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.
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!
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.
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 ][
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Hewlett-Packard HP Z820 Workstation
Isn't that a $10,000 machine with dual 8 cores?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
…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
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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 ][
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
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).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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
Catalog Number
4 Retail 04
Catalog Number / Description
Product Code
Qty
SKU
Id
Processor:
Two Intel® Xeon® Processors E5-2687W (Eight Core, 3.1GHz, 20M, 8.0 GT/s, Turbo+)
2E52687
1
[317-8355]
2
Operating System:
Windows 7 Professional,SP1, No Media, 64-bit, English
W7PN61E
1
[330-6228][421-5335][421-5607][421-7814]
11
Productivity Software:
Microsoft® Office Trial, MUI
13TMUI
1
[630-AABP]
22
Dell Precision T7600:
Dell Precision T7600, 1300W
T76001
1
[225-2096]
1
Power Supplies:
1300W Power Supply, 85% Efficiency
1300PS
1
[318-1333][331-4129][342-2635]
20
Energy Efficiency Option:
No Energy Star
NOESTAR
1
[330-3201]
25
Memory:
64GB, DDR3 RDIMM Memory, 1600MHz, ECC (8 x 8GB DIMMs)
64G3E68
1
[317-8326]
3
Graphics:
Nvidia Quadro K5000, 4GB, 2 DP + DVIi +DVId
NVK500
1
[320-9618]
6
Hard Drive Configuration:
C1 SATA 3.5 Inch, 1-4 Hard Drives
C1SATA
1
[342-4015]
9
Hard Drive RAID:
No RAID
NORAID
1
[331-4816]
28
Hard Drive Controller:
Integrated Intel Controller, SATA 3Gb/s RAID 0/1/10 (8 ports)
HDDCTLD
1
[331-4133]
24
Boot Hard Drive:
2TB, 7200 RPM 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive
2TBST3
1
[342-5410]
8
DVD and Read-Write Devices:
8X DVD-ROM SATA
DVD8N
1
[318-1323][318-2231]
16
Remote Access Host Card:
No Remote access host card for FX100 Remote Access Device
NORAD
<span class="olt_table_content_cfg" style="color: black; font-family: arial, helvetica, sa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the price of the dual saline cores, the women don't have a price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
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...
And both offer the option of future expansion if requirements increase.