It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.
Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.
I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."
If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).
But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.
Nice design for sure, but I'll never get one. My 2011 BTO i7 27" with 16gb ram still screams and will be upgraded to 32gb and ssd when the price drops more. Then I'll finally get a Mac Pro when I need a new machine. The iMac has become (even more now) a large laptop with a separated keyboard. Fitting since it uses laptop components.
I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."
If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).
But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.
Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.
But like the Macs of the overwhelming majority of users, mine doesn't spend the majority of its time performing tasks that exploit its multiple core potential to the fullest. In fact, though there are definitely times it does so, it spends hardly any of its time performing tasks like those in comparison to the amount of time it spends performing more "mundane" tasks (particularly since I no longer use my EyeTV Hybrid, and rarely my EyeTV HD, which used to be major time-consuming cycle stealers). I can't justify spending an extra $2000 just to save an accumulated few hours' time that I might spend away from my office (or at night) anyway, while the computer does its thing.
If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.
The normal pattern of application usage--to which every user must adhere to a large degree--is why inclusion of an SSD is generally the most useful step users can take toward improving the overall performance of their systems. Besides speeding up file read/write operations, it improves cache and swap file performance as well. If I had a Mac Pro, it would certainly have one.
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?
Hmm? Do you mean when your iMac's EOL? Just use it as an external monitor.
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?
Hmm? Do you mean when your iMac's EOL? Just use it as an external monitor.
Oh I'm sure people use it for that, perhaps even with their smaller new iMac standing behind it (lol). But not me; I wouldn't buy an iMac if my ACD went dead.
It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.
Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.
Those were disproven. If you look at a real test like barefeats, the 6 core can complete well threaded tasks roughly 30% faster. If you were looking at gpu constrained tasks, the mac pro also retained a significant advantage. I haven't looked at the new ones. The 680MX should compare well to a higher end desktop gpu from the previous generation. The reality is that journalists tend to pick the dumbest possible testing methods. As for SSDs, Apple has offered the option since 2010 or 2011. It's just overpriced. Given that the parts are considered specifically user serviceable, I wouldn't call them modded if added aftermarket. The mac pro isn't using proprietary ram/drive configurations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub
Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.
Hyperthreading doesn't scale identically to real cores outside of Geekbench scores. Much of the time it's just used to balance loads. Part of the reason consumer cpus stopped at 4 cores and went on to allocate further transistors to integrated graphics was the inherent diminishing returns in a lot of software past that point.
Quote:
If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.
it would come down to more than what you're suggesting.
Comments
I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."
If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).
But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."
If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).
But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.
Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.
But like the Macs of the overwhelming majority of users, mine doesn't spend the majority of its time performing tasks that exploit its multiple core potential to the fullest. In fact, though there are definitely times it does so, it spends hardly any of its time performing tasks like those in comparison to the amount of time it spends performing more "mundane" tasks (particularly since I no longer use my EyeTV Hybrid, and rarely my EyeTV HD, which used to be major time-consuming cycle stealers). I can't justify spending an extra $2000 just to save an accumulated few hours' time that I might spend away from my office (or at night) anyway, while the computer does its thing.
If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.
The normal pattern of application usage--to which every user must adhere to a large degree--is why inclusion of an SSD is generally the most useful step users can take toward improving the overall performance of their systems. Besides speeding up file read/write operations, it improves cache and swap file performance as well. If I had a Mac Pro, it would certainly have one.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?
Hmm? Do you mean when your iMac's EOL? Just use it as an external monitor.
Oh I'm sure people use it for that, perhaps even with their smaller new iMac standing behind it (lol). But not me; I wouldn't buy an iMac if my ACD went dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub
It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1160469/ultimateimac2011.html
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/
http://us.gizmodo.com/5812281/the-latest-imac-is-the-fastest-mac-ever
Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.
Those were disproven. If you look at a real test like barefeats, the 6 core can complete well threaded tasks roughly 30% faster. If you were looking at gpu constrained tasks, the mac pro also retained a significant advantage. I haven't looked at the new ones. The 680MX should compare well to a higher end desktop gpu from the previous generation. The reality is that journalists tend to pick the dumbest possible testing methods. As for SSDs, Apple has offered the option since 2010 or 2011. It's just overpriced. Given that the parts are considered specifically user serviceable, I wouldn't call them modded if added aftermarket. The mac pro isn't using proprietary ram/drive configurations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub
Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.
Hyperthreading doesn't scale identically to real cores outside of Geekbench scores. Much of the time it's just used to balance loads. Part of the reason consumer cpus stopped at 4 cores and went on to allocate further transistors to integrated graphics was the inherent diminishing returns in a lot of software past that point.
Quote:
If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.
it would come down to more than what you're suggesting.
Amen brother! CNET are the testing nubes, AI is just the reporting nubes.