Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why the 12-core is only 2,7GHz? Huge disappointment!

A

ApplesAOranges

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 7, 2011
335
3
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.

Is this some scheme by Apple, that later on they will just raise the clock speed and sell new machines? Even when they are exactly the same machines, except they just raised the clock speed and sell it as "new".

If I buy the 2,7GHz 12-core now, I´m stuck with that clock speed. :mad: If I want a faster clock speed, I will have to give in to Apple´s dirty little scheme and buy a whole new machine, since the new Mac Pros are unupgradeable. :mad:
 
ApplesAOranges said:
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.

Is this some scheme by Apple, that later on they will just raise the clock speed and sell new machines? Even when they are exactly the same machines, except they just raised the clock speed and sell it as "new".

If I buy the 2,7GHz 12-core now, I´m stuck with that clock speed. :mad: If I want a faster clock speed, I will have to give in to Apple´s dirty little scheme and buy a whole new machine, since the new Mac Pros are unupgradeable. :mad:
Click to expand...

It probably has more to do with intel and the ability to yield all 12 cores on a single die.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2697 v2.html

When intel improves so will the speed.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.

Is this some scheme by Apple, that later on they will just raise the clock speed and sell new machines? Even when they are exactly the same machines, except they just raised the clock speed and sell it as "new".

If I buy the 2,7GHz 12-core now, I´m stuck with that clock speed. :mad: If I want a faster clock speed, I will have to give in to Apple´s dirty little scheme and buy a whole new machine, since the new Mac Pros are unupgradeable. :mad:
Click to expand...
Is this a serious thread? Please tell me it is not.
 
Also the 4-6-8-cores won´t be any faster than my current machine, so this is really disappointing.

The new 12-core clock speed is slower than my current machine and it´s only marginally faster according to the benchmarks, so Apple´s hype at the keynote was just that, hype... or better yet lies and BS!

Really wanted a way faster machine after 3 YEARS, but won´t get one! :mad:
 
ApplesAOranges said:
Why the 12-core is only 2,7GHz? Huge disappointment!
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the fact that you are putting 12 cores all on one die and at a higher clock speed the price would start to be much more of a factor.

Right now your system has two 6 cores plus the 12 core 3.06 and 2.93 were apples Hi-end systems and were also very expensive and very capable systems. So you may not have a need to upgraded based on that.

If I had one of those 12-core systems I may not feel compelled to upgrade to the nMP either.
 
They have to underclock the 12 core and also reduce the turbo boost overclock for a single core.

If you're not doing any serious multithreaded work the lesser cores may be a better option with the higher base and turbo boost clock. Probably intel's next gen xeon architecture next year will allow higher speeds.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
Also the 4-6-8-cores won´t be any faster than my current machine, so this is really disappointing.

The new 12-core clock speed is slower than my current machine and it´s only marginally faster according to the benchmarks, so Apple´s hype at the keynote was just that, hype... or better yet lies and BS!

Really wanted a way faster machine after 3 YEARS, but won´t get one! :mad:
Click to expand...

Yeah, may as well just toss your "Old" machine in the trash, nothing is right in the live-and-die-by-my-computer world.
 
Gav Mack said:
They have to underclock the 12 core and also reduce the turbo boost overclock for a single core.

If you're not doing any serious multithreaded work the lesser cores may be a better option with the higher base and turbo boost clock. Probably intel's next gen xeon architecture next year will allow higher speeds.
Click to expand...

Probably the one after the next one will give higher speeds. Haswell was more of a energy saving update which won't mean much for Mac Pro. Broadwell will boost speeds though.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
Also the 4-6-8-cores won´t be any faster than my current machine, so this is really disappointing.
Click to expand...


That part is old news. I mentioned the cost to x86 performance ratio earlier on. As for the 12 core, it's still fast. My complaint is price drift.
 
Believe me, the slow clock speed isn't the only disappointment with the new Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
The newer xeon architecture will be faster than the previous generation clock for clock. Still I would love it to be Dual six core instead of the single 12 core. If that was the case it could have gone up to 24cores/48threads!!!!!!!
 
Running 12 cores and 24 threads the E5-2697 will run at 1 bin over 2.7GHz. It tops out at 3.5GHz well over the OP's frequency and has lower thread execution that will embarrass Westmere. Let's all please read up before complaining of low frequency like they are at all measured the same generation to generation. All kinds of other optimizations are also inherent. The 8-core benches faster than the 3.06GHz 12-core according to the rumors results. 12-cores at 2.7GHz will still be faster than 8 at 3GHz. Guaranteed.
 
It seems some people think that clock speed is the only thing that dictates the performance of the CPU. I can guarantee that even though the clock speed of the 12 core Xeon is similar to the old models, it will out perform them significantly. Clock speed isn't everything, there are many other factors that come into play.
 
Very interesting reading :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585-2.html
 
ApplesAOranges said:
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.
Click to expand...
You might want to look at recent processor releases; clock speed has been a poor indicator of performance for some time now, as while the new processors may have slower clock speeds, they can get a lot more work done than previous processors.

Besides which, you're ignore the Turbo Boost feature; the the 12-core can actually run at up to 3.9ghz by shutting down unused (or lightly used) cores, so if your workload actually requires a higher clock speed, then the processor will operate at that speed.


Think of it this way; I have an early 2008 Mac Pro with 8 cores running at 3.2ghz, but the mid 2012 model at 3.06ghz is a lot faster overall. Not least of all because an 8-core 2012 model actually has 16 hardware threads, but also because it can simply perform many common tasks in far fewer steps than my 2008 can; encryption, compression, video encoding and other operations are simply faster on newer processors, irrespective of clock speed.

Hell, the quad core Mac Mini running at 2.6ghz is now more powerful than my 2008 8-core Mac Pro in a wide range of applications.


Clock speed is only relevant if your workload is single threaded and completely unoptimised, and if that's what you need, then you're using the wrong programs.
 
ApplesAOranges said:
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.

Is this some scheme by Apple, that later on they will just raise the clock speed and sell new machines? Even when they are exactly the same machines, except they just raised the clock speed and sell it as "new".

If I buy the 2,7GHz 12-core now, I´m stuck with that clock speed. :mad: If I want a faster clock speed, I will have to give in to Apple´s dirty little scheme and buy a whole new machine, since the new Mac Pros are unupgradeable. :mad:
Click to expand...

If you actually have applications that _need_ twelve cores, then most likely they will be using the GPUs for calculations. And these GPUs are powerful.

----------
snapdragonx said:
It seems some people think that clock speed is the only thing that dictates the performance of the CPU. I can guarantee that even though the clock speed of the 12 core Xeon is similar to the old models, it will out perform them significantly. Clock speed isn't everything, there are many other factors that come into play.
Click to expand...

My MacBook Pro quad core (the one at the lower clock speed) compiles large programs faster than an eight core Mac Pro.

----------
iBug2 said:
Probably the one after the next one will give higher speeds. Haswell was more of a energy saving update which won't mean much for Mac Pro. Broadwell will boost speeds though.
Click to expand...

Floating-point performance of Haswell is _hugely_ higher than the older processors. The limit is eight fused multiply/add operations per cycle per core. But of course code needs to be re-compiled or even adapted. Benchmarks run identical code on all processor models, so you won't get that advantage when running benchmarks.
 
haravikk said:
Clock speed is only relevant if your workload is single threaded and completely unoptimised, and if that's what you need, then you're using the wrong programs.
Click to expand...

i need a cad program.. care to recommend a multithreaded / 'optimized' one? i really wouldn't want to use the wrong one.
thanks #
 
ApplesAOranges said:
This is a huge disappointment! Even my old mid 2010 12-core is 2,93GHz. And the mid 2012 was upgraded to 3,06GHz.

Is this some scheme by Apple, that later on they will just raise the clock speed and sell new machines? Even when they are exactly the same machines, except they just raised the clock speed and sell it as "new".

If I buy the 2,7GHz 12-core now, I´m stuck with that clock speed. :mad: If I want a faster clock speed, I will have to give in to Apple´s dirty little scheme and buy a whole new machine, since the new Mac Pros are unupgradeable. :mad:
Click to expand...

The new one is more powerful, despite the slower clock speed, and the 2012 Mac Pro used two 6 core chips, not one 12 core chip.
 
EDIT: I am mistaken about the 8/12 core (see below)…

If I'm not mistaken, this family of CPUs is somewhat unique in that it offers the same turbo clock scaling across the line. By that, I mean the 4, 6, 8, and 12 core have turbo profiles such that they all run single threaded tasks at 3.9GHz, utilize 4 cores at 3.7GHz, 6 cores at 3.5 GHz (for the 6, 8, and 12 core CPUs) and so on. For the first time (?), you don't have to compromise and choose single core clock speed vs. multiple cores which is awesome. Buy just as many cores as you think you can load up regularly and know you're not compromising on single threaded performance.

EDIT: Although this is still relevant to the OP…

As for why clocks are lower as more cores come into play, that's simple... Each CPU has to fit within a specified thermal design profile (TDP) to ensure it can be cooled properly and not burn up. These CPUs are all designed for a 130W TDP and TDP (among other things) is a function of both clocks and cores. So as cores being used goes up, clocks must go down to keep the thermals within the 130W spec.
 
Last edited:
VirtualRain said:
If I'm not mistaken, this family of CPUs is somewhat unique in that it offers the same turbo clock scaling across the line. By that, I mean the 4, 6, 8, and 12 core have turbo profiles such that they all run single threaded tasks at 3.9GHz, utilize 4 cores at 3.7GHz, 6 cores at 3.5 GHz (for the 6, 8, and 12 core CPUs) and so on. For the first time (?), you don't have to compromise and choose single core clock speed vs. multiple cores which is awesome. Buy just as many cores as you think you can load up regularly and know you're not compromising on single threaded performance.

As for why clocks are lower as more cores come into play, that's simple... Each CPU has to fit within a specified thermal design profile (TDP) to ensure it can be cooled properly and not burn up. These CPUs are all designed for a 130W TDP and TDP (among other things) is a function of both clocks and cores. So as cores being used goes up, clocks must go down to keep the thermals within the 130W spec.
Click to expand...

The 12-core is lacking as it only has a maximum turbo boost of 3.5GHz. We have to keep in mind that turbo boost bins are just potential. It is possible that after an hour of intense processing on 3-4 cores could see an E5-2697 V2 running at 2.7GHz where an E5-1650V2 may run at 3.7GHz. That could make the difference to some users. Not every CPU will operate exactly the same either.

More on the ratios here: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18235837/
 
Umbongo said:
The 12-core is lacking as it only has a maximum turbo boost of 3.5GHz. We have to keep in mind that turbo boost bins are just potential. It is possible that after an hour of intense processing on 3-4 cores could see an E5-2697 V2 running at 2.7GHz where an E5-1650V2 may run at 3.7GHz. That could make the difference to some users. Not every CPU will operate exactly the same either.

More on the ratios here: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18235837/
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks, strike what I said above :eek:
 
A single 2.7GHz Ivy Bridge EP core is faster than a Nehalem 2.93Ghz core, and it's also faster than the 3.06GHz core in the 2012 model.

On top of that, it has a turbo boost of 3.5GHz

if clock speed was what mattered then go buy a Pentium 4 3.8GHz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back