new NEW Mac Pro ships — mostly

[bayswater]

Geekbench 5 Multi-Core Scores:

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3245 @ 3.2 GHz (16 cores) 14285

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2191B @ 2.3 GHz (18 cores) 13194

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3235 @ 3.3 GHz (12 cores) 11599

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2170B @ 2.5 GHz (14 cores) 11319

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2150B @ 3.0 GHz (10 cores) 9593

iMac (27-inch Retina Early 2019)
Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.6 GHz (8 cores) 8205

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2140B @ 3.2 GHz (8 cores) 8120

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3223 @ 3.5 GHz (8 cores) 7606

...

Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 @ 3.1 GHz (12 cores) 5618

??? These are really low scores. Are they really single processor scores?

[monkey man]

Indeed they are, Stoivo.

The more-advanced chips, you'll notice, score higher, but yeah, AFAIA they're all single-processor scores.

[HCMarkus]

Geekbench 5 Multi-Core Scores:

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3245 @ 3.2 GHz (16 cores) 14285

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2191B @ 2.3 GHz (18 cores) 13194

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3235 @ 3.3 GHz (12 cores) 11599

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2170B @ 2.5 GHz (14 cores) 11319

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2150B @ 3.0 GHz (10 cores) 9593

iMac (27-inch Retina Early 2019)
Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.6 GHz (8 cores) 8205

iMac Pro (Late 2017)
Intel Xeon W-2140B @ 3.2 GHz (8 cores) 8120

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3223 @ 3.5 GHz (8 cores) 7606

...

Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
Intel Xeon X5675 @ 3.1 GHz (12 cores) 5618

??? These are really low scores. Are they really single processor scores?

No. They are Geekbench 5 Multicore Scores. Geekbench recalibrates with each update, so you can't compare to prior version scores. I provided Multi scores as they are most pertinent to DP users.

For comparison, here's the top Single Core Mac:

iMac (27-inch Retina Early 2019)
Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.6 GHz (8 cores) 1252

Added today, here's the 24 core Multi:

Mac Pro (Late 2019)
Intel Xeon W-3265M @ 2.7 GHz (24 cores) 17733

For reference, here's the Mini Hex Multi:

Mac mini (Late 2018)
Intel Core i7-8700B @ 3.2 GHz (6 cores). 5690

https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

[mikehalloran]

Thanks for posting that!

Based on the CPU specs, it's about what I expected: a 12 Core MP similar to a 14 core iMP; 16 Core MP to an 18 Core iMP and so on.

Had the July price reductions not kicked in for the iMP, it would be more expensive; now it's less—even better when found in the Refurb Store @ 15% less.

The mid-level 5700x 16GB GPU is not yet available for the MP so at the moment, all of the iMPs have a better card than the MP's base 580x (same card is optional on the non-Pro iMac). $2500 and up (up,UP) gets you monster GPU options for the MP. The 580x will not run three 5K monitors while any GPU upgrade will as does the iMP.

GeekBench scores are only useful for comparing Apples to Apples and only within a GB version as has been pointed out. So, if comparing a Mini to an iMP to a MP for certain raw performance numbers, yea, it's a start but that's all it is. Since DP is not dependent on GPU performance unless you're wanting to run multiple 5K monitors, it's a decent indicator.

Other than that, GB scores don't mean much. How do these machines perform in the real world?We know that 150 instances of Kontakt with 2 plugs incl. a convo reverb on each track strains a 12 Core MP 6.1 while 300 runs easily on a 10 Core iMP and 1,000 runs fine on a MP but we don't know what horsepower is required under the hood of that MP (and I asked at the WWDC). We also know that a 2018 Mini is all the Mac that many DP users really need.

Knowing the actual limits of those machines … now that would be a number worth knowing. I'd love to find such a project and see just how many tracks I could run on my 14 Core before the fans kick up from idle. Not willing to create it, however—too busy.

All the heavy testing is being done with FCPx, MAYA rendering, Photoshop and other GPU and RAM intensive apps. I love how the armchair idiots still think that single core performance means anything, especially when they respond with Photoshop. Apparently, they haven't gotten the word that it's been "optimized for MP performance" for years. Perhaps Adobe should have stated Multi Processor instead of MP.

Back to work. Again, thanks for posting the scores.

[HCMarkus]

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro ... own/128922

[bayswater]

Thanks HCM.

[mikehalloran]

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro ... own/128922

And that is why I wish I'd been able to wait.

Now the $64 Question: Will a 424e card work in it? (yea, yea, it would still need a hack and CueMix is still 32 bit but...)

[HCMarkus]

Now the $64 Question

I see what you did there Mike

[jloeb]

What’s really driving me nuts about what's currently known about the new MP is storage. I need to add more SSD capacity beyond 4TB, it’s perfectly fine if it’s not secure/encrypted (just gonna be VI content) and, at the moment, there’s no clear path to doing that. I don’t want platters, other than for backup so they do not need to be an overpriced 7200rpm RAID MPX module. Yes, there’s always external but given all the space within the unit, which is the purpose of the unit, that would be silly to have to resort to.

I presume this stuff will come, but the uncertainty of that has me nervous. Why should it need to be a third party kludge in the first place to get 6-9TB of SSD internal?

Staying with my 5,1 3.46GHz 12-core crammed fulla Tempo SSD PCIe cards & platters for the moment...

[HCMarkus]

What’s really driving me nuts about what's currently known about the new MP is storage. I need to add more SSD capacity beyond 4TB, it’s perfectly fine if it’s not secure/encrypted (just gonna be VI content) and, at the moment, there’s no clear path to doing that. I don’t want platters, other than for backup so they do not need to be an overpriced 7200rpm RAID MPX module. Yes, there’s always external but given all the space within the unit, which is the purpose of the unit, that would be silly to have to resort to.

I presume this stuff will come, but the uncertainty of that has me nervous. Why should it need to be a third party kludge in the first place to get 6-9TB of SSD internal?

Staying with my 5,1 3.46GHz 12-core crammed fulla Tempo SSD PCIe cards & platters for the moment...

I don't think storage expansion requires a kludge... I seem to recall that there is space for at least several SATA SSDs in the box, and certainly room for several PCIe SSDs as well. With 4TB SSDs currently on the market, it won't take a lot of drives to reach your storage needs.

[jloeb]

This is what i can’t get a clear sense of: so we can just slot NVMe drives in, or we can’t? Do they need to lack integrated controllers to be compatible or will it matter? There’s so much bellyaching going on about the replaceability of the storage and the need for compatibility with the T2 controller that I‘m not sure we have an established answer just yet.

And how about other form factors? 2.5” SSDs which are super cheap, or no go? (Though I suppose if we want to get our 500-1000 Kontakt instances, we’ll need the NVMe speeds.) What about 3.5”? The only solutions announced as far as I‘m aware - Pegasus - all come with RAIDed drives; there are no empty mounting slots, yet, and none in the chassis itself as far as i can tell.

I was kind of hoping to just be able to take all my 2.5” SSDs to the new MP, but it may not make sense even if it is possible. What an outlay this is going to be. I need to start writing a really good CraIgslist ad to sell this ol’ horse.

[monkey man]

Indeed they are, Stoivo.

No. They are Geekbench 5 Multicore Scores. Geekbench recalibrates with each update, so you can't compare to prior version scores. I provided Multi scores as they are most pertinent to DP users.

Dang, they seemed so low I figured they had to be single-processor scores, Sir Markus.

Maybe I'm getting the scores mixed up with the "old", "traditional" ones, but I thought they were always GB ones.

Ayayay... this stuff's too-techy for me. Give me a MonkeyLabs Debunkulating Reconfabulator™ or 8bit BS Detector™ any day of the week. They don't make 'em like they used to. You can disassemble one of those puppies in a matter of seconds and scratch your head for hours wondering how the Hell you'll put it back together.

[jloeb]

OK so from the teardown site:

Better necessarily implies different. Apple sought to build a better SSD, and in many ways they did. If you don’t want to leverage the increased security, excellent performance, and higher capacity options that the T2 enables, you don’t have to use it. Buy the base 256 GB model and just treat it as a recovery drive. This box has 8 standard PCIe Gen3 slots, 2 standard SATA 6Gb/s ports, and an internal USB 3.0 Type-A port. You can use any bog standard M.2, HHHL PCIe, 2.5” or 3.5” SATA, or USB drive you like as an internal boot drive.
The T2 based SSDs provide an excellent user experience and have demonstrated high reliability. If you need to replace one or want to upgrade, you’ll need to contact Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider. There are 506 Apple store locations worldwide and more than 1800 AASPs in the US alone.
There’s valuing repairability, and then there’s prioritizing it above all else.

So according to this poster we can use "any bog standard" NVMe drive to eat PCIe slots. Still shaky on how or where one would physically mount any 2.5 or 3.5" drives internally at this point:

And there are also 2 internal SATA 6Gb/s ports and what looks to be a Molex Micro-Fit 3.0, dual-row, 10-pin, vertical power header. Third party drive cages and cable kits are a little thin on the ground here at launch time (basically just the Promise Pegasus J2i), but I imagine iFixit, OWC, and other vendors will be all over it before too long.

[bayswater]

Ayayay... this stuff's too-techy for me. Give me a MonkeyLabs Debunkulating Reconfabulator™ or 8bit BS Detector™ any day of the week.

It was pretty simple. When it started, there was one standard based on some commonly owned old Mac, and the number told you how your Mac performed compared to that. You have 3,000 bananas, you used to have 1,000 bananas. Now, I don't know what the number means. Now you have 1,200 doodads. Is that more than 3,000 bananas?

[mikehalloran]

OK so from the teardown site:

Better necessarily implies different. Apple sought to build a better SSD, and in many ways they did. If you don’t want to leverage the increased security, excellent performance, and higher capacity options that the T2 enables, you don’t have to use it. Buy the base 256 GB model and just treat it as a recovery drive. This box has 8 standard PCIe Gen3 slots, 2 standard SATA 6Gb/s ports, and an internal USB 3.0 Type-A port. You can use any bog standard M.2, HHHL PCIe, 2.5” or 3.5” SATA, or USB drive you like as an internal boot drive.
The T2 based SSDs provide an excellent user experience and have demonstrated high reliability. If you need to replace one or want to upgrade, you’ll need to contact Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider. There are 506 Apple store locations worldwide and more than 1800 AASPs in the US alone.
There’s valuing repairability, and then there’s prioritizing it above all else.

So according to this poster we can use "any bog standard" NVMe drive to eat PCIe slots. Still shaky on how or where one would physically mount any 2.5 or 3.5" drives internally at this point:

And there are also 2 internal SATA 6Gb/s ports and what looks to be a Molex Micro-Fit 3.0, dual-row, 10-pin, vertical power header. Third party drive cages and cable kits are a little thin on the ground here at launch time (basically just the Promise Pegasus J2i), but I imagine iFixit, OWC, and other vendors will be all over it before too long.

As has been reported, many ways to add additional storage — same as now. All Macs and PCs have ways to add additional storage. Perhaps these new connectors will allow different ways we don’t know. Not really an issue if they don’t exist — like that special connector in the first iMacs that was never used.

Why anyone would want to compromise performance by installing any 2.5” or 3.5” drive internally is beyond me. Kinda’ like buying a Ferrari and deciding it won’t be right without a banana stuffed into each tailpipe (no reflection on any Simian friends who might think that’s cool).

A SATA III drive will have the exact same performance whether it’s mounted SATA, eSATA, USB3, USB 3.1, TB-anything or any other way because it’s a SATA III drive connection: 1/6 the speed of a fast NVMe 3 x4. USB does not support TRIM. USB2, FireWire or an HDD will slow it down, of course.

I’ll give it to you straight: That LaCie FW drive you love so much has been an obsolete piece of junk for ten years and it’s time to say goodbye.

The base SSD is an NVMe but uses the T2 chip as its controller. Smaller storage uses one; larger storage uses two an a modified RAID 0 array — that’s faster. The 2018 Mini & iMP use the exact same SSDs (Mini uses one; iMP has two) and storage upgrades when new cost exactly the same.

PCIe cards for NVMe 3 x4 blades already exist and will be mountable internally or externally into TB3 boxes. If you want the speed you’re paying for, that’s the only way to go. A Samsung X5 is the same price as additional storage when ordering BTO but the money’s better spent on internal (I’ve written why in other threads). Since Apple says that 8TB is coming, this means that the Mini will soon have a 4TB option, the iMP will have an 8TB option and a 4TB X5 will become available as well as 4TB NVMe 3 x4 blades. The article is wrong when it says that Apple makes their SSDs — they are proprietary but Samsung is the OEM.

HDDs are for backup. If archiving files, use a drop-in USB 3 dock with a power switch so that you can swap drives at will. If for Time Machine or other long term backup, use Ethernet or wireless to avoid potential wake from sleep issues — additional benefit: get that noisemaker out of your office or studio.