Mac Pro 5.1 (2012) still worth it in 2018?

[Eneco]

There’s a pretty good chance that Apple will release six-core 8700K Coffe Lake iMacs this fall. This CPU Geekbench scores about 26000 for multi-core which is pretty decent. Apple could also port over a variation of the iMac Pro dual cooling fan to eliminate noise issues.

But I guess with a RAM upgrade (I assume 16 GB will be the default basic setting) as well as a SSD Upgrade, I will end up with something like 3.000. Compared to the 1.500 or maybe even less for the maxed out 5.1 I'm more torn to the Mac Pro. Of course the CPU will be a lot faster in the iMac, but I don't need that much processor power. I mean I'm coming from a Macbook Pro 2013 and I never stressed out that CPU. So even the six core 3.33 GHz Mac Pro will be an upgrade and I can slam in a RX 580, which is nice.

If the machine holds up for 3 years I can jump on to the modular Mac Pro by then (let's hope they don't mess this one up).

 

[pl1984]

But I guess with a RAM upgrade (I assume 16 GB will be the default basic setting) as well as a SSD Upgrade, I will end up with something like 3.000. Compared to the 1.500 or maybe even less for the maxed out 5.1 I'm more torn to the Mac Pro. Of course the CPU will be a lot faster in the iMac, but I don't need that much processor power. I mean I'm coming from a Macbook Pro 2013 and I never stressed out that CPU. So even the six core 3.33 GHz Mac Pro will be an upgrade and I can slam in a RX 580, which is nice.

If the machine holds up for 3 years I can jump on to the modular Mac Pro by then (let's hope they don't mess this one up).

My recommendation is to purchase a standard config single processor 4,1 or 5,1 and see how it performs. If it's a little down on CPU you can easily upgrade it (max is a 3.46GHz, 6 core). Keep in mind upgrading from single processor to dual processor will be expensive so if you feel you would need dual processor better to start with one.

 

[handheldgames]

My recommendation is to purchase a standard config single processor 4,1 or 5,1 and see how it performs. If it's a little down on CPU you can easily upgrade it (max is a 3.46GHz, 6 core). Keep in mind upgrading from single processor to dual processor will be expensive so if you feel you would need dual processor better to start with one.

I’ll second that. Go for a x5690 over a w3690 any day. If you decide to go dual cpu And 128gb of ram, the first CPU will survive the upgrade.

 

[Eneco]

Keep in mind upgrading from single processor to dual processor will be expensive so if you feel you would need dual processor better to start with one.

I find it hard to tell if a dual processor setup is really worth it. I did some research on my main software and it is not yet optimised for a dual processor setup and runs even worse than on a single processor. But who knows what the future brings. Right now it seems to much money for little to no benefit.

 

[Silencio]

What are the main software packages you're using? True, many applications don't multi-thread very well. If you're using Logic Pro, however, that does seem to take advantage of all the cores pretty well.

Even if you're not using all the cores, getting a dual-processor cMP is a good idea for the extra RAM slots at the very least.

If they're not way out of your budget, why not consider the iMac Pro? Even the low-end SKU has power to spare for audio composition, plus has all the modern expansion ports that are an added expense and hassle to add to a cMP (USB 3.1), or downright impossible (Thunderbolt 3).

 

[kschendel]

I don't think I would over-spec a stop-gap machine. It's relatively inexpensive to put 24 or 32 Gb memory on a single core cMP, and if the OP is getting by (if poorly) now with a 2013 rMBP which maxes out at 16, I don't know that going above 24-32 would make a big difference. I'd say this is a case where I'd minimize the spending on the core machine to allow more budget for a better GPU.

I have a 2 Ghz 15 inch 2013 rMBP, and while I've never run a side by side comparison, my sense is that it's roughly comparable CPU-wise to a W3680, at least single threaded. The W3680 is maybe a bit quicker. OP hasn't said what his MBP specs are, but unless it's a top of the line, a single core cMP ought to be on par or a bit better for many tasks.

 

[pl1984]

I don't think I would over-spec a stop-gap machine. It's relatively inexpensive to put 24 or 32 Gb memory on a single core cMP, and if the OP is getting by (if poorly) now with a 2013 rMBP which maxes out at 16, I don't know that going above 24-32 would make a big difference. I'd say this is a case where I'd minimize the spending on the core machine to allow more budget for a better GPU.

I have a 2 Ghz 15 inch 2013 rMBP, and while I've never run a side by side comparison, my sense is that it's roughly comparable CPU-wise to a W3680, at least single threaded. The W3680 is maybe a bit quicker. OP hasn't said what his MBP specs are, but unless it's a top of the line, a single core cMP ought to be on par or a bit better for many tasks.

OP stated his intent is for this system to last for six years therefore I wouldn't consider it a stop-gap machine.

 

[kschendel]

OP stated his intent is for this system to last for six years therefore I wouldn't consider it a stop-gap machine.

Right, but then I believe he backed off that requirement. I agree with you that a cMP is a non-starter if a 6 year lifespan is needed.

 

[kohlson]

I have a late 2013 15-MBP (1TB SSD, 16GB, GT750M). It is somewhat more powerful in FCPX than the 4/5,1 MP sitting next to it, retrofitted with a X5680 ($110), Sandisk 480 SSD on an Accelsior PCIe card, and 32GB memory ($100). On a pure CPU load, like Handbrake, the MP is now about 20% faster in fps. Everything else, the MBP is faster. What's nice about the MP is it's configurable. But until an RX580 gets installed, the MBP is the FCPX system.

 

[Eneco]

What are the main software packages you're using?
If they're not way out of your budget, why not consider the iMac Pro?

My main DAW is Nuendo and I need to the run the game engines Unity and Unreal.

As I stated in my original post, the iMac Pro sounds really nice, but is out of my price range. Considering the 5.1 system would cost me maybe 1.300 and the entrance level iMac Pro is about 4.800 in my country.

OP stated his intent is for this system to last for six years therefore I wouldn't consider it a stop-gap machine.

Right, but then I believe he backed off that requirement. I agree with you that a cMP is a non-starter if a 6 year lifespan is needed.

Yep, I cut that off. I think I got a little bit too excited about that.

OP hasn't said what his MBP specs are, but unless it's a top of the line, a single core cMP ought to be on par or a bit better for many tasks.

It's a 15" Macbook Pro (Early 2013) with an i7 @ 2,7 GHz / 16 GB RAM / GT 650m / 500 GB SSD

I have a late 2013 15-MBP (1TB SSD, 16GB, GT750M). It is somewhat more powerful in FCPX than the 4/5,1 MP sitting next to it, retrofitted with a X5680 ($110), Sandisk 480 SSD on an Accelsior PCIe card, and 32GB memory ($100). On a pure CPU load, like Handbrake, the MP is now about 20% faster in fps. Everything else, the MBP is faster. What's nice about the MP is it's configurable. But until an RX580 gets installed, the MBP is the FCPX system.

That's somewhat unpleasant to hear. I thought the 2 more cores and higher clock rate would have a bigger impact. Maybe I really have to wait for some new consumer iMacs in the hope they transfer the iMac Pros cooling system.

 

[nampramos]

I have a late 2013 15-MBP (1TB SSD, 16GB, GT750M). It is somewhat more powerful in FCPX than the 4/5,1 MP sitting next to it, retrofitted with a X5680 ($110), Sandisk 480 SSD on an Accelsior PCIe card, and 32GB memory ($100). On a pure CPU load, like Handbrake, the MP is now about 20% faster in fps. Everything else, the MBP is faster. What's nice about the MP is it's configurable. But until an RX580 gets installed, the MBP is the FCPX system.

Really, only 20% faster? Are you on 2 x 6 cores or single 6 cores?

I had a 2014 maxed out rMBP15 with dual graphics before and although not slow on Lightroom, I wish it was still quicker when handling 50 Mb raw files.

 

[kschendel]

I have a late 2013 15-MBP (1TB SSD, 16GB, GT750M). It is somewhat more powerful in FCPX than the 4/5,1 MP sitting next to it, retrofitted with a X5680 ($110), Sandisk 480 SSD on an Accelsior PCIe card, and 32GB memory ($100). On a pure CPU load, like Handbrake, the MP is now about 20% faster in fps. Everything else, the MBP is faster. What's nice about the MP is it's configurable. But until an RX580 gets installed, the MBP is the FCPX system.

What's the GPU in that cMP? If it's an original GT120, turtles are faster. I don't know anything about the HD5770 but I don't think it was any champion either. the cMP needs a GPU upgrade to do anything graphics heavy.

 

[mikas]

I believe Handbrake uses all the cores thoroughly. That 20% faster for X5680 single processor is about right. For a Dual X5680 it should be something like 100%-120% faster though. That's when you have a heavily multithreaded process and/or apps.

Or, if you work with a program which can utilize only one core at a time, it would be 20% better with that Mac Book Pro, no matter if you had a single X5680 or dual X5680 machine. Number of total usable cores does not give any benefit in cases like this. There are single core limited tasks in my work flow too, but fortunately not so much of them, and most of them are minor or rarity tasks.

One exception is BimX Global Illumination render. It uses only one core/thread. Render can take allmost a full day with my single X5680. Unfortunately I can't halve that render time with dual X5680 over single X5680. My iMac i7 4,2GHz is faster with this single threaded tasks, something like over 80% faster.

All of these percents are somewhat in line with geekbench numbers. Everymac gives a good approximation of GeekBench values, but it's an average. With some Macs EveryMac test results do lean a little bit lower than real world performance.

As mentioned allready a number of times, me too can confirm that it depends on your software whether you can benefit dual processors or not.

I know this has been discussed or explained numerous times allready, but clearly the horse was not that dead yet.

 

[pl1984]

I believe Handbrake uses all the cores thoroughly. That 20% faster for X5680 single processor is about right. For a Dual X5680 it should be something like 100%-120% faster though. That's when you have a heavily multithreaded process and/or apps.

As an FYI Handbrake scales fairly linearly but falls off around 24 threads. I have a 32 thread Z620 and Handbrake is unable to utilize all threads to 100%.

 

[kohlson]

What's the GPU in that cMP? If it's an original GT120

Yup. For doing HD FCPX work sluggishness is typically noticeable on import/export. The rest of the time it's OK.

it would be 20% better with that Mac Book Pro, no matter if you had a single X5680 or dual X5680 machine.

I'm not sure I follow but I previously had a 2.93GHs 4-core in my MP. It was 20-25% slower on Handbrake than the 2.6GHz 4-core in my MBP.
[doublepost=1530627362][/doublepost]

Really, only 20% faster? Are you on 2 x 6 cores or single 6 cores?

Yup, only 20% faster. Upgraded from a single 2.93 4-core to a single 3.33 6-core. In perhaps a proof point that performance tuning is harder than it looks, I would say that this substantial CPU upgrade was pretty underwhelming (also consider that it ticked up the memory speed, too). Now that RX580's have come down in price, I have great expectations once that's in place.

 

[mikas]

If your apps are heavily towards multithreading, you better look at the multicore scores of GB results (MC). Three examples follows.

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=8247
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (MC)=13134 (W3680~X5680, but my own measure for X5680 is ~14500)
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=12035

If your app is not properly multithreaded, you want to look at the single core GB results (SC).

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=2572
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (SC)=2988
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=3551

If we do the maths, you have been measuring it quite right. At least pretty close to it. I am not saying GeekBench is the only thing you should look into - quite opposite. But it's readily available and it can give some approximate advice for us.

If you double the processors (or cores), you might get almost double the performance with some multithreaded apps. But not necessarily, or everytime or indefinitely (^look at pl1984 comment on HandBrake). And then there is that difference with hyperthreading enabled and HT not enabled processors (HT makes approx. 30% improvement nowadays).

Besides GHz you need to keep your IO up to your tasks (SSD), and graphics intensive tasks might need that high end GPU of course. One must have the memory enough to perform critical tasks right there in RAM if possible. Low RAM can be a disaster considering applications effectiveness and speed. Almost no gigahertz can subvent the missing memory.

 

[Eneco]

If your apps are heavily towards multithreading, you better look at the multicore scores of GB results (MC). Three examples follows.

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=8247
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (MC)=13134 (W3680~X5680, but my own measure for X5680 is ~14500)
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=12035

If your app is not properly multithreaded, you want to look at the single core GB results (SC).

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=2572
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (SC)=2988
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=3551

Besides GHz you need to keep your IO up to your tasks (SSD), and graphics intensive tasks might need that high end GPU of course. One must have the memory enough to perform critical tasks right there in RAM if possible. Low RAM can be a disaster considering applications effectiveness and speed. Almost no gigahertz can subvent the missing memory.

That's kinda my problem right now here. My main software is NOT optimised for multithreading. I read a lot of posts at the support forum where people complain about their new system with more cores performing even weaker than their last machine with less cores but higher clock rate. Therefore I have to look at the single core benchmarks and my MBP outperforms the MC on this one.

RAM / SSD / GPU would be no problem. The Mac Pro would outshine my MacBook at every of these aspects, once it has been upgraded ... except the CPU. I expected to get the same performance at least, but stepping down is somewhat uncool.

 

[mikas]

You might have gotten your answer.

I have no personal experience with iMac Pro, nor will I ever have, I'm afraid. Here I am on your side to not to invest to a machine not upgradable in any way by yourself.

I would take older Mac Pros before the new (new, really?) one. The 2010 and 2012, even 2009, before the 2013. Mac Pro 2013 looks great though, and you can still upgrade the RAM and even the CPU. The GPU on the other hand- no way to upgrade, and they were not the most reliable ones either.

What about the ordinary iMac? The 2017 ordinary iMac makes some serious noise under pressure though, I don't know if that's a problem to you. It might be. You could get a pretty high configuration with the price of an iMac Pro.

Then there are all those upgradable windows machines available.
Don't know about you, but it seems I can't swap it over to windows world so easily. I have tried it already.

 

[Eneco]

What about the ordinary iMac? The 2017 ordinary iMac makes some serious noise under pressure though, I don't know if that's a problem to you. It might be. You could get a pretty high configuration with the price of an iMac Pro.

Then there are all those upgradable windows machines available.
Don't know about you, but it seems I can't swap it over to windows world so easily. I have tried it already.

As I'm working with audio I need a quiet environment in my studio. One of the reasons why I want to get rid of my MacBook Pro. The fans are constantly running and I don't want an airplane on my desk. Maybe they adopt the iMac Pro's cooling system to the regular iMacs this fall.

Windows however is no option. I'd rather wait for the modular Mac Pro next year or pull the trigger and invest in the 5.1 Mac Pro as a temporary solution after all.

 

[pl1984]

As I'm working with audio I need a quiet environment in my studio. One of the reasons why I want to get rid of my MacBook Pro. The fans are constantly running and I don't want an airplane on my desk. Maybe they adopt the iMac Pro's cooling system to the regular iMacs this fall.

Windows however is no option. I'd rather wait for the modular Mac Pro next year or pull the trigger and invest in the 5.1 Mac Pro as a temporary solution after all.

Given your need for a quiet system, a strong focus on single core performance, and too high of a price for the iMac Pro than the 6,1 Mac Pro seems to make the most sense. To keep costs down I'd recommend the four or six core model with D300 graphics.

 

[skizzo]

Well since it was brought up you may want to consider switching DAWs or whatever type of audio applications you are running. If they currently perform poorly with single core then you will not be getting the best use until a major computer upgrade or until a new/updated version of the software is released that can utilize multiple cores better....and that may never even happen.

This would add cost ($600 max) if you decide on a new DAW/software but may make it worth while in the long run, as anything purchased today that runs on the cMP will certainly run on any recent/newer machine. So it would give you better performance now, as well as whatever computer you may upgrade to in the future

 

[barmann]

If your apps are heavily towards multithreading, you better look at the multicore scores of GB results (MC). Three examples follows.

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=8247
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (MC)=13134 (W3680~X5680, but my own measure for X5680 is ~14500)
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (MC)=12035

If your app is not properly multithreaded, you want to look at the single core GB results (SC).

MacPro: W3540, 2,93GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=2572
MacPro: W3680, 3,33GHz, 6-core: GB4 (SC)=2988
MBPro: 4750HQ, 2,0GHz, 4-core: GB4 (SC)=3551

As for the MBP results - haven't they been using turbo boost in the past few years ?
A quick search suggests the MBP's 4750HQ , rated at 2.0 GHz, goes up to 3.2 GHz under heavy load, but can it do it for extended periods of time ?
[doublepost=1530693535][/doublepost]And also this happens ->

As I'm working with audio I need a quiet environment in my studio. One of the reasons why I want to get rid of my MacBook Pro. The fans are constantly running and I don't want an airplane on my desk.

[doublepost=1530695292][/doublepost]

But I guess with a RAM upgrade (I assume 16 GB will be the default basic setting) as well as a SSD Upgrade, I will end up with something like 3.000. Compared to the 1.500 or maybe even less for the maxed out 5.1 I'm more torn to the Mac Pro.

I assume you are located in Europe ?
If so, 1500 € (still for a dual CPU cMP ?) including upgrades might be a bit optimistic .
The 8/12 core cMPs seem to sell at fairly high prices even with lower specs, at least here in Germany .

I was in a similar dilemma a few months ago, and ended up buying a refurbed cMP from one of the shops that sell configurable packages, with exactly the parts I wanted, a warranty (at least on paper ...), custom flashed GPU and no hassle with hunting down parts or assembly, or with dishonest sellers .

Cost me a bit more than the cheapest possible DIY built - assuming all goes perfectly well with that.
But with 19% VAT in Germany, for me as a professional it made good sense to go with a pro shop's offerings .
Maybe worth a thought, if you go that route .

 

[Eneco]

I assume you are located in Europe ?
If so, 1500 € (still for a dual CPU cMP ?) including upgrades might be a bit optimistic .
The 8/12 core cMPs seem to sell at fairly high prices even with lower specs, at least here in Germany .

I was in a similar dilemma a few months ago, and ended up buying a refurbed cMP from one of the shops that sell configurable packages, with exactly the parts I wanted, a warranty (at least on paper ...), custom flashed GPU and no hassle with hunting down parts or assembly, or with dishonest sellers .

Cost me a bit more than the cheapest possible DIY built - assuming all goes perfectly well with that.
But with 19% VAT in Germany, for me as a professional it made good sense to go with a pro shop's offerings .
Maybe worth a thought, if you go that route .

Dual CPU makes no sense for me, as my software is not optimised for it. I also live in Germany and I guess we are talking about the same reseller
I found a refurbished cMP with all the stuff that I need for 1000€. Upgrading the PCIe SSD costs a fortune and pushes the final price to 1.700. Therefore I'm doing some research on a PCIe SATA III SSD RAID 0 configuration to get higher transfer rates than with a regular SATA 2 SSD, but won't have to spend a fortune on the PCIe AHCI SSD. Furthermore they are really hard to find these days ...

 

[DPUser]

Mainly the 1TB PCIe SSD I need for my sample libraries. That's the biggest matter of expense.

The cheesegrater excels for audio. I run my commercial studio on a 12 core, 3.33gHz 5,1. SATA SSDs work great for sample libraries... I have five in my Mac Pro, three internal spinners for backup (two for current project daily backups, and a third long-term) plus two external USB drives rotated to handle Time Machine backups. The PCIe slots allow Universal Audio, SATA3 and other cards to be used and the GPU is upgradeable. I'm running an AMD RX460 (Gigabyte 4GB model) driving a 4k display via displayport. Using an active DP>HDMI adaptor and SwitchResX software allows 60Hz. USB gets me plenty of audio i/o (18 analog channels with room to go to 26) and latency is not an issue when using VIs.

EDIT: https://www.ebay.com/itm/PCI-E-To-S...813486&hash=item2c9a9d8d74:g:6XoAAOSweW5VRucu

Super inexpensive SATA3 PCIe card. Will give just about full speed for a single SATA3 SSD. Can connect two SATA3 SSDs, but max thruput limited by 1x PCIe slot speed.

Surprising you say Dual CPU is not a positive thing. I run Digital Performer... it makes full use of all cores (physical and virtual) in my dual-hex machine. I though just about all DAW software made good use of all cores; it's the nature of the beast: lots of independent tasks running simultaneously.

 

[barmann]

Dual CPU makes no sense for me, as my software is not optimised for it. I also live in Germany and I guess we are talking about the same reseller
I found a refurbished cMP with all the stuff that I need for 1000€. Upgrading the PCIe SSD costs a fortune and pushes the final price to 1.700. Therefore I'm doing some research on a PCIe SATA III SSD RAID 0 configuration to get higher transfer rates than with a regular SATA 2 SSD, but won't have to spend a fortune on the PCIe AHCI SSD. Furthermore they are really hard to find these days ...

That sounds good for a single cMP, if it's in good nick and has all the upgrades .

From that reseller you mentioned - Mac-Factory ? - you can also buy a PCIe card that holds two 2.5" SSDs, which should be (software) raid0 capable . Also one for a single SSD .
Assumably similar to OWC and Sonnet products, but a bit cheaper . Haven't tried them, though .

Or go with an NVME blade + cheap adapter, for files (not boot) and if you run a current OSX .
AHCI SSD blades are silly expensive right now ...

But do you need more speed than a fairly cheap single SSD on a SATAIII PCIe card will provide ?
Btw., the Crucial MX500 1TB SSD is at a pretty low price right now in Germany .