Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Thursday, January 10, 2008, 11:10 am
Primate benchmarks Apple's new 8-core Mac Pro
Just days after its introduction, the folks at Primate Labs have grabbed hold of one of Apple's new 2.8GHz Harpertown-based Mac Pros and pit the system against its 3.0GHz Clovertown-based predecessor in a set Geekbench benchmark tests.The results saw the new Mac Pro with its two 45-nanomete (nm) quad-core 2.8GHz chips and 2GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM nearly match the overall performance of the previous-generation Mac Pro, which employed two 65 nm quad-core 3.0GHz chips and 1GB of 667MHz DDR2 RAM.
While the Harpertown Mac Pro trailed the Clovertown machine in floating point performance, it bested the system in integer, memory and stream performance. Overall, the Hapertown Mac Pro achieved a Geekbench 2 score of 7598 compared to the Clovertown Mac Pro's 7680.
The results are impressive, notes Primate, when you consider that the new Mac Pro is much more affordable than the old Mac Pro. Apple also offers the latest Mac Pro at speeds of up to 3.2GHz -- a configuration which should handily trounce the 3.0GHz Clovertown machine in each and every benchmark.
On Topic: Mac Pro
- New Mac Pro's radical design draws admiration, criticism via Photoshop
- Developer secretly tested new Mac Pro for weeks inside Apple's 'Evil Lab'
- US assembly of Apple's new Mac Pro to be handled by Flextronics - report
- Apple's OS X Mavericks hints at future Retina Thunderbolt Displays and iMacs
- Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
Previous Comments View All
I thought i had read that the 2.8 was a different chip than the 3.0 and 3.2, with a slower frontside buss? Anyone know for sure?
It would be nice if they'd make an effort to minimize the variables. In this comparison, they've changed the clock speed, chip type, and amount of RAM. Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn. Even if they didn't have the 3.0 GHz Cloverton, they should have AT LEAST put the same amount of RAM in both machines. It's impossible to tell how much the RAM difference affected the results, so how do you draw conclusions?
I thought i had read that the 2.8 was a different chip than the 3.0 and 3.2, with a slower frontside buss? Anyone know for sure?
Processing
8-core: Two 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, or 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 series processors
Quad-core: One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 series processor
Enhanced Intel Core microarchitecture
o 12MB of L2 cache per processor (each pair of cores shares 6MB)
o 128-bit SSE4 SIMD engine
o 64-bit data paths and registers
o Energy efficiency optimization
1600MHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses
(source) They all use the same high-end Xeon L2 cache and FSB.
Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn.
Did I completely not get what you were saying? How would it be ideal to compare the Clovertown to the Penryn? They don't use the Penryn in the Mac Pro, it is a Core 2 processor not a Xeon.
Yawn!
Arguably the old and the new have the same performance, a slightly different price tag, and probably lower power consumption for the 45 nm.
Yeah a definite Yawn.
For many, speed is not an issue anymore but size and price are. Hopefully we won't be disappointed on Tuesday and we'd see an xMac with at-least one PCI slot.
Did I completely not get what you were saying? How would it be ideal to compare the Clovertown to the Penryn? They don't use the Penryn in the Mac Pro, it is a Core 2 processor not a Xeon.
The 5400 series Intel Xeon used in the Mac Pro are Intel Core 2 "Harpertown" Penryns.
Arguably the old and the new have the same performance, a slightly different price tag, and probably lower power consumption for the 45 nm.
They are testing the baseline 8-core setup with the previous model's top-of-the-line setup which makes the price difference very significant.
Apple doesn't list of the older 8-core systems but they do have the 4-core systems @ 3.0GHz and 2GB RAM for $3,300. I'm guessing the older 8-core systems would add at cool $1000 on top of that.
As for performance, it would have been nice if they used the same amount of RAM, but they processor tests show a very good machine for the price, not to mention that once Leopard can utilize SSE4 there will be a nice jump in performance. This makes this new machine a future-proof investment.
it appears they compared the previous top-of-the-line dual processor Mac Pro with the new bottom of the line DP model, both in stock config as sold by Apple.
The new one low-end DP Mac Pro (stock config) comes with more RAM, better video, enhanced card slotting and memory, larger HD, and the new Al keyboard, for substantially less money, and closely matches performance with the previous top-tier model. And unlike 8-core Mac Pros bought before October 07, it includes Leopard. Also has more upfront ports, I believe.
It seems pretty apparent that it's an overall better deal.
I can't think of a single thing I do on a Mac where I wouldn't appreciate more speed. Faster app loading, better performance, less beach-balls. I know I'd get more out of typing better, but overall, more speed is never a bad thing
it appears they compared the previous top-of-the-line dual processor Mac Pro with the new bottom of the line DP model, both in stock config as sold by Apple.
The new one low-end DP Mac Pro (stock config) comes with more RAM, better video, enhanced card slotting and memory, larger HD, and the new Al keyboard, for substantially less money, and closely matches performance with the previous top-tier model. And unlike 8-core Mac Pros bought before October 07, it includes Leopard. Also has more upfront ports, I believe.
It seems pretty apparent that it's an overall better deal.
I can't think of a single thing I do on a Mac where I wouldn't appreciate more speed. Faster app loading, better performance, less beach-balls. I know I'd get more out of typing better, but overall, more speed is never a bad thing
front ports look the same to me. Don't forget it also comes with Bluetooth.
PS: Anyone know how much the previous 8-core model cost new?
It would be nice if they'd make an effort to minimize the variables. In this comparison, they've changed the clock speed, chip type, and amount of RAM. Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn. Even if they didn't have the 3.0 GHz Cloverton, they should have AT LEAST put the same amount of RAM in both machines. It's impossible to tell how much the RAM difference affected the results, so how do you draw conclusions?
Yeah, it's not really a benchmark, but more like a "basemark"... it's the lowest priced model (though the price is different) despite the processor speed, memory and FSB speed differences.
All it really says is, if you were going to buy the BASE model Mac Pro, you get more for your dollar, and you don't have to pay as much.
I'd really have preferred a much more direct comparison, esp. with the RAM (ie, 2GB vs 2GB)
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Apple patent chief departs amid major ongoing IP lawsuits
~2 hours ago -
Apple TV update adds HBO Go, WatchESPN & more channels
~3 hours ago -
Leaked schematics reveal what case makers expect Apple's low-cost iPhone & 'iPhone 5S' will look like
~4 hours ago -
Apple wins $30 million iPad contract from LA school district
~4 hours ago -
Inside iOS 7: iBeacons enhance apps' location awareness via Bluetooth LE
~7 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| 11"1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $964.18* | $34.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,206.68* | $42.32 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,400.68* | $48.32 |
| 11" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,691.68* | $57.32 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,352.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,643.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,497.00* | $52.00 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,788.68* | $60.32 |
* price with Promo Code:
APPLEINSIDER01
|
||
| Click for even more configurations | ||
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.00 | $329.00 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.00 | $429.00 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.00 | $529.00 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.00 | $539.99 | $559.00 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.00 | $539.99 | $539.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
How is this "much more affordable" given the $300 increase for the 2nd model, and the base model being the same price but only having one processor?
edit: I see. They are comparing the suggested model with the previous high-end machine.