Apple's new 12-core Mac Pro now available to order

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 67
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
  • Reply 62 of 67
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    I assume 2.5 inch, but will need to see. Anyone?



    To my knowledge, no one makes 3.5 SSDs. I could be wrong tho.
  • Reply 63 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    To my knowledge, no one makes 3.5 SSDs. I could be wrong tho.



    I did a search and found an OCZ 3.5 inch drive but it appears to be the exception, not the rule, at the moment.
  • Reply 64 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    I did a search and found an OCZ 3.5 inch drive but it appears to be the exception, not the rule, at the moment.



    Has anyone noticed that the 3.33 GHz Hexacore (W3680) is more expensive than the 8-core model with two 2.44 GHz quads (E5620)? This isn't so surprising given the unit prices graciously posted above, but I'm really interested to see how the two stack up performance-wise. Given the fairly large difference in clock-speeds, the 6-core seems to do more total cycles per second, but not by much. I wonder too whether having 6 cores on one die will cause more heat related performance slowdown compared with two separate quads, though the quads may suffer slow-down due to interprocessor communication. It's a really interesting performance test.



    It seems the 2.4 GHz 8-core Mac Pro is probably better value for hard-core parallel processing, especially considering it is US$425 cheaper in an 8 Gb configuration (see * below), though apps that can't max 6 cores will likely perform much better on the higher clocked 6-core.



    Does anyone have any PC performance stats or benchmarks for these processor configurations with the chips Apple are using?



    3.33 Gh x 6 = 19.98 GHz

    2.4 Gh x 8 = 19.2 GHz



    *Because the base ram specs for the different processor configurations were different I had to unify their other stats by giving both machines the same configuration of RAM (upping them to 8 Gb).



    US$4074 3.33 GHz 6-core 12 Gb (4 x 2 Gb)

    US$3649 2.4 GHz 8-core 12 Gb (4 x 2 Gb)
  • Reply 65 of 67
    My hexcore mac pro (6 GB ram) is scheduled to arrive Friday. If you've got benchmarks you want run I'd be happy to give it a shot.
  • Reply 66 of 67
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


    the quads may suffer slow-down due to interprocessor communication.



    perhaps, but the dual quads also offer significantly more total memory bandwidth, if you fill the memory slots properly. (2*25.6 GBps vs 1*32 GBps)
  • Reply 67 of 67
    argonautargonaut Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


    Has anyone noticed that the 3.33 GHz Hexacore (W3680) is more expensive than the 8-core model with two 2.44 GHz quads (E5620)? This isn't so surprising given the unit prices graciously posted above, but I'm really interested to see how the two stack up performance-wise. Given the fairly large difference in clock-speeds, the 6-core seems to do more total cycles per second, but not by much. I wonder too whether having 6 cores on one die will cause more heat related performance slowdown compared with two separate quads, though the quads may suffer slow-down due to interprocessor communication. It's a really interesting performance test.



    It seems the 2.4 GHz 8-core Mac Pro is probably better value for hard-core parallel processing, especially considering it is US$425 cheaper in an 8 Gb configuration (see * below), though apps that can't max 6 cores will likely perform much better on the higher clocked 6-core.



    Does anyone have any PC performance stats or benchmarks for these processor configurations with the chips Apple are using?



    3.33 Gh x 6 = 19.98 GHz

    2.4 Gh x 8 = 19.2 GHz



    *Because the base ram specs for the different processor configurations were different I had to unify their other stats by giving both machines the same configuration of RAM (upping them to 8 Gb).



    US$4074 3.33 GHz 6-core 12 Gb (4 x 2 Gb)

    US$3649 2.4 GHz 8-core 12 Gb (4 x 2 Gb)





    Yes, I noticed this too while comparing configurations. I would also love to see some benchmarks comparing the two systems. I am not sure I can justify the cost to upgrade at this time, I *may* wait for the next update (my G5 Quad is still doing the business - just! Geekbench ~3300) but very interested to see a performance comparison of those two systems. My use would be predominantly Pro-Audio..
Sign In or Register to comment.