Re: Apple announces new Mac Pro

Michelle Steiner <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <fmmck-30D632.13201708012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Fred McKenzie <fmmck@xxxxxxx> wrote:

It's a dual-processor quad-core 2.8 GHz Mac with 2 gigs of RAM. It
lists for $2799. Apple says that this is the fastest Macintosh
ever made, and is twice as fast as the previous model for
processor-intensive operations.

There are 3.0 gigs and 3.2 gigs models as well.

Michelle-

I'm in the market for a new computer, but have been waiting for new
models.

I haven't been keeping up with the latest high-end speeds. When you
say that the new 2.8 GHz Mac is twice as fast, do you mean twice as
fast as the old 3.0 and 3.2 models?

I didn't say they are twice as fast; Apple says they're twice as fast:

"The fastest Mac ever, the new Mac Pro has eight processor cores and a
new system architecture that delivers up to twice the performance of its
predecessor.* It combines two of Intel's new 45 nanometer Quad-Core Xeon
processors running up to 3.2 GHz, powerful new graphics and up to 4TB of
internal storage, offering the ideal system for creative professionals,
3D digital content creators and scientists. The standard 8-core
configuration starts at just $2,799."

"* Based on estimated results comparing a preproduction 2.8 GHz 8-core
Mac Pro with a 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro running professional
applications like Maya, modo and Logic Pro."

In other words, Apple is claiming the "default" configuration (which is
somewhat more expensive than the old one in the US, same price for me in
New Zealand) is up to twice as fast. This is mainly because the default
configuration is now 8-core instead of 4-core.

The main benefit is more bang for buck. The default clock speed and
number of cores has shifted up with a moderate increase in price, the
incremental cost for getting 8-core 3.0 GHz has dropped, and you get a
much faster "cheapest" model. You are still paying a lot to get the
top-end 8-core 3.2 GHz model, which will be about 6.7% faster than the
3.0 GHz model for CPU-bound tasks.

The 8-core 3.0 and 2.8 have roughly the same difference in performance,
so the 8-core 2.8 is likely to be "good enough" for anyone who wants
excellent performance without having to pay through the nose to get a 7%
or 14% improvement (in ideal conditions).

Overall, I'd estimate that the new 8-core 2.8 model will get similar
average performance to the old 8-core 3.0 model, all other factors such
as amount of RAM being equal. Some tasks will be faster on the new model
(memory bound or only able to fit in the larger cache), some will be
faster on the old model (CPU bound and able to fit in the smaller
cache).

If you do a side by side comparison of the old and new models with the
same number of CPU cores and clock speed (e.g. 8-core 3.0 GHz), the new
model benefits in the folowing areas:

- Larger L2 cache. This will allow higher performance for CPU-bound
tasks which fit within the new cache but were too large for the old
cache, by reducing dependence on the bottleneck in accessing main
memory.

- Faster system bus and memory. This will allow up to a 20% improvement
for memory-bound tasks.

- Double the standard amount of RAM, and double the maximum RAM. (Not
cheap, however. Need to look for third party memory options.)

- Room for future improvement once applications and the system start
making use of the SSE4 instructions.

- Better video cards.

- Might have more PCI Express bandwidth available (I haven't checked in
detail).


Some disappointments:

- No new displays.

- No Blu-Ray.


Incidentally, it looks like the Xserve has been updated at the same
time, as it is showing the same basic specs (e.g. 1600 MHz system bus)
and the same options as the Mac Pro. Base price appears to be the same
(US$2999).

--
David Empson
dempson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A depressing anniversary
    ... And of course they have switched over to building multi-core processors ... forever pushing against the GHz wall. ... Twice as many GHz lets you get twice as much ... And just as most plane trips ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Compare 2GHz G5 & Adobe CS2 with 2.5GHz dual core i5 & Adobe CS6
    ... were (core for core, GHz for GHz) lots faster than G5 PPC chips for ... and i5 chips are about twice as fast again. ... What are you doing with hard drives? ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: A depressing anniversary
    ... And of course they have switched over to building multi-core processors ... forever pushing against the GHz wall. ... Twice as many GHz lets you get twice as much ... there's a job market now for rewriting programs to ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Benchmark results for Dothan
    ... > My first result is the Move benchmark (Pentium M Dothan 1.6 GHz): ... seems too good to be true (over twice as fast as every other function), ...
    (borland.public.delphi.language.basm)
  • Help! Processing power needed...
    ... fits in cache). ... ragged piece of string which seldom visits the same place twice. ... I need to escape from the slow random-access SDRAM problem. ... would then give me the performance of two SHARCs for less critical code. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)