Mac Pro 2013 Gaming?

[MH01]

My last desktop computer was built around two aquarium chillers. This is a device that is designed to cool water in fish tanks for those that like to keep cold water fish in room temperature areas. Each one is the size of a small refrigerator.

The system stayed a chilly 39.5 degrees Fahrenheit under max load, and overclocked the i7 3970x to 5GHZ, stable. The quad Geforce Titan cards, ran at 1400 mzh, stable.

I think I know a thing or two about building a custom computer, but I think you missed my point.

I said that the Mac Pro is the best and least expensive high end gaming computer. You countered by saying that you can build a 4x SLI custom rig. And then what? No game currently available or reasonably expected that takes advantage of that. What are you going to do with your 4x SLI 780 GTX? Run benchmarks for fun?

The Mac Pro in D700 config has enough horsepower to run any game on ultra. And more importantly it's the most cost effective way to do so over the long term. Just buy the D700 config and sell it in 1-2 years for the D900 config, you'll take a $850 hit. That's the least expensive way to run window games on max setting over several hardware cycles. And that makes the Mac Pro the best high end gaming PC in my mind. Even beating out simply replacing the Mobo, CPU, and GFX cards every few years on a DIY PC.

You cannot disagree with the logic, because the long term costs of competing desktops, DIY desktops, and Mac workstations are known variables.

On top of that the Mac Pro has other advantages such as Apple's fantastic design, PCIe SSD's OS X etc.






Overclocking without insane cooling nets around 10-20% performance, which doesn't really effect the cost/performance equation that favors the Mac Pro.

Cost performance advantage?

Your advocating that a $4000 dollar machine that competes with a single 780ti ??? You are aware how easy it is to add PCI SSDs to pcs right?

$850 loss over 2 years , are you crazy??? I can get a 400 discount just through work!

Sorry but I struggle that you have the ability to run a water chilled PC, yet do not understand that current games do take advantage of 4xsli. Try metro mate. And for someone that build a watercooled PC, the Cooling on then nMP should be ringing all types of alarm bells....

The issue with SLI configs is that they do not scale well the more you add. Optimum is 2 cards for scaling, 3 you get a considerable drop of for performance /cost and 4 little benefit. If you have the money , roll 4 cards. Depends on the game, benefit will vary, but it's rubbish current games do not take advantage.

Your best setup is in fact a single very fast card! Not going to bother going into the details of why crossfire/SLI configs have cons, google it. The D700 is underclocked.

The 7970 series did not play nice with crossfire, can you guess on what architecture the D700 is based on?

Also on some games Crossfire does not scale well at all. Back to my single card argument .

So what you think is the best gaming system currently available to purchase , at a mere $4000 for the base system, quad with D700. I call shenanigans. It's the most overpriced gaming system and you would be crazy to buy it for gaming.

If gaming always, always gets one fast gpu over 2 in crossfire.

The nMP is a workstation that as a secondary has decent gaming performance . Don't delude yourself that this is an a amazing gaming system .

Not to mention crossfire only works under windows, so your buying the best apple has on offer to game under windows...... Hmmm , get an Alienware if you cannot build your own.

FYI. The dual Titan setup you claim to have is superior to be nMP. The Titan is so much better than the D700 , SLI Titan is much better than crossfire D700. 5ghz v stock Xeon .... Do the maths...

 

[jav6454]

You have no idea what you're talking about at all. The Mac Pro's professional orientation has almost no effect on it's gaming performance. We're talking about a computer which in D700 configuration is noticeably faster than a Geforce Titan. Just because the Mac Pro wasn't built for gaming doesn't mean it's not the best mass produced gaming computer on the face of the planet.

Just like Apollo 10 was the fastest vehicle in human history, yet it wasn't built for speed. They could have gone much faster if they ditched the lander and all the scientific equipment for more fuel.

The highest performance things on the planet are often not optimized for what they happen to excel at.

The new Mac Pro is the most cost effective, high end gaming rig on the planet, and has insane performance.

[...]

Are you being serious right now?! Did you forget to take your reality check pill today? Did you drink into Apple-Koolaide?!

The Mac Pro is far from being a great gaming computer. It will definitely suck. FirePro GPUs are not for gaming. Hence, there muscle is wasted terribly when dealing with gaming graphic mechanics. FirePros are suited for other applications.

Sure, on paper and on synthetic benchmarks, the FirePro are on par with nVidia's Titan; however, using that to compare GPU performance in the gaming world is as comparing taste of real orange juice to juice from the fruit vs orange flavored soda/pop. You can't compare because each has a different application in mind.

I'll say it again... the Mac Pro is horrible at it. These proceeding GPU Gaming Becnhmarks prove it. Oh by the way, if you want the source of them, it's AnandTech's own testings.

Please take a while and breathe in the amount of TOLD you have been handed. If you are wondering what the CF means next to some benchmarks, I'll let you know it stands for Crossfire. What is Crossfire? Well, it's a setting under Windows based AMD drivers, which allows two cards to act as one and work together to create a frame. Hence, you'll expect to see faster performance. However, even using a CF setup, the Mac Pro, failed [why am I not surprised] to deliver.

 

[MH01]

Are you being serious right now?! Did you forget to take your reality check pill today? Did you drink into Apple-Koolaide?!

The Mac Pro is far from being a great gaming computer. It will definitely suck. FirePro GPUs are not for gaming. Hence, there muscle is wasted terribly when dealing with gaming graphic mechanics. FirePros are suited for other applications.

Sure, on paper and on synthetic benchmarks, the FirePro are on par with nVidia's Titan; however, using that to compare GPU performance in the gaming world is as comparing taste of real orange juice to on a direct from fruit juice vs orange flavored soda/pop. You can't compare because each has a different application in mind.

I'll say it again... the Mac Pro is horrible at it. These proceeding GPU Gaming Becnhmarks prove it. Oh by the way, if you want the source of them, it's AnandTech's own testings.

Image

Image

Image


Please take a while and breathe in the amount of TOLD you have been handed. If you are wondering what the CF means next to some benchmarks, I'll let you know it stands for Crossfire. What is Crossfire? Well, it's a setting under Windows based AMD drivers, which allows two cards to act as one and work together to create a frame. Hence, you'll expect to see faster performance. However, even using a CF setup, the Mac Pro, failed [why am I not surprised] to deliver.

Spot on.

It's company of heroes that shows how bad the D700 actually is. Unless you plan to choose your titles to scale well under crossfire, your going to have some really bad gaming experience compared to a single 780.

It's beyond me how someone with a 5ghz hex core with 2x titans in in their right mind, trade down to a Mac Pro . For gaming the D700 is an under clocked 7970 at best. Though at the same time no gamer would ever build a gaming PC on a 450 PSU.

What we have here is a sexy shuttle PC , made with workstation parts.

 

[jav6454]

[...]

It's beyond me how someone with a 5ghz hex core with 2x titans in in their right mind, trade down to a Mac Pro . For gaming the D700 is an under clocked 7970 at best. Though at the same time no gamer would ever build a gaming PC on a 450 PSU.

What we have here is a sexy shuttle PC , made with workstation parts.

Exactly... the Mac Pro's GPUs are very good for computing and other Pro oriented tasks. There is no question about that one.

A good gaming PC in the mid tier requires a minimum 550-650W PSU, and where is the Mac Pro? Moreover, the small (considered micro in the gaming world) 450W PSU leaves so much hope for any serious gaming.

 

[MH01]

My last desktop computer was built around two aquarium chillers. This is a device that is designed to cool water in fish tanks for those that like to keep cold water fish in room temperature areas. Each one is the size of a small refrigerator.

The system stayed a chilly 39.5 degrees Fahrenheit under max load, and overclocked the i7 3970x to 5GHZ, stable. The quad Geforce Titan cards, ran at 1400 mzh, stable.

I think I know a thing or two about building a custom computer, but I think you missed my point.

I said that the Mac Pro is the best and least expensive high end gaming computer. You countered by saying that you can build a 4x SLI custom rig. And then what? No game currently available or reasonably expected that takes advantage of that. What are you going to do with your 4x SLI 780 GTX? Run benchmarks for fun?

The Mac Pro in D700 config has enough horsepower to run any game on ultra. And more importantly it's the most cost effective way to do so over the long term. Just buy the D700 config and sell it in 1-2 years for the D900 config, you'll take a $850 hit. That's the least expensive way to run window games on max setting over several hardware cycles. And that makes the Mac Pro the best high end gaming PC in my mind. Even beating out simply replacing the Mobo, CPU, and GFX cards every few years on a DIY PC.

You cannot disagree with the logic, because the long term costs of competing desktops, DIY desktops, and Mac workstations are known variables.

On top of that the Mac Pro has other advantages such as Apple's fantastic design, PCIe SSD's OS X etc.






Overclocking without insane cooling nets around 10-20% performance, which doesn't really effect the cost/performance equation that favors the Mac Pro.

I just realised what 40 Fahrenheit is. ( I'm not from the US). What model were those chillers? I'm really interesting which ones allowed you or hit those temps.....

 

[Radiating]

Cost performance advantage?

Your advocating that a $4000 dollar machine that competes with a single 780ti ??? You are aware how easy it is to add PCI SSDs to pcs right?

Yes that's exactly what I'm advocating. Compare prices:

4770k $350
Motherboard $200
Ram $200
PCIe SSD $500
Case/PSU $200
Silent Fan $100
780Ti $750

= $2300

The 1.5 year old 780 Ti equivalent video card, the 1.5 year old 4770k processor, and last generation socket mobos and fans will easily depreciate more than $850, in fact you'd be looking at $850-$1000, plus the time and effort required to recover your investment and replace the parts.

I have no idea why you think it's so crazy that the Mac Pro will depreciate less than $850 by the time Apple does a new generation. Apple consistently sells refurbished last gen Mac Pros at a 14% discount, and used prices hover just below the refurb price. The idea is that you will sell when Apple releases the next generation, which may be in 12, 18 or 24 months.

The $3800 last Gen Mac Pro regularly goes for $3000 as of right now, it's 1.5 years old, and this trend of around 20% depreciation every time a new generation is released has been consistent for 3 generations at least.

$850 loss over 2 years , are you crazy??? I can get a 400 discount just through work!

So no, I'm not crazy, I know how to do math, and research.

Sorry but I struggle that you have the ability to run a water chilled PC, yet do not understand that current games do take advantage of 4xsli. Try metro mate. And for someone that build a watercooled PC, the Cooling on then nMP should be ringing all types of alarm bells....

There have been tons of tests that show that the Mac Pro doesn't throttle except in the most absurd "power virus" like situations.

http://anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/14

The issue with SLI configs is that they do not scale well the more you add. Optimum is 2 cards for scaling, 3 you get a considerable drop of for performance /cost and 4 little benefit. If you have the money , roll 4 cards. Depends on the game, benefit will vary, but it's rubbish current games do not take advantage.

Your best setup is in fact a single very fast card! Not going to bother going into the details of why crossfire/SLI configs have cons, google it. The D700 is underclocked.

The 7970 series did not play nice with crossfire, can you guess on what architecture the D700 is based on?

Also on some games Crossfire does not scale well at all. Back to my single card argument .

So what you think is the best gaming system currently available to purchase , at a mere $4000 for the base system, quad with D700. I call shenanigans. It's the most overpriced gaming system and you would be crazy to buy it for gaming.

If gaming always, always gets one fast gpu over 2 in crossfire.

The nMP is a workstation that as a secondary has decent gaming performance . Don't delude yourself that this is an a amazing gaming system .

Not to mention crossfire only works under windows, so your buying the best apple has on offer to game under windows...... Hmmm , get an Alienware if you cannot build your own.

FYI. The dual Titan setup you claim to have is superior to be nMP. The Titan is so much better than the D700 , SLI Titan is much better than crossfire D700. 5ghz v stock Xeon .... Do the maths...

The Mac Pro with D700's already gets 80-100 FPS at 1440p in Call of Duty Ghosts on max everything, and around 70 FPS in Crysis 3 with max everything.

For 95% of bootcamp gamers they will never notice a drop in frame rate even at maximum settings using the Mac Pro D700 over the next 2 years (except for a select few super intense games like Metro Last Light). Sure if you are using a 4k display, then get an Alienware Aurora with dual 780 Ti. But with a normal screen the Mac Pro will probably never get stressed, until Apple refreshes it.

Are you being serious right now?! Did you forget to take your reality check pill today? Did you drink into Apple-Koolaide?!

The Mac Pro is far from being a great gaming computer. It will definitely suck. FirePro GPUs are not for gaming. Hence, there muscle is wasted terribly when dealing with gaming graphic mechanics. FirePros are suited for other applications.

Sure, on paper and on synthetic benchmarks, the FirePro are on par with nVidia's Titan; however, using that to compare GPU performance in the gaming world is as comparing taste of real orange juice to juice from the fruit vs orange flavored soda/pop. You can't compare because each has a different application in mind.

I'll say it again... the Mac Pro is horrible at it. These proceeding GPU Gaming Becnhmarks prove it. Oh by the way, if you want the source of them, it's AnandTech's own testings.

Please take a while and breathe in the amount of TOLD you have been handed. If you are wondering what the CF means next to some benchmarks, I'll let you know it stands for Crossfire. What is Crossfire? Well, it's a setting under Windows based AMD drivers, which allows two cards to act as one and work together to create a frame. Hence, you'll expect to see faster performance. However, even using a CF setup, the Mac Pro, failed [why am I not surprised] to deliver.

In two of the 3 benchmarks you posted, the Mac Pro delivers performance that is identical to a 780 TI. Only in Company of Heroes 2 did the Mac Pro have any issues and this has NOTHING to do with it being a "workstation" card. The reason the Mac Pro performed so poorly was because Crossfire is defective in certain games on the latest R9 cards because they are so new and not yet compatible with every game. The D700 is basically a renamed AMD R9 with pro app driver support. If you look at the benchmarks you will see that the dual R9 280x cards in crossfire show no advantage in performance compared to just a single R9 280x either. R9 cards are consumer gaming cards. This just means that we have to wait for newer drivers.

Modern workstation cards are identical with no silicon level differences to gaming cards. The only difference is usually that workstation cards enjoy driver support for pro apps, and that they run lower clock speeds for stability and sometimes have ECC ram, and usually have way more ram.

In other words the Mac Pro performs exactly for example like a Maingear Shift, which is a gaming computer. You can get one with 2x R9 280x, and a 4770k processor. That's your Mac Pro in bootcamp in a nutshell.

 

[jav6454]

No, just stop. It takes two cards to match one card. That's the mistake here. Please stop digging your hole deeper.

Not to mention, even at CF performance, the Mac Pro still looses horribly to the consumer R9 in CF.

Please just stop.

 

[Anim]

No, just stop. It takes two cards to match one card. That's the mistake here. Please stop digging your hole deeper.

What mistake? Nobody really cares how many cards it takes on the nMP, if crossfire gaming can equal a single GTX 780 Ti then that is awesome news. Surly you can see that regardless of what is under the hood.

Most people expected that the nMP would be totally crap at gaming being optimised as a workstation but some reports are showing that it can run certain games at great FPS. The ones that don't run well need a patch or driver update because WE KNOW it can work well on other games.

Nvidia have to release driver updates almost monthly to fix game issues for their GTX range. so the obvious worry here is that crossfire and AMD don't have a great track record for this, especially with their frame pacing issues. But, so far we can play Ghosts and BF4 at high quality with high frame rates on the nMP as reported by users in this forum. More ratings, testimonials will come as more games are tested.

It's a good thing we can do this at all.

Anim

 

[[G5]Hydra]

No, just stop. It takes two cards to match one card. That's the mistake here. Please stop digging your hole deeper.

Not to mention, even at CF performance, the Mac Pro still looses horribly to the consumer R9 in CF.

Please just stop.

Dude, take a chill. The new MP isn't a gaming machine...BUT... anything that in general only gets beat out by dual R9's in CF and is close to 780 Ti's is far from a terrible gaming machine. If it sucks then 98% of the game rigs out there would suck by your lofty standards. AMD and Nv sell many many more mid ranged cards than they do top of the line R9's and 780's. Even less machines ever get dual GPU's. As to cost effectiveness its not a good proposition at all but then again for someone who wants to dual boot and game in Windows it is more than decent and probably in the top 10% of game rigs out there right now. It's not a terrible way to go if you're buying the new MP primarily for other things. What's the alternative? Buy another gaming rig because dual R9's beat it? Meh, in two years you could sell the MP and put the money toward a new one. It's still cheaper than buying a new MP and gaming rig on the side to just keep getting a new MP every few years and sell the old.

 

[jav6454]

What mistake? Nobody really cares how many cards it takes on the nMP, if crossfire gaming can equal a single GTX 780 Ti then that is awesome news. Surly you can see that regardless of what is under the hood.

Most people expected that the nMP would be totally crap at gaming being optimised as a workstation but some reports are showing that it can run certain games at great FPS. The ones that don't run well need a patch or driver update because WE KNOW it can work well on other games.

Nvidia have to release driver updates almost monthly to fix game issues for their GTX range. so the obvious worry here is that crossfire and AMD don't have a great track record for this, especially with their frame pacing issues. But, so far we can play Ghosts and BF4 at high quality with high frame rates on the nMP as reported by users in this forum. More ratings, testimonials will come as more games are tested.

It's a good thing we can do this at all.

Anim

Dude, take a chill. The new MP isn't a gaming machine...BUT... anything that in general only gets beat out by dual R9's in CF and is close to 780 Ti's is far from a terrible gaming machine. If it sucks then 98% of the game rigs out there would suck by your lofty standards. AMD and Nv sell many many more mid ranged cards than they do top of the line R9's and 780's. Even less machines ever get dual GPU's. As to cost effectiveness its not a good proposition at all but then again for someone who wants to dual boot and game in Windows it is more than decent and probably in the top 10% of game rigs out there right now. It's not a terrible way to go if you're buying the new MP primarily for other things. What's the alternative? Buy another gaming rig because dual R9's beat it? Meh, in two years you could sell the MP and put the money toward a new one. It's still cheaper than buying a new MP and gaming rig on the side to just keep getting a new MP every few years and sell the old.

Are you two serious?! You expect me to take your comments seriously? The fact that both of you make of "Two GPUs are equal to one in performance is awesome" comparison is downright the reason why your comments are now equal to ignorance, borderline troll.

No I can't ignore what's under the hood. The whole point of a gaming PC is to get more performance per dollar, and the Mac Pro surely fails at this, horribly. The Mac Pro is not among the top 10%, not even in the 50%.

I have very lax standards, but calling the Mac Pro a gaming computer is ridiculous at best. I have yet to see someone address the issue I brought forth, the Mac Pro's lousy 450W PSU. When that hits the ceiling, what's going to happen? A performance halt due to insufficient power? I doubt the PSU will short out since Apple has been known to make very good quality PSUs; but it sure ain't won't provide enough juice for the crunching.

 

[Anim]

Does this help you? Actually it probably won't.

 

[brentsg]

I don't think anyone is advocating a nMP as a primary gaming machine, but if people like me have a good business need for a nMP then it makes sense to use it for other things too, vs having a totally separate machine for them.

Just because it benched 78 FPS in some particular game vs 110 or whatever, at some resolution that many people won't even use... doensn't make it inadequate.

 

[[G5]Hydra]

The whole point of a gaming PC is to get more performance per dollar, and the Mac Pro surely fails at this, horribly. The Mac Pro is not among the top 10%, not even in the 50%.

It's tough arguing with delusional people like you. The graph Anim posted shows exactly how wrong you are. For the record it doesn't say "gaming performance per dollar". What do you have against expensive GPU's? If your criteria for gaming performance per dollar is the end all be all then dual R9's and 780 Ti's are out of the question. A good mid ranged card trumps all by your logic.

Here's your dream webpage - Tom's Best Graphics Cards For The Money: December 2013:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-8.html

So the 290X and 780Ti are knocked right out by your criteria. Have fun with your 290(non X) and GTX 780 (non-Ti) as they are too expensive for the performance they give...

 

[lupinglade]

If you want a Mac that can game well in bootcamp the nMP is your best bet. What is there to argue about? Anyone who buys a Mac Pro buys it for OS X and/or pro app usage. The gaming portion is a bonus. For a Mac pro (maybe even non pro) user there is no better gaming machine. Because you get the gaming feature "for free". Not to mention, many people don't want two separate machines hogging space, swapping keyboards/mice/displays/etc depending on their use case.

 

[Rogier1991]

I'm also very interested in this topic. I want to buy a maxed out iMac or base Mac Pro to play Microsoft Flight Simulator X (for a bit om my time). This is more a simulation than a game. There is no need for 60 fps, 30 fps stable is enough. There is a lot of 3d rendering in the simulation so the question is what will be the better card; 780m or single D300? (do not need more than 2 GB)

 

[Anim]

I'm also very interested in this topic. I want to buy a maxed out iMac or base Mac Pro to play Microsoft Flight Simulator X (for a bit om my time). This is more a simulation than a game. There is no need for 60 fps, 30 fps stable is enough. There is a lot of 3d rendering in the simulation so the question is what will be the better card; 780m or single D300? (do not need more than 2 GB)

With the iMac you get the monitor in the price. So thats +1 to iMac if cost is an issue here.

Also, people run FSX on MacBook Pro's 650M with good results so the iMac with its better GPU and CPU would run it fine if boot camped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4j2aD_-M4

From what I have read, Flight Sim uses more CPU than GPU so consider that as a priority.
e.g.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?262513-Why-FS-is-more-CPU-centric-than-GPU

That info is from researching not from any hands on knowledge so take it with a pinch of salt until somebody who has the game can give you a more knowledgable response.

Thanks
Anim

 

[Rogier1991]

With the iMac you get the monitor in the price. So thats +1 to iMac if cost is an issue here.

Also, people run FSX on MacBook Pro's 650M with good results so the iMac with its better GPU and CPU would run it fine if boot camped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4j2aD_-M4

From what I have read, Flight Sim uses more CPU than GPU so consider that as a priority.
e.g.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?262513-Why-FS-is-more-CPU-centric-than-GPU

That info is from researching not from any hands on knowledge so take it with a pinch of salt until somebody who has the game can give you a more knowledgable response.

Thanks
Anim

The Mac Pro CPU is better than that from the iMac...

 

[Radiating]

No, just stop. It takes two cards to match one card. That's the mistake here. Please stop digging your hole deeper.

Not to mention, even at CF performance, the Mac Pro still looses horribly to the consumer R9 in CF.

Please just stop.

Yes and a magic genie that renders games at infinite speed will beat any gaming PC. However the Mac Pro's performance capabilities are still better than 91% of gaming computers. While it's not uncommon to see performance around the level of the Mac Pro, near the top you get diminishing returns. Meaning:

- The Mac Pro is better than 91% of gaming PC's
- A computer that is 18% faster is better than 97% of gaming PC's
- A computer that is 26% faster is better than 98% of gaming PC's.
- A computer that is 37% faster is better than 99% of gaming PC's.

Basically there is little difference between the Mac Pro and the top 3% or top 1% of gaming PC's.

We're talking 60 fps vs 80 fps here when comparing to the top 1%. Most game manufacturers are not going to create products that outperform 99% of machines.

Are you two serious?! You expect me to take your comments seriously? The fact that both of you make of "Two GPUs are equal to one in performance is awesome" comparison is downright the reason why your comments are now equal to ignorance, borderline troll.

No I can't ignore what's under the hood. The whole point of a gaming PC is to get more performance per dollar, and the Mac Pro surely fails at this, horribly. The Mac Pro is not among the top 10%, not even in the 50%.

You seem very confused about a lot of things. In any case the Mac Pro may not offer the best performance per dollar, but it does offer the best performance per dollar over time in the high end gaming PC segment. And in the end that's what really matters.

As I mentioned, you can expect a 20% hit in depreciation between now and the next refresh which has been historically consistent. That amounts to around $850 for a $4000 model. A high end Alienware or a DIY gaming PC, may cost 33-50% less to begin with, but will depreciate at around 250% the rate, so the long term costs will be slightly higher with a DIY and significantly higher for a high end customized PC desktop.

That's the magic of Apple. Ever since I switched to running windows on Mac's for work I've saved tons of money, despite each machine costing more.

I have very lax standards, but calling the Mac Pro a gaming computer is ridiculous at best. I have yet to see someone address the issue I brought forth, the Mac Pro's lousy 450W PSU. When that hits the ceiling, what's going to happen? A performance halt due to insufficient power? I doubt the PSU will short out since Apple has been known to make very good quality PSUs; but it sure ain't won't provide enough juice for the crunching.

The PSU peaks at around 490 watts, and the video cards are low powered versions, so the system isn't as far off as it seemed. It has just enough power to do what it needs to do which is why basically nobody has experienced any real world issues.

I just realised what 40 Fahrenheit is. ( I'm not from the US). What model were those chillers? I'm really interesting which ones allowed you or hit those temps.....

It's actually an incredibly easy modification, and a nearly silent cooling system. It's called a JBJ Arctic Titanium, if you have the space and the money it's nothing short of ideal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJKsH14yc4M

For a 1/10 HP unit they charge $500 but you can pick them up used for around $350, and the 1/5th HP one goes for $100 more.

Just remember that for each watt of power you draw you need to dissipate 4 BTU, so you can run 1 processor on the 1/10th HP unit (1270 BTU), and two video cards on a 1/5th HP unit (2400 BTU). 4 video cards would require the 1/3rd hp unit. Or you can run the whole system off of one 1/4 HP unit if you run two video cards.

 

[quagmire]

The Mac Pro CPU is better than that from the iMac...

Not really. They are just about equal.

http://barefeats.com/tube03.html

 

[Sinx2oic]

I'm no expert on any of this, but not really understanding how any of the benchmarks so far have been bad? The fact that it keeps up with a 780 Titan on some benchmarks seems amazing! I don't care that it takes 2 cards to do it why would I? All nMP come with 2? Most of us buy mac pros as work stations so money is not really a concern to me, but if it is half decent at games too, then that's cool. On a separate note do you think there would be much difference between the 8 core and 12 core with gaming? I would be getting D700 either way and prob going to go for 12 core for after effects.

 

[wildmac]

Not really. They are just about equal.

http://barefeats.com/tube03.html

The outlier there is that OpenCL performance.. if any of the major tools start using it more, the nMP will crush a lot of other systems, if the tools don't then we have an good performer, but not hugely special.

 

[quagmire]

The outlier there is that OpenCL performance.. if any of the major tools start using it more, the nMP will crush a lot of other systems, if the tools don't then we have an good performer, but not hugely special.

But for his purposes( FSX), they are equal.

Curious Rogier, why don't you switch over to X-Plane? FSX is slowly dying, X-Plane is somewhat multithreaded( meaning it will use multiple cores) and is more GPU dependent?

 

[Rogier1991]

But for his purposes( FSX), they are equal.

Curious Rogier, why don't you switch over to X-Plane? FSX is slowly dying, X-Plane is somewhat multithreaded( meaning it will use multiple cores) and is more GPU dependent?

Because all the good add ons are for FSX and FSX is really CPU dependent. As Macs have great CPU's and middelrange GPU's, FSX is a better choice than X-Plane.

 

[Anim]

Because all the good add ons are for FSX and FSX is really CPU dependent. As Macs have great CPU's and middelrange GPU's, FSX is a better choice than X-Plane.

Thats the last gen Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro have decided to boost GPU this time by having two of them in every machine and reduced dual socket CPU to one socket.

 

[Rogier1991]

What is the explanation that a 3.5 Ghz i7 processor with 8 mb cache perform better than a 3.7 Ghz Xeon with 10 mb cache?