or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks for all three 8-Core Penryn Mac Pros reported
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benchmarks for all three 8-Core Penryn Mac Pros reported - Page 2

post #41 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think backtomac might have been thinking of the possibility there wouldn't even be a second socket soldered in. If the socket's not there, then the upgrade path would surely be crippled.

You might remember that I was saying that that could be possible as well.

But, that still isn't automatically crippling the machine. If it could be shown that it costs no more to have a complete two socket mobo, then Apple could be accused of "crippling" the machine. But, if it could be shown that it was even "slightly" cheaper to go with a single socket board, then the criticism would be unfair.

Quote:
I think it's unreasonable to expect a spare heat sink to be included, I don't think anyone else includes a heat sink for unpopulated sockets. The heat sink is included with the company's CPU upgrade kits.

I agree. And that's why this is a great opportunity for a third party to come out with an upgrade. Assuming it would be cheap enough.

But, as I also said, upgrading these machines is VERY difficult. I don't recommend that anyone who isn't experienced in electronics do it themselves.
post #42 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's not proper to say that Apple would "cripple" the machine. That's a pejorative term that is entirely out of place.

If Apple supplies a machine with one socket filled, then there would be no reason for them to supply an additional cooling system for the socket that had none. If they did that, then people would have to pay for it.

What I mean by cripple, is if Apple disable functionality that would be otherwise be present. In other words if Apple were to disable or make the second socket unusable. This does assume that Apple still uses the same MP for the single cpu MP that it uses for the dual cpu MP. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Seems logical but...

I would expect to pay for the additional cooling and most reasonable users should as well. Like you said this could be a nice niche for third party vendors to fill for those who want to upgrade their single cpu MPs to dual cpu MPs.
post #43 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

What I mean by cripple, is if Apple disable functionality that would be otherwise be present. In other words if Apple were to disable or make the second socket unusable. This does assume that Apple still uses the same MP for the single cpu MP that it uses for the dual cpu MP. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Seems logical but...

I would expect to pay for the additional cooling and most reasonable users should as well. Like you said this could be a nice niche for third party vendors to fill for those who want to upgrade their single cpu MPs to dual cpu MPs.

Third party vendors wouldn't be interested in simply supplying the chip for Mac owners. You might as well go to any internet retailer, such as Newegg, and buy one.

The companies that make upgrade cpu cards for the Mac will need more incentive than that. We haven't even seen them do it for the first single chip machines. Why?

I know if I bought a single chip machine, I wouldn't want to pay for stuff the machine didn't use.

And as I said, adding a chip to these machines is NOT for the fainthearted. It's not like the old G4's.

I would expect the possibility that Apple MIGHT not supply the socket for the second chip. I'm waiting for Barefeats, or others, to look, and let us know.

I'm not saying that Apple WON'T do this, just that they may chose to keep the costs down.
post #44 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And as I said, adding a chip to these machines is NOT for the fainthearted. It's not like the old G4's.

I went to anandtech and saw an article were they upgraded a MP and you are correct. It is possible but not easy.
post #45 of 61
what a bunch of sad geeks you lot are!
post #46 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It depends on how important the few percent is to you.

As far as the difference between the 2.8 and the 3.0 goes, apparently the majority of tests show the 3 to be faster. It's very possible that a few operation's speed is reversed in the different chips.

Something about bin speeds. Remember that these are supposed to be IDENTICAL chips. What that means, is that in theory, they should all be the SAME speed. There should be NO bin speed differences.

In practice, manufacturing isn't perfect. Ever so slight differences in line widths, depths, and spacing, add up to minute differences in capacitance. The higher the capacitance, the slower the speed.

BUT, these chips are hellishly complex. That means that on the same chip, there will be these variations. Where they are on the chip will decide how slow the chip is, and what part of the chip is affected the most.

So, one chip can have a silghtly higher bin speed overall, but still be slightly slower in some operations.

Each chip will be affected differently. Two chips with the same bin speed can have slight variations in operational "evenness". Some may have some operations a fair amount faster, and some a fair amount slower, and others may hover closely around the speed number given.

So, these tests we've read are valid for those machines. but, as we are talking about minute differences, too small to notice in most cases, they are not valid for a different set of machines because of the varibility in manufacturing.

This also holds true for the motherboard, as well as for the rest of the machine.

On average, each machine will be approximately spaced as they should be. It's possible that the 3.2 machine here was fast, but the 3.0 machine was slow, and that the 2.8 was also fast.

This is always going to happen when the speed differences between machines are so small. If we had a 2.6 a 2.9, and a 3.2, we wouldn't see this happening as much.

Guess I'll run Geekbench on my new 3.0GHz when I receive it and we'll see, I'm already committed to getting it and I expect my numbers will be better than those tested so far.
post #47 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Can someone pit a Core 2 Duo Mac Mini against a first gen 800MHz iMac G4? I want to psych myself up for my next purchase...
..and make myself less depressed about not being able to afford a Mac Pro.
-Clive

MacBook Air

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

...Also, as was true for the older machines, the memory buss performs better if the first two memory slots from each board are filled.
In other words, if you have four Gb of RAM, it's faster to have it in 4 1GB sticks, than in 2 2GB sticks.Lastly, if you have 2GB of Apple RAM at 1GB per stick and then get 8 GB in 2GB sticks, put the 2GB Apple RAM in the TOP card with the 2 2GB sticks, and put the other 2 2GB sticks in the first two slots of the bottom card.

Yay! I did this exactly with one of my work's Mac Pro 2.66ghz Quad. 2x2GB at the top board and 2x2GB at the bottom board. All before I read this
I am chanelling Melgross now... w00t.
post #48 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinkyOldC View Post

what a bunch of sad geeks you lot are!

You are sadder for posting on this thread when you obviously don't know or don't care about this stuff. We may be geeks (and proud of it), but you sir, are a tool.
post #49 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silencio View Post

I would not assume you can easily add a second quad-core processor at a later date to the single quad-core configuration. Not sure whether Apple will ship those machines with a different heatsink, some sort of thermal recalibration will probably have to be run from an Apple Service Diagnostic disc, and it is likely that the retail price of a 2.8GHz Harpertown processor will greatly exceed the $500 Apple essentially charges for it for quite some time.

Despite that, the new quad-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro is a much better buy as a low-end machine than the old 2.0GHz Mac Pro, which I assume nobody even bought. But I think it's better to buy the octo-core now and just be done with it.

I agree. The resale value of a single Quad 2.8GHz MP will be much lower than the $500 you "save" now. Plus you can't necessarily imagine why you will want 8 cores in six months to a year from now as those reasons are yet to be revealed at NAB and WWDC '08.

Remember, next year Apple will likely offer 16 core Mac Pros. Then how will you feel about a 4 core purchase this year when you could have had 8 for only $500 more?

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #50 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy View Post

But don't lament. You made the best choice. So now you have all that available money to spend on a new Mac Pro with all kind of cores. And now the Mac Pros don't seem to be expensive at all in comparison to the 2001 prices. Very smart move.

Considering I paid about $4000 for Mac IIci's in the 1990s (with a 25MHz 68030 processor, 256 bit color, and System 7 running in 4mb RAM and using an 80mb HD), I'd say the Mac Pros of today are a very good buy indeed.
post #51 of 61
I've skipped a few message, but I didn't spot anyone saying this.

The 32-bit Vs 64-bit gains are probably due to:

a) because there are more registers the parameter passing when calling functions is done in registers, rather than on the stack. This is back to the way it was done on PPC and saves a tiny amount on *every* function call.

b) more registers = better code optimisation by the compiler. Boom!

c) Apple has used the 32-to-64 bit jump as an opportunity to clear out a lot of the old cruft that has piled up over 10+ years of development. As a result the whole system is probably running leaner, meaner and possibly even greener.

Good to see real numbers proving the theory.
post #52 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

You are sadder for posting on this thread when you obviously don't know or don't care about this stuff. We may be geeks (and proud of it), but you sir, are a tool.

A tool!

Wow! And I though he was a stool!
post #53 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

I agree. The resale value of a single Quad 2.8GHz MP will be much lower than the $500 you "save" now. Plus you can't necessarily imagine why you will want 8 cores in six months to a year from now as those reasons are yet to be revealed at NAB and WWDC '08.

Remember, next year Apple will likely offer 16 core Mac Pros. Then how will you feel about a 4 core purchase this year when you could have had 8 for only $500 more?


I just ordered the 4 core for $2100 with the edu discount. Apple only gives a $450 rebate on the single cpu with the edu discount...... I'm sure in a year or two I'll be complaining about only having one 4 core processor, but then it will be time to get the new 16 core mac pro
post #54 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb9uwu View Post

I just ordered the 4 core for $2100 with the edu discount. Apple only gives a $450 rebate on the single cpu with the edu discount...... I'm sure in a year or two I'll be complaining about only having one 4 core processor, but then it will be time to get the new 16 core mac pro

Unless you are a professional that can and does have use for an 8 core, I don't believe you will be complaining.
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
post #55 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy View Post

Unless you are a professional that can and does have use for an 8 core, I don't believe you will be complaining.

Not a professional but I still need some juice. I use logic studio to record 24 tracks live on my Macbook and iMac (not at the same time ha!). When recording, either computer barely breaks a sweat.. After recording, the plugins really slow both machines down. From what I hear, logic 8 efficiently addresses up to 8 cores but for what I'm doing, the 4 core harpertown will fly!!!
post #56 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrunr View Post

Guess I'll run Geekbench on my new 3.0GHz when I receive it and we'll see, I'm already committed to getting it and I expect my numbers will be better than those tested so far.

Just got my new Mac Pro with dual 3.0GHz cpu's and ran the Geekbench 2 benchmarks.

Glad to say that in majority of tests, it posts higher than this original article had. In fact some of the data is now >3.2GHz cpu. I only used the 32-bit eval version, no opportunity to run in 64 bit.

Here are the summaries per section...

Overall - 8210 (original test=7742)
Integer - 8663 (original test=8071)
Floating - 12753 (original test=12306)
Memory - 2560 (original test=2509)
Stream - 2029 (original test=2031)

Regards, Dave.
post #57 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrunr View Post

Just got my new Mac Pro with dual 3.0GHz cpu's and ran the Geekbench 2 benchmarks.

Glad to say that in majority of tests, it posts higher than this original article had. In fact some of the data is now >3.2GHz cpu. I only used the 32-bit eval version, no opportunity to run in 64 bit.

Here are the summaries per section...

Overall - 8210 (original test=7742)
Integer - 8663 (original test=8071)
Floating - 12753 (original test=12306)
Memory - 2560 (original test=2509)
Stream - 2029 (original test=2031)

Regards, Dave.




Hi Dave, I´m glad to see you bought the 3 Ghz model - that´s exactly what I´m intending to do too ;-) There´s always been the question whether the E5472 (80W) or the X5472 (120W) processor is in there. Can you confirm, that it is the X5472 ?

Thanks ;-)
post #58 of 61
NEW BENCHMARKS:

http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...pro.html?t=205



Would someone like to comment on the worse H.264 ENCODE results for the 3 GHz Mac Pro ????????????????????? By the way - it´s the X5472, not the E5472 ...
post #59 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacProUser View Post

Would someone like to comment on the worse H.264 ENCODE results for the 3 GHz Mac Pro ????????????????????? By the way - it´s the X5472, not the E5472 ...

I speculate that it's related to the video card in these machine. I am guessing the 3GHz had the stock 2600 and the 2.8GHz was using the 8800. I also speculate that the three tests in which the 2.8GHz did better were ones that offloaded some of the work to VGC.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I speculate that it's related to the video card in these machine. I am guessing the 3GHz had the stock 2600 and the 2.8GHz was using the 8800. I also speculate that the three tests in which the 2.8GHz did better were ones that offloaded some of the work to VGC.


Maybe you´re right - but testing with different setups won´t make sense at all ...
post #61 of 61
They are all running the 2600. That's why the frame rates ate so shitty in Quake 4 on all systems. The 8800GT will completely flip that number. I'll let you know how fast that 3.2 GHz version is with the 8800GT when it arrives.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks for all three 8-Core Penryn Mac Pros reported