Penryn-based Mac Pro gets benchmarked
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 10th 2008 4:11PM
posted January 10th 2008 4:11PM
It's just been a short two days since Apple rolled out its latest Mac Pro update, but that was apparently more than enough time for the folks at Primate Labs to get their hands on one and put it through its paces. They only got the 2.8GHz model, however, so they weren't quite able to fully back up Apple's claims that it's the "fastest Mac ever," but that's not to say they didn't find plenty to be impressed with. In particular, while the new system trailed the older, 3.0GHz model in floating point performance, it edged it out in integer, memory and stream performance -- a feat all the more impressive considering the new 2.8GHz Penryn system is a fair bit cheaper than its speedier predecessor. Of course, those less concerned with saving a few bucks can opt for the new, top-end 3.2GHz model, which should give you plenty of benchmark bragging rights until Apple dishes out its next update.
[Via AppleInsider]
[Via AppleInsider]
Here's a question for all the hard core enthusiasts: If I run Win XP with Boot Camp on a new Penryn Mac Pro will it be as fast as the SAME hardware configuration built only for Win XP and not made by Apple?
Probably faster, just like the MBP...
Are you kidding me? You people talk like Apple products are magic or something! If XP is running on bootcamp on OS X it will run slower than on a PC of the same specs running only Windows...
I don't have time to explain it further. Ill just say that believe it or not, Microsoft actually tries to make quality products and a Apple is not magic.
Bootcamp is not virtualization, it is booting your mac with windows. It you said VMWare or Parallels then you'd have a valid point.
Holy crap people are vocal about this!
I'm just sad that my Mac Pro isn't the hottest thing on the block anymore... ::sniffs::
Oh, and they failed to mention that the new Mac Pro uses 800MHz RAM in stead of 667MHz.
@ Jesse S, Zak Pwned your Ass!!! he's right, I just got the 2.8GHz and it's completely silent, just a whisper, and the case is rugged, not some home brew cooler master full of plastic, this thing rules, and you'll never beat it (well, not anytime soon) in the PC world!! And I'm not a FanyBoy either!!!!!! I have 2 Desktops and a Laptop all running Vista Ultimate, and they are like old thinkpads now...hahahaahahahaahaha
Faslane
...congrats?
Careful, I tried to order the new 8800GT vid card for my 2007 mac pro and apple called today to verify which mac pro I had and then canceled it because it's not compatible. If you bought a mac pro a month ago, you can't use the new mac pro vid cards.
So these probably won't be compatible with the 2009 vid cards.
@Jesse S
Wow, building it yourself is cheaper than buying pre-assembled? That's impossible! Next thing I'm going to hear is buying engine parts and a metal hull is cheaper than a Porsche... This is utter nonsense.
Other people have said this as well, but... doing math benchmarks on a multi-processor machine shows NOTHING. That's not the point of a box in this architecture.
You need to measure real-world WORK, not how fast you can crunch numbers with an app that didn't come out of a compiler that was geared to optimize for a multi-processor environment.
A decent example would be a weather simulation. Run the same simulation on multiple multi-boxes and look at the WORK throughput.
wtf...
Well, most software today uses multiple threads of independent (and not so independent) code. Also, different processes can take different units, and process simultaneously. Extra processing units are always welcome.
Of course, math processing is always the one that benefits more from multiple cores/processors, since most common problems require brute processing power and are easily splited through the cores, wasting too little processing cycles.
@KTachyon: "Of course, math processing is always the one that benefits more from multiple cores/processors, since most common problems require brute processing power and are easily split through the cores, wasting too little processing cycles."
Sure, when we're talking about weather modeling or cancer research... Not the classic math benchmark.
Loading BOINC on a multi-core machine and watching the work unit output while looking for ET is a MUCH better true benchmark.
@KTachyon: "Of course, math processing is always the one that benefits more from multiple cores/processors, since most common problems require brute processing power and are easily split through the cores, wasting too little processing cycles."
Sure, when we're talking about weather modeling or cancer research... Not the classic math benchmark.
Loading BOINC on a multi-core machine and watching the work unit output while looking for ET is a MUCH better true benchmark.
It's just a PC ... is it worth all the arguing? There are way more important things in life to waste energy on :)
To get a reasonable cost estimate you should probably at least include some kind of labor costs even if you are building it yourself. You can count it as the cost you would of had otherwise or as an opportunity cost.
So a technician building this would probably charge $50 per hour? Or calculate the time you get paid at your job for this as your opportunity cost.
Dont forget its simply not building it you have to take into account the time you took researching the parts and driving and such. So I would guess at a bare minmum 3 hours.
Well, what roro2210 said is not entirely false... if you can split a process into 8 independent parts, each using little cache memory (including running code), without any outside access from the processor, and no branch prediction, you'll get 24 billion profitable cicles...
It's unlikely, but still possible...
Anyway, what I wanted to say was: don't beat him up for adding, lol.
This is an achievement for intel, not Mac. Let's not confuse who does what here. Mac makes the pretty OS, Intel makes the speedy processors.
Really? Intel designed the Mac Pros? No, let's really not confuse who does what. Intel makes the processors, Apple makes everything else. Software, hardware, all of it. Apple designs its own logic boards. power supplies, everything. So while it's true that a computer won't do much without processors, it's also true that a processor by itself won't do much either.
Wow, really Zak? Intel provides the northbridge, southbridge, pcix chips, the gb ethernet chip, probably broadcom handles the second one, nvidia or ati supplies the video card, and someone makes the memory other than apple (Kingston, Crucial, etc.).
They use seagate, WD, Maxtor, Hitachi, Samsung, etc. hard drives (i really dont know which one).
The dvd drive isnt theirs.
The days of logic boards are over, and thats because not many companies made the PPC chipset systems because Apple was the very few companies to use it.
Apple designs the case and how everything fits in it, as well as the OS and accessories. Everything else is outsourced. Dont be ignorant to the facts. Macs = PC's with a different loading system to assure regular server boards dont use OSX.
And not only do the Macs cost less than comparable Dells and HPs, Apple makes a big profit margin on them!
Now, how is that?
Mac Pro is a bad deal. BUT, it is a better deal then you will get from the other vendors, by far.
Xeon is overrated, it isn't as powerful as people think it is, despite its specifications.
Apple's Mac Pro configuration is stupid, because a single Harpertown core requires a minimum of 4GB of Memory to fully perform. Due to shortcomings on Intel's part, the type of memory required(FB-DIMM) is about twice the price of other memory, and has relatively high latencies. It is not the type of Ram that should be used, and Apple doesn't help by putting in 2 processors, which really kills the cores' efficiency.
A custom configuration is best in both price and warranties (individual part warranties are usually quite good, although there is more maintenance, at least initially), but the downside is lack of support and assembly. In my experience however, most companies' support sucks either way, and can only help you with the most common of problems. I've heard that Apple does have better support, but not awesome.
My Additional Comments. Sorry about the double post.
The new pro is slower than the old, even though the old has slower
Ram and only 1GB. If they were set up equally, the Clovertown would
crush the Penryn.
Xeon is overrated. My optimal workstation:
All prices and components found here can be found at Microcenter or
newegg.
COMPONENTS:
1. 4 (2x2) GB Vista Upgrade Edition PC2-6400 DDR2 Memory Kit
2. 500GB 7200RPM 3GB/Sec SATA Hard Drive
3. GeForce XLR8 8800GT Graphics Processor: BUS Technology: PCI
Express 2.0 (backwards compatible with PCI Express), Memory Amount:
512MB, Memory Interface: 256-bit, Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec): 57.6,
Fill Rate (billion pixels/sec.): 33.6, Stream Processors: 112, Shader
Clock (MHz): 1500 MHz, Core Clock (MHz): 600 MHz, Memory Frequency
(effective): 1800 MHz
4. GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3R LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard –
Retail
5. Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9650 3.0GHZ LGA 775 130W 1333
MHz FSB 12MB L2 Cache
6. LaVie Leather ATX Case (with 500 W Power Supply, 80mm LED fan,
Black leather front panel)
7. Silent Square CPU Ultra Silent for Ultimate Performance—Fan
8. Sony NEC Optiarc Black 20X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 20X DVD-R
6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM IDE
20X DVD±R DVD Burner – OEM
9. Vista Home Premium (OEM)
10. 1366x768 Winbook LCD HDTV
11. 8 Meter High Performance HDMI M/M Gold Cables (3 meter)
EXPENSE:
2 x 4GB Memory Kit = 74.99
2 x 500GB SATA Drive = 239.98
1 x 512MB GPU = $279.99
1 x Intel Motherboard = $126.99
1 x Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor = $1200
1 x Computer Case = $59.99¬
1 x CPU Fan = $59.99
2 x DVD Burner 53.98
1 x Vista Operating System = 99.99
1 x 1366x768 Winbook LCD HDTV = $499.99
1 x HDMI Cables = $29.99
1 x Wireless Mouse/Keyboard Combo = 59.99 (This one was a
guess/estimate)
¬1 x Pack of Gum = $.99?
TOTAL: $2786.86