or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › First benchmarks for redesigned Mac Pro reportedly appear online
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First benchmarks for redesigned Mac Pro reportedly appear online

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
Just over one week following its sneak preview at WWDC 2013, the radically redesigned Mac Pro has supposedly shown up on a popular Internet based benchmarking site running what appears to be a specialized build of OS X 10.9 Mavericks.

The purported Mac Pro popped up on Primate Labs' Geekbench Browser on Wednesday, carrying model number "AAPLJ90,1" and an impressive hardware spec sheet, including the 12-core Intel Xeon E5-2697 clocked at 2.70GHz, and 64GB of speedy 1867 DDR3 RAM.

It is possible that the machine's name and model number were spoofed, but as MacRumors notes, the system is running build 13A2054 of OS X 10.9 Mavericks, which is a different iteration than the developer preview Apple seeded earlier in June. Also lending to the computer's authenticity is a motherboard identifier previously associated with the new Mac Pro.

As for performance, the machine achieved a 32-bit Geekbench score of 23,901, compared to Apple's current top-of-the-line Mac Pro which scored an average of 21,980. The current high-end model is also running a 12-core setup, but with a pair of six-core Westmere family Xeon CPUs clocked at 3.06GHz.

Mac Pro
Source: Geekbench


The Geekbench appearance is the first of what will likely be many such sightings leading up to the Mac Pro's launch "later this year."
post #2 of 93
I'm curious how this ranks with the current Mac Pro.

I've been seriously considering buying one this fall, but I'm still hesitant because of the choice of GPUs in it. My experience both Windows side, and Mac side with AMD GPUs have been less than stellar, and it's highly improbable that there will be aftermarket upgrades for it in several years time like the previous Mac Pro.
post #3 of 93
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #4 of 93
I just went to Intel's site and couldn't find the E5-2697 listed anywhere. Is this a processor that's not been announced?
post #5 of 93
This doesn't seem right given the mid 2010 Mac Pro comes in at 21980. Perhaps Geekbench tests are not suitable for this machine else this is a new Mac Pro with half its cores shut down!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #6 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I just went to Intel's site and couldn't find the E5-2697 listed anywhere. Is this a processor that's not been announced?

 

Yes. The new Mac Pro is running on Ivy Bridge based Xeon processors that technically will not be released until Q3 of this year at the earliest. There are several other components within the Mac Pro that are the same way as well (i.e. haven't actually been released yet).

post #7 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I just went to Intel's site and couldn't find the E5-2697 listed anywhere. Is this a processor that's not been announced?

 

It's not out yet. Supposedly shipping Q3 2013.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

This doesn't seem right given the mid 2010 Mac Pro comes in at 21980. Perhaps Geekbench tests are not suitable for this machine else this is a new Mac Pro with half its cores shut down!

 

Huh? This is comparing a single 2.7ghz 12 core xeon cpu to the 2010 mac pro with dual 3.07ghz 6 core xeon cpus, and it still beat it by 10%. Not to mention, ~1/8th the size?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #8 of 93
32-bit metrics? Isn't everything 64-bit any more.
post #9 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

32-bit metrics? Isn't everything 64-bit any more.

Light load right now, my machine reports everything open as 64-bit except for Dashboard and Safari's QTServer. I'm certain I have 32-bit applications, though.
post #10 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Light load right now, my machine reports everything open as 64-bit except for Dashboard and Safari's QTServer. I'm certain I have 32-bit applications, though.

 

Yeah, for me it's just Opera, Dashboard, and some Menubar add-ons.

post #11 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

It's not out yet. Supposedly shipping Q3 2013.


Huh? This is comparing a single 2.7ghz 12 core xeon cpu to the 2010 mac pro with dual 3.07ghz 6 core xeon cpus, and it still beat it by 10%. Not to mention, ~1/8th the size?

Size isn't everything! 1wink.gif

Seriously I am expecting to see double scores and more at least on the new Mac Pro when it is released but as I say I wonder if the tests will need to be re thought.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #12 of 93
I'm thinking GeekBench isn't optimized for a the architecture in the new Mac Pro.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #13 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm thinking GeekBench isn't optimized for a the architecture in the new Mac Pro.

My thoughts too.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #14 of 93

The old Mac Pro scores basically got thrown into the "trash can". Seriously though, I want one.

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply
post #15 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Seriously I am expecting to see double scores and more at least on the new Mac Pro when it is released but as I say I wonder if the tests will need to be re thought.

 

Double scores? As in the new Mac Pro scoring around 40,000? You must be smoking some good shit.....................lol.gif

post #16 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Size isn't everything! 1wink.gif

Seriously I am expecting to see double scores and more at least on the new Mac Pro when it is released but as I say I wonder if the tests will need to be re thought.

 

I used to think the same thing. My current Nehalem Mac Pro is locking up while being pushed, so I took it to the Apple Store Monday. OMG what a pig. The current version is just way too big, especially if these need to be moved at all (filming, live audio, etc w/e). I'm no potato chip eater either :). 

 

Personally, for it being a single cpu vs dual cpu, I'm pretty stoked there is still a 10% increase in performance. Not to forget the faster SSD, faster ram and faster GPUs. This thing is gonna be a beast.

 

I do wonder, will we be able to daisy chain Mac Pros via Thunderbolt 2?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #17 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm thinking GeekBench isn't optimized for a the architecture in the new Mac Pro.

 

Buy GeekBench so John can afford to get a new Mac Pro and optimize it :). My shameless plug. He'll get it dialed soon I'm sure. I'd love to see him do a Open CL benchmark test. He knows GPUs extremely well. 

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #18 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Double scores? As in the new Mac Pro scoring around 40,000? You must be smoking some good shit.....................lol.gif

 

Three years later, why the f**k not around 40K?  I hope it's because it was running the benchmark in 32 bit mode because otherwise it's f**king pathetic.

 

 

In 64 bit mode the Mid 2012 Mac Pro jumps to 25K.  That's not enough of a bump between 32 bit and 64 bit so I hope that this test MacPro is gimped somehow and we do see benchmarks in the 30K+ range.

 

Section Description Score Geekbench Score

 

Geekbench 2.4.0 Pro for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)

Integer Processor integer performance 25476 25846
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 43951
Memory Memory performance 5054
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 53

 

Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.4.0 for Windows x86 (64-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 35847 40334
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 72935
Memory Memory performance 6900
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 8804
 
Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.4.2 for Windows x86 (64-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 37116 40561
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 73327
Memory Memory performance 6709
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 5647

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1746358

 

 

Mac mini (Late 2012)

 

 

Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.4.0 Pro for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 10831 12907
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 18774
Memory Memory performance 8700
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 8053
 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2067580

 

 

post #19 of 93

Just think if Apple had bothered to design the new Mac Pro for dual Xeons... it would have benchmarked 4X as fast a 5+ year old Mac Pro rather than just 2X.

post #20 of 93

I'm sure it is spectacularly fast but right now with my 2010 Mac Pro 8 core, it is already faster than I am. I'm pretty efficient when it comes to multitasking. I usually have around  five CS applications open at the same time and switching between them constantly. If I am rendering a movie, I can still work on other stuff at the same time. In a single task environment, if movie rendering is the only important thing, then brute power is important, but in my routine, I'm usually juggling ten balls in the air at once and my current Mac Pro has not let me down yet.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 93
I think the biggest concern is what this is going to cost. Apple removing internal component upgrades means the cost of external components is passed on to the consumer. Thunderbolt components are expensive. If Apple is going to keep the Mac Pro the same price as the previous generation then I have a serious problem with upgrading. The benchmark scores compared to the previous version are not nearly as impressive as the keynote said they were.
post #22 of 93
People shouldn't get so worked up over these numbers, this is prerelease hardware on a prerelease operating system loaded with debug code. Intel probably doesn't even have stable silicon yet.

The operating system is a key issue here as we don't even know if the turbo feature is enabled, what other features are running and how thick the debugging code is.

Beyond that there are real issues with a twelve core chip such as a limit on how much the turbo can spin up. In many cases users will get far better single thread performance out of fewer cores. I suspect the six core variant will be very snappy as long as you don't need lots of threads. The twelve core chips have a low base frequency to begin with. Of course final shipping configurations may change but six core chips could be running a full GHz or more faster.

Beyond all of that few apps load a processor like Geekbench so the value of this report is debatable.
post #23 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Hewlett-Packard HP Z820 Workstation

 

Isn't that a $10,000 machine with dual 8 cores?

post #24 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Isn't that a $10,000 machine with dual 8 cores?

 

Yes, but it's also an older machine.  The next ones will likely be dual 10 or 12 cores.  The 12 core models will be more mid-rangish. 

 

Plus, I expect the top end Mac Pro to be pushing 10K anyway given that the top Mac Pro with dual 3.06Ghz 6 core + 64GB ECC RAM is $8K.

post #25 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm thinking GeekBench isn't optimized for a the architecture in the new Mac Pro.

No, the CPU performance of the new Mac Pro is simply not what it could've been if the Mac Pro was a larger size with room for two 8 or 10 core processors in there or used only one graphics card instead of two.

This is the first firm evidence that the new Mac Pro is essentially a single-socket design, albeit with a custom motherboard. While it is impressive that it can beat a previous dual 6-core setup, it makes one wonder what the Mac Pro could've been had they opted for a larger design with dual processors.

This leaves me slightly disappointed but I can understand Apple's motivation for choosing a smaller, single-socket design. I previously chose a single socket 6-core Westmere so if they can ship this for the same price as that it's a good performance boost.

What's clear is the extent to which Apple is prioritising graphics in the new Mac Pro and why they made graphics a big feature of the Keynote presentation. In fact Apple is devoting two out of three motherboards in the new Mac Pro to graphics. This is a big shift from the previous philosophy where they prioritised the CPU and where they might've instead devoted two of the boards to dual CPUs with only a single board for the graphics processor.

I think they've made a good choice because it's easier to farm out CPU processes than graphics!
Edited by s.metcalf - 6/19/13 at 9:34pm
post #26 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

…I expect the top end Mac Pro to be pushing 10K anyway given that the top Mac Pro with dual 3.06Ghz 6 core + 64GB ECC RAM is $8K.

GOOD

BETTER

BEST

ULTIMATE

 

So 'top end' would be ULTIMATE…

 

Xeon E5 v2 12-core CPU

128GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

(2) ATI FirePro W9000 GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

 

US$7,500.00

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #27 of 93
How does this Mac Pro compare to Wintel PC gaming rigs? Slower or faster. The Wintel fanbois have always said that Macs are basically underpowered and overpriced so I'm rather curious if the Mac Pro is far behind some fastest Wintel gaming computers a person can buy.
post #28 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Three years later, why the f**k not around 40K?  I hope it's because it was running the benchmark in 32 bit mode because otherwise it's f**king pathetic.

 

 

In 64 bit mode the Mid 2012 Mac Pro jumps to 25K.  That's not enough of a bump between 32 bit and 64 bit so I hope that this test MacPro is gimped somehow and we do see benchmarks in the 30K+ range.

 

Ivy wasn't a huge gain in performance per clock cycle. I doubt Ivy Bridge EP will be much different in that regard. The real gains seem to be in terms of core count. On those you're looking at 16 core machines. There will be some 24 core machines using the same processor that showed up here. I don't think they're going to chase that. I am interested in seeing what they do in the realm of OpenCL support and modernized OpenGL implementation. I'm also interested in what all of this will cost. If it hit 26000 in geekbench and came in under $3k, that would be interesting. Sadly I don't see that happening.

 

It's actually about as fast as I expected. That doesn't mean anything about how the machine will do. I said before that they could always pull out of the workstation business. As it is they pulled out of dual socket versions. In the end it comes down to whether the price and machine offered are suitable for your requirements even if not ideal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Isn't that a $10,000 machine with dual 8 cores?


We have no idea what this one will cost. It won't be cheap. The 8 core variants around $1800-2000 now are likely to go to 10-12 cores with Ivy. They're really aimed at dual socket configurations more than single. If we're looking solely at processor cost, it's not a very efficient path in terms of price to performance ratio compared to something like 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 with ivy. You might be able to achieve significantly higher numbers at slightly lower cost. I really suspect they're planning to migrate fully to E5-1600 processor types in future cycles. Otherwise the design would make less long term sense. It takes some odd paths in general. You have a ton of SATA ports on a C600 chipset.

 

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/c600-series-chipset-datasheet.pdf

 

Quote:
The PCH SATA controllers feature six sets of interface signals (ports) that can be
independently enabled or disabled (they ca
nnot be tri-stated or driven low). Each
interface is supported by an independent DMA controller.

They aren't using any of those from what I can tell. The long term goals for the design seem to be drifting away from the highest core count levels.


Edited by hmm - 6/19/13 at 9:44pm
post #29 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

How does this Mac Pro compare to Wintel PC gaming rigs? Slower or faster. The Wintel fanbois have always said that Macs are basically underpowered and overpriced so I'm rather curious if the Mac Pro is far behind some fastest Wintel gaming computers a person can buy.


Gaming rigs never chase the high core count parts unless the buyer has some weird egotistical fetish with that. Gaming gpus are likely to be faster when gaming. Workstation gpus tend to be tuned for OpenGL and double precision floating point math at the driver level. What I don't understand is why you would want to acknowledge the fanbois. They're irritating. All fanbois are irritating. (Edit: not a jab at anyone on here, just not sure why you can't simply ignore the nerds).

post #30 of 93
Quote:

 Mac Pro with dual 3.06Ghz 6 core + 64GB ECC RAM is $8K.

My wife wears a 2 caret diamond ring worth $8k and it doesn't do half of what a Mac Pro can do. Well, apparently that is still up for debate, but if they make the Mac Pro a little bit smaller perhaps she can wear it on her finger as a fashion accessory. iWatch - > iRing. Oh wait that was already a rumor.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #31 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

We have no idea what this one will cost. It won't be cheap. 

 

You're right that we don't know exactly what the new Mac Pro will cost yet, but my reply was about the Dell workstation, and that seems to be right around $10,000 with the dual 8 cores, since somebody had posted benchmarks from it.

post #32 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


No, the CPU performance of the new Mac Pro is simply not what it could've been if the Mac Pro was a larger size with room for two 8 or 10 core processors in there or used only one graphics card instead of two.

This is the first firm evidence that the new Mac Pro is essentially a single-socket design, albeit with a custom motherboard. While it is impressive that it can beat a previous dual 6-core setup, it makes one wonder what the Mac Pro could've been had they opted for a larger design with dual processors.

 

Here's what the current competition looks like with 12 core:

 

 

http://nycppnews.com/reviews/unrivaled-power-review-of-the-hp-z820-workstation/

 

Ignore the GPU results since you can spec the Z8xx with FirePros if you want but the 12 core Z800 appears to me to be about where the next gen Mac Pros will be in comparison with the old Mac Pro 12 core based on the provided benchmarks.

 

The top end workstations will be 24 core.  The mid grade workstations will be somewhere between 16 and 20 core.  The lower tier (aka single CPU models) will range from the 4 core single CPU Haswell Xeon at around $400 up to the single 12 core that the new Mac Pro will have.

post #33 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

You're right that we don't know exactly what the new Mac Pro will cost yet, but my reply was about the Dell workstation, and that seems to be right around $10,000 with the dual 8 cores, since somebody had posted benchmarks from it.

 

Pricing it out on the Dell's website tonight ends with a $8,019 quote for:

 

 

 

Date   6/19/2013 11:48:59 PM Central Standard Time
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Catalog Number   4 Retail 04
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Catalog Number / Description   Product Code   Qty   SKU   Id
spacer.gif
shad.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Processor:
Two Intel® Xeon® Processors E5-2687W (Eight Core, 3.1GHz, 20M, 8.0 GT/s, Turbo+)
  2E52687   1   [317-8355]   2
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Operating System:
Windows 7 Professional,SP1, No Media, 64-bit, English
  W7PN61E   1   [330-6228][421-5335][421-5607][421-7814]   11
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Productivity Software:
Microsoft® Office Trial, MUI
  13TMUI   1   [630-AABP]   22
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Dell Precision T7600:
Dell Precision T7600, 1300W
  T76001   1   [225-2096]   1
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Power Supplies:
1300W Power Supply, 85% Efficiency
  1300PS   1   [318-1333][331-4129][342-2635]   20
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Energy Efficiency Option:
No Energy Star
  NOESTAR   1   [330-3201]   25
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Memory:
64GB, DDR3 RDIMM Memory, 1600MHz, ECC (8 x 8GB DIMMs)
  64G3E68   1   [317-8326]   3
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Graphics:
Nvidia Quadro K5000, 4GB, 2 DP + DVIi +DVId
  NVK500   1   [320-9618]   6
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Hard Drive Configuration:
C1 SATA 3.5 Inch, 1-4 Hard Drives
  C1SATA   1   [342-4015]   9
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Hard Drive RAID:
No RAID
  NORAID   1   [331-4816]   28
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Hard Drive Controller:
Integrated Intel Controller, SATA 3Gb/s RAID 0/1/10 (8 ports)
  HDDCTLD   1   [331-4133]   24
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Boot Hard Drive:
2TB, 7200 RPM 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive
  2TBST3   1   [342-5410]   8
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif DVD and Read-Write Devices:
8X DVD-ROM SATA
  DVD8N   1   [318-1323][318-2231]   16
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Remote Access Host Card:
No Remote access host card for FX100 Remote Access Device
  NORAD   1   [330-1085]   19
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif System Management:
No Out-of-Band Systems Management
  NOVPRO   1   [331-4131]   26
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Monitor:
No Monitor
  NMN   1   [320-3316]   5
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Speakers:
No Speaker option
  NSPKR   1   [313-2663]   18
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Keyboard:
Dell USB Entry Business Keyboard, English
  USBEE   1   [331-1965]   4
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Mouse:
Dell MS111 USB Optical Mouse
  USBOP   1   [330-9458]   12
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Resource DVD:
No Resource DVD
  NODVD   1   [330-4024]   27
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Security Software:
Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security Services, 30-days
  TM3530   1   [421-6186]   37
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Ship Packaging Options:
Shipping Material for System
  SHIP   1   [331-4135]   40
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Quick Reference Guide:
No Quick Reference Guide
  NOREF   1   [330-5527]   39
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Rack Rails & Cable Management Arm:
No rackrails or cable management arm
  NRAILS   1   [331-3037]   14
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Documentation:
Documentation English and French
  DOCEF   1   [330-3157][332-0472]   21
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif Warranty & Service:
3 Year ProSupport Service with 3 Year NBD Onsite Service after Remote Diagnosis
  U3IPY   1   [934-8127][938-4528][989-3449][994-3502][994-3582][994-9770][994-9910]   2

 

 

On par with the current top end Mac Pro in terms of price. 

 

I don't expect the top end next-gen Mac Pro to be any cheaper than the current gen Mac Pro.

post #34 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

How does this Mac Pro compare to Wintel PC gaming rigs? Slower or faster. The Wintel fanbois have always said that Macs are basically underpowered and overpriced so I'm rather curious if the Mac Pro is far behind some fastest Wintel gaming computers a person can buy.

 

Different sort of thing.  Workstations are powerful and fast but trade maximum performance for higher levels of precision.  So you can a good i7 system + gaming GPU can usually outperform a comparably priced workstation because you aren't paying for ECC RAM and a workstation GPU that only comes on the Xeons.  Bang for the buck wise workstations (from any brand) aren't all that great in comparison to gaming rigs.  That goes for Dell Precision vs Alienware as well even though Alienware is owned by Dell and overpriced itself in comparison to home built rigs (or Dells cheaper gaming rig lines).

post #35 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 

I don't expect the top end next-gen Mac Pro to be any cheaper than the current gen Mac Pro.

 

I don't expect it to be cheaper either, but since we know that it's only going to be a single core and not dual core, I'm not surprised that other workstations will beat it, in terms of geekbench scores.

post #36 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I don't expect it to be cheaper either, but since we know that it's only going to be a single core and not dual core, I'm not surprised that other workstations will beat it, in terms of geekbench scores.

 

That may be but to have expected the next gen Mac Pro to hit 40K wasn't a ridiculous hope.  It could have been if it were a tower design.

 

As a mid-tier desktop between a quad core Haswell i7 Mini (probably around 14K points) and the top end tower (could have been 40K+) a 25-30K scoring Mac Pro cylinder would have made for a very very nice lineup.

 

I suppose it's STILL possible that Apple keeps the Mac Pro Classic around, maybe even with a spec bump but it strikes me as unlikely and a shame.

post #37 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

My wife wears a 2 caret diamond ring worth $8k and it doesn't do half of what a Mac Pro can do.
Interesting. I know females with dual 400cc saline cores that cost less than $8000, and they can do a lot more than a Mac Pro can.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the price of the dual saline cores, the women don't have a price.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #38 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

You're right that we don't know exactly what the new Mac Pro will cost yet, but my reply was about the Dell workstation, and that seems to be right around $10,000 with the dual 8 cores, since somebody had posted benchmarks from it.


NHT says $8000. It often differs depending on how you arrive at that configuration, and I know HP tends to be the more expensive of the cliche oem comparisons. There are some things I specifically dislike with the new mac pro design, but given that I wouldn't have ordered a 24 core workstation anyway, it comes down to price, performance, and options in the sub $4k range. I might be able to squeeze out a bit more for ram and things, and I would have to expand on external storage.

post #39 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 It could have been if it were a tower design.

 

I thought that I read that the reason why it must be single core is because dual is not compatible with Thunderbolt, so would the size of the case have made any difference?

post #40 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

Interesting. I know females with dual 400cc saline cores that cost less than $8000, and they can do a lot more than a Mac Pro can.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the price of the dual saline cores, the women don't have a price.

 

Saline is cheaper than silicone.  Like $5K vs $8K.  Look and feel of the UI is as important as price...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › First benchmarks for redesigned Mac Pro reportedly appear online