no longer going to upgrade my 4 Mac Pros or buy Apple replacements unless and until Apple offers me systems that meet my needs rather than they're just telling me what they think my needs should be and their answer to their redefinition of my needs.

Think about this: Apple now has the war chest (I've heard more cash than the US gov't and more cash that the central banks of Europe) to dominate the world's computer industries from the top to bottom and lay waste to Dell, HP and every other pretender to the throne, no matter what the shoreline. Then, think about the 2012 Mac Pro update. They could make the Mac Pro line the dominant technological truck line worldwide, if only they wanted to. I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
Tutor said:
You read it right if you came to the conclusion of 4 cpus. Each has 8 cores, running at 2.7 GHz (non-turbo) and turbo is:
3.1 GHz max turbo 7-8 active cores,
3.2 GHz max turbo 4-6 active cores,
3.4 GHz max turbo 3 active cores and
3.5 GHz max turbo 1-2 active cores.

After I finish installing each OS and tweaking them, my next build will use 8 - 10-core CPUs or 4 - 10-core CPUs using Ivy Bridge Xeons. For me, rendering ability is key and sadly I am not buying in on the notion that the 2013 Mac Pro will either have the horses that I need or reinforce the performance superiority that Apple had in 2009-2010 in the workstation/non-server grade market. They set the goal for next year really low by their June 2012 petty update. Apple's made it abundantly clear that they don't really care about marketing a basic/introductory, credible, server grade product by dropping the X-serve (rather than by strengthening it). Nor do they care about having the Mac Pro fill the void. They didn't get out a strong Sandy Bridge lineup at all (or build an update using top of the line Westmeres -5680s/5690s). Their top of the line trucks aren't that important to them now. I can't wait on them to get their intentions and messages straight. I am responding by satisfying my needs elsewhere. I'm no longer going to upgrade my 4 Mac Pros or buy Apple replacements unless and until Apple offers me systems that meet my needs rather than they're just telling me what they think my needs should be and their answer to their redefinition of my needs.

Think about this: Apple now has the war chest (I've heard more cash than the US gov't and more cash that the central banks of Europe) to dominate the world's computer industries from the top to bottom and lay waste to Dell, HP and every other pretender to the throne, no matter what the shoreline. Then, think about the 2012 Mac Pro update. They could make the Mac Pro line the dominant technological truck line worldwide, if only they wanted to. I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think allot of folks will be disappointed if/when apple produces a new mac pro. Glad I got off the apple bandwagon after the 2008 mac pro.
Awesome job tutor.
 
Tutor said:
think about the 2012 Mac Pro update. They could make the Mac Pro line the dominant technological truck line worldwide, if only they wanted to. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be something !

My Macpro 2008 just died. Was sorely tempted to get the latest one, but decided against it since it doesn't have Thunderbolt nor USB 3.

Plan to buy the newest one when it comes out hopefully with all the bells and whistles mentioned above. Can finally ditch my half functioning Esata rack and go for a Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 one.
 
What can we realistically expect considering Intel's release schedule? Ivy Bridge Xeons E5? I doubt it, unless Apple makes us wait till the end of 2013. It's all pretty depressing.
 
considering how much power is squeezed out of my little macbookpro running at "X" temperature and consuming whatever it does in watts... i expect the next pro to be an absolute monster.

I sold my 3,1 while it still had resale in it... not buying a 2010 or a "2012" as it's just good money thrown after bad.

I'll just suffer for now... the notebook and hackintosh will have to suffice.

I'm interested to see what the connection technology will be on the next pro. the whole processor-interconnect thing on the 4,1 and 5,1 machines will probably be upped quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back