Wow thanks Seb, that really is something don't you think?
I mean, for anyone who is not in in video editing/3d modeling/design aso. it seems like a waste of money to me to put $1000 D700s in there right now.
Any thoughts?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
nMP/new Mac Pro/Mac Pro 6,1 Reviews [MERGED]
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow thanks Seb, that really is something don't you think?
I mean, for anyone who is not in in video editing/3d modeling/design aso. it seems like a waste of money to me to put $1000 D700s in there right now.
Any thoughts?
Estimated Floating Point Peformance
Hello All
I have been following this thread with great interest now we actually have some prices and a few Geekbench 3 scores after months of pointless and groundless speculation.
I do a lot of rendering and use my all the 12 cores on my MacPro 3.33 Ghz machine heavily. I actually get 24 rendering threads which really helps with my productivity.
I bought a second hand machine that had been upgraded with a new processor tray by the seller. It cost £3600 including VAT. Not cheap I know, but these are hard to find and hold their value.
The machine gets a floating point integer score of 32000 with Geekbench3
The barefeats.com website has a leaked score for the nMP 12core 2.7Ghz with a floating point score of 38000, approximately 19% faster, for a cost of £5700 inc VAT with a base model with the only improvement being the 12 core 2.7 Ghz processor.
My second hand and upgraded machine is equivalent to an 8core in floating point performance ( I know that in other areas these nMP's will be much better, but my big aluminium enclosure also contains 3 x 1TB drives and an SSD. I also have a host of external firewire drives and two old fashioned non thunderbolt Apple monitors. These would all need new adapters or new external enclosures if I wanted to use them with the nMP)
I have embellished an earlier chart and added some core totals (assuming all 12 cores are under load, whilst rendering for example) and some estimated Geekbench 3 scores, assuming a linear correlation.
I would like one of these nMP but would benefit most with the new 12core model, but right now I am very happy with my old, secondhand Mac Pro which is not so shabby after all.
Hello All
I have been following this thread with great interest now we actually have some prices and a few Geekbench 3 scores after months of pointless and groundless speculation.
I do a lot of rendering and use my all the 12 cores on my MacPro 3.33 Ghz machine heavily. I actually get 24 rendering threads which really helps with my productivity.
I bought a second hand machine that had been upgraded with a new processor tray by the seller. It cost £3600 including VAT. Not cheap I know, but these are hard to find and hold their value.
The machine gets a floating point integer score of 32000 with Geekbench3
The barefeats.com website has a leaked score for the nMP 12core 2.7Ghz with a floating point score of 38000, approximately 19% faster, for a cost of £5700 inc VAT with a base model with the only improvement being the 12 core 2.7 Ghz processor.
My second hand and upgraded machine is equivalent to an 8core in floating point performance ( I know that in other areas these nMP's will be much better, but my big aluminium enclosure also contains 3 x 1TB drives and an SSD. I also have a host of external firewire drives and two old fashioned non thunderbolt Apple monitors. These would all need new adapters or new external enclosures if I wanted to use them with the nMP)
I have embellished an earlier chart and added some core totals (assuming all 12 cores are under load, whilst rendering for example) and some estimated Geekbench 3 scores, assuming a linear correlation.
I would like one of these nMP but would benefit most with the new 12core model, but right now I am very happy with my old, secondhand Mac Pro which is not so shabby after all.
Attachments
I'm really looking forward to see some true, unbiased, professional reviews, because those from macworld and cnet are quite ridicule. Testing a workstation with silly gaming/multimedia benchmark aimed mostly at consumer and against consumer hardware, is just meaningless and extremely misleading.
We already know haw fast the machine is in term of processing power. Cinebench CPU and geekbench give us a good idea of the performance, and unsurpringly the nMP beated every single old MP.
Basically with the nMP you can have one of the fastest single Xeon workstation on the market, if you want more in a single machine you have to go for a pricier dual Xeon system(pc or hackintosh), or if your software allow it you can use a nMP as a main workstation alongside cheaper external render nodes that will destroy every dual Xeon for much less money(this is my personal solution: http://forum.vrayforc4d.com/threads/cheap-rendernodes-for-dr.14214/page-2 ).
We have yet to see extensive GPU testing in many pro app, I'm waiting for this.
Then the final and most important test, how well will perform in our hands? because benchmark are just numbers, and do not tell the whole story.
We already know haw fast the machine is in term of processing power. Cinebench CPU and geekbench give us a good idea of the performance, and unsurpringly the nMP beated every single old MP.
Basically with the nMP you can have one of the fastest single Xeon workstation on the market, if you want more in a single machine you have to go for a pricier dual Xeon system(pc or hackintosh), or if your software allow it you can use a nMP as a main workstation alongside cheaper external render nodes that will destroy every dual Xeon for much less money(this is my personal solution: http://forum.vrayforc4d.com/threads/cheap-rendernodes-for-dr.14214/page-2 ).
We have yet to see extensive GPU testing in many pro app, I'm waiting for this.
Then the final and most important test, how well will perform in our hands? because benchmark are just numbers, and do not tell the whole story.
Last edited:
Yes, agreed. I was trying to tell the same thing previously on the other posts. I think I will not notice any big change if I buy nMP.
Last edited:
Engadget review is up.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/?ncid=rss_truncated
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/?ncid=rss_truncated
Could not agree with you more. They don't use benchmarks geared toward workstation that makes use of multiple cores & Multiple GPU's.
Geekbench is pretty meaningless anyway.
What I'm waiting for is actual task tests by Barefeats.
Pretty much. But not to many reviews out there yet. Anadtech has one so my guess is we see a review sometime yet this year.
Except you are really limited to i7 with hackintosh, unless you really like living on the edge.
----------
As everyone has said all along, the Hex/D500 is the sweet spot, unless you have specific needs that utilize the 8/12 or the D700.
personally, i really think the 8core is the sweet spot as far as performance goes.. it's just that it costs considerably more than the hex so then the 6core becomes the sweet spot
personally, i really think the 8core is the sweet spot.. it's just that it costs considerably more than the hex so then the 6core becomes the sweet spot
Well, depending on uses...
I don't use anything that will push 8 cores, and yeah, just a bit of a price difference.
Well, depending on uses...
oh.. right.. assuming you can utilize more than 4 cores.
the bummer is that people needing more than 4 cores actually need around 96 cores(variable).. the cost puts it out of reach though..
maybe i'll try that out in a few of the 'what config?' threads-
"if you don't need 100 cpu cores, buy the quad"
Be aware that there's certainly an error in those tests or some hardware/software problem.
There's no way you can obtain similar results between the 2010 and 2013 in Geekbench and very different results in Cinebench.
Even the disk read/speed test are a significantly different from all the other reviews.
I'm wondering if he run all the test together.
But which 2010 Mac Pro did they use? They didn't say, but surely it must have been the 12-core.
Even if the author is not reporting what machine is(that's crazy .), according to geekbench score is surely a 12core 2,93ghz.
They didn't say anything like that. They did say that right now they'd have a hard time justifying upgrading from say an iMac or Macbook Pro. But the truth is most of the additional expense comes when you add additional capability. Compare the cost of the top of the line iMac with 16GB and 512GB SSD to similar nMP: $2900 vs $3400. Performance will be similar except when those D300s are utilized. If I'm buying one or the other and don't need a display, the additional $500 would be well worth it to me.
Yeah, if you had a 2012 or newer iMac, MBP, or cMP, upgrading is not a huge gain (but then again, that has been true for upgrades for a few years now.. if your system isn't at least 3 years old, you probably don't need to).
Most video editors don't edit 4k because it's generally unnecessary. And most editors who edit for a living don't use FCP-X. So all this hype about "it's for video editors" seems misplaced. I think it's best for 3D modellers, probably..
All posts here are empty talk, whats the point with geek bench? Lets see reviews by people who processes ct scans, simulate galaxies collisions or oil rigs engineers.
I think a lot of the machine's horsepower is wrapped up in driving a 4k display. That's where a a GPU with 6 gigs of VRAM would really shine especially over lower VRAM cards like the 780..
Shame Apple didn't release a 4k display with it.