Why the 12-core is only 2,7GHz? Huge disappointment!

[goMac]

New Intel chips have two speeds, the turbo boost speed and the "low" speed. The turbo boost on those is (I believe) 3.5 ghz.

The new Intel chips are also more efficient clock for clock, so the new chips can do more for each ghz than the old ones.

 

[Saltymac]

Heat would be one issue. New trash can looks pretty tight in room which is why big hdds are not welcome. Xeons run pretty warm when speeds get in 3 and above area. Got alot of new machines to,warranty if you burn up cpus. Upwards sales would be another.

 

[Mike777]

Xeons excel at moving huge amounts of data. If you ask your current cpus to move a small amount of data and a xeon to move a small amount of data, your cpu might well be quicker. But move a planet sized amount of data, your cpu dies and xeon carries on just fine.

 

[rampancy]

A single 2.7GHz Ivy Bridge EP core is faster than a Nehalem 2.93Ghz core, and it's also faster than the 3.06GHz core in the 2012 model.

On top of that, it has a turbo boost of 3.5GHz

if clock speed was what mattered then go buy a Pentium 4 3.8GHz.

It's hard to believe we're stuck back in the mid-90's again. Are we going to start arguing again about how 400 Mhz G4s running AltiVec-optimized code perform vs. 500 Mhz Pentium IIIs/600 Mhz Athlons?

Oh wait, I just realized that the Core i5 in my 2013 MacBook Air is 1.3 Ghz, while the Core 2 Duo in my 2010 MacBook Air is 1.4 Ghz! How dare Apple ship newer Macs with inferior hardware! I want my money back! 😡

 

[nateo200]

I think its funny that Clock speed is listed as if it has some bearing across generations and even funnier that people think clock speed is the end all be all. Sure a 3GHz+ 12-core model would be nice for people who need insane power or run apps that are more dependent on clock speed but I think the options are nice. Me personally, I would have liked to see a dual 8-core processor model for a total of 16-cores and 32 threads, very resonable and would likely run circles around allot of insane processes..although lately GPU power is becoming the main topic of interest but thats another story with the Mac Pro's lack of Nvidia options. Just keep your old Mac Pro and throw in a GTX 690 and call it a day (depending on what your computing needs are and whether a GPU will help, although in the future me thinks GPU's will do not just video but audio and all sorts of stuff). Still something like the 2600K processor OC'ed to 4.4GHz can kill an 8-core or even 12-core Xeon (not the new ones though), so clock speed has its place for sure. Oh and remember this thing called heat, no matter how effecient the design is heat will catch up.

 

[sirio76]

Oh wait, I just realized that the Core i5 in my 2013 MacBook Air is 1.3 Ghz, while the Core 2 Duo in my 2010 MacBook Air is 1.4 Ghz! How dare Apple ship newer Macs with inferior hardware! I want my money back! 😡

lol… you have really no idea of what you are talking about…

 

[DPUser]

lol… you have really no idea of what you are talking about…

I have a nagging suspician the referenced quote is sarcasm... 😀

 

[sirio76]

I have a nagging suspician the referenced quote is sarcasm... 😀

Maybe😀 you never know.. just look at the thread starter comments

 

[phoenixsan]

I only can......

suppose this is related to how well the heat dissipates in a chip with multiple cores to higher clock rates. Maybe Intel can not design the chips in the 12-core upcoming Mac Pro to dissipate heat efficently, moreover based in the new external and internal design of nMac Pro.

O maybe later, Apple releases a higher clock CPU with 12 cores, as a BTO option?.....

Just remember: Any we can say is highly especulative until Apple releases the real thing......😕



🙂

 

[flat five]

Just remember: Any we can say is highly especulative until Apple releases the real thing......😕

it's not speculative as to what's going on in this thread and there are very real answers as to why the new 12core has slower listed clock than previous..

it's as simple as realizing the OPs computer is actually 2x 6 core instead of 1x 12 core..

if the new mac had dual sockets then the 12 cores would be listing 3.5ghz (2 of the 6 cores)

this thread is just another single-socket argument thread with a twist of humor thrown in..

 

[JavaTheHut]

if the new mac had dual sockets then the 12 cores would be listing 3.5ghz (2 of the 6 cores)

If the nMP had dual socket CPU's this thread would be talking about 2 x 12core for a total of 24cores ?

 

[AidenShaw]

If the nMP had dual socket CPU's this thread would be talking about 2 x 12core for a total of 24cores ?

Yep, and 512 GiB of RAM and 88 PCIe lanes....

 

[rampancy]

Maybe😀 you never know.. just look at the thread starter comments

It really is sad that we are still so stuck in the "megahertz myth" (or what ever you want to call it that isn't defined by Apple marketing) that I could post a comment like that and still have it taken seriously. (And yeah, I wonder if the OP wasn't just a troll.)

 

[FluJunkie]

If you actually have applications that _need_ twelve cores, then most likely they will be using the GPUs for calculations. And these GPUs are powerful.

This *really* isn't generalizable. There's all manner of uses for 12 cores that don't translate nicely to GPUs.

 

[malana]

well, at least there's one problem less with only 1 cpu: the darn ****** sync between the cpus in a multicpu environment.