Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but you 're comparing a 4 core cpu with with 6-8 core cpus in multicore benchmark, is this fair? really?
What about the 6 core nMP at the top? What about the 8 and 12 core models?
What about their single core benchmarks, aren't these good enough too? or they are?

Anyway you 're buying a system not just a single cpu, and these tests can't show you their true life performance.
You have to take also in account and the other parts to have a real image.

His point is that the nMP cost 3.5k and is beaten by old cMP that sold for less.
 
I'm sorry but you 're comparing a 4 core cpu with with 6-8 core cpus in multicore benchmark, is this fair? really?
What about the 6 core nMP at the top? What about the 8 and 12 core models?
What about their single core benchmarks, aren't these good enough too? or they are?

Anyway you 're buying a system not just a single cpu, and these tests can't show you their true life performance.
You have to take also in account and the other parts to have a real image.

You are evading hard facts, customers end up spending 3.5 grand (more than they did with their current setup) on a machine that's a tick slower than their model from 4+ years ago...

Who's buying a Mac Pro for single core applications?
 
I'm sorry but you 're comparing a 4 core cpu with with 6-8 core cpus in multicore benchmark, is this fair? really?

The proper way to compare is not by number of cores, but by price. Who cares if I’m comparing 64 cores to 4 cores, if I can get them both for $3000?
 
Thanks, that's my point.

Saying its cheaper by using 4 year old tech in a used market thats also does not account for inflation is not quite an equivalent comparison. Also not wanting to use an equivalent 4 core model is also not a good comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ixxx69
Saying its cheaper by using 4 year old tech in a used market thats also does not account for inflation is not quite an equivalent comparison. Also not wanting to use an equivalent 4 core model is also not a good comparison.

You don’t have to worry about inflation at all actually. We can easily find what a 2010 8-core goes for TODAY.
 
Saying its cheaper by using 4 year old tech in a used market thats also does not account for inflation is not quite an equivalent comparison. Also not wanting to use an equivalent 4 core model is also not a good comparison.

I'm not comparing used prices, I'm comparing what you had to pay for a Mac Pro then and now, both resulting in equal multi core peformance ;)
 
View attachment 588658 View attachment 588659

Nice spin on the benchmarks. For some reason you want to compare a 4 core to an 8 core Mac Pro and expect the 4 core to be faster...lol

The iMac ( Which also uses a mobile GPU BTW ) while faster on very short benchmarks, in very long renders will be beat by the Mac Pro. Thermal throttling/mobile GPU verses dedicated GPU will tell the tale.

Here are some more realistic data with a better comparison if you really want to use benchmarks:

He,he, you complain about cherry picking benchmarks then leave out the 5680 and 5690 12 core machines from multi core.

No need to explain, we know why.

The iMac's GPU is considered "Mobil" version because it is on a smaller board then desktop and has had it's wings clipped to keep it within thermal and power limits. To add to the confusion it is given a new name. Which part of that doesn't also apply to the Dx00 GPUs?
 
Equal multicore performance? A 4 core vs an 8 core? Not quite equal IMO.

I could've bought a Mac Pro in 2009 brand new from Apple and would today still be better off as with their current model. Enough griping for now, but I think lot of people disregarded those facts completely.
 
I could've bought a Mac Pro in 2009 brand new from Apple and would today still be better off as with their current model. Enough griping for now, but I think lot of people disregarded those facts completely.

Not necessarily. Metal in El Capitan brings 40-50% graphics performance increases. Something not supported in the 2009 Mac Pro, leaving it even further behind.
 
Multi core 64-bit benchmark, a workstation for 3.5 grand.

You pretty much pay more than you did for your early 2009 machine and are actually slower than before, great job Apple, minus internal storage upgradability and periphery out of the box.

Even the non-workstation CPU Imac including a display and keyboard is faster. So customers pretty much spend between 1 and 1.5 grand on the new tower design. There is no advantage over the Imac for example whatsoever, rather severely disadvantaged.

The message here, in comparison with all the other macs, is that if you really wanna waste your money, buy the new Mac Pro.

multi64bit.jpg
you make it seem as if Apple designed the performance of those Intel chips
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuck_late
Not necessarily. Metal in El Capitan brings 40-50% graphics performance increases. Something not supported in the 2009 Mac Pro, leaving it even further behind.

Why would it not be supported ? Slap a supported GPU in and go. Or did you forget that most workstations allow the upgrade of GPUs?

Put 2 @ 970s in and leave nMP EVEN FURTHER BEHIND. (Fixed it for you)
 
Not necessarily. Metal in El Capitan brings 40-50% graphics performance increases. Something not supported in the 2009 Mac Pro, leaving it even further behind.

Right, the new Mac Pro is probably perfect for first time adopters, whereas I'd think they'd be better off with an iMac instead considering the performance and what you pay for, especially with single core applications and OS efficiency.

But for steady customers who've stuck with the Mac Pro line up, there is no point in upgrading right now, given what Apple has to offer. I don't buy a Mac for its hardware but the software, though I don't want to flush my money down the toilet, and I can tell you that a lot of other professionals think the same way. If you don't care about these things, than you've never really run a business with their hardware for longer than a couple of months.

The point is I'd like to buy into their new Mac Pro and upgrade my studio Apple hardware but at the moment, they really have nothing to offer that I couldn't replace with the older 2012 and earlier models.

In addition, they ridded their new model of optical drives and upgradable internal storage, and yet don't offer any proprietary housings / cases along with a purchase, which is quite frankly unacceptable, since I really depend on burning blu rays to store away clients' data.

I've always been happy with Apple's Mac Pro model until they introduced the current model.
 
Last edited:
The proper way to compare is not by number of cores, but by price. Who cares if I’m comparing 64 cores to 4 cores, if I can get them both for $3000?

So the way you are shopping is that you have $3000 and you search what will you buy with them, or your needs/profession dictates you what to buy? if you need a six core or an eight core one you will save and buy it.
Unfortunately this is the reality.
When the nMP was announced the prices were pretty sensible (for Apple), you couldn't built something similar cheaper, even in PCs, check it please.
Macs were always more expensive, especially the first generation of a redesign.
Of course we all hope that the prices will come down at some point...
 
But for steady customers who've stuck with the Mac Pro line up, there is no point in upgrading right now, given what Apple has to offer. I don't buy a Mac for its hardware but the software, though I don't want to flush my money down the toilet, and I can tell you that a lot of other professionals think the same way. If you don't care about these things, than you've never really run a business with their hardware for longer than a couple of months.

The point is I'd like to buy into their new Mac Pro and upgrade my studio Apple hardware but at the moment, they really have nothing to offer that I couldn't replace with the older 2012 and earlier models.

I've always been happy with Apple's Mac Pro model until they introduced the current model.

Some people drive practical and some drive luxury. But you rarely see someone telling a luxury driver how much money they are wasting. And according to Apple numbers everyone seems to need a new phone ever 6 months or so. Nothing really changes functionality wise on them except for the cameras. So I suggest you'd be better off warning people who purchase $600 phones regularly that they are wasting their money compared to someone who has the money to buy a $5000 computer out of want.
 
So the way you are shopping is that you have $3000 and you search what will you buy with them, or your needs/profession dictates you what to buy? if you need a six core or an eight core one you will save and buy it.
Unfortunately this is reality.
When the nMP was announced the prices were pretty sensible (for Apple), you couldn't built something similar cheaper, even in PCs, check it please.
Macs were always more expensive, especially the first generation of a redesign.
Of course we all hope that the prices will come down at some point...

Completely agree but did they forget to drop the prices? Because it's been 2 years now since the last release...

It might be feasible for a person that's privately buying a single machine with a few additions, unless you need to upgrade 3 of them for your studio, including the imposed external storage.
 
Macs were always more expensive, especially the first generation of a redesign.
Of course we all hope that the prices will come down at some point...
Being different costs money....at least according to Apple. Don't expect those prices to come down now that they have you conditioned to pay them
 
Some people drive practical and some drive luxury. But you rarely see someone telling a luxury driver how much money they are wasting. And according to Apple numbers everyone seems to need a new phone ever 6 months or so. Nothing really changes functionality wise on them except for the cameras. So I suggest you'd be better off warning people who purchase $600 phones regularly that they are wasting their money compared to someone who has the money to buy a $5000 computer out of want.

You're comparing apples with oranges here: talking about a product that is used more frequently by the average person to a fashion item degree vs a professional customer base.
 
But for steady customers who've stuck with the Mac Pro line up, there is no point in upgrading right now

Unless they have an urgent need for a machine and they would like to have a warranty. And a quiter system.

The point is I'd like to buy into their new Mac Pro and upgrade my studio Apple hardware but at the moment, they really have nothing to offer that I couldn't replace with the older 2012 and earlier models.

You can wait for the next update and see, and judge if it's good for you. Unfortunately the only alternative is a throttling noisy iMac or a PC.

In addition, they ridded their new model of optical drives and upgradable internal storage, and yet don't offer any proprietary housings / cases along with a purchase, which is quite frankly unacceptable, since I really depend on burning blu rays to store away clients' data.

Agreed this is something many of us needed, but also they have never offered a Blue ray drive. Anyway, you can always have an external case with one installed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melodist
I could've bought a Mac Pro in 2009 brand new from Apple and would today still be better off as with their current model. Enough griping for now, but I think lot of people disregarded those facts completely.

:):):) One thing I would like to thank you for is that you have unintentionally stirred up for good this thread, it's on fire now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melodist
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.