MP 7,1 Has anyone seen a benchmark?

[zzzachi]

"Horses for Courses" the Cinebench score alone is just that, one score, on a synthetic benchmark for one task. You don't need a Mac Pro for that, great, don't get one. Why is this so hard for the AMD enthusiasts here to wrap their heads around, and why do all of you feel like you have to weigh in a Mac Pro 7,1 benchmark thread?

if you're rendering with cinema 4d, cinebench is the benchmark you look at,
and i m not a AMD enthusiast, i m a mac pro user for 20 yrs who decided to go another way.
the benchmarks give you a realistic image of the mac pro's performance compared to the rest of the world.
i think it is valid to not ignore them.

 

[Adult80HD]

if you're rendering with cinema 4d, cinebench is the benchmark you look at,
and i m not a AMD enthusiast, i m a mac pro user for 20 yrs who decided to go another way.
the benchmarks give you a realistic image of the mac pro's performance compared to the rest of the world.
i think it is valid to not ignore them.

Right, and note I said that if you need a computer to do a single task that perfectly matches just what the one benchmark does, great, then get that computer. Most people don't have such narrow use cases.

 

[Digital_Sousaphone]

The question remains: why are you in this thread about Mac Pro benchmarks? AMD and Threadripper performance has nothing do do with this topic.

Sorry, wrong. The ad hominem attack is what you resort to when you can't argue on the merits. BTW, I have over 25 years in technology, including scientific computational computing, two stints as the CTO of major national and multinational corporations. I've managed massive data center operations and all of that has been with non-Mac systems, including both AMD and Intel processor systems. So I'm pretty comfortable with my qualifications.

My points remain: This is a Mac forum, discussing Mac Pro benchmarks. Needless flogging of an AMD thread ripper option is completely pointless. Moreover, when *actual* benchmarks show minor performance advantages for certain tasks the argument of their vast superiority becomes moot anyway.

No, resorting to the improper use of fallacies is a sure fire way to signal you’re clueless. You can’t even bother to refute any one of your stances but you’ll surely hide behind the smoke and mirrors of fallacies that are not real. Don’t bother to reply. You’ve exposed yourself as being here just to argue. You’ve got nothing to add to this thread but your feelings. No matter how strongly you feel you’re right, it doesn’t replace the fact that these chips are subpar to the over all market and the price/perf is ridiculously inflated. Lol

 

[Adult80HD]

No, resorting to the improper use of fallacies is a sure fire way to signal you’re clueless. You can’t even bother to refute any one of your stances but you’ll surely hide behind the smoke and mirrors of fallacies that are not real. Don’t bother to reply. You’ve exposed yourself as being here just to argue. You’ve got nothing to add to this thread but your feelings. Lol

LOL. Nothing to add besides the *actual* benchmarks this thread is about? And you're the one here to argue, you've actually not added anything of substance or value to this thread--just personal attacks.

I'll stick to the benchmarks and facts, they currently speak for themselves.

 

[Nugget]

You can’t even bother to refute any one of your stances...

Why would someone refute one of their own stances? In any event, asking why you're posting off-topic arguments to a thread which is about Mac Pro benchmarks is not a fallacy. It's just a plea for you to post more responsibly.

If you are not interested in the new Mac Pro or if its mere existence causes you distress then I'd suggest you should probably avoid threads where people are talking about them.

 

[Digital_Sousaphone]

Why would someone refute one of their own stances? In any event, asking why you're posting off-topic arguments to a thread which is about Mac Pro benchmarks is not a fallacy. It's just a plea for you to post more responsibly.

If you are not interested in the new Mac Pro or if its mere existence causes you distress then I'd suggest you should probably avoid threads where people are talking about them.

I don't really care if you are bothered by people bringing up the entire market. I'll keep bringing up Threadripper and you can keep up your futile pleas to stop.

 

[Nugget]

I don't really care if you are bothered by people bringing up the entire market. I'll keep bringing up Threadripper and you can keep up your futile pleas to stop.

I have a Ryzen 9 Windows gaming box. It's no replacement for my work machines, though, which are macOS. You're not providing a public service here. Nobody's ignorant of your point. You're just being a nuisance and making it difficult for people to have a useful discussion.

I'd invite you to start a new thread to share all your thoughts about Threadripper alternatives to the Mac Pro. Then people can participate or ignore you at their option.

 

[OkiRun]

I have a Ryzen 9 Windows gaming box. It's no replacement for my work machines, though, which are macOS. You're not providing a public service here. Nobody's ignorant of your point. You're just being a nuisance and making it difficult for people to have a useful discussion.

I'd invite you to start a new thread to share all your thoughts about Threadripper alternatives to the Mac Pro. Then people can participate or ignore you at their option.

It might have helped if the words, On the Mac Pro 7.1, were added at the end. The title of the thread leaves the barn door open. However, the OP seems to have wanted it wide open.

 

[ssgbryan]

"Horses for Courses" the Cinebench score alone is just that, one score, on a synthetic benchmark for one task. You don't need a Mac Pro for that, great, don't get one. Why is this so hard for the AMD enthusiasts here to wrap their heads around, and why do all of you feel like you have to weigh in a Mac Pro 7,1 benchmark thread?

Well, let's see. I have been using Mac Pros since the 1,1. Before that, I was using Power Mac G5s, before that, Power Mac G4s, before that, Power Mac G3s.

Do you see a pattern? We have been here a hell of a lot longer than you, so yes, we will weigh in on this, just like we did the 6,1, and the ones before.

Cinebench exists to provide a reference point to compare computing horsepower. You are starting to sound like part of Intel's marketing team.

 

[zzzachi]

for me it is very interesting to compare the mac pro and threadripper cinebench scores. it just gives a clearer picture of what apple sells here, not? of course that is not the only factor, but it is an important one and it is measurable. i still want to know more pros numbers. there are no scores out for the 28core, right? and there are no single cpu scores posted at all. these would allow a certain comparison for non-rendering tasks.

@Adult80HD:
could you post your single score? (select advanced in the menu)

 

[chfilm]

Gosh this thread has become so toxic! Let’s just ignore the thread ripper crowd shall we? 😄

 

[zzzachi]

@chfilm: just found the ignore button, feel free to use it too.

 

[Adult80HD]

Well, let's see. I have been using Mac Pros since the 1,1. Before that, I was using Power Mac G5s, before that, Power Mac G4s, before that, Power Mac G3s.

Do you see a pattern? We have been here a hell of a lot longer than you, so yes, we will weigh in on this, just like we did the 6,1, and the ones before.

Cinebench exists to provide a reference point to compare computing horsepower. You are starting to sound like part of Intel's marketing team.

LOL. By the time I got my first Mac Pro 1,1 it was 20 years past my first computer. The first Apple I used was a IIe, where I learned BASIC. But that's meaningless to the discussion at hand.

Cinebench exists to test well, Cinebench. That's it. It's one interesting test in a suite of interesting tests but not reflective of the tasks many do on a daily basis.

 

[ssgbryan]

LOL. By the time I got my first Mac Pro 1,1 it was 20 years past my first computer. The first Apple I used was a IIe, where I learned BASIC. But that's meaningless to the discussion at hand.

Cinebench exists to test well, Cinebench. That's it. It's one interesting test in a suite of interesting tests but not reflective of the tasks many do on a daily basis.

You and me both (Amstrad 386DX20).

Cinebench is is designed to test CPU performance. It may not be reflective of what you do, but it certainly is of what I (and a lot of other people) do.

 

[Onelifenofear]

You and me both (Amstrad 386DX20).

Cinebench is is designed to test CPU performance. It may not be reflective of what you do, but it certainly is of what I (and a lot of other people) do.

USING THE NEW MAC PRO AND PRO DISPLAY XDR — LUNAR ANIMATION | CG Animation & Visual FX Services

We recently had the pleasure of getting to know the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR over the last few months. We’ve had the opportunity to use it to create content for the recently released movie JUMANJI THE NEXT LEVEL . So let's see how it performed...

www.lunaranimation.com

Possibly... but this is a real test of what it can do.... and if you are CPU rendering you really need to get on the Redshift bandwagon.

 

[ssgbryan]

USING THE NEW MAC PRO AND PRO DISPLAY XDR — LUNAR ANIMATION | CG Animation & Visual FX Services

We recently had the pleasure of getting to know the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR over the last few months. We’ve had the opportunity to use it to create content for the recently released movie JUMANJI THE NEXT LEVEL . So let's see how it performed...

www.lunaranimation.com

Possibly... but this is a real test of what it can do.... and if you are CPU rendering you really need to get on the Redshift bandwagon.

I don't use what redshift supports - I am a hobbyist.

 

[Onelifenofear]

I don't use what redshift supports - I am a hobbyist.

Fair enough! The new renderers are just a complete game changer and actually makes the CPU less of an issue. But higher CPU core counts really matter for Particles and volumes.

 

[zzzachi]

USING THE NEW MAC PRO AND PRO DISPLAY XDR — LUNAR ANIMATION | CG Animation & Visual FX Services

We recently had the pleasure of getting to know the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR over the last few months. We’ve had the opportunity to use it to create content for the recently released movie JUMANJI THE NEXT LEVEL . So let's see how it performed...

www.lunaranimation.com

Possibly... but this is a real test of what it can do.... and if you are CPU rendering you really need to get on the Redshift bandwagon.

this is an animation company. thats what the mac pro 19 was made for and the only usage case it really pays off. (from a financial side) for redshift you are better off with a pc having some 2080ties.

 

[Onelifenofear]

this is an animation company. thats what the mac pro 19 was made for and the only usage case it really pays off. (from a financial side) for redshift you are better off with a pc having some 2080ties.

People keep quoting 2080ti's but they are gaming cards and as such they are great at low Poly high Texture fills. The Vega 2s can handle way more polys in the viewport but texture and gaming optimisations are not great. They are fantastic for line aliasing too - wo those wireframes are super crisp. So you should compare the Quadro RTX 8000s

Nvidias Quadro RTX 8000 / 48gb GDDR6 / 16.3 TFLOPS = £6000
Read Pro Vega II Duo / 64gb HBM2 / 28.3teraflops single precision = £4600

For rendering you are geetting more bag for your buck with the 2080ti's (£1280) but I like most people I know actually do final animation renders on a farm ( rebusfarm has hundreds of GPUs ) and what would take a week to render even on a quad 2080ti or Fully laden MacPro comes back in a hour ( actually takes a lot longer to download than render! )

It's all about my time, workflow, viewport performance rather than Rendering I am literally twice as fast working in MacOS Than windows. The amount of app swapping I have to do and workflow it's just way better. Quicklook alone is one reason... Windows doesn't even thumbnail half the video or image formats. Spacebar on MacOS opens pulls it open and plays it. The other

As for "only usage case it really pays off" - Fairly sure that editors freaking love the afterburner card and being able to edit 12 4k videos stream realtime - and Blackmagic support the afterburner too... and all the many other pro uses.

 

[zzzachi]

People keep quoting 2080ti's but they are gaming cards and as such they are great at low Poly high Texture fills. The Vega 2s can handle way more polys in the viewport but texture and gaming optimisations are not great. They are fantastic for line aliasing too - wo those wireframes are super crisp. So you should compare the Quadro RTX 8000s

Nvidias Quadro RTX 8000 / 48gb GDDR6 / 16.3 TFLOPS = £6000
Read Pro Vega II Duo / 64gb HBM2 / 28.3teraflops single precision = £4600

For rendering you are geetting more bag for your buck with the 2080ti's (£1280) but I like most people I know actually do final animation renders on a farm ( rebusfarm has hundreds of GPUs ) and what would take a week to render even on a quad 2080ti or Fully laden MacPro comes back in a hour ( actually takes a lot longer to download than render! )

It's all about my time, workflow, viewport performance rather than Rendering I am literally twice as fast working in MacOS Than windows. The amount of app swapping I have to do and workflow it's just way better. Quicklook alone is one reason... Windows doesn't even thumbnail half the video or image formats. Spacebar on MacOS opens pulls it open and plays it. The other

As for "only usage case it really pays off" - Fairly sure that editors freaking love the afterburner card and being able to edit 12 4k videos stream realtime - and Blackmagic support the afterburner too... and all the many other pro uses.

"viewport performance rather than Rendering" has a point, and i will validate that now on my new pc
but the 2080TI vs Pro Vega II Duo vs Quadro RTX 8000 subject is a bit the same like the ram subject.
i often read here that the mac pro can support 1.5tb of ram, while (most) pcs cant.
true, but 1.5tb of ram cost a lot! of money and almost nobody ever really needs that.
i'd say in reality 99% of all workstation users, also professional companies use computers of 5-10k
(with animation/video maybe being the exception)
i live in a rich country and i know a mayor agency with 50+ employees that does not have any computer costing more than 6/7k. the it guys are pc fans anyway and they press in that direction and the bosses looks at the numbers.
the bang for the buck does count and apple didnt position itself very well here.

 

[Onelifenofear]

"viewport performance rather than Rendering" has a point, and i will validate that now on my new pc
but the 2080TI vs Pro Vega II Duo vs Quadro RTX 8000 subject is a bit the same like the ram subject.
i often read here that the mac pro can support 1.5tb of ram, while (most) pcs cant.
true, but 1.5tb of ram cost a lot! of money and almost nobody ever really needs that.
i'd say in reality 99% of all workstation users, also professional companies use computers of 5-10k
(with animation/video maybe being the exception)
i live in a rich country and i know a mayor agency with 50+ employees that does not have any computer costing more than 6/7k. the it guys are pc fans anyway and they press in that direction and the bosses looks at the numbers.
the bang for the buck does count and apple didnt position itself very well here.

Positioning is correct perhaps. The Base machine is about 1500 too much. but could be a beast in the future and I am sure this gen will last me 6+ years...especially if the CPU is upgradable.

I do wonder if they will bring out a "Mac" at some point.. with non workstation rated stuff 4 PCIE etc - depends how well this does I suppose.

I used to work on 100K+ machines ( actually Quantel Painbox @ 300K ) and used to get paid an obscene amount of money... now the machine are 5K they have 20x the people and everyone is paid much much less. This machine is peanuts in the pro world... you can spec a dell and HP close to 250K! The monitor is 5th of the price of my last reference monitor and 5x as good!

People have a skewed view of pro machines and equate them to Gaming machines or even worse a £300 Office Dell..

I equate it to a trademan that needs a truck 20K new / lease and all the Pro tools could easily be another 15K yet no-one questions that... but they could buy banger and Black and Decker tools for a 10th of the price.

 

[Snow Tiger]

Positioning is correct perhaps. The Base machine is about 1500 too much. but could be a beast in the future and I am sure this gen will last me 6+ years...especially if the CPU is upgradable.

CPU in the MP7,1 is upgradable , but only as high as the W-3275M ( 2.5 GHz 28 Core ) Apple is already using . Unfortunately , it will never go beyond that due to its LGA 3647 socket . Cascade Lake Xeon will be the last chip that will use that socket .

 

[zzzachi]

Positioning is correct perhaps. The Base machine is about 1500 too much. but could be a beast in the future and I am sure this gen will last me 6+ years...especially if the CPU is upgradable.

I do wonder if they will bring out a "Mac" at some point.. with non workstation rated stuff 4 PCIE etc - depends how well this does I suppose.

I used to work on 100K+ machines ( actually Quantel Painbox @ 300K ) and used to get paid an obscene amount of money... now the machine are 5K they have 20x the people and everyone is paid much much less. This machine is peanuts in the pro world... you can spec a dell and HP close to 250K! The monitor is 5th of the price of my last reference monitor and 5x as good!

People have a skewed view of pro machines and equate them to Gaming machines or even worse a £300 Office Dell..

I equate it to a trademan that needs a truck 20K new / lease and all the Pro tools could easily be another 15K yet no-one questions that... but they could buy banger and Black and Decker tools for a 10th of the price.

workstations for 250 k... come on, this is just trying to justify the price of the mac pro
the mac pro is a fine computer but also plain simple overengineered and too expensive.
the enthusiasts and the video companies bought their pros, now.. but if that is enough?
we'll see in a few years when the vegas and even the CPUs are outdated.

 

[Snow Tiger]

workstations for 250 k... come on, this is just trying to justify the price of the mac pro
the mac pro is a fine computer but also plain simple overengineered and too expensive.
the enthusiasts and the video companies bought their pros, now.. but if that is enough?
we'll see in a few years when the vegas and even the CPUs are outdated.

He's not joking . The retail listed price ( before any discounts ) of a fully decked out HP or Dell personal workstation can be six figures . This is for a machine the same size as a Mac Pro 7,1 .

 

[Coyote2006]

Comparing benchmarks with threadripper is so useless here. The only interesting benchmarks are the ones from Macs. Maybe there should be a thread "Benchmarks - Macs only"...