Mac Pro w/ x1900 XT SHIPPED!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Mine finally shipped yesterday evening. Ordered August 7th 5 hours after announcements, with X1900, BT, and Airport added on. I'm in Canada.

Unfortunately, despite my order of the best shipping possible, Fedex estimates it arriving on the 12th (it originally said today, then changed to the 11th, and now it's the 12th. Hoping it doesn't get pushed further back). 4 days... Ugh...

 

[Fredou51]

thanks, arn! i just ran it on my machine with the stock 7300gt. results below:

CINEBENCH 9.5
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Dual Xeon, Mac Pro, 2GB RAM (512MB x 4)
MHz : 2.66ghz
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : OSX: 10.4.7

Graphics Card : nvidia 7300gt
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 439 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1422 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.24

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 525 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2104 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4420 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.42

****************************************************

Can someone who actually understand these number explain what this mean? Because I ordered the x1900 (with the awful 4 weeks wait) hoping to get the best performance in motion and shake but it seems like the lowend 7300GT beat the high end x1900XT in this test? Is that really what it means or is there more to it?
Thanks,
Fred

 

[[G5]Hydra]

There is something odd going on with the MacPro and cinebench. I posted the bench on my MP 3.0/7300GT on another forum a long time ago and the OGL scores were fantastic. So fantastic they actually will outscore an FX-60/2x7900GT's which will pull something roughly like:

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 450 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1650 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3300 CB-GFX

Knowing there is no way in hell a 7300GT should be able to compete with 7900GT ( let alone TWO of them) unless there is something going on here that is seriously boosting this performance. I don't think the bench is inaccurate so to speak because you can watch the bench play out and the MP really seems to run through it very very fast but I am beginning to think the MP's special multi-threaded GL is doing something unexpected here. Right now the MP is the only product shipping with this special extension and I was under the impression that applications had to have hooks written in before it could take advantage of it anyway but the machines are so new no one seems to really know what is going on. It could be something as simple as the Cinebench uses only a narrow part of any GPU and all the pipes in the 1900XT are not giving it an advantage or even the drivers in OSX may have a bug for it but I would not get all worried at this point over this bench. The thing to keep in mind is that the 7300GT's performance was ridiculously high to begin with.

After briefly checking around on the PC side of things I do see similarities to the OSX situation. Older cards like the ATI X800 XL pull similar numbers to newer more powerful 1900XT's for example. This could all be chalked up to a bottleneck in Cinebench itself but nothing so far explains how the lowly 7300GT pulls some of the highest scores I have ever seen in Cinebench 9.5

-Jerry C.

 

[TheFuzz]

evidently the gpu doesn't have any effect on render times in cinema 4d, only previews and i'm not sure if there's a "test" for that. that's not to say it won't help in motion which relies heavily on the gpu for realtime effects.

 

[THX1139]

For those of us who are not Windows savy, is there any site for dummys that can explain what you wrote in this post in plain english without any of the lingo plus with detailed explanations of all of the lingo please?...

... So I need links to help from scratch. Thanks.

Just curious Multimedia, but why all the interest in running windows on the Macpro? Did you buy one? I thought you were going to wait until next spring or summer to buy a refurb? The wording of your post seem to imply otherwise.

 

[Abulia]

If that's what it means, this is quite a scandall. Did anyone order both cards so they can report comparative experiences?

I'm feeling a stunned silence across planet Earth right now.

Those cards are in different galaxies in performance. I'd question the testing program first.

Sadly, on the Mac side, we don't have many benchmarking options.

 

[Rocksteady]

Those cards are in different galaxies in performance. I'd question the testing program first.

Sadly, on the Mac side, we don't have many benchmarking options.

i have no doubt that the 1900 is the better card... just scared and want to be reassured, mostly that theres not something stopping the card from performing, crappy drivers or conflicts of the sort can turn any card into a pile of jello

 

[damado]

the 7300 can barely play wow
With the x1900xt I'm doing 2560x1600 24 bit color 24 bit depth 2x multisample, everything maxed except half way on the anosotropic and everything down there checked except for vertical sync and it's smooth as silk

Not even my 7800GTX could have all that on

 

[arn]

ya, I think the benchmark is questionable.

Any other [freely downloable] benchmark suggestions?

arn

 

[arn]

btw, for those who want to feel better about the card

see this attachement.

I believe the Apple X1900 is the 5th one down. The 7300 is somewhere near the bottom.

 

[Rocksteady]

btw, for those who want to feel better about the card

see this attachement.

I believe the Apple X1900 is the 5th one down. The 7300 is somewhere near the bottom.

thank you your a gentleman and a scholar, this has made me at ease

 

[Chaszmyr]

btw, for those who want to feel better about the card

I searched and didn't find anything, but it may have been mentioned before (maybe even in this thread). Has anyone else noticed that according to Apple's website, the 24'' iMac gets comparable framerates to the Mac Pro with the x1900 on Doom 3 and Quake 4?

http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html

http://www.apple.com/macpro/graphics.html

 

[TheFuzz]

after searching around i found this which seems to say that gpu's don't have any impact on rendering in c4d, so therefore won't affect your score. it's a valid test, only for the cpu. if that's so, what's with the openGL scores?

 

[Rocksteady]

I searched and didn't find anything, but it may have been mentioned before (maybe even in this thread). Has anyone else noticed that according to Apple's website, the 24'' iMac gets comparable framerates to the Mac Pro with the x1900 on Doom 3 and Quake 4?

http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html

http://www.apple.com/macpro/graphics.html

ok so why does the 7300 on the imac beat the 7300 on the mac pro?
7300 on the mac pro boasts a fps of 44
7300 on the imac boasts a fps of 70...
i don't get it

 

[arn]

ok so why does the 7300 on the imac beat the 7300 on the mac pro?
7300 on the mac pro boast a fps of 44
7300 on the imac boasts a fps of 70...
i don't get it

I looked briefly, and they weren't specific on the settings for the iMac, so it's hard to say what is being compared.

arn

 

[Fedge]

Ok, so now that I got the machine back up and running (I think, fingers crossed), I've managed to do some more gaming.

I tested Call of Duty 2 and it absolutely flew. I had all the graphics options maxed and playing 1920x1200. I can't believe I've been missing so much of the detail in these games. This mac just brings all of the life out of these games. For some reason my FEAR disc won't install properly, but I'm working on that next.

 

[Multimedia]

Need To Know About Installing Windows For Clients • Mac Pro Not Powerful Enough 4 Me

Just curious Multimedia, but why all the interest in running windows on the Macpro? Did you buy one? I thought you were going to wait until next spring or summer to buy a refurb? The wording of your post seem to imply otherwise.

I'm a Mac consultant. So I need to know about how to install and run windows on all the Intel Macs so I can do it for clients.

I just retested UB versions of the software I run a lot on the Mac Pro and it's not faster than the G5 Quad for my purposes. So I don't plan on buying one myself - even after they go refurb. I'll have to have a Clovertown Mac Pro before I can rationalize moving beyond the G5 Quad I have now. Also, I do plan on getting a 2.33GHz 17" MacBook Pro sooner than the Clovertown Mac Pro - If I can convince myself they are fairly fast. At this point I am not sure yet.

I, unfortunately, have stumbled into the need for more computing power than 99.44% everyone else needs - a level of power that will not be realized for several more years of engineering advancement - I hope. So I am not really in anyone else's boat here.

But I love you all.

 

[kered22]

I tested Call of Duty 2 and it absolutely flew. I had all the graphics options maxed and playing 1920x1200. I can't believe I've been missing so much of the detail in these games.

You're killin me here. LOL Do you have the Quake 4 or Doom 3 UBs? I'd appreciate benchmarks of those if you have the time.

 

[Fedge]

Sadly, no. I do not own Quake 4 (for the mac) or Doom 3 at all. I'm sorry.

Were you the one who was asking about BF2?

 

[Chaszmyr]

I looked briefly, and they weren't specific on the settings for the iMac, so it's hard to say what is being compared.

arn

They don't say the settings, but it is the same test, and the Mac Pro was run at pretty low resolution. Even on minimum settings for the iMac I wouldn't expect that kind of difference.

 

[THX1139]

I just retested UB versions of the software I run a lot on the Mac Pro and it's not faster than the G5 Quad for my purposes. So I don't plan on buying one myself - even after they go refurb.

Would you happen to have tested the UB of Final Cut Pro? I'm curious to how the UB for FCP on the 2.6 compares to to FCP on the G5 Quad when it comes to rendering.

But I love you all.

Yeah, that's what my girlfriend said just before she dumped me.

 

[paulpet]

Well, the Mac Pro (with X1900) I ordered this last Wednesday (the 6th) has shipped and due for delivery this coming Monday!! Awesome.

Are there really still people still waiting on shipments (in the US)?

 

[Multimedia]

Don't Have FCS UB Yet • Ordering In December Just Before Upgrade Offer Expires

Would you happen to have tested the UB of Final Cut Pro? I'm curious to how the UB for FCP on the 2.6 compares to to FCP on the G5 Quad when it comes to rendering.

I've been putting off exercising my upgrade option on FCS Until December 10 - about 10 days until the offer ends. I want to get a UB that has as many updates in it as I can. So no I can't help you with that. According to Apple it's about 50% faster at rendering.

My problem is I'm all about crushing video with Toast 7 and Handbrake to take a 4.2GB 42 minute HD broadcast hour show minus ads recording and reduce it to a decent 351MB mp4 QT file by sequentially crushing it with those two programs. Right now it takes longer than the programs play to do that. I want it to take 5 minutes. So we obviously have a while to go before I will think computers run fast enough.

I gotta say that the price of Mac Pro RAM is really offputting to me. So I have just got to be patient while the engineers figure out how to make this possible in rapid time.

 

[Magis]

charged.

Still no update from apple but my card just got charged. Definitely a good sign. How long does a charge occur before shipping?

 

[Rocksteady]

mine shipped 2 days ago and still has not been charged to my card.... shall i cry yet?

PS. i got my email notice at like 12:20 at night pacific time.... so everyone that has not recieved theirs yet do not lose hope, they get you when you least expect it, i think thats their plan, so allways be watching