Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2009 Mac Pro in hand - unboxing etc.

Tallest Skil said:
Developer discount, education discount, or business discount?
Click to expand...

Haha, even so, it's still MAD expensive. In the end, a 2.23 Ghz would probably suffice, as my 2.8 Ghz is still chugging along fine. :D

Hell, you could almost get TWO 2.23 Ghz Mac Pro for the price of ONE 2.93 Ghz Mac Pro! :eek: So which would you choose? I'd choose the two for one, again, if I had the money for it. :rolleyes:
 
fiercetiger224 said:
Haha, even so, it's still MAD expensive. In the end, a 2.23 Ghz would probably suffice, as my 2.8 Ghz is still chugging along fine. :D

Hell, you could almost get TWO 2.23 Ghz Mac Pro for the price of ONE 2.93 Ghz Mac Pro! :eek: So which would you choose? I'd choose the two for one, again, if I had the money for it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why do people keep referring it to a 2.23GHz!! Its a 2.26GHz!!
 
If anyone's interested....

Mac Pro Quad Core 2.8 (Early 2008) Cinebench 10 results

Single CPU Render test 3216
Multiple CPU Render Test 10255
 
soos said:
If anyone's interested....

Mac Pro Quad Core 2.8 (Early 2008) Cinebench 10 results

Single CPU Render test 3216
Multiple CPU Render Test 10255
Click to expand...

That seems very low. You should be getting in the neighbourhood of 18.000+ points in the multiple CPU render test.
 
4GB + Quad

Hey,

Are there any news concerning the installation of 4GB modules in the Quadcore models?

Thx
joe
 
soos said:
If anyone's interested....

Mac Pro Quad Core 2.8 (Early 2008) Cinebench 10 results

Single CPU Render test 3216
Multiple CPU Render Test 10255
Click to expand...

Thanks, that was very interesting for me.

Compared to the benchmarks I have been getting from my early 2009 2.66 Quad I am seeing an 11% gain for single CPU and 45% gain for Multi CPU.

For all the critics of the new Mac Pro range, I think that is a pretty good increase at the entry level base model price bracket. Ok the 11% is a little weak, but the clock speed is lower. I think the multi CPU results is a great improvement on an already impressive machine.

Cheers

Cris.
 
The heatsink in the quad core mac pros are even bigger than the octo cores!

AHAHHAHA can't wait till I get my hands on one...
 
CrisMatthews said:
Thanks, that was very interesting for me.

Compared to the benchmarks I have been getting from my early 2009 2.66 Quad I am seeing an 11% gain for single CPU and 45% gain for Multi CPU.

For all the critics of the new Mac Pro range, I think that is a pretty good increase at the entry level base model price bracket. Ok the 11% is a little weak, but the clock speed is lower. I think the multi CPU results is a great improvement on an already impressive machine.

Cheers

Cris.
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting your scores, but something seems odd.
So 11% faster than the 2.8ghz Quad, I am assuming you got around 3570 for the single CPU and at 45% faster for multiple CPU you got around 14870.

Those scores seem to be about the same as what I've seen floating around.

Now the thing I find odd is how multiple CPU's have actually given you more than 4 times the single CPU score. Even at 100% efficiency with no overhead, you should be getting no more than 14280. You're actually getting a multicore speedup of about 4.16x. That seems... impossible to me.

Actually, maybe not. Yours uses hyperthreading, right? So maybe what we're seeing here is hypterthreading actually being beneficial. But it still doesn't makes sense, because I thought hyperthreading was only useful if the core wasn't 100% busy. If 4 cores are 100% busy, the hyperthreaded cores (not real cores) should also be 100% busy.

What really strikes me as odd is only the 2009 2.66ghz Quad seems to be getting this time of speedup. The 2009 Octo's with Hyperthreading are still only getting about a 6.2-6.3x speedup. The 2009 2.93ghz Quad gets a 3.76x speedup.

So I think some test here is wrong.
Or maybe this has to do with Hyperthreading, or maybe how Cinebench is working and how many cores Cinebench is really using.

We need more samples I think.
 
tobyg said:
Now the thing I find odd is how multiple CPU's have actually given you more than 4 times the single CPU score. Even at 100% efficiency with no overhead, you should be getting no more than 14280. You're actually getting a multicore speedup of about 4.16x. That seems... impossible to me.

Actually, maybe not. Yours uses hyperthreading, right? So maybe what we're seeing here is hypterthreading actually being beneficial. But it still doesn't makes sense, because I thought hyperthreading was only useful if the core wasn't 100% busy. If 4 cores are 100% busy, the hyperthreaded cores (not real cores) should also be 100% busy.

What really strikes me as odd is only the 2009 2.66ghz Quad seems to be getting this time of speedup. The 2009 Octo's with Hyperthreading are still only getting about a 6.2-6.3x speedup. The 2009 2.93ghz Quad gets a 3.76x speedup.

So I think some test here is wrong.
Or maybe this has to do with Hyperthreading, or maybe how Cinebench is working and how many cores Cinebench is really using.

We need more samples I think.
Click to expand...

Dude, it makes sense. My understanding of hyperthreading is that it makes a processor more efficient that 1 core, but not as fast as 2. So in my simple thinking, I would say a 4 core with hyperthreading is around as fast as 6 cores would be.

As for the octos only being 6X faster... diminishing returns maybe?
 
Also supporting diminishing returns...

Multi-threaded speedup:

2.66 quad - 413%
2.93 quad - 376%

2.26 octo - 641%
2.66 octo - 640%
2.93 octo - 629%

Faster you go, less of a benefit.

Cinebench10_Numbers.jpg
 
tobyg said:
I'm not doubting your scores, but something seems odd.
Click to expand...

I must admit it did seem strange to me at first, but I have run several tests and all of them come out with very similar results. The other figures you are seeing on all the graphs are figures I have posted on other threads or earlier in this one, so I think you are right we need more samples. It could be Cinebench is throwing the figures out or something.

Either way I think it is clear the new chips are more efficient, it's just by how much that's up for discussion.

Cheers

Cris.
 
Abidubi said:
Also supporting diminishing returns...

Multi-threaded speedup:

2.66 quad - 413%
2.93 quad - 376%

2.26 octo - 641%
2.66 octo - 640%
2.93 octo - 629%

Faster you go, less of a benefit.

Cinebench10_Numbers.jpg
Click to expand...

I think we need more samples. I understand the idea of diminishing returns, but same # cores should yield the same diminishing returns, no matter the clock speed.

The difference between 641% and 629% is not great enough to show any diminishing returns. Based on that theory, why would going from 2.26 to 2.66 only lose 1% but making a smaller jump, from 2.66 to 2.93, lose 11%?

I think we need more samples and need to average them out and build better data.
 
Abidubi said:
Also supporting diminishing returns...

Multi-threaded speedup:

2.66 quad - 413%
2.93 quad - 376%

2.26 octo - 641%
2.66 octo - 640%
2.93 octo - 629%

Faster you go, less of a benefit.

Cinebench10_Numbers.jpg
Click to expand...

Man taking a 2nd look the 2.8GHz 8 core especially can be had for $1899 brand new looks like a crazy deal...
 
x-bench

Could anyone with the new macs please take the effort to run xbench, and publish the results? Would be very interesting, indeed!

Jan Helge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back