The Mac Pro Review (Late 2013)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 31, 2013 3:18 PM ESTPlotting the Mac Pro’s GPU Performance Over Time
The Mac Pro’s CPU options have ballooned at times during its 7 year history. What started with four CPU options grew to six for the early 2009 - mid 2010 models. It was also during that time period that we saw an expansion of the number of total core counts from 4 up to the current mix of 4, 6, 8 and 12 core configurations.
What’s particularly unique about this year’s Mac Pro is that all configurations are accomplished with a single socket. Moore’s Law and the process cadence it characterizes leave us in a place where Intel can effectively ship a single die with 12 big x86 cores. It wasn’t that long ago where you’d need multiple sockets to achieve the same thing.
While the CPU moved to a single socket configuration this year, the Mac Pro’s GPU went the opposite direction. For the first time in Mac Pro history, the new system ships with two GPUs in all configurations. I turned to Ryan Smith, our Senior GPU Editor, for his help in roughly characterizing Mac Pro GPU options over the years.
| Mac Pro - GPU Upgrade Path | ||||||||||
| Mid 2006 | Early 2008 | Early 2009 | Mid 2010 | Mid 2012 | Late 2013 | |||||
| Slowest GPU Option | NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT | ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT | NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 | ATI Radeon HD 5770 | ATI Radeon HD 5770 | Dual AMD FirePro D300 | ||||
| Fastest GPU Option | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 | ATI Radeon HD 4870 | ATI Radeon HD 5870 | ATI Radeon HD 5870 | Dual AMD FirePro D700 | ||||
Since the Mac Pro GPU offerings were limited to 2 - 3 cards per generation, it was pretty easy to put together comparisons. We eliminated the mid range configuration for this comparison and only looked at scaling with the cheapest and most expensive GPU options each generation.
Now we’re talking. At the low end, Mac Pro GPU performance improved by 20x over the past 7 years. Even if you always bought the fastest GPU possible you'd be looking at a 6x increase in performance, and that's not taking into account the move to multiple GPUs this last round (if you assume 50% multi-GPU scaling then even the high end path would net you 9x better GPU performance over 7 years).
Ryan recommended presenting the data with a log scale as well to more accurately depict the gains over time:
Here you see convergence, at a high level, between the slowest and fastest GPU options in the Mac Pro. Another way of putting it is that Apple values GPU performance more today than it did back in 2006, so even the cheapest GPU is a much higher performing part than it would be.
If you’re a GPU company (or a Senior GPU Editor), this next chart should make you very happy. Here I’m comparing relative increases in performance for both CPU and GPU on the same graph:
This is exactly why Apple (and AMD) is so fond of ramping up GPU performance: it’s the only way to get serious performance gains each generation. Ultimately we’ll see GPU performance gains level off as well, but if you want to scale compute in a serious way you need to heavily leverage faster GPUs.
This is the crux of the Mac Pro story. It’s not just about a faster CPU, but rather a true shift towards GPU compute. In a little over a year, Apple increased the GPU horsepower of the cheapest Mac Pro by as great of a margin as it did from 2006 - 2012. The fastest GPU option didn’t improve by quite as much, but it’s close.
Looking at the same data on a log scale you’ll see that the percentage increase in GPU performance is slowing down over time, much like what we saw with CPUs, just to a much lesser extent. Note that this graph doesn't take into account that the Late 2013 Mac Pro has a second GPU. If we take that into account, GPU performance scaling obviously looks even better. Scaling silicon performance is tough regardless of what space you’re playing in these days. If you’re looking for big performance gains though, you’ll need to exploit the GPU.
The similarities between what I’m saying here about GPU performance and AMD’s mantra over the past few years aren’t lost. The key difference between Apple’s approach and those of every other GPU company is that Apple spends handsomely to ensure it has close to the best single threaded CPU performance as well as the best GPU performance. This is an important distinction, and ultimately the right approach.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
Chirpie - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
Uh, remind me again which low-power HTPC can run 16 4K video streams at once? Beyond that, why on earth would you buy this computer as a HTPC? The graphic cards would be a waste. If you're gonna bash, I demand some effort.Liquidmark - Friday, January 3, 2014 - link
I don't see you admitting you have a problem with haterism.Wolfpup - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
The problem with saying Apple's pricing isn't out of touch with reality is that you can't only compare this to high end workstation's from other companies...this is Apple's only desktop-ish device. These things 10 years ago used to start in the mid $1000-2000 range, and with inflation that would be cheaper still. They were STILL expensive, but at least not absurdly so.Yeah, Xeons, etc. cost a lot, but Apple doesn't provide options for people who want a high end notebook or desktop for normal use...this is the closest they get, and it's at least 2x as expensive as it should be for it's base unit (even with the Apple tax).
OreoCookie - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
I don't understand this comment: Apple does cover this *price range* with the Mac mini and the iMac. The 27" iMac sports up to 32 GB RAM, a decent graphics card and 4 fast cores. And since these machines come with Thunderbolt, you can expand them with the same ultrafast peripherals that also attach to a Mac Pro. The only thing that Apple does not offer to you is the product that you want for the price that you want (the xMac, a traditional tower system).lilo777 - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
iMac is not a classic desktop. It's a A-I-O computer with its inherent disadvantages (i.e. CPUs,, GPUs etc. usually getting obsolete much faster than the monitor)OreoCookie - Thursday, January 2, 2014 - link
I understand what the iMac is. It is nevertheless a desktop computer that covers the price segment between $1200 and $3500 in Apple's line-up. Compared to 10, 15 years ago, the demographics have changed: people have migrated to mobile computers for the most part, and the demographic who still use desktops are often quite happy using iMacs (e. g. have a look at The Verge's review of the Mac Pro where the video editors admit to using iMacs and Mac Pros, for instance).Certainly, if you want or need a traditional headless computer, Apple simply does not serve your needs. But looking ahead, Broadwell CPUs will be soldered to the mainboards. Most people will rely on the integrated graphics (which become increasingly powerful).
Regular Reader - Friday, January 3, 2014 - link
How often do you replace a CPU or graphics card? If you're a serious gamer, then Macs have never been the right machine for you and never will be. For people like me, the 27" iMac is perfect because we don't need a classic desktop. There's little reason to need a true desktop machine these days. AIO is the way to go. So much easier, you can get most of the power, they're quieter...the advantages far outweigh the negatives.wallysb01 - Friday, January 3, 2014 - link
The iMac is not quieter than decent desktop PC. Maybe you’ve just been around absurdly loud computers? For the $1500-$2000 you pay for an iMac, you should be able to buy a pretty much silent PC with as much or more power than the iMac. Oh, and you get your choice of monitor or you can keep your old one that you still like just fine.Chirpie - Friday, January 3, 2014 - link
I dunno man, usually the graphic card alone is enough to make it louder than an iMac. At least, until you're willing to start mucking with the RPMs through various mods/software hacks.Regular Reader - Friday, January 3, 2014 - link
27" iMac. There's no need for much more. You can upgrade everything but the CPU.I used to be the DIY PC build type. I got sick of wires everywhere, intermittent cooling issues, and just generally having a desktop full of crap. I've had a 4-core i7 27" iMac for nearly 4 years now, haven't looked back, and it is more than enough to run OSX and Windows in parallel, even only having 8 GB of PC1333 RAM. And with a firmware update, my old 27" can support up to 32 GB. I have Thunderbolt even, along with FW800. If you need external SATA, OWC makes a component to do that (though you have to send your machine to them to get it installed). I'd happily buy another if I needed to do even more serious work than I do.