Primate benchmarks Apple's new 8-core Mac Pro
Just days after its introduction, the folks at Primate Labs have grabbed hold of one of Apple's new 2.8GHz Harpertown-based Mac Pros and pit the system against its 3.0GHz Clovertown-based predecessor in a set Geekbench benchmark tests.
The results saw the new Mac Pro with its two 45-nanomete (nm) quad-core 2.8GHz chips and 2GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM nearly match the overall performance of the previous-generation Mac Pro, which employed two 65 nm quad-core 3.0GHz chips and 1GB of 667MHz DDR2 RAM.
While the Harpertown Mac Pro trailed the Clovertown machine in floating point performance, it bested the system in integer, memory and stream performance. Overall, the Hapertown Mac Pro achieved a Geekbench 2 score of 7598 compared to the Clovertown Mac Pro's 7680.
The results are impressive, notes Primate, when you consider that the new Mac Pro is much more affordable than the old Mac Pro. Apple also offers the latest Mac Pro at speeds of up to 3.2GHz -- a configuration which should handily trounce the 3.0GHz Clovertown machine in each and every benchmark.
The results saw the new Mac Pro with its two 45-nanomete (nm) quad-core 2.8GHz chips and 2GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM nearly match the overall performance of the previous-generation Mac Pro, which employed two 65 nm quad-core 3.0GHz chips and 1GB of 667MHz DDR2 RAM.
While the Harpertown Mac Pro trailed the Clovertown machine in floating point performance, it bested the system in integer, memory and stream performance. Overall, the Hapertown Mac Pro achieved a Geekbench 2 score of 7598 compared to the Clovertown Mac Pro's 7680.
The results are impressive, notes Primate, when you consider that the new Mac Pro is much more affordable than the old Mac Pro. Apple also offers the latest Mac Pro at speeds of up to 3.2GHz -- a configuration which should handily trounce the 3.0GHz Clovertown machine in each and every benchmark.
Comments
edit: I see. They are comparing the suggested model with the previous high-end machine.
I thought i had read that the 2.8 was a different chip than the 3.0 and 3.2, with a slower frontside buss? Anyone know for sure?
Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn.
Did I completely not get what you were saying? How would it be ideal to compare the Clovertown to the Penryn? They don't use the Penryn in the Mac Pro, it is a Core 2 processor not a Xeon.
Arguably the old and the new have the same performance, a slightly different price tag, and probably lower power consumption for the 45 nm.
Yeah a definite Yawn.
For many, speed is not an issue anymore but size and price are. Hopefully we won't be disappointed on Tuesday and we'd see an xMac with at-least one PCI slot.
Did I completely not get what you were saying? How would it be ideal to compare the Clovertown to the Penryn? They don't use the Penryn in the Mac Pro, it is a Core 2 processor not a Xeon.
The 5400 series Intel Xeon used in the Mac Pro are Intel Core 2 "Harpertown" Penryns.
Arguably the old and the new have the same performance, a slightly different price tag, and probably lower power consumption for the 45 nm.
They are testing the baseline 8-core setup with the previous model's top-of-the-line setup which makes the price difference very significant.
Apple doesn't list of the older 8-core systems but they do have the 4-core systems @ 3.0GHz and 2GB RAM for $3,300. I'm guessing the older 8-core systems would add at cool $1000 on top of that.
As for performance, it would have been nice if they used the same amount of RAM, but they processor tests show a very good machine for the price, not to mention that once Leopard can utilize SSE4 there will be a nice jump in performance. This makes this new machine a future-proof investment.
The new one low-end DP Mac Pro (stock config) comes with more RAM, better video, enhanced card slotting and memory, larger HD, and the new Al keyboard, for substantially less money, and closely matches performance with the previous top-tier model. And unlike 8-core Mac Pros bought before October 07, it includes Leopard. Also has more upfront ports, I believe.
It seems pretty apparent that it's an overall better deal.
I can't think of a single thing I do on a Mac where I wouldn't appreciate more speed. Faster app loading, better performance, less beach-balls. I know I'd get more out of typing better, but overall, more speed is never a bad thing
it appears they compared the previous top-of-the-line dual processor Mac Pro with the new bottom of the line DP model, both in stock config as sold by Apple.
The new one low-end DP Mac Pro (stock config) comes with more RAM, better video, enhanced card slotting and memory, larger HD, and the new Al keyboard, for substantially less money, and closely matches performance with the previous top-tier model. And unlike 8-core Mac Pros bought before October 07, it includes Leopard. Also has more upfront ports, I believe.
It seems pretty apparent that it's an overall better deal.
I can't think of a single thing I do on a Mac where I wouldn't appreciate more speed. Faster app loading, better performance, less beach-balls. I know I'd get more out of typing better, but overall, more speed is never a bad thing
front ports look the same to me. Don't forget it also comes with Bluetooth.
PS: Anyone know how much the previous 8-core model cost new?
It would be nice if they'd make an effort to minimize the variables. In this comparison, they've changed the clock speed, chip type, and amount of RAM. Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn. Even if they didn't have the 3.0 GHz Cloverton, they should have AT LEAST put the same amount of RAM in both machines. It's impossible to tell how much the RAM difference affected the results, so how do you draw conclusions?
Yeah, it's not really a benchmark, but more like a "basemark"... it's the lowest priced model (though the price is different) despite the processor speed, memory and FSB speed differences.
All it really says is, if you were going to buy the BASE model Mac Pro, you get more for your dollar, and you don't have to pay as much.
I'd really have preferred a much more direct comparison, esp. with the RAM (ie, 2GB vs 2GB)
It would be nice if they'd make an effort to minimize the variables. In this comparison, they've changed the clock speed, chip type, and amount of RAM. Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn. Even if they didn't have the 3.0 GHz Cloverton, they should have AT LEAST put the same amount of RAM in both machines. It's impossible to tell how much the RAM difference affected the results, so how do you draw conclusions?
Would you have preferred a comparison between two identical machines? That would certainly reduce the variables! It'd just make the comparison completely useless.
The point of this comparison was to compare the new standard Mac Pro against the old high-end Mac Pro and take a look at the differences. I'm not sure what benefit using 3.0GHz CPUs would have been except increase the lead the new has over the old.
Oh, and there's an explanation in the article as to why the old Mac Pro had less RAM than the new Mac Pro:
It might seem unfair to compare a new Mac Pro with more RAM against an old Mac Pro with less RAM. However, both Mac Pros have two FB-DIMMs installed. Since Mac Pro performance increases dramatically when it?s configured with four FB-DIMMs sticks, I figure it?s more important to make sure the two Mac Pros have the same number of FB-DIMMs installed rather than the same amount of memory installed.
Also, Geekbench itself isn?t incredibly memory hungry (Geekbench prefers faster RAM instead of more RAM) so I doubt the performance of the old Mac Pro will suffer from having less memory installed.
Does any one else think these new G5s may be blow out models clearing the cases and motherboards in advance of something totally new at WWDC? Or am I too cynical ...?
I believe Melgross has made mention that next Intel chip will warrant a new exterior case design, but I don't think so. The new one still looks great and I find it hard to conceive of how they could improve on this timeless design. Now, if the heat and innards are reduced then perhaps it would warrant some changes to fully optimize the space, but I don't think it will. Just my opinion.
PS: These aren't G5.
Would you have preferred a comparison between two identical machines? That would certainly reduce the variables! It'd just make the comparison completely useless.
The point of this comparison was to compare the new standard Mac Pro against the old high-end Mac Pro and take a look at the differences. I'm not sure what benefit using 3.0GHz CPUs would have been except increase the lead the new has over the old.
Oh, and there's an explanation in the article as to why the old Mac Pro had less RAM than the new Mac Pro:
I guess we could have it both ways. One to see a straight comparison of clockspeed and GB of RAM and another test to see how the new base model "Harpertown" 8-core compares to the previous "Clovertown" 8-core.
I did find that the machine tested would have cost $3,997 and not include Bluetooth, a 320GB HDD and an extra 1GB RAM. Anyone who bought a Mac Pro before Tuesday and within the last two weeks should return it.
But was it this technician...
...or this one?
This is the funniest headline EVER.
We all knew those lab guys were monkeys.
Damn!
You beat me to it!
I read through all of the posts to see if anyone caught it, and it had to be the last one.
This is the funniest headline EVER.
But was it this technician...
...or this one?
It could also be Ballmer. He's always referred to as "Monkey Boy" ever since his onstage performance.
It certainly looks as though the Clovertown has this one beat by a good amount.
As has been mentioned, equal amounts of memory should have been used.
While I often agree that supplied memory should be compared for consumer machine tests, because few consumers get more memory, with pro machines, that is not often the case.
2GB RAM is really sufficient for most pros even. But 1GB isn't.
I suppose we'll just have to wait for someone else to get one, such as Barefeats. If fact, I'll check now! Be back soon.
Tick
Tick
Tick...
Ok, They don't have one yet, but they do have some info, and interesting advice;
http://www.barefeats.com/index.html
Did I completely not get what you were saying? How would it be ideal to compare the Clovertown to the Penryn? They don't use the Penryn in the Mac Pro, it is a Core 2 processor not a Xeon.
The current Harpertown chips are part of the Penryn family.
Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said that they should have compared 3.0 GHz Harpertowns to the 3.0 GHz Clovertown, but the essence of my statement is the same.
Would you have preferred a comparison between two identical machines? That would certainly reduce the variables! It'd just make the comparison completely useless.
The point of this comparison was to compare the new standard Mac Pro against the old high-end Mac Pro and take a look at the differences. I'm not sure what benefit using 3.0GHz CPUs would have been except increase the lead the new has over the old.
Oh, and there's an explanation in the article as to why the old Mac Pro had less RAM than the new Mac Pro:
Obviously you don't have ALL the variables the same. But good science involves reducing the variables as much as possible.
As I said, it MIGHT be justifiable to compare the different clock speeds. But their explanation for using different RAM levels is silly. It would be far more meaningful to use 2 1 GB DIMMs in each machine.