The Mac Pro Review (Late 2013)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 31, 2013 3:18 PM ESTPutting Mac Pro Performance in Perspective: Professional Apps
With the legacy Mac Pro comparison out of the way, I wanted to put the Mac Pro's performance in perspective relative to other high-end, modern Macs. I grabbed the 2012 15-inch rMBP, the entry level and upgraded 2013 15-inch rMBPs as well as the new 27-inch Haswell iMac for comparison. I also included my 2009 8-core Mac Pro. I received a reader request to try running the Cycles benchmark in Blender (an open source 3D renderer), so I'll start with that:
Under OS X, this is still a CPU test - the GPUs remain idle and out of the picture here. If you're wondering why the 27-inch iMac doesn't do so hot here, it's because I'm testing the 4 core/4 thread Core i5 version while the rMBPs all have Hyper Threading enabled and are thus 4 core/8 thread configs. The extra logical core per physical core definitely increases architectural utilization/efficiency in this well-threaded test.
Here we have an example where Haswell's IPC improvements don't do a whole lot, which is music to the ears of those considering buying a Mac Pro now vs. when Haswell EP hits in about a year. There's a clear benefit to opting for even the compact Mac Pro over any of Apple's other Macs. The improvement in performance, particularly with the 12-core configuration, is astounding. The Mac Pro completes the rendering work in less than half of the time of the rMBP.
For my next two tests I'm going to be looking at Final Cut Pro 10.1 performance. Given how much Apple is focused on 4K video editing as a usage model for the new Mac Pro, I went out and filmed a bunch of samples in 4K and created a couple of benchmarks to stress the new Mac Pro. As I mentioned earlier, most effects rendering in FCP 10.1 seems to take place on the GPU(s) while everything else seems more CPU bound. For my first test I wanted a project that was lighter on the GPU, so I had a minimal number of effects and no transitions. While the GPU still plays a role (as you'll see below), this should be a good CPU test. I confirmed that portions of the test had no problems keeping all 12 cores/24 hardware threads busy, while others stayed around the 5 - 8 core range.
You'll notice that I have two configurations of the early 2009 Mac Pro listed. One features the machine's stock NVIDIA GeForce GT 120, while the other has been upgraded to Sapphire's Radeon HD 7950 Mac Edition. The only other point I should make is the 2.0GHz 2013 15-inch rMBP configuration features no discrete GPU, it only has Intel's Iris Pro graphics. The 2.3GHz model does feature an NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M GPU.
The first thing I noticed while running this test is how much the workload can impact CPU core utilization. Even though I was dealing with a substantial 4K project, only portions could spawn enough work to keep all 12 cores/24 threads busy. I suspect for video work the optimal cost/performance combination may be the 8-core/3.0GHz part. That being said, it is nice to have a handful of available cores to keep system responsiveness up even while working on rendering a big video project.
I made a point to talk about the GPU configurations before presenting the chart for a good reason: Final Cut Pro 10.1 appears to be incredibly dependent on GPU performance, especially when there's any sort of effects rendering going on. Note that simply moving to a lower clocked Haswell and ditching the discrete GPU causes the 15-inch rMBP to take more than 70% longer to complete this benchmark. I'm not sure how much of this has to do with Intel's graphics drivers just not being optimized for FCP's OpenCL workload, but if you're planning on doing any real work in the latest Final Cut Pro you're going to want a discrete GPU.
The new Mac Pro completed my first FCP 10.1 render test in around half the time of the older 2009 8-core Mac Pro with the upgraded GPU. Without the upgraded GPU, despite this being a very CPU bound test, the older Mac Pro is absolutely destroyed by the new config. The new Mac Pro manages to complete my 4K test in less than 1/6 of the time of the 2009 model without any ugprades.
The next FCP 10.1 benchmark adds in a significant number of effects and transitions to drive up GPU usage. I'm presenting two charts, one without the Iris Pro rMBP and GT 120 Mac Pro and one with them included:
The difference in performance between Intel's Iris Pro graphics and NVIDIA's GeForce GT 750M is staggering. The Iris Pro rMBP15 configuration takes nearly an hour to complete my test, while the dGPU configuration does it in a little over 21 minutes. Here the 27-inch iMac's beefy GPU seems to help make it faster than the rMBP notebooks. The new Mac Pro pulls ahead of the upgraded 2009 model, though not by as much as I would've expected. The second GPU isn't being used as much as it could be it seems. Once again, a standard 2009 model wouldn't fare nearly as well here. Even with a Radeon HD 4870 I bet we'd be seeing significantly lower performance.
The default GT 120 GPU gives us a slight indication of what a slower GPU would do to FCP performance here. What took the new Mac Pro with its dual FirePro D700s under 15 minutes to do, took an hour and 45 minutes to do on the 2009 model with entry level GPU. The same system but with a Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 dropped its render time to 18 minutes.
It is really surprising just how big of an impact GPU performance can have on Final Cut Pro 10.1. It makes total sense that Apple went dual GPUs top to bottom with the new Mac Pro. It seems the latest version of Final Cut Pro was designed with the new Mac Pro in mind, which is unfortunate for anyone who was hoping to get by with an older Mac Pro with a far less capable GPU. It's very clear to me that the Mac Pro is really designed to be an upgrade on all fronts (CPU, GPU, SSD and external IO). The question is how many of those parts have existing Mac Pro users upgraded on their own. The answer to that will ultimately determine how big of a step forward the new Mac Pro really is.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
zepi - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
How about virtualization and for example VT-d support with multiple gpu's and thunderbolts etc?Ie. Running windows in a virtual machine with half a dozen cores + another GPU while using rest for the OSX simultaneously?
I'd assume some people would benefit of having both OSX and Windows content creation applications and development environments available to them at the same time. Not to mention gaming in a virtual machine with dedicated GPU instead of virtual machine overhead / incompatibility etc.
japtor - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
This is something I've wondered about too, for a while now really. I'm kinda iffy on this stuff, but last I checked (admittedly quite a while back) OS X wouldn't work as the hypervisor and/or didn't have whatever necessary VT-d support. I've heard of people using some other OS as the hypervisor with OS X and Windows VMs, but then I think you'd be stuck with hard resource allocation in that case (without restarting at least). Fine if you're using both all the time but a waste of resources if you predominantly use one vs the other.horuss - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
Anyway, I still would like to see some virtualization benchs. In my case, I can pretty much make it as an ideal home server with external storage while taking advantage of the incredible horse power to run multiple vms for my tests, for development, gaming and everything else!iwod - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
I have been how likely we get a Mac ( Non Pro ) Spec.Nvidia has realize those extra die space wasted for GPGPU wasn't worth it. Afterall their main target are gamers and gaming benchmarks. So they decided for Kepler they have two line, one for GPGPU and one on the mainstream. Unless they change course again I think Maxwell will very likely follow the same route. AMD are little difference since they are betting on their OpenCL Fusion with their APU, therefore GPGPU are critical for them.
That could means Apple diverge their product line with Nvidia on the non Professional Mac like iMac and Macbook Pro ( Urg.. ) while continue using AMD FirePro on the Mac Pro Line.
Last time it was rumoured Intel wasn't so interested in getting a Broadwell out for Desktop, the 14nm die shrink of Haswell. Mostly because Mobile / Notebook CPU has over taken Desktop and will continue to do so. It is much more important to cater for the biggest market. Not to mention die shrink nowadays are much more about Power savings then Performance Improvements. So Intel could milk the Desktop and Server Market while continue to lead in Mobile and try to catch up with 14nm Atom SoC.
If that is true, the rumor of Haswell-Refresh on Desktop could mean Intel is no longer delaying Server Product by a single cycle. They will be doing the same for Desktop as well.
That means there could be a Mac Pro with Haswell-EP along with Mac with a Haswell-Refresh.
And by using Nvidia Gfx instead of AMD Apple dont need to worry about Mac eating into Mac Pro Market. And there could be less cost involve with not using a Pro Gfx card, only have 3 TB display, etc.
words of peace - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
I keep thinking that if the MP is a good seller, maybe Apple could enlarge the unit so it contains a four sided heatsink, this could allow for dual CPU.Olivier_G - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
Hi,I don't understand the comment about the lack of HiDPI mode here?
I would think it's simply the last one down the list, listed as 1920x1080 HiDPI, it does make the screen be perceived as such for apps, yet photos and text render at 4x resolution, which is what we're looking for i believe?
i tried such mode on my iMac out of curiosity and while 1280x720 is a bit ridiculously small it allowed me to confirm it does work since OSX mavericks. So I do expect the same behaviour to use my 4K monitor correctly with mac pro?
Am I wrong?
Gigaplex - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
The article clearly states that it worked at 1920 HiDPI but the lack of higher resolutions in HiDPI mode is the problem.Olivier_G - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
Well no it does not state that at all I read again and he did not mention trying the last option in the selector.LumaForge - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
Anand,Firstly, thank you very much for such a well researched and well thought out piece of analysis - extremely insightful. I've been testing a 6 core and 12 core nMP all week using real-life post-production workflows and your scientific analysis helps explain why I've gotten good and OK results in some situations and not always seen the kinds of real-life improvements I was expecting in others.
Three follow up questions if I may:
1) DaVinci Resolve 10.1 ... have you done any benchmarking on Resolve with 4K files? ... like FCP X 10.1, BMD have optimized Resolve 10.1 to take full advantage of split CPU and GPU architecture but I'm not seeing the same performance gains as with FCP x 10.1 .... wondering if you have any ideas on system optimization or the sweet spot? I'm still waiting for my 8 core to arrive and that may be the machine that really takes advantage of the processor speed versus cores trade-off you identify.
2) Thunderbolt 2 storage options? ... external storage I/O also plays a significant role in overall sustained processing performance especially with 4K workflows ... I posted a short article on Creative Cow SAN section detailing some of my findings (no where as detailed or scientific as your approach I'm afraid) ... be interested to know your recommendations on Tbolt2 storage.
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/197/859961
3) IP over Tbolt2 as peer-to-peer networking topology? ... as well as running the nMPs in DAS, NAS and SAN modes I've also been testing IP over Tbolt2 .... only been getting around 500 MB/s sustained throughput between two nMPs ... if you look at the AJA diskwhack tests I posted on Creative Cow you'll see that the READ speeds are very choppy ... looks like a read-ahead caching issue somewhere in the pipeline or lack of 'Jumbo Frames' across the network ... have you played with TCP/IP over Thunderbolt2 yet and come to any conclusions on how to optimize throughput?
Keep up the good work and all the best for 2014.
Cheers,
Neil
modeleste - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link
I noticed that the Toshiba 65" 4k TV is about the same price as the Sharp 32" The reviews seem nice.Does anyone have any ide what the issues would be with using this display?