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.

Here are a couple cinbench scores to add to the comparison:

2008 2.8 mac pro w/10gb ram
single cpu 3232
mulit cpu 18245
open gl 6093

2006 2.0 mac pro w/8gb ram
single cpu 2184
multi cpu 7457
open gl 2867

Fire up handbrake and rip a movie. Also look at activity monitor and tell us if all 16 cores are active.
 
Cinebench - 2.26

with ATI HD 7850

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 16
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4870 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 2309 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18088 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 7.83

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 4691 CB-GFX


****************************************************

runnning at 1900x1200
 
bearcatrp said:
Here are a couple cinbench scores to add to the comparison:

2008 2.8 mac pro w/10gb ram
single cpu 3232
mulit cpu 18245
open gl 6093
Click to expand...

Yup and 2007 scores scaled almost identically to that.

2007 2.66 X5355 (8-core "upgraded")
Single CPU 2873
Multiple CPU: 16615​

So the 2009 models are the 1st to scale nonlinearly in a significant way!

2009 2.93GHz X5570 (2-Porc 16 Virtual Cores)
Single CPU: 4074
Multiple CPU: 25644​
Exciting stuff!
 
Tesselator said:
Yup and 2007 scores scaled almost identically to that.

2007 2.66 X5355 (8-core "upgraded")
Single CPU 2873
Multiple CPU: 16615​

So the 2009 models are the 1st to scale nonlinearly in a significant way!

2009 2.93GHz X5570 (2-Porc 16 Virtual Cores)
Single CPU: 4074
Multiple CPU: 25644​
Exciting stuff!
Click to expand...

bearcatrp said:
2008 2.8 mac pro w/10gb ram
single cpu 3232
mulit cpu 18245
open gl 6093
Click to expand...

NeoSage said:
2009 2.26

Rendering (Single CPU): 2309 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18088 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 7.83

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 4691 CB-GFX
Click to expand...

hmm
 
Tallest Skil said:
Yes, I've seen a picture. They don't have a second socket. The 3500 series CAN'T have two processors.
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew the proc couldn't but if there was a socket open then putting two X5570 models in would work. But you say you've see it? OK. Bummer! :(


BTW, NeoSage
Could you add your processor speed and type to your cinebench post?
 
Tesselator said:
Yeah I knew the proc couldn't but if there was a socket open then putting two X5570 models in would work. But you say you've see it? OK. Bummer! :(
Click to expand...

Now what we need to be asking is...

Can the processor/RAM daughter board simply be swapped across the quad-core and eight-core lines?

Because if THAT is the case, upgrades will be CAKE anyway!
 
Tallest Skil said:
Now what we need to be asking is...

Can the processor/RAM daughter board simply be swapped across the quad-core and eight-core lines?

Because if THAT is the case, upgrades will be CAKE anyway!
Click to expand...

I thought that was a given (yes). I dunno for sure tho. I just assumed.
 
Tallest Skil said:
Yes, I've seen a picture. They don't have a second socket. The 3500 series CAN'T have two processors.
Click to expand...

If they come with different logic boards (or daughter boards), and the Quad-Core version does not sell well, Apple may cut the quad-core line some time this year or next year... I still need to think over my investment on Quad-Core before it is shipped.
 
as the apple benchmarks report, there's no a big performance increase using final cut pro: the new dual 2.93 8 core rendering hdv shows a 1.1x compared to a previous version dual 8 core 2.8 and 1.2x compared to an old power mac g5 2.5 quad

but a new release of fcp is coming: sure apple is going to optimize fcp for multithreading in order to take advantage from the new architecture

I do video editing and I am uncertain between the old macpro dual 2.8 8 core and the new 2.26 dual 8 core
I can't wait more than few days to take a decision

what do you suggest?:confused:
 
WonderSausage said:
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : WonderSausage

Processor : Dual Nehalem Xeon
MHz : 2933
Number of CPUs : 16
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4870 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 2560x1600
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 4074 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 25644 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 6.29

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 7016 CB-GFX


****************************************************
Click to expand...



Tesselator said:
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : Tesselator

Processor : X5355
MHz : 2.66
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1920x1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 2873 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 16615 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.78

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 2294 CB-GFX


****************************************************
Here's my Mac Pro v1.1 2.66 for comparrison.
Click to expand...


Good stuff, keep em coming.

Here my '08 2.8 octo ->

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : th 2

Processor : intel
MHz : 2800
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.4

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 3244 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18907 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.83

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6084 CB-GFX


****************************************************
 
Tallest Skil said:
Now what we need to be asking is...

Can the processor/RAM daughter board simply be swapped across the quad-core and eight-core lines?

Because if THAT is the case, upgrades will be CAKE anyway!
Click to expand...

I'm guessing not... unless they used a more expensive dual QPI Tylersburg chipset on the quad main board which would be adding unnecessary cost. Most likely the single socket system uses a single QPI X58 variant of the Tylersburg.
 
NeoSage said:
Well I just bothered to read the instructions this time, set the PS settings and rebooted (reboot took 30 secs to login screen exactly, btw) and now I get 33 secs.

Ive got to get some serious RAM and a Velociraptor in there and see about overclocking it.
Click to expand...

Get a dedicated scratch drive, too, and for date, helps a lot.
Boot drive doesn't matter.

Retouch Artists Speed Test, '08 2.8 octo, Velociraptor boot drive and 2x WD 640GB Raid0 for scratch and data - 18-19secs (CS4).
 
VirtualRain said:
I'm guess not... unless they used a more expensive dual QPI Tylersburg chipset on the quad main board which would be adding unnecessary cost. Most likely the single socket system uses a single QPI X58 variant of the Tylersburg.
Click to expand...
It's may be cheaper to design, build, and test one main board than two. Even when factoring in the cost of a more expensive chipset.

Once we see a quad main board we will know for sure.

S-
 
NeoSage said:
reboot took 30 secs to login screen exactly,
Click to expand...

That's pretty good!

I have some extra drives, a RAID, 2 loaded CF Card Readers, and I make it log me in automatically but I suppose that doesn't excuse the 120 seconds (exactly) that it takes from power button to desktop icons?

I'm a 2007 2.66 5355 octad (upgraded) with 12GB memory.
 
Ouch, so preliminary tests look like the 2.26GHz 2009 entry level octo model is a significant downgrade compared to its cheaper predecessor the 2.8GHz 2008 model. While it looks to be only slightly slower for multiprocessor applications, its only about 70% as fast as its predecessor in single threaded applications.

So overall slower for a hike in price. That's baaaaad. I'm glad I decided not to buy one now!
 
sidewinder said:
It's may be cheaper to design, build, and test one main board than two. Even when factoring in the cost of a more expensive chipset.

Once we see a quad main board we will know for sure.

S-
Click to expand...


I doubt it, I know retail cost can't really be used as a measurement, but dual socket boards go for twice that of single socket. Anyway it has already been stated by ehurtley that 3500 series Xeons won't work on a dual socket board and I'd take that as gospel.
 
White box sucks, I mean come on Apple what were you thinking there.

The ram looks girly.

I'm all about aesthetics tonight :)

BTW- does that video card take 2 power connectors?? If so, how are we going to use in in the 2008 mac pros?
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
Ouch, so preliminary tests look like the 2.26GHz 2009 entry level octo model is a significant downgrade compared to its cheaper predecessor the 2.8GHz 2008 model. While it looks to be only slightly slower for multiprocessor applications, its only about 70% as fast as its predecessor in single threaded applications.

So overall slower for a hike in price. That's baaaaad. I'm glad I decided not to buy one now!
Click to expand...


Or something like that...

  • 2009 2.26 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 2309 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18088 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 7.83

  • 2008 2.8 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3244 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18907 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.83

  • 2008 2.8 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3232 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18245 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.65

  • 2008 2.8 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3186 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 17464 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.48
here's the rest:
  • 2007 2.66 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 2873 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 16615 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.78

  • 2009 2.93 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 4074 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 25644 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 6.29

  • 2006 2.0 Quad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 2184 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 7457 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.41
.
 
Tesselator said:
Or something like that...

  • 2009 2.26 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 2309 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18088 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 7.83

  • 2008 2.8 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 3244 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18907 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.83
here's the rest:
  • 2007 2.66 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 2873 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 16615 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.78

  • 2009 2.93 Octad
    Rendering (Single CPU): 4074 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 25644 CB-CPU
    Multiprocessor Speedup: 6.29
.
Click to expand...

Ouch!! So my 2007 2.66GHz Quad Core looks like its actually faster in single threaded work than the new base line Octo?!! That's unacceptable.
 
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