MP 7,1 Has anyone seen a benchmark?

[ssgbryan]

The OP was asking for bench marks - they got bench marks. If you don't care about benchmarks, then there isn't a need to look at them, chfilm. I have been doing heavy tile based rendering on my 1,1, and 4,1s over the past 15 years, this kind of information is good to know.

A 12 core 7,1 appears to give about the same performance as a Ryzen 7 3700x on tile based rendering. It is up to the OP to decide if the price/performance is worth the Apple tax. Which in this case is about half the price of the 7,1.

 

[Passingby]

Spending £15,000 -£30,000 on a computer that will be paid off in 1-2 years by the work you do with it makes it a legitimate business expense - nothing laughable there.

It's even better when you spend $5000 on a Threadripper+Titan RTX system that pays for itself in....a month or two and destroys the Mac Pro's under specced walled garden.

If you don't want the best then Apple's bean counters and top shareholders will be happy not to give it to you.

 

[gazwas]

It's even better when you spend $5000 on a Threadripper+Titan RTX system that pays for itself in....a month or two and destroys the Mac Pro's under specced walled garden.

If you don't want the best then Apple's bean counters and top shareholders will be happy not to give it to you.

Apple don't sell a $5000, Threadripper+Titan RTX system so a totally mute point?

You're like a bunch of dogs chasing their tails - an endless and pointless exercise that you seem to enjoy immensely.

 

[Passingby]

Apple don't sell a $5000, Threadripper+Titan RTX system so a totally mute point?

It's not a "mute point"

But it's a super excellent example!

 

[danwells]

There is a specific type of workflow (CPU intensive, doesn't need a mountain of RAM) where Ryzens and Threadrippers are a very good deal, with Intel's latest generation of HEDT/ low-end Xeon W CPUs (the successors to the ones in the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro) not too far behind with the latest price cut. The iMac Pro, being priced pre price cut (the prices of its CPUs were cut in half), is expensive right now.

The Mac Pro is a different kind of machine - its big feature is monster expandability. The kind of expandability the Mac Pro has requires either EPYC (very expensive, low clock speeds although a ton of cores) or big Xeons (very expensive, plus artificial price jumps for certain features like high RAM access). HP's Z6 and Z8 are similarly, if not more, expensive for comparable performance.

The more legitimate complaint is that Apple's Z2-Z4 level workstation is an all-in-one , and it's priced before the latest price cut. You can buy a heck of a lot of Threadripper from Puget for iMac Pro money.

A Puget Threadripper box configured like a high-end iMac Pro (128 GB of RAM, 4 TB of the fastest SSDs that Puget offers, Radeon Pro 9100 WX - also known as Vega 64) is about $7200 with no monitor. Tack on about $1000 for a monitor as good as the iMac Pro.

The two losses are 10Gb Ethernet and Thunderbolt, while you gain PCIe slots and SATA bays. It's reasonable to ignore Thunderbolt on a machine as expandable as the Puget. 10 Gb Ethernet adds a couple of hundred (Puget doesn't list it, but I'm sure they have a favorite card).

An 18-core iMac Pro with similar specs is just under $10,000. There is certainly a $1000 - $2000 premium on the iMac Pro, plus less choice (aka no Nvidia, only one monitor option). You also take a ~25% performance hit...

 

[_Kiki_]

Sounds like a nice laptop, but there is no way a 1660ti is close to a 5700xt, let alone a 1080ti.
More like somewhere between a 1070 and 1070ti.

according to 3DMark Fire Strike 1660ti in laptop it's below 1070, which is much better benchmark than Geekbench, also no such thing like 1070ti in a laptop, but if you don't like this type of benchmark you should check luxmark

 

[Passingby]

The Mac Pro is a different kind of machine - its big feature is monster expandability.

Most HEDT/workstation users on the high end aren't going to cram it with 8 cards and 1.5TB of memory just so they can go on a forum and brag about how much money they spent. In terms of expansions they only install what is needed, not what theoretical maximum that can be installed.

Besides...you can only install what Apple will allow. Titan RTX? Certain SSD brands? Certain audio cards? Sorry, Apple controls the drivers.

Aside from that this machine has some design problems.

The MXM modules have no clearance space around them for air circulation and you are relying on the tiny vents in the PCIE bracket to be sufficient for the heat to escape. The MXM modules are massive passive heatsinks that almost touch each other and almost touch the power supply too. It only takes a basic understanding of heat transport to see this isn't great for heat transport. Silent yes, but cool?

I saw one guy who said the 8 core Xeon in the Mac Pro at around 35 degrees. That's 7 degrees higher than in a decent PC build with the same CPU. So it must be affected by heat building up and not being efficiently removed.

Second. Here's a big issue that will exacerbate the former issue. The intake fans pull dust directly into the MXM modules. That means dust will accumulate inside the MXM modules. As more and more dust accumulates the less efficient they become at cooling. It's easy to clean an off-the-shelf-GPU with a can of compressed air. But an MXM module's internals are not accessible.

There's also no system exhaust fan to assist in removing dust and heat. Who designed this crap?

 

[danwells]

Apple makes the iMac Pro for users who want a fast multi-core machine without a ton of expandability. Yes, you can complain that it's an all-in-one, and that it's priced based on the old pricing of its CPUs - both of those things are true. It, not the Mac Pro, is Apple's take on a midrange workstation.

The Mac Pro is FOR the small minority who'll use a bunch of cards or a ton of RAM.

 

[Passingby]

The Mac Pro is FOR the small minority who'll use a bunch of cards or a ton of RAM.

"Ton of RAM" doesn't really mean much except to sound like marketing buzzwords. Users put as much as they need. You put 1.5TB of RAM in any 'workstation' computer in the world, most likely the app you are using will crash under that much data in memory. By the time we can comfortably handle 1TB of data in memory we will be using 15GHz processors with 256 cores

 

[bxs]

"Ton of RAM" doesn't really mean much except to sound like marketing buzzwords. Users put as much as they need. You put 1.5TB of RAM in any 'workstation' computer in the world, most likely the app you are using will crash under that much data in memory. By the time we can comfortably handle 1TB of data in memory we will be using 15GHz processors with 256 cores

Oh you are soooooooo, wrong about the usefulness of large RAM footprints. In order of priority for avoiding bottlenecks to getting work done is - First the Processor, then next critical resource is RAM(memory), then comes fast i/o.

You wrote - You put 1.5TB of RAM in any 'workstation' computer in the world, most likely the app you are using will crash under that much data in memory.

Holy cow... what a silly statement to make. You lack understanding of how applications use and need RAM(memory). The more cores being used relies on having reasonable paths to memory and the MP7,1 at least provides 6 paths.

Consider a multi-threaded application that runs on multiple cores where each core requires 10GB or memory for doing its piece of the work. Consider a 16-core processor with 32 threads where each thread/core requires 10GB memory, then 320 GB of RAM is needed.

 

[moab1]

I just ran benchmark tests on my machine: 16-core, Vega II solo, 192GB ram, 2TB HD

Is this inline with expected results?

CPU:
Single Core: 1137
Multicore Score: 15846

Compute
Open CL: 84060

Compute
Metal: 102611

Cinebench:
6807

Unique Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS: 113
Score: 2847
Min FPS: 18.4
Max FPS: 195.8
Full Screen 34440x1440, set to medium, Tessellation: disabled

 

[Passingby]

Holy cow... what a silly statement to make. You lack understanding of how applications use blah blah burgh yurkfdkfjsadkf

Bubba....I'm the third CG artist in the last few days in this sub forum who said this. You try to load 1TB+ of 3d model+texture+keyframe data for a scene. Or even for a Premiere/Final Cut project. Go ahead lol. Post the video of your amazing one of a kind system in the solar system that can handle it.

Try to even run a game, just a game, with 100GB of scene data for one level. Let us know how responsive and smooth your system is. Unreal Engine is free to build this example.

[automerge]1577480092[/automerge]

I just ran benchmark tests on my machine: 16-core, Vega II solo, 192GB ram, 2TB HD

Is this inline with expected results?

CPU:
Single Core: 1137
Multicore Score: 15846

Compute
Open CL: 84060

Compute
Metal: 102611

Cinebench:
6807

Unique Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS: 113
Score: 2847
Min FPS: 18.4
Max FPS: 195.8
Full Screen 34440x1440, set to medium, Tessellation: disabled

Meh. For the amount you paid? No. You can build a system for half the price that will beat that by a noticeable margin on each test.

 

[jasonmvp]

Bubba....I'm the third CG artist in the last few days in this sub forum who said this. You try to load 1TB+ of 3d model+texture+keyframe data for a scene.

It's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to system resource and how applications allocate memory. Apps have no concept of RAM vs swap space. All they know is: memory. Real of virtual makes no difference to the application. So if it needs +1TB of memory, it'll take it. If not, it won't. It's up to the operating system to manage where that memory (RAM or swap) comes from.

Stop posting. You're clueless and a troll. Seriously.

 

[Passingby]

It's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to system resource and how applications allocate memory. Apps have no concept of RAM vs swap space. All they know is: memory. Real of virtual makes no difference to the application. So if it needs +1TB of memory, it'll take it. If not, it won't. It's up to the operating system to manage where that memory (RAM or swap) comes from.

Stop posting. You're clueless and a troll. Seriously.

This is when 'theory' meets reality.

Just do the test and show us the video of the result instead of insulting people like a cult member. Load all that data into RAM in your app whatever the app is. Please show us how the app or game handles it.

 

[bxs]

This is when 'theory' meets reality.

Just do the test and show us the video of the result instead of insulting people like a cult member. Load all that data into RAM in your app whatever the app is. Please show us how the app or game handles it.

I don 't need to validate what I'm saying as I've been running my Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes for ages on my Macs with great success. I perform client consultation for CFD problems. I don't run games or 3D stuff as you've mentioned and have no clue what they are or what demands they place of system resources. I'm coming from the position of running engineering and scientific problems. They need all the RAM they can grab hold of, and they are more than happy to have real Memory vs.virtual. They are setup to abort if there's insufficient RAM and then have to be reconfigured to use less RAM to avoid swapping/paging. The more RAM I can install on my Macs means I can solve bigger and more demanding problems, and run far more iterations to solve a problem.

Your claims about applications crashing may well be valid for games and the 3D stuff you talk about, but that is the fault of the application not the system. Obviously you're at the mercy of whomever created the applications you refer to, and they simply need to recode so that they don'y crash.

I author my own CFD applications and do whatever is necessary to conform with the Mac's resources at hand.

 

[moab1]

Bubba....I'm the third CG artist in the last few days in this sub forum who said this. You try to load 1TB+ of 3d model+texture+keyframe data for a scene. Or even for a Premiere/Final Cut project. Go ahead lol. Post the video of your amazing one of a kind system in the solar system that can handle it.

Try to even run a game, just a game, with 100GB of scene data for one level. Let us know how responsive and smooth your system is. Unreal Engine is free to build this example.

[automerge]1577480092[/automerge]


Meh. For the amount you paid? No. You can build a system for half the price that will beat that by a noticeable margin on each test.

It's not inline with what Is expected with these specs or not inline with what you think it's worth? I'm interested to know if it's on par with other machines with this build in each category. The value of the machine build/os is of larger value than the sum of the individual parts for me.

 

[zzzachi]

I just ran benchmark tests on my machine: 16-core, Vega II solo, 192GB ram, 2TB HD

Is this inline with expected results?

CPU:
Single Core: 1137
Multicore Score: 15846

Compute
Open CL: 84060

Compute
Metal: 102611

Cinebench:
6807

Unique Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS: 113
Score: 2847
Min FPS: 18.4
Max FPS: 195.8
Full Screen 34440x1440, set to medium, Tessellation: disabled

that is a Mac Pro with a Cinebench R20 multi core of 6800 for $14200

i just finished my threadripper 3970x build and
have a Cinebench R20 multi core of 17150 multi for $5300

Cinebench R20 single core is 510 here... what is yours?

and ... when seeing these numbers and when going through the thread and seeing that the new 16" mbp is in some things faster than the map pro 12core edition... i must say again : the mac pro 2019 price/performance ration is very disappointing. i would not recommend it for anyone unless you a) need to work with specific software available on macos only or b) you value macos over performance and price. (perfectly valid for some cases)

 

[chfilm]

that is a Mac Pro with a Cinebench R20 multi core of 6800 for $14200

i just finished my threadripper 3970x build and
have a Cinebench R20 multi core of 17150 multi for $5300

Cinebench R20 single core is 510 here... what is yours?

and ... when seeing these numbers and when going through the thread and seeing that the new 16" mbp is in some things faster than the map pro 12core edition... i must say again : the mac pro 2019 price/performance ration is very disappointing. i would not recommend it for anyone unless you a) need to work with specific software available on macos only or b) you value macos over performance and price. (perfectly valid for some cases)

Enjoy your time in the threadripper forum
maybe Macrumors could open a dedicated section for you guys?

 

[defjam]

and ... when seeing these numbers and when going through the thread and seeing that the new 16" mbp is in some things faster than the map pro 12core edition... i must say again : the mac pro 2019 price/performance ration is very disappointing. i would not recommend it for anyone unless you a) need to work with specific software available on macos only or b) you value macos over performance and price. (perfectly valid for some cases)

Presumably anyone buying the 2019 Mac Pro meet either or both of the criteria.

It's acknowledged one can buy faster workstations (and, possibly, for less money). Those buying the 2019 Mac Pro want a Macintosh and not an alternative. For them the 2019 Mac Pro, for whatever its faults, is a huge step forward over what was previously available.

 

[gazwas]

that is a Mac Pro with a Cinebench R20 multi core of 6800 for $14200

i just finished my threadripper 3970x build and
have a Cinebench R20 multi core of 17150 multi for $5300

Cinebench R20 single core is 510 here... what is yours?

and ... when seeing these numbers and when going through the thread and seeing that the new 16" mbp is in some things faster than the map pro 12core edition... i must say again : the mac pro 2019 price/performance ration is very disappointing. i would not recommend it for anyone unless you a) need to work with specific software available on macos only or b) you value macos over performance and price. (perfectly valid for some cases)

I’m sure I’ve said this before in this discussion that Apple don’t offer a Threadripper option at a lower cost so what is it with all these recommendations?

I want to buy a Mac and I have the choice of Mac Mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro as a desktop computer end of story.

If Apple sold a Threadripper option would I be interested........? Definitely!

However, they don’t so stop with all this fantasy computer building nonsense and as we’re here to discuss Mac’s.

The end.

It would be nice to see some more benchmarks and real world software tests to be honest now more people have their computers rather than all this distracting noise.

 

[chfilm]

I’m sure I’ve said this before in this discussion that Apple don’t offer a Threadripper option at a lower cost so what is it with all these recommendations?

I want to buy a Mac and I have the choice of Mac Mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro as a desktop computer end of story.

If Apple sold a Threadripper option would I be interested........? Definitely!

However, they don’t so stop with all this fantasy computer building nonsense and as we’re here to discuss Mac’s.

The end.

It would be nice to see some more benchmarks and real world software tests to be honest now more people have their computers rather than all this distracting noise.

Amen🙌🏻.

 

[zzzachi]

@chfilm, @defjam, @gazwas :

i am a longtime 20+ years mac user! and i am still using a lot of macs.
but not anymore for anything workstation like.

I just posted the numbers because die hard apple fans here tell people
that the mac pro is a superfast computer and that the price is totally justified.
so let the price and benchmark comparison speaks for itself.

@ganzwas: no fantasies involved, i built this computer yesterday.
first time in my life doing this, it took me 1.5 days of work.

 

[Kedbear]

@chfilm, @defjam, @gazwas :

i am a longtime 20+ years mac user! and i am still using a lot of macs.
but not anymore for anything workstation like.

I just posted the numbers because die hard apple fans here tell people
that the mac pro is a superfast computer and that the price is totally justified.
so let the price and benchmark comparison speaks for itself.

@ganzwas: no fantasies involved, i built this computer yesterday.
first time in my life doing this, it took me 1.5 days of work.

The price is justified. If you build an equivalent pc WITH THE SAME SPECS eg 8 pci lanes, being able to add 1.5TB ram etc it will cost equivalent or more. Added to that there is the fact that apple’s hardware just works, is very well engineered and their software is extremely solid. I will pay the price over screwing around with a pc and windows because I use my computer for my business. For someone like myself working in Da Vinci resolve and using the pro vega II it is very fast. How many streams of 4K prores can you get playing at the same time?

 

[zzzachi]

@Kedbear
might be it is justified for video work. i can't say anything about that business.

 

[Marekul]

The price is justified. If you build an equivalent pc WITH THE SAME SPECS eg 8 pci lanes, being able to add 1.5TB ram etc it will cost equivalent or more. Added to that there is the fact that apple’s hardware just works, is very well engineered and their software is extremely solid. I will pay the price over screwing around with a pc and windows because I use my computer for my business. For someone like myself working in Da Vinci resolve and using the pro vega II it is very fast. How many streams of 4K prores can you get playing at the same time?

ProRes is a proprietary intermediate codec for Apple software ... so the answer would be none.

In reality is no real argument for Mac Pro besides that it runs proprietary OS and proprietary Codecs... at faster speed than previous Apple PCs. Performance/Dollar ratio, when compared to non Apple PCs is mediocre at best.

What i am interested in is how did you survive on Macs until now?
I mean if it really were a business need to have 8 pic lanes, TBs of RAM and "Workstation-class" hardware... running multiple 4K streams simultaneously .... wouldn't you have had to change to non Apple PCs a long time ago?