Mac Pro "Sandy Bridge-E" Performance Analysis

[Amethyst]

This is only my opinion about Mac Pro Single Processor "Sandy Bridge-E".

Assume:
1.) Next SP Mac Pro will use this line up.
3.6 Quad Core Xeon E5-1620
3.2 6 Core Xeon E5-1650
3.3 6 Core Xeon E5-1660

2.) Sandy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge have identical clock-byclock performance but different on Memory , I/O Speed and etc.

Evidence:
[1] http://www.barefeats.com
[2] http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//sandybridgee-results.jpg
[3] http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di..._Boost_Performance_by_Up_to_65_Estimates.html

Analysis:
- E5-1620 will be faster than i7-2600K ~ 5-6% on both Multi-Threads and Single-Threads according to it's faster clock
- E5-1620 will be faster than Xeon W3680 ~ 10-15% on Single-Threads and On-the-par on Multi-Threads according to iMac Testing + 5% that E5-1620 faster than i7-2600K [1]
- E5-1650 faster than Xeon W3680 ~ 4-5% on Single-Threads and ~5-10% on Multi-Threads according on [2]
- E5-1660 faster than Xeon W3680 ~ 8-12% on Single-Threads and ~10-15% on Multi-Threads according on [3]
- E5-1620 will be faster than E5-1650 ~ 4-5% On Single-Threads and ~15-18% Slower Than E5-1650 on Multi-Threads according to it's faster clock.
- E5-1620 will have same speed with E5-1660 On Single-Threads and ~20-25% Slower Than E5-1660 on Multi-Threads according to it's equal turbo boost.

My Bottom Line:
1) Mac Pro vs iMac : If you consider to buy an iMac or Mac Pro. Next Entry-Level Mac Pro will 5-6% faster than Top-of-the-line iMac.
2) WAIT For Entry-Level Mac Pro Buyer : You will get ~20-30% Performance boost with 3.6GHz Quad Mac pro. (VS. 2011 2.8GHz Quad Mac pro) and on-the-par with 6Core 3.3GHz Mac Pro in Multi-Threads situation.
3) For 6-Core Mac Pro : If My Assumption are true you will be get 6 Core system much cheaper.

 

[Tanax]

I love numbers.
These types of speculations are so awesome and I can't wait to see the new Mac Pro's!

 

[Inconsequential]

If the E5-1650 is only going to be ~5% quicker than a W3680 then I really hope the new Mac Pro isn't more than the current second level Mac Pro.

Otherwise I'll be getting myself:

W3680
16Gb DDR3-1333
PC 6870

For ~£800

Price of my current MP: £1200

So the 2011 MP has to be Around ~£2100 for me to even consider buying one. :/

*After HE discount!

 

[Amethyst]

Current Mac Pro line up.
$2499 - Xeon W3530
$2899 - Xeon W3565
$3499 - 2x Xeon E5620
$3699 - Xeon W3680
$4999 - 2x Xeon X5650
$6199 - 2x Xeon X5670

If the E5-1650 is only going to be ~5% quicker than a W3680 then I really hope the new Mac Pro isn't more than the current second level Mac Pro.

This numbers is only came from my guess based-on speculation+assumption. Its not a final fact.

but i'm pretty sure Quad 3.6 GHz E5-1620 will outperform Quad 3.2 GHz W3565.

 

[Inconsequential]

Current Mac Pro line up.
- Xeon W3530
- Xeon W3565
- 2x Xeon E5620
- Xeon W3680
- 2x Xeon X5650
- 2x Xeon X5670



This numbers is only came from my guess based-on speculation+assumption. Its not a final fact.

but i'm pretty sure Quad 3.6 GHz E5-1620 will outperform Quad 3.2 GHz W3565.

Well a 2600K is 95% the multi-thread of the W3680 so a 6 core 2600K should be quite abit faster?

Either way I'll be doing my upgrade maths for my best route.

Wouldn't mind a new Mac Pro tho

 

[Amethyst]

Well a 2600K is 95% the multi-thread of the W3680 so a 6 core 2600K should be quite abit faster?

Either way I'll be doing my upgrade maths for my best route.

Wouldn't mind a new Mac Pro tho

From this -> http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//sandybridgee-results.jpg

 

[Inconsequential]

From this -> http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//sandybridgee-results.jpg

Edit: Nevermind, reading it wrong.

10% clock for clock improvements as an average, which is what I was expecting...

We'll see when official benchmarks come up, but 10% is a very minimum it'd have to be better IMO.

 

[Feek]

Hey hey!

I just want one, having been limited to an iMac for the last few weeks I really miss a Mac Pro.

 

[Hellhammer]

I would take these early benchmarks with grain of salt. For example the Bulldozer benchmarks we saw a month ago were total crap. The clock for clock increase should be somewhere around 20%, at least that's what LGA 1155 brought.

 

[Amethyst]

Platform preview from Tom's Hardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026.html

 

[derbothaus]

Well that does not look too promising. I was hoping for more. X79 looks to be a sham Only 2 SATAIII links? No PCIe 3.0. No USB 3.0. Small single thread benefit as expected but the lack of GPU silicon shows i7-2600 as still slightly better with legacy coded software. On the tests that are multi threaded, i7-990x (W3690) seem to hold their own, still. Let's see if or how Apple extends the functionality of X79. Fingers crossed.

 

[blunti]

Well that does not look too promising. I was hoping for more. X79 looks to be a sham Only 2 SATAIII links? No PCIe 3.0. No USB 3.0. Small single thread benefit as expected but the lack of GPU silicon shows i7-2600 as still slightly better with legacy coded software. On the tests that are multi threaded, i7-990x (W3690) seem to hold their own, still. Let's see if or how Apple extends the functionality of X79. Fingers crossed.

15-20% increase is not bad though. 2xSATA 3 is better than none However, one can't probably tell the real-world difference between sata 2 and sata 3 when it comes down to everyday use. (booting, launching apps).

I'm still tempted to get the current 12core 2.93 but can't justify spending that much on last years technology.

Agree ton the i7-2600 comment of yours though.

 

[VirtualRain]

Platform preview from Tom's Hardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026.html

Thanks for sharing. I don't see upgrading my Bloomfield to SB-E. I think Ivy Bridge will be the next platform I consider.

 

[derbothaus]

15-20% increase is not bad though.

I know. I did not see that 15-20% though. Showed to be slower more often than was comfortable. It should have won every test. Some not by much but the tests it did look good in were more synthetic and it lost in the real world even with the extra time and architecture changes put in. If they could do this with 95W then maybe we've got something. But no, 130W with little gain.

 

[blunti]

I know. I did not see that 15-20% though. Showed to be slower more often than was comfortable. It should have won every test. Some not by much but the tests it did look good in were more synthetic and it lost in the real world even with the extra time and architecture changes put in. If they could do this with 95W then maybe we've got something. But no, 130W with little gain.

We do not know what Apple will do with those 40 lanes. I do tend to agree that the gain is minimal.

Only interesting thing for me would be the Sata 3 connectivity and (possible) TB port.

That being said what do you think about buying the 12 core 2.93 now?
Or still suggesting to wait a bit?

 

[jsolares]

I know. I did not see that 15-20% though. Showed to be slower more often than was comfortable. It should have won every test. Some not by much but the tests it did look good in were more synthetic and it lost in the real world even with the extra time and architecture changes put in. If they could do this with 95W then maybe we've got something. But no, 130W with little gain.

it was on par with the 2600 not the current xeons, tho it might make more sense to get an iMac with the i7 than a pro :S

 

[derbothaus]

We do not know what Apple will do with those 40 lanes. I do tend to agree that the gain is minimal.

Only interesting thing for me would be the Sata 3 connectivity and (possible) TB port.

That being said what do you think about buying the 12 core 2.93 now?
Or still suggesting to wait a bit?

Wait. So close now. You will want to get the single thread clocks SB-E offers. If you are dropping that much scratch, make purchase right after they release so the "tax" isn't so high. Premium parts with premium price. Apple just never drops the price after PC users have access to discounts.

 

[blunti]

Wait. So close now. You will want to get the single thread clocks SB-E offers. If you are dropping that much scratch, make purchase right after they release so the "tax" isn't so high. Premium parts with premium price. Apple just never drops the price after PC users have access to discounts.

Sounds reasonable, thanks!

 

[zephonic]

I don't see upgrading my Bloomfield to SB-E. I think Ivy Bridge will be the next platform I consider.

That's my view as well. I couldn't wait any longer, got an '09 Nehalem instead and will hold out until IvyBridge.

If Apple hasn't EOL'ed the MacPro by then, that is.

 

[Amethyst]

As i mention before the way that apple can easily divide imac & mac pro. Is remove sp mac pro. And bring dp as standard like we seen on 1,1 2,1 3,1.

 

[nanofrog]

As i mention before the way that apple can easily divide imac & mac pro. Is remove sp mac pro. And bring dp as standard like we seen on 1,1 2,1 3,1.

The SP versions are going to continue to displace the DP models due to the increasing core counts on a single die (8 cores on a single die will be available on some of the SB-E5 2P server processors).

 

[Amethyst]

The SP versions are going to continue to displace the DP models due to the increasing core counts on a single die (8 cores on a single die will be available on some of the SB-E5 2P server processors).

Yes. core on a single die are count. but it can't match a number from dual processor system. so that way we can completely divide an iMac from mac pro. (e.g. on next gen 6-Core iMac Mac pro user will get 12 Core as based.)

 

[Umbongo]

Yes. core on a single die are count. but it can't match a number from dual processor system. so that way we can completely divide an iMac from mac pro. (e.g. on next gen 6-Core iMac Mac pro user will get 12 Core as based.)

Are you suggesting that the only expandable Mac should start at $4,000+ or that Apple should return to the pricing they had on pre-2009 Mac Pros?

 

[Amethyst]

Are you suggesting that the only expandable Mac should start at $4,000+ or that Apple should return to the pricing they had on pre-2009 Mac Pros?

Start at $3299

 

[derbothaus]

Cheaper, of course. Always.