Buying a nMP? Which config?

[Cubemmal]

hehe... spec creep. You're probably not the only one. The longer they let us linger on the options, the more likely we are to convince ourselves we need more/better!

Maybe ... in this case it was due to research. The hex core drops the base clock by a little bit, a few hundred MHz, and offers nearly the same Turbo boost steps. So you basically get the same proc with 50% more cores. The octo gives about the same TurboBoost steps too - however at a much lower base clock, and the octo will cost at least another $1k on top of the next price (which is $500 more). So the hex core seems to be the sweet spot.

Also 12GB is an odd number, though fortunately Apple is doing us the favor of keeping one slot free. So I'd be upgrading that anyhow.

Finally is the GPU's, the D500 looks like the better choice for me - whatever it is exactly. I love the 9750 in my old MP, so am happy to get a sibling of that.

Putting it all together I believe the second tier to be the sweet spot. For an extra thousand dollars you get a nice package of upgrades.

By the way, this post spells out the TurboBoost stepping

 

[Dranix]

I just don't get why the D300 gets so much hate - All data points to R9-270/7870 class performance, and whats so bad at that?

 

[jivemaster]

Maybe ... in this case it was due to research. The hex core drops the base clock by a little bit, a few hundred MHz, and offers nearly the same Turbo boost steps. So you basically get the same proc with 50% more cores. The octo gives about the same TurboBoost steps too - however at a much lower base clock, and the octo will cost at least another $1k on top of the next price (which is $500 more). So the hex core seems to be the sweet spot.[/URL]

Well really 8-core is the sweet spot. It matches the 4-core speed for the first 3 cores in usage, and is only second to the 6-core if 4-6 cores are active. However, if an application supports that many cores, it will normally use as many as there are available, so the 8 would normally win out in the end.

The geekbench Mac Pro predicative scores based on those CPUs in the wild show that the 8-core is the pick of the bunch for single core performance, and second to the 12-core for multicore performance.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/11/estimating-mac-pro-performance/

Obviously, this would all depend on your usage, and yes, to jump from 6 to 8 it will be a significant cost, seeing as the retail cost of the 8 is 3 times the cost of the 6.

 

[VirtualRain]

Maybe ... in this case it was due to research. The hex core drops the base clock by a little bit, a few hundred MHz, and offers nearly the same Turbo boost steps. So you basically get the same proc with 50% more cores. The octo gives about the same TurboBoost steps too - however at a much lower base clock, and the octo will cost at least another $1k on top of the next price (which is $500 more). So the hex core seems to be the sweet spot.

Stop it! or you're gonna get me thinking I need a 6-core!

I just don't get why the D300 gets so much hate - All data points to R9-270/7870 class performance, and whats so bad at that?

Agreed. The D300 is very capable... it's also comparable to a W7000 (with less RAM)... a $700 card.

 

[jivemaster]

Stop it! or you're gonna get me thinking I need a 6-core!

Nah haven't you heard? You need the 8 XD

 

[Cubemmal]

Stop it! or you're gonna get me thinking I need a 6-core!

Study that link I posted above. The CPU is approximately an extra $500, plus you get the extra $4G stick ($50 say) plus the D500 for the rest. Not a bad package

----------

Nah haven't you heard? You need the 8 XD

The Octo is $1500 (Intel pricing) over the quad and $1k over the hex. The stepping is about the same which is good, the bad is that the base clock is far lower. So for general single threaded application it will be slower than a quad or a hex. But if you rail all your cores, most of the time, it will be faster. For most people it would perform worse than the quad or hex.

Again I'll say it, the hex is the sweet spot. They just offer the quad to bring the base price down a bit

 

[theSeb]

Well really 8-core is the sweet spot. It matches the 4-core speed for the first 3 cores in usage, and is only second to the 6-core if 4-6 cores are active. However, if an application supports that many cores, it will normally use as many as there are available, so the 8 would normally win out in the end.

The geekbench Mac Pro predicative scores based on those CPUs in the wild show that the 8-core is the pick of the bunch for single core performance, and second to the 12-core for multicore performance.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/11/estimating-mac-pro-performance/

Obviously, this would all depend on your usage, and yes, to jump from 6 to 8 it will be a significant cost, seeing as the retail cost of the 8 is 3 times the cost of the 6.

That Geekbench article seems odd.

we can estimate the missing Mac Pro scores using results from Windows workstations that use the same processors as the Mac Pros. Here are my estimated Geekbench 3 scores for the upcoming Mac Pros

Hold on a second. Look at the scores that he is "estimating" and then search for the processors

20131104 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/179463 exact match
20130927 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/86294 exact match
etc....

The "article" came out 20131106

His "estimations" match the GB scores exactly.

 

[jivemaster]

The Octo is $1500 (Intel pricing) over the quad and $1k over the hex. The stepping is about the same which is good, the bad is that the base clock is far lower. So for general single threaded application it will be slower than a quad or a hex. But if you rail all your cores, most of the time, it will be faster. For most people it would perform worse than the quad or hex.

Again I'll say it, the hex is the sweet spot. They just offer the quad to bring the base price down a bit

For single threaded, the base clock doesn't really matter, as single threaded will engage turbo. As turbo is identical for the 4, 6 and 8 cores on single threaded, the 8 would be no worse in performance. Only the 12-core CPU is at a disadvantage here, as it cannot reach the same level of turbo as the others.

As you add more core usage into the mix, obviously the turbo ceiling comes down, but the numbers aren't suggesting the 8 is worse in those scenarios just because the base clock is lower. Plus the additional cache in the 8-core will arguably improve performance over the 4 and 6 core CPU's.

But is it $1500 better in performance? Not really, unless your programs will use as many cores as you have available.

 

[Cubemmal]

For single threaded, the base clock doesn't really matter, as single threaded will engage turbo...

If it's railing the core. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I expect most of the time the core is idle with occasional spikes, for most users. In which case it is better to have a higher base clock.

It all depends on your use cases really.

 

[jivemaster]

If it's railing the core. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I expect most of the time the core is idle with occasional spikes, for most users. In which case it is better to have a higher base clock.

It all depends on your use cases really.

Well if you're not smashing that machine, you kinda don't need it XD

 

[flat five]

hehe... spec creep. You're probably not the only one. The longer they let us linger on the options, the more likely we are to convince ourselves we need more/better!

ha. yeah.
i think (know) i'm ok with the config (6core/d500) and am not considering more.. if you look through the back threads prior to october event, you'll see me saying i have a $3-4000 budget so the one i want also corresponds with what i've been planning to spend.
except, somehow apple managed to get the exact highest price of my range (minus a penny) from me and the ac wifi in it has sold me on the new airports..
add taxes and i'm at $5G..

which tells me i should buy the quad to meet initial budget but, nah... they'll get the extra thousand out of me..
sneaky basturds

 

[Cubemmal]

Well if you're not smashing that machine, you kinda don't need it XD

I wouldn't agree with that but we're getting off topic. My original point was that I think for most people the quad or the hex core offered the best performance. For those who "smash" the machine the higher cores would have more benefit. The article I link above makes all this clear.

 

[jivemaster]

Of course I was joking, in all honesty I hope everyone here can get the Mac Pro they're after, regardless if they'll use all the power in there or not.

I would however not discourage anyone considering the 8-core by making them think it'll be worse than the 6, when it will be practically identical in single and multi core performance, as Marco does actually mention in the link posted:

...the single-threaded performance on all but the 12-core is effectively identical, and the 6- and 8-core’s multithreaded results scale almost perfectly linearly with their respective core count despite an advertised 500 MHz base clock difference

 

[flat five]

For single threaded, the base clock doesn't really matter, as single threaded will engage turbo. As turbo is identical for the 4, 6 and 8 cores on single threaded, the 8 would be no worse in performance. Only the 12-core CPU is at a disadvantage here, as it cannot reach the same level of turbo as the others.

do you (or anyone else) know _a lot_ about how turbo works? because it seems as if the latest rounds of xeons are closing the gap in the conundrum of the past but i'm still not exactly clear about it..

with past cpus, it was more easy to decide on a fast clock vs. core count (assuming you know which parts of your programs need what in order to find your best balance etcetc).. but with the recent highcore turbo getting very close to the quad, it starts getting foggier..

anyway... with my main software (talking about single core processes here), there are two situations i'd like to improve upon...
1 is the (annoying) little 5sec beach balls which i'd like to alleviate.. in cases like this, i'm pretty certain it's a scenario where i could be running an 8core and the turbo more/less puts it in line with the 4core and they'll both probably squash the beach balls (for reference- i'm moving up from an old 2.66)..

it's the other situation where my actual question relates.. there are some operations (fairly often used -- maybe 2-3x during a heavy session) which currently take 2-10 minutes (and upwards of 2hours on something like a complex boolean intersect)... they're generally too short to do something else but too long to remain productive (or in the zone or however you call it)... pretty much, you just have to sit there and wait on them..

those are the ones where i'd really like some help from the hardware.. the question boils down to this though-- how long can one of these processors run at turbo speeds?.

 

[VirtualRain]

those are the ones where i'd really like some help from the hardware.. the question boils down to this though-- how long can one of these processors run at turbo speeds?.

Indefinitely as long as it stays within its thermal design limits... But that depends heavily on the effectiveness of the cooling system, and of course we have no idea how the nMP will perform in that regard compared to Intel or other aftermarket coolers.

 

[flat five]

Indefinitely as long as it stays within its thermal design limits... But that depends heavily on the effectiveness of the cooling system, and of course we have no idea how the nMP will perform in that regard compared to Intel or other aftermarket coolers.

ah. ok.. too many unknowns at this point to speak accurately about it.

next step down then .. ballpark figures?

or, is it unwise to believe in the case of a cpu with with a single core-- that its turbo speed is the real clock speed?

(i know it makes no sense to put turbo on a single core machine.. just saying though)

 

[seisend]

Of course I was joking, in all honesty I hope everyone here can get the Mac Pro they're after, regardless if they'll use all the power in there or not.

I would however not discourage anyone considering the 8-core by making them think it'll be worse than the 6, when it will be practically identical in single and multi core performance, as Marco does actually mention in the link posted:

The 8 core is in single core performance slightly faster, but let's say identical.
However, in multi core performances, there is a significant difference. I don't understand why you say it's identical...

 

[Cubemmal]

I would however not discourage anyone considering the 8-core by making them think it'll be worse than the 6, when it will be practically identical in single and multi core performance, as Marco does actually mention in the link posted:

Did you study the link I posted? The point is that it will be worse - depending on how you tend to use the computer. Clocks/TDP have hit the wall, so Intel now gives you a choice simply based on how much continuous multi core you use.

Choice A
If you do a lot of continuous non-IO bound parallel processing, such as modeling, then go for cores. They'll stay in TurboBoost mode continuously. Sweet spot; octo-core.

Choice B
Your work is intermittent, such as programming, with occasional high multi-core use. In this case don't go for cores. The 12 cores would put you at 2.7GHz which is where you'd be most of the time, versus 3.7 GHz for the quad. Clearly the quad would be faster most of the time. Sweet spot; the hex core. Only drops 200 MHz for 50% more cores, and basically the same stepping.

So I maintain; you should only go for cores if you really will use them. Don't get them just to keep "in reserve", as the overall machine performance will be worse.

 

[jivemaster]

Yes I was referring to the link you posted, and the actual author Marco in the blog post says that both are pretty much identical (as I quoted previously). Yes the 6 is better if the applications you're using specifically use 4-6 cores only, but most multi-core applications will use the lot, so that extra 200MHz the 6 has at the core usage steps of 4,5,6 would of course be lesser in power than the 8 firing on all.

The 8 core is in single core performance slightly faster, but let's say identical.
However, in multi core performances, there is a significant difference. I don't understand why you say it's identical...

I don't say identical, the author of the article does.

 

[wildmac]

ha. yeah.
i think (know) i'm ok with the config (6core/d500) and am not considering more.. if you look through the back threads prior to october event, you'll see me saying i have a $3-4000 budget so the one i want also corresponds with what i've been planning to spend.
except, somehow apple managed to get the exact highest price of my range (minus a penny) from me and the ac wifi in it has sold me on the new airports..
add taxes and i'm at $5G..

which tells me i should buy the quad to meet initial budget but, nah... they'll get the extra thousand out of me..
sneaky basturds

yeah... yikes, but the hex/d500 is likely better for me as well, since i've been harping on longevity.

 

[VirtualRain]

Study that link I posted above. The CPU is approximately an extra $500, plus you get the extra $4G stick ($50 say) plus the D500 for the rest. Not a bad package

So I've done some benchmarking of my CPU usage in Aperture and it's regularly utilizing up to 600% CPU on my Quad Core which means it's executing a full 6 threads on my hyperthreaded Quad. I'm starting to think I should get the Hex Core now. I'll probably still stick with the D300 GPUs however.

Curse you!

 

[Cubemmal]

So I've done some benchmarking of my CPU usage in Aperture and it's regularly utilizing up to 600% CPU on my Quad Core which means it's executing a full 6 threads on my hyperthreaded Quad. I'm starting to think I should get the Hex Core now. I'll probably still stick with the D300 GPUs however.

Curse you!

Ha ha, sucker! It's only money ...

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

Any early poll analysis?

I added a poll in hopes some lurkers might get in on this.

If you've already posted, please also select a poll response.

What is your opinion as to why quite a few people responding to the poll are choosing the D300 when a lot of the early complaints about the nMP were GPU related?

 

[VirtualRain]

What is your opinion as to why quite a few people responding to the poll are choosing the D300 when a lot of the early complaints about the nMP were GPU related?

There's certainly a bunch of people have no reason to choose more than the D300s because a lot of software can't really leverage the GPUs (like your's truly), and in many cases where the software can, the D300s will be very capable. But these probably aren't the folks complaining that you're referring to. I believe the key complaints about the nMP GPUs are tied to the proprietary nature and the fact that you probably can't upgrade them, which likely comes from gamers who have either reconciled themselves to using some other solution for gaming, or are not represented here at all as they're not buying this time around. The other key complaint of the nMP GPUs is the lack of NVIDIA/CUDA options which if that's a hard requirement, you're not going to be buying either. So the bottom line is that a lot of the people complaining are probably not buying, and therefore not represented in the poll.

 

[Cory Bauer]

I'm a 3d guy so Opengl and Vram is even more important than the openCl performance everyone is fixated on.

Though after effects, final cut and photoshop will benefit immediately.

Can you elaborate on this? I was under the impression one's graphics card made almost no difference in After Effects outside of the rarely-used ray trace 3D engine features.