2009 MP faster than 2013nMP

[wonderspark]

What IS known is that the six TB ports on the 6,1 are switched down to three, because there are only three TB controllers, one per pair of TB ports. Each will only pass x4 lane. The math prevents surpassing a 5,1 in throughput speed, and a thread in this very forum in 2013 proved this when a test was run on a 6,1 Thunderbolt RAID array that was custom built by a company with huge capital to burn trying to max out the nMP. The thread was called, "This is not a pro machine" or something to that effect. It topped out at about 2100MB/second, reads and writes. Cool, but handily beaten by a 5,1. That was a real world test, and you can bet it meant something to this company that made more than a couple academy award winning films.

 

[ITguy2016]

What IS known is that the six TB ports on the 6,1 are switched down to three, because there are only three TB controllers, one per pair of TB ports. Each will only pass x4 lane. The math prevents surpassing a 5,1 in throughput speed, and a thread in this very forum in 2013 proved this when a test was run on a 6,1 Thunderbolt RAID array that was custom built by a company with huge capital to burn trying to max out the nMP. The thread was called, "This is not a pro machine" or something to that effect. It topped out at about 2100MB/second, reads and writes. Cool, but handily beaten by a 5,1. That was a real world test, and you can bet it meant something to this company that made more than a couple academy award winning films.

I'm not defending the 6,1 Mac Pro...I am a huge fan of PCIe slots and tower cases. However a RAID configuration was being compared to a non-RAID configuration. A dishonest comparison. The 6,1 Mac Pro can be configured to support RAID so it too can offer comparable speeds.

 

[wonderspark]

I'm not defending the 6,1 Mac Pro...I am a huge fan of PCIe slots and tower cases. However a RAID configuration was being compared to a non-RAID configuration. A dishonest comparison. The 6,1 Mac Pro can be configured to support RAID so it too can offer comparable speeds.

What I'm saying is that it CAN'T offer comparable speeds. It can not. It doesn't have the capacity to run data through that x4 lane thunderbolt port. And when it was set up to aggregate two ports at great, great expense, it STILL could not offer comparable speeds. That is an honest and truthful comparison, and fact.

You keep saying you're not defending the 6,1, but it really, really looks like you're defending it with all the stubbornness you can muster. I bet there's something the 6,1 can do faster, but if you have a 4,1 or 5,1, the chances are extremely high that it would cost more to switch over to the 6,1 to accomplish it, and then you're stuck there within that tube with a smaller power supply, proprietary GPUs and bottlenecked Thunderbolt situation. That blows. I've upgraded my GPU, CPU, RAM, disks and PCIe slots with the times, and with the 6,1 you can only do RAM and that one SSD, and attach a bunch of TB stuff at x4 lane speed max. Well, I've read here that some have put in a new CPU, too, so there's that, thankfully. Are there any cases yet where someone has added a second SSD inside the 6,1 by means of some sort of splitter or anything? I haven't heard, if so. Are there any aftermarket GPU options? That would be cool.

I wanted to like it. I looked long and hard at it, and did some homework. The homework showed that the prior generation(s) have more potential than the tube in the case of expansion and data throughput. I have USB 3.1, RAID 6... everything but Thunderbolt, which I decided was the wrong direction in 2013. Here we are on the doorstep of 2017, and I have no regrets.

This is apples vs. oranges. The old MP is different than the new MP. Apple made it that way. The point being made was, one can be faster than the other. It seems to me like you're saying either one can be fastest. Sure, but there is more potential for the older version to be faster than the newer version by means of a variety of tweaks, the two biggest of which are GPU and x16 lane PCIe slots. No matter what, the nMP cannot overcome those two advantages by nature of the restrictive x4 Thunderbolt configuration in place of x16 PCIe slots, and the GPU options that keep getting better are furthering the distance between GPU options. The only way a nMP can be faster is if you put two unmodified Mac Pros (for sake of argument, 5,1 and 6,1) to a test, and pick a task that the nMP was made for. Am I right, or are you feeling there's a magic loophole somewhere?

 

[ITguy2016]

What I'm saying is that it CAN'T offer comparable speeds. It can not. It doesn't have the capacity to run data through that x4 lane thunderbolt port. And when it was set up to aggregate two ports at great, great expense, it STILL could not offer comparable speeds. That is an honest and truthful comparison, and fact.

Yes, it can offer comparable speeds. Just set up a comparable RAID across multiple Thunderbolt ports and you've got comparable speeds.

As for the rest...not even going to bother responding to it unless you can concede the point above.

 

[wonderspark]

A RAID that aggregates six Thunderbolt ports which share three Thunderbolt controllers inside the 6,1 that are x4 lane each, making x12, compared to x16 for a single 5,1 PCIe slot? You want me to say 12=16? I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.

 

[ITguy2016]

A RAID that aggregates six Thunderbolt ports which share three Thunderbolt controllers inside the 6,1 that are x4 lane each, making x12, compared to x16 for a single 5,1 PCIe slot? You want me to say 12=16? I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.

I'm saying a RAID configuration was being compared with a non-RAID configuration. A dishonest comparison. Not sure how I can be any more clear.

 

[wonderspark]

Okay. So, if we say RAID doesn't exist (it does) then the fastest single SSD possible in a 6,1 is equal to a non-RAID SSD in a 5,1.

You win if we abandon reality. Am I mistaken, or did you say you wanted real-world scenarios?

It's not a fair fight for the poor 6,1 and I concede that, too.

 

[ITguy2016]

Okay. So, if we say RAID doesn't exist (it does) then the fastest single SSD possible in a 6,1 is equal to a non-RAID SSD in a 5,1.

You win if we abandon reality. Am I mistaken, or did you say you wanted real-world scenarios?

It's not a fair fight for the poor 6,1 and I concede that, too.

Or you could, you know, use a RAID with the 6,1 just like was done with the 5,1.

 

[h9826790]

Or you could, you know, use a RAID with the 6,1 just like was done with the 5,1.

It looks like you guys have some misunderstanding.

IMO, what you talking is about RAID vs non-RAID is not fair. I agree that. However, you also said the 6,1 can offer a comparable RAID 0 setup that comparable to the 5,1. This is what wonderspark focus on.

According to what he said, there are only 3 thunderbolt 2 controller avail in the 6,1. That means the maximum bandwidth is just equals to 12 PCIe 2.0 lane (regardless how many thunderbolt port use to create that RAID 0 array).

On the other hand, the cMP can install 2x Amfeltec card in both slot 1 and 2 to create a >10000MB/s RAID 0 array that utilise 32 PCIe 2.0 lane bandwidth.

Therefore, it's obviously that the 6,1 can create a RAID 0 array, but not to a level that comparable to the 5,1. My understanding is this what he want to point out.

 

[wonderspark]

Correct. A 6,1 can use a RAID, but it cannot be called comparable. The 6,1 can allow a squirrel to carry nuts in its mouth through the chimney, but Santa and his bag of toys won't fit without magic pixie dust.

 

[ITguy2016]

It looks like you guys have some misunderstanding.

IMO, what you talking is about RAID vs non-RAID is not fair. I agree that. However, you also said the 6,1 can offer a comparable RAID 0 setup that comparable to the 5,1. This is what wonderspark focus on.

According to what he said, there are only 3 thunderbolt 2 controller avail in the 6,1. That means the maximum bandwidth is just equals to 12 PCIe 2.0 lane (regardless how many thunderbolt port use to create that RAID 0 array).

On the other hand, the cMP can install 2x Amfeltec card in both slot 1 and 2 to create a >10000MB/s RAID 0 array that utilise 32 PCIe 2.0 lane bandwidth.

Therefore, it's obviously that the 6,1 can create a RAID 0 array, but not to a level that comparable to the 5,1. My understanding is this what he want to point out.

I'm not interested in what the maximum is for either configuration. What I said was:

You're not attempting to compare the speed of a single SSD to that of a four SSD RAID configuration are you?​

That's exactly what he did. Which, as you agree, is not a valid comparison.

 

[h9826790]

I'm not interested in what the maximum is for either configuration. What I said was:

You're not attempting to compare the speed of a single SSD to that of a four SSD RAID configuration are you?​

That's exactly what he did. Which, as you agree, is not a valid comparison.

You are not interested in what the other said, we are talking about the max, you can be no interested in it. That's fine.

But he did say you can make a RAID on the 6,1, but just not comparable to the 5,1. The topic already moved on to a new area, you keep ignore this!!! And just keep looping your own point about "should not compare a single SSD to a RAID".

 

[Zorn]

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can come here with a straight face in this, the year of our lord 2016, and defend the nMP. The GPU's in this thing were 2 years outdated the day it was released FFS. Absolutely nothing else about it has been updated in the last 3 years.

Maybe if they had massively slashed the price on this abandoned thing a year or so ago, it could possibly make sense in some niche markets, but even that I'm not sure about since the Thunderbolt 2 interfaces are also now DOA. This thing is literally the computer hardware equivalent of The Walking Dead.

 

[ITguy2016]

You are not interested in what the other said, we are talking about the max, you can be no interested in it. That's fine.

But he did say you can make a RAID on the 6,1, but just not comparable to the 5,1. The topic already moved on to a new area, you keep ignore this!!! And just keep looping your own point about "should not compare a single SSD to a RAID".

I thought I've made it very clear that his comparison was invalid and I'm not interested in his "moved on" topic. Yet he continues to respond to me.

To be clear: My original response was to point out an invalid comparison he made. That's it. He side tracked it to something I'm not interested in. With this clarification I'm done with this topic. If he can't figure it out so be it.

 

[h9826790]

I thought I've made it very clear that his comparison was invalid and I'm not interested in his "moved on" topic. Yet he continues to respond to me.

To be clear: My original response was to point out an invalid comparison he made. That's it. He side tracked it to something I'm not interested in. With this clarification I'm done with this topic. If he can't figure it out so be it.

Then OP was taking about how he make a good 5,1. How he don't like the current Apple direction. Why you side track it to something else?

I was talking about which areas the 5,1 can be faster than the 6,1. And I clearly said that's based on your single sentence "I didn't see anything other than Geekbench scores to show this system faster than a 6,1 Mac Pro.". Why you side track it to something else?

You said that you can not see ANYTHING in this 5,1 can be faster than the 6,1. That's why we try to tell you that at least the RAID 0 array on the 5,1 is guarantee faster than the 6,1 can do.

It's you initiate this topic, we are just replying to your post.

And then you keep ignoring our reply, but just keep looping your own argument.

I agree your point that we should not compare a single SSD to a RAID 0 array. And wonderspark never insist that's a good comparison. He then explain that the 6,1 cannot create a comparable RAID 0, no matter internally or externally. So, we focus on comparing RAID 0 to RAID 0, and talk about what the 6,1 can offer. And you are the person not following the topic. Now you are the person to side track it.

The debate about should not compare a single SSD to a RAID 0 was done long ago. Can you get it?

 

[Philocetes]

I appreciate the original poster's enthusiasm and information. What is always odd to me about this very frequent topic is that a vendor has released a new computer and it has been limited to the extent that there can even be debate about its performance compared to a product released 4 years earlier. Clearly to meet some sort of self-imposed size constraint, compromises were made with the trash can--compromises many mac pro users didn't feel were worth the benefit of a smaller unit. And the small form factor is sub-optimal when it comes to expansion as one needs to connect it to outboard equipment in many cases whereby a sprawl of devices results which may take more space then the larger cmp case. My own view, is I am happy enough with my cmp, including upgrades to cpu and ram made possible with the information provided here on macrumors--thanks a million guys!

We have discussed the disappointing neglect apple is giving its high end desktops countless times, and I think as a result of this regrettable situation, apple has created a situation where there newer product is not in all respects faster or better than its older product, once some of its components have been upgraded.

We benefit from the fact that as countless servers are made obsolete in businesses, folks harvest the cpus out of them whereby we can get high powered server chips for low prices. I look at the classic mac pro as kind of a framework that holds components, many of which can be upgraded. So, to my thinking the main limitations it has involve the use of older cpu architecture which has a front side bus speed which is not current, and disk sata ports that may not be as fast as solid state drives. On the other hand, its expand-ability and the non-expandability of the trash can has given the classic mac pro and unexpectedly long time in market as a great platform--and great dollar value for folks who can do their own upgrading.

 

[ITguy2016]

Then OP was taking about how he make a good 5,1. How he don't like the current Apple direction. Why you side track it to something else?

I did no such thing. My comment about the RAID versus non-RAID comparison was the result of an invalid comparison wonderspark made. I merely pointed out it was an invalid comparison. Period.

I was talking about which areas the 5,1 can be faster than the 6,1. And I clearly said that's based on your single sentence "I didn't see anything other than Geekbench scores to show this system faster than a 6,1 Mac Pro.". Why you side track it to something else?

The reason for my response to the OP has already been explained in post #18:

My reason for responding about Geekbench scores is we tend to see this regularly. Someone uses GeekBench to show how their system is faster when in real life scenarios it's not. Case in point: There are a lot of MacBook Pros which score much higher on Geekbench compared to my cMP. However when it comes to transcoding video my cMP easily outperforms them. I suspect the cMP is able to maintain its performance lead over a "faster" laptop due to thermal throttling that occurs in the laptop.​

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2009-mp-faster-than-2013nmp.2019489/#post-24022254

You said that you can not see ANYTHING in this 5,1 can be faster than the 6,1. That's why we try to tell you that at least the RAID 0 array on the 5,1 is guarantee faster than the 6,1 can do.

Please provide a quote with reference of where I made such a claim.

It's you initiate this topic, we are just replying to your post.

No, I don't believe you are.

And then you keep ignoring our reply, but just keep looping your own argument.

I "ignore" the replies because they're based on nothing more than wondersparks new position for the goal post. The discussion went along these lines:

wonderspark: Here are benchmarks showing the fastest SSD cannot match the 5.9GB/sec the OP mentioned.
me: You just compared a RAID configuration to a non-RAID configuration.
wonderspark: Based on some random company and their "solution" the cost of doing RAID on the 6,1 exceeds the cost of the 6,1 itself.
me: That company and their solution doesn't represent all possible solutions.
wonderspark: The maximum configuration of the 5,1 can exceed the maximum configuration of the 6,1
​

It was that last statement where wonderspark moved the goal posts. He attempted to defend his original error by moving the goal posts. I don't care where the new goal posts sit. My response was to the original statement he made. As I said it's not my intent to defend the 6,1 Mac Pro but merely point out the mistake he made with his invalid comparison. If he wants to discuss a different situation that's fine...but I'm not interested because I'm not trying to defend the 6,1.

​

I agree your point that we should not compare a single SSD to a RAID 0 array. And wonderspark never insist that's a good comparison. He then explain that the 6,1 cannot create a comparable RAID 0, no matter internally or externally. So, we focus on comparing RAID 0 to RAID 0, and talk about what the 6,1 can offer. And you are the person not following the topic. Now you are the person to side track it.

Then it should have ended there instead of wonderspark trying to defend his error by moving the goal posts.

The debate about should not compare a single SSD to a RAID 0 was done long ago. Can you get it?

I have already stated I am not interested in debating the new location of the goal posts. That my entire point to wonderspark was to comment on the original location. I've done that. I'm ready to move on. Yet here you are continuing to argue the new location...something I've clearly said I'm not interested in doing. If someone needs to "get it" I'd suggest it's you.

 

[h9826790]

Please provide a quote with reference of where I made such a claim.

I just can't believe that you ignore my quote 3 times. And I have to make a screen capture of your own post to quote what you've said.

 

[ITguy2016]

I just can't believe that you ignore my quote 3 times. And I have to make a screen capture of your own post to quote what you've said.

View attachment 676571

That's not the same thing as saying I cannot see anything in a 5,1 which can be faster than a 6,1. It's saying he didn't provide any real world examples to show as much. There is a difference. Learn it.

EDIT: Having said this I'm done with this topic. I suggest you do the same.

 

[h9826790]

That's not the same thing as saying I cannot see anything in a 5,1 which can be faster than a 6,1. It's saying he didn't provide any real world examples to show as much. There is a difference. Learn it.

EDIT: Having said this I'm done with this topic. I suggest you do the same.

Yes, I am done. However, that 5700MB/s is a real world example.

And I did clearly say that I simply reply to that single sentence, but not the the idea in your mind. Learn it.

 

[Kcetech1]

I now have an urge to dust off my old cMP toss in an M2 carrier and try a new 960Pro SSD on it. even if its not in RAID 0. a pair of them could be a lot of fun to be honest.

 

[h9826790]

I now have an urge to dust off my old cMP toss in an M2 carrier and try a new 960Pro SSD on it. even if its not in RAID 0. a pair of them could be a lot of fun to be honest.

Just want to make sure that you know the 960 pro is NVMe and won't work OOTB in the cMP. Even you install the 3rd part NVMe driver. You still can't boot from this SSD and may be unstable.

 

[wonderspark]

The only "error" I made was trying to help a confused information technology guy in 2016 see straight. Since it appears we both work in the video industry, I hope I never have to deal with his irrationality in person.

I'm so glad we now understand that 16 is greater than 12. The original goal post had three points, 1. Geekbench score, 2. Data throughput via RAID, 3. Boot time.

Maybe this discussion will push someone to make a new Mac Pro that is faster than the old classic tower. We can only hope, because the 6,1 just looks sillier than ever today.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
This thread is just people bickering over benchmarks - closing it down