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.

More said:
V-interesting.

My 2008 3.2Ghz mac pro clocks in a score of 11240 which in simple terms makes the 2009 octo core 2.26 GHz the same as the 2008 3.2GHz.
Click to expand...

Expect a couple of thousand points higher when the machine is left to do the benchmark without background processes interfering
 
fabriciom said:
What was the price of your machine?
Click to expand...

My 3.2GHz 2008 Mac Pro cost approx £2800 brand new but you can pick-up refurb 3.2 models in the Apple Store for around £2400. The 2.26 GHz model costs £2499 brand new but if you add the Radeon 4870 you're upto £2659.

One point of interest is that this 2.26GHz 2009 model gives MUCH LOWER scores than my 3.2GHz for single threaded apps.
 
The Rominator said:
So an Apple 1?

We REALLY could have used that when we did "Pirates of Silicon Valley"

We cobbled together an "approximation" which is now in a museum in San Diego. It had a nice wooden box.
Click to expand...

I have an original Apple 1 MB... I didn't think it was that big. You sure that's the Apple I ?
 
More said:
My 3.2GHz 2008 Mac Pro cost approx £2800 brand new but you can pick-up refurb 3.2 models in the Apple Store for around £2400. The 2.26 GHz model costs £2499 brand new but if you add the Radeon 4870 you're upto £2659.

One point of interest is that this 2.26GHz 2009 model gives LOWER scores than my 3.2GHz for single threaded apps.
Click to expand...

So like everyone seemed to be afraid of. Not such a great deal after all...
 
The Rominator said:
So an Apple 1?

We REALLY could have used that when we did "Pirates of Silicon Valley"

We cobbled together an "approximation" which is now in a museum in San Diego. It had a nice wooden box.
Click to expand...

Everybody thinks they came with wooden boxes because of the one in the Smithsonian.

Wikipedia says "30 to 50 are known to exist" which is BS becaues they only made just over 50, I've been involved in classic computing for ages and I'd estimate 6-8 exist.
 
Tesselator said:
I have an original Apple 1 MB... I didn't think it was that big. You sure that's the Apple I ?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually know one by sight.

But don't know what else they would have "Built in a garage" together.

Perhaps a prototype for Apple II ? Certainly by II+ time they had someone else doing the wrapping and soldering.
 
WonderSausage said:
Everybody thinks they came with wooden boxes because of the one in the Smithsonian.

Wikipedia says "30 to 50 are known to exist" which is BS becaues they only made just over 50, I've been involved in classic computing for ages and I'd estimate 6-8 exist.
Click to expand...

I have one of only eight MBs in existence??? Holy ****. I figured it was worth something but wow... only 8? It must be a lot!!?
 
Geekbench 64 bit

RUnning on 2009 2.26 Octocore, nothing else running, 64 bit

Score: 13118
 
The Rominator said:
I wouldn't actually know one by sight.

But don't know what else they would have "Built in a garage" together.

Perhaps a prototype for Apple II ? Certainly by II+ time they had someone else doing the wrapping and soldering.
Click to expand...


And there were many (maybe 100's) of clones too - don't forget.
I dunno about for the Apple 1 but for Apple ][ I mean.
 
fabriciom said:
So like everyone seemed to be afraid of. Not such a great deal after all...
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm really surprised by the single threaded scores. Most consumer grade apps struggle to use more than one core so it's interesting to see my 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro beat the 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro in every single theaded benchmark by quite a margin.

2008 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 2341
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 2858
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 2579
Lua single-threaded scalar: 5441

2009 2.26GHz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 1353
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 1659
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 1473
Lua single-threaded scalar: 2388

Basically. If you use multi-core apps the 2009 2.26 Mac Pro is on par with the 2008 3.2Ghz Mac Pro. If you use apps that only use a single core, like most consumer based apps as well as pro apps like Adobe Illustrator the 2008 3.2GHz Mac Pro whips its ass (in my opinion) ;)

Still LOVING my 2008 Mac Pro :D
 
Tesselator said:
I have one of only eight MBs in existence??? Holy ****. I figured it was worth something but wow... only 8? It must be a lot!!?
Click to expand...

Mm, are you sure? We find often that people often incorrectly remember their loose Apple II motherboard as being an Apple I. Take a photo.
 
More said:
Exactly. I'm really surprised by the single threaded scores. Most consumer grade apps struggle to use more than one core so it's interesting to see my 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro beat the 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro in every single theaded benchmark by quite a margin.

2008 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 2341
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 2858
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 2579
Lua single-threaded scalar: 5441

2009 2.26GHz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 1353
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 1659
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 1473
Lua single-threaded scalar: 2388

Still LOVING my 2008 Mac Pro :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will tweak it and get it to do better but I was expecting something a lot better. I'll keep on waiting...
 
More said:
Exactly. I'm really surprised by the single threaded scores. Most consumer grade apps struggle to use more than one core so it's interesting to see my 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro beat the 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro in every single theaded benchmark by quite a margin.

2008 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 2341
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 2858
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 2579
Lua single-threaded scalar: 5441

2009 2.26GHz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 1353
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 1659
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 1473
Lua single-threaded scalar: 2388

Basically. If you use multi-core apps the 2009 2.26 Mac Pro is on par with the 2008 3.2Ghz Mac Pro. If you use apps that only use a single core, like most consumer based apps as well as pro apps like Adobe Illustrator the 2008 3.2GHz Mac Pro whips its ass (in my opinion) ;)

Still LOVING my 2008 Mac Pro :D
Click to expand...

It would mean nehalem giving 40% performance over penryn, nothing like that was reported in real world singel threaded apps to my knowledge. On a few sure, but not most.
 
Geekbench submission fail

Don't know what's up with Geekbench, but here are the 64-bit 2.26 results:

Summary

Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.1.2 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 12487 13113
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 22080
Memory Memory performance 3283
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 3588
System Information

Operating System Mac OS X 10.5.6 (Build 9G3553)
Model MacPro4,1 Motherboard Apple Inc. Mac-F221BEC8
Processor Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
Processors 1 Threads 16
Cores 16 Memory 6.00 GB 1066 MHz DDR3
Processor Frequency 2.26 GHz Bus Frequency 5.87 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB L1 Data Cache 32.0 KB
L2 Cache 256 KB L3 Cache 8.00 MB
BIOS Apple Inc. MP41.88Z.0081.B03.0902231259
Integer Section

Section Score 12487

Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 1431
62.9 MB/sec

Blowfish
multi-threaded scalar 20442
837.7 MB/sec

Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 1859
5.95 MB/sec

Text Compress
multi-threaded scalar 22020
72.2 MB/sec

Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1913
7.86 MB/sec

Text Decompress
multi-threaded scalar 23652
94.2 MB/sec

Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1777
14.7 Mpixels/sec

Image Compress
multi-threaded scalar 21638
182.1 Mpixels/sec

Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1692
28.4 Mpixels/sec

Image Decompress
multi-threaded scalar 16719
272.8 Mpixels/sec

Lua
single-threaded scalar 2964
1.14 Mnodes/sec

Lua
multi-threaded scalar 33745
13.0 Mnodes/sec

Floating Point Section

Section Score 22080

Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 1996
1.33 Gflops

Mandelbrot
multi-threaded scalar 29382
19.2 Gflops

Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 2562
1.24 Gflops

Dot Product
multi-threaded scalar 27331
12.5 Gflops

Dot Product
single-threaded vector 3545
4.25 Gflops

Dot Product
multi-threaded vector 46483
48.3 Gflops

LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 1067
950.0 Mflops

LU Decomposition
multi-threaded scalar 11867
10.4 Gflops

Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 4178
624.0 Mflops

Primality Test
multi-threaded scalar 40512
7.52 Gflops

Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 4680
10.9 Mpixels/sec

Sharpen Image
multi-threaded scalar 54697
126.0 Mpixels/sec

Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 5813
4.60 Mpixels/sec

Blur Image
multi-threaded scalar 75007
59.0 Mpixels/sec

Memory Section

Section Score 3283

Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3196
3.91 GB/sec

Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 5589
3.82 GB/sec

Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2058
7.68 Mallocs/sec

Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 2648
5.48 GB/sec

Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 2926
3.02 GB/sec

Stream Section

Section Score 3588

Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 3154
4.31 GB/sec

Stream Copy
single-threaded vector 4886
6.34 GB/sec

Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 3045
3.95 GB/sec

Stream Scale
single-threaded vector 4509
6.09 GB/sec

Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 2917
4.40 GB/sec

Stream Add
single-threaded vector 4305
5.99 GB/sec

Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2788
3.85 GB/sec

Stream Triad
single-threaded vector 3102
5.81 GB/sec
 
Umbongo said:
It would mean nehalem giving 40% performance over penryn, nothing like that was reported in real world singel threaded apps to my knowledge. On a few sure, but not most.
Click to expand...

Basically there's no advantage to owning a 2009 2.26GHz mac pro over owning a 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro. None what-so-ever. The poor single threaded performance of the 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro in comparison to the 3.2GHz 2008 is a deal breaker in my opinion.

Might be jumping the gun a little but if you look at the bigger picture the 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro is either equal or much faster than the 2.26GHz 2009 Mac Pro. Since the majority of apps rely on the power of the single thread, the 2008 3.2GHz mac pro is essentially faster (in my opinion) and therefore a fantastic purchase over the 2009 2.26GHz for less money if you can get a second hand unit or a refurb.
 
WonderSausage said:
Mm, are you sure? We find often that people often incorrectly remember their loose Apple II motherboard as being an Apple I. Take a photo.
Click to expand...

Yup, next time I'm in the attic I'll dig around and Photo it.


Anyway for now this is all about you bro! So far your benchmarks are proving my initial hunches all wrong. Had I been on my mark your scores would be coming in at around 14000 to 15000. At 17665 I feel like I have to go back through all my posts and apologize for bad guesses. :eek:

Although the Cinebench10 scores play out right. So maybe I'm safe. :D
 
Why does the geekbench show 16 cores?
 

Attachments

  • 16core.jpg
    16core.jpg
    102.8 KB · Views: 331
Photoshop Speed Test

Nothing optimized, came out to 47 seconds on 2.26/6GB on CS3

http://www.retouchartists.com does not allow for submission.

Well, since I will be doing compiling, raytracing, scientific computing, etc - I am a happy camper. Also, this is the year apps will be redesigned, I predict, to finally take advantage of all these cores, so no worries. :)

In a year, it should be cake to replace the cores with 6-8 core chips for 12-18 physical cores, or 24-36 virtual cores - running at over 3Ghz each for just an extra grand, assuming pin-compatibility with the next tock - with no RAM limitations.

The advantage is a year from now the 3.2 owners will be sad, and I will be happy :D

What a nice machine. :)
 
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