Description image

Mac Pro Benchmarks Supposedly Leak Ahead of Late 2013 Release

06.20.13 @ 3:55PM Tags : ,

Back of New Mac ProWe might have to wait until sometime in the fall to get our hands on a new Mac Pro, but some benchmarks have reportedly leaked showing some of the performance of the new system. While CPU improvements will likely be minimal, GPU performance should increase dramatically from previous Mac Pros, especially with programs that can take advantage of the additional processing power to offload some tasks from the CPU. Check out the initial benchmarks below.

These Geekbench specs and results were recently uploaded, and they seem to suggest hardware that is currently not available to the public adding validity to this rumor (courtesy of MacRumors):

Specs for New Mac Pro vs Mac Pro 2012

Mac Pro Geekbench 2013

It should be noted that these are not really utilizing the GPU, so the improvements in a test like this will be minimal. It’s also pretty early on in the optimization process, so just because Apple has already announced the computer, does not mean there isn’t still a long way to go before they can squeeze every bit of performance out of it — especially since it’s also running on the newest version of OS X, Mavericks, which also won’t be released until the fall.

It isn’t completely confirmed that these are from the new machine, so it’s probably good to take this with a grain of salt.

Either way, what do you guys think?

Link: Mac Pro Benchmarks — Geekbench

[via MacRumors]


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 64 COMMENTS

  • john jeffries on 06.20.13 @ 3:59PM

    Wow, and I thought my macbook pro’s 11k benchmark was fast ….

  • Looks ok, but as it is you can add several new GPU’s into your 2012 model Mac Pro [or Hack Pro, if you prefer], and even go with top of the line nVidia hardware [still the undisputed king of Adobe's Mercury playback engine], which would then cause Premier and AE on the old Mac Pro to spank this new coffee can computer… Why should we be excited again?

    • Few thoughts on Macs:

      Macs are overpriced where pure performance is concerned.

      Macs have usually the best design & attention to detail available.

      When the newest Macs are released, they usually have some of the best performance available. However due to slow refresh cycles and low-upgradeability they soon fall behind the fastest PCs available (as those pretty much ride the cutting edge).

      This new Mac Pro has some advantages and some disadvantages. For those that have the money and don’t mind the disadvantages, it could be the perfect machine.

      Me personally – if money was not an issue, I’d be happy to use mainly maxed out Apple hardware. The design is just fantastic. But as money is an issue for me, I am more than happy to stick with the Windows ecosystem. My old Quadcore desktop is rock solid even after 4+ years of usage and a few incremental upgrades. Zero failures of any kind and MUCH fewer app crashes than on my iPad ;-)

    • Few thoughts on GPUs – CUDA vs OpenCL (Nvidia vs AMD).

      On the software front, OpenCL is being widely adopted, soon it will be where it matters the most.

      On the hardware front, check out some GFX card reviews on Anandtech. They always include several compute benchmarks. I wasn’t really analyzing it deeply, but for the last couple of consumer cards AMD seems to have serious compute hardware advantage over Nvidia (at least among the consumer cards). So I assume that for the same money, AMD has compute advantage over Nvidia. So if you are building computer on a budget, AMD card could be the way to go.

      If your software supports it, you could put in 2 cheaper (older) gaming cards and you would have super fast system for reasonable money. Just check the Anandtech benchmarks for compute results, and select your ideal card based on price/performance ratio you like.

  • Pretty underwhelming on the CPU side.

  • Same number of cores, same number of threads for processing. Double the cache (all levels) almost triple the ram (plus it’s almost 30% faster) and you’re getting 8% better CPU performance?

    None of this matters until they ship the final product and how the machine as a whole chews through benchmarks, but I certainly hope….after waiting more than 5 years since the last significant update…that the performance (in comparison) is better than this.

    • “Same number of cores, same number of threads for processing. Double the cache (all levels) almost triple the ram (plus it’s almost 30% faster) and you’re getting 8% better CPU performance?”

      Take into account the fact that the new Xeon E5 processors used in the benchmark testing are only 2.7GHz, against the 3.07GHz of the 2012 Mac Pro. So, lets compare it when Intel delivers a faster E5 processor, with the same processor speed this will go up.

  • Man, this is totally gonna cost like $5,000, isn’t it…

  • The meager increase in CPU performance is more than offset by it’s inability to utilize legacy PCI-E devices or adequately handle the throughput required for uncompressed 4K video via TB2.

    • Thunderbolt 2 has two bidirectional 20Gbps channels. Although we don’t know just how much aggregate bandwith one of the new mac pros can handle, the specification is enough to drive both a 4K display and storage at the same time.

  • Anthony Marino on 06.20.13 @ 5:57PM

    Having sustained R/W speeds around 1000MB/s with this type of power will be fine for most of the 4k workflow out there today.

  • They install a slower processor in a newer computer and down grade from two processors to one??

    They shun blu ray technology and the new iMacs don’t even have disc drives.

    Apple has been doing wrong for too long now.

    • john jeffries on 06.20.13 @ 6:32PM

      When was the last time you burned a disc? Be honest.

      • I’ve got to deliver a short film on blu-ray to have it shown next week at a local theater. It’s pretty common around here.

      • They are basically shoving this stuff to your desk with all the cables and powersupplies… meh.

      • Yesterday.

      • Yesterday…on my iMac.

      • People still burn disks.

      • last week.

      • A lot of us still burn discs. For film festivals sometimes and for art galleries. And for people who wants a copy of the project. It’s still more common then you would think.

      • Linuxdanish on 06.21.13 @ 7:31AM

        See that is just the thing though. I don’t burn disk consistently so I don’t always have an external drive with me. If I burned disk consistently I wouldn’t mind having an external burner sitting on my desk or in my laptop bag. But as it stands now when I show up to a client and they have DVD I have to go around and hunt down a drive from somewhere and it is a huge pain. So it is a huge convenience thing especially on a desktop workstation. whether this ruins the Mac Pro or not, I don’t think so. However it certainly is annoying and stupid :p

      • 2011 maybe?

      • You can say you just burned a disc, but we all know it’s a dying practice. No one can argue that they burn as much as they used to. That one odd film festival doesn’t justify having a component that takes up wasted space. With that argument, we should include Firewire 800 ports and Blockbuster would still be in business…

        • You’re ignoring that it’s extremely easy for theaters to have a blu-ray player hooked up to their system to get high quality video and surround sound. It’s not a here and there thing, it’s most of them.

      • William Koehler on 06.27.13 @ 5:20PM


    • Adobe have discontinued Encore as of a few days ago. No new releases planned. Apple were just ahead (too far ahead for some) of the curve.

      If you do get CC, this is how to download Encore CS6:

    • For what it’s worth – computer tech has been pushing up and up the processor ‘amount’ for the last few years because it was a way on paper to make it look like you were getting more processing power. But also in the past few years, most of the editing software and other high end design stuff has flipped from using totally processor power to relying a lot on the gfx card. NOW, one last tidbit, from what I understand the guys who make processors charge a crazy high amount for the ‘bridge’ between processors – we’re talking literally a grand here.

      So in conclusion: mac sees the switch from processor power to gfx power, cuts processor by a minimally noticable amount to put money back into where it matters – I BET, even with the made in USA tag, these things come in under what the current pros are going for (caveat: apple can set the price at whatever the hell they want since there’s no direct competition, but I’m just saying there’s a very valid reason for the processor ‘downgrade’)

      • The move to a single-cpu setup isn’t a big deal, as it is far cheaper to put more cores on the same die than put to units with a bridge in. If you bought a single-cpu mac pro, you weren’t planning on adding another cpu – the card (with it’s very expensive bridge) is around $1k, and not including the cost of the cpu.

        I doubt the validity of the benchmark. The increase in memory bus speed and L3 cache should pump out more of a performance boost.

        It’s also important to consider that an intel iSeries is not a Xeon. Xeons come of the line with much tighter specs as to acceptable number of errors. They are far more stable and generally intended for workstation and enterprise server use.

        The one downer is on the gpu end for reasons already stated.

  • People still buy Mac & don’t build their own PCs for a lower cost?

    • Even if, for some reason, you hate the Windows OS, building a hackintosh would be more powerful, less expensive and a better option overall.

      • Nick Hiltgen on 06.20.13 @ 11:27PM

        Building a hackintosh would be less expensive but not more powerful, at least not with the same specs. This could change with the new Mac Pro but I doubt it as the GPU’s they have listed are around 2k a piece at new egg, nevermind the cost of the new Xeon chip (which are also hella expensive) or thunderbolt 2 or a light weight system or….

        Hackintosh’s are great (I’ve built 5 so far) but if you want thunderbolt the current builds don’t really cut it (there is one, it’s buggy and not hot swappable, at least for me) Honestly if you need the power this new Mac Pro could be the best option for you, but most people don’t, most can do just fine with USB3.0 a quad core i7 an nvidia 6xx and heck you can add a blue ray drive if you really want it. Most people complaining about the new Mac Pro SHOULD be using a hackintosh an those that NEED the power of a Mac Pro will be very happy with it.

    • Mac people don’t think like the rest of us.

      • it’s funny how a few years ago, people were complaining about how video editors now need to be an IT expert, and now everyone’s like ‘oh but I cant have dual processors, or the latest graphics card, I cant customise this, I cant customise that’

      • You’re right. Mac users realize that the difference of a few hundred dollars is ins in exchange for a seamless, warrantied, and far more elegant hardware-software integration. I don’t have the interest or the time to spend time ordering parts from different vendors, hoping that everything works and that a future OS or software update doesn’t cripple my machine.

        Creatives who aren’t cheapskates understand this. Perhaps for hobbyists the case is stronger for a Hackintosh build.

  • I’ll wait for benchmarks on a non-beta OS with optimizations. These stats aren’t worth the bits that store them.

  • Thyl Engelhardt on 06.21.13 @ 2:02AM

    Seems that this benchmark is the precice reason why Apple decided to re-focus on graphics cards. There is simply not much progress in CPU power lately. Improvements reported for intel CPUs concern mostly the AVX and the on chip GPU.

    And simply putting more cores into the system will also not have the desired effect, as there is a diminishing return of investment in terms of core numbers; at least for desktop software. Servers and number crunching super computers might benefit from increasing the number of cores, but not so much a computer that is used for e.g. video editing.

    Maybe, in the end, we will get some kind of cluster solution, and hopefully, that solution will somehow include the GPUs of several Mac Pros as well.

  • People who want a new Mac Pro will buy a new Mac Pro and tell us all about how amazing it is and how they just can’t work with “Windoze” and how it’s so much more powerful than anything else.
    The rest of us will carry on using the best solution our wallets (and accountants) can afford.

    • As usual you should consider the premium you pay for a much more refined and dependable Os really integrated with the hardware.

      • Anthony Marino on 06.21.13 @ 9:56AM

        Purely speculation…”refined” “dependable”? I’d agree with you 3 years ago, however times have changed. Though the Mac will perform nicely I’m sure, there’s many of us who made the switch and haven’t looked back. My windows unit is just as stable as any Mac I ever owned and still more powerful. Horses for courses of course but if you don’t want to spend unnecessary cash and need a more powerful unit from the looks of it a soild built windows unit is the only way to go.

        • Anthony Marino on 06.21.13 @ 11:48AM

          I will add that I’m talking about editing video. I don’t use my machine to surf the web, only for updates. I was speaking in terms of video editing software with premiere pro in mind. For all my other computing and web based stuff I use my mac air or iPad. For that purpose alone I agree you can’t beat a mac for that

      • …dependable Os really integrated with the hardware.

        Like a HP workstation you mean.

        • Anthony Marino on 06.21.13 @ 12:40PM

          Yes but specifically for video editing look at a company in Kentucky, ADK. There’s a guy there Eric Bowmen and he’ll get you set and you’ll never look back. hp is a great machine, powerful and stable but for the challenges we face which seems like every month with newer codecs and cameras I’d be more inclined to use a builder who specializes in the latest equipment. And they know macs too. Just figured I’d share in case anyone is looking for a pc now that the mac pro is released. Thanks

          • Rob Manning on 06.27.13 @ 4:36PM

            ADK builds/tests under load, fully, and runs the betas into the ground before they release. Great company.

    • Actually, most people who buy a Mac Pro (or any Mac) probably don’t spend their time caring about whether or not you use a PC.

      Trust me.

      • I love it when people use PC’s and Windows. Keeps the viruses, worms and malware out of my Mac.

  • Funny how Windows users are always in mac forums writing how better their machines are compared to apple.

    • Rob Manning on 06.27.13 @ 4:38PM

      This is not a Mac forum, it’s a MAC byline thread, free country.

    • Buy that crapif you want. I had problems with each Apple product I purchased. I only continued ti buy because of FCP. Since new version FCP X and no upgrades of pro apps,. I decided, I will not continue to be a donkey that gives money to Apple share holders… Good luck

    • Final Cut was the only reason to use a MacPro but since FCX (lol) there is no reason.

  • Let’s leave the hardware out of this.. windows is what sucks, microsoft is the only business in the world that cannot fail no matter how dumb their decisions are. I switched back to pc after the release of fcpx and built a badass machine. It hasn’t been perfect I’ve had multiple issues with premiere but it’s just as fast as our editor’s mac pro and was half the price. He has a 12-core beast, really nice but not worth $9,000, case in point, look at how much apple charges to upgrade your ssd when you buy a computer.. about 3 times the amount that the drive costs anywhere else. Meaning yes they make nice computers with a more stable and intuitive operating system, but their products are still overpriced and you get more value for your dollar if you build your own machine. One of the biggest reasons they are so stable is because hackers don’t bother making viruses for them because they control such a small share of the market. It’s a better virus making time investment to just go after windows lol. But actually a friend of mine had a virus crash his macbook a couple weeks ago… not surprising though because he does download a lot of porn…. Actually I’m just upset because I should have gotten a mac instead. The stability is worth it’s f***ing weight in gold. k ranting complete

    Anyway I’m done yelling at nobody, ranting complete

  • Me stupid Mac user since 1992.
    Me no understanding idiotic benchmark with impressive numbers
    Me want CS6 and all dependents work flawless and fast and no fucking ” your application quits, send report to Apple” !.
    That’s it that’s all !

    • Me also stupid Mac user since 1999
      Me trusted Apple and bought their products because of FCP
      Me no more trust Apple since FCP X debacle and no upgrade of professional apps
      Me think Apple not fair with professional clients
      Me think Apple take their clients for donkeys
      Me will never buy any Apple products anymore

  • It should really kik a$$ compared to my 2007 Mac Pro, which is no slouch in it’s own right.

  • Why are you even posting this? Unconfirmed benchmark scores that don’t even have GPU, which is the one component we filmmakers care about?

    Thanks, NFS, for wasting 5 minutes of my life.