The Mac Pro Review (Late 2013)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 31, 2013 3:18 PM ESTCPU Choices
Had I gotten around to publishing my rMBP review prior to this one you would’ve seen my praise Apple’s CPU selection abilities as of late. Outfitting all 15-inch rMBPs with Crystalwell was a very wise move on Apple’s part. With the Mac Pro the CPU selection is good, but the decision of what to buy is far more complex than in any other product line.
The Mac Pro not only serves as Apple’s ultra high end Mac, but it’s the only option if your needs exceed that of an iMac or 15-inch MacBook Pro. Literally anyone who needs more performance than Apple offers in an all-in-one or a notebook inevitably is pushed to consider the Mac Pro. With a relatively broad professional audience in mind, Apple offers more CPU options for the Mac Pro than on any other shipping Mac:
| Mac Pro (Late 2013) CPU Options | ||||||
| Intel CPU | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Xeon E5-1650 v2 | Xeon E5-1680 v2 | Xeon E5-2697 v2 | ||
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16 | 12 / 24 | ||
| CPU Base Clock | 3.7GHz | 3.5GHz | 3.0GHz | 2.7GHz | ||
| Max Turbo (1C) | 3.9GHz | 3.9GHz | 3.9GHz | 3.5GHz | ||
| L3 Cache | 10MB | 12MB | 25MB | 30MB | ||
| TDP | 130W | 130W | 130W | 130W | ||
| Intel SRP | $294 | $583 | ? | $2614 | ||
| Apple Upgrade Cost (Base Config) | - | +$500 | +$2000 | +3500 | ||
| Apple Upgrade Cost (High End Config) | - | - | +$1500 | +3000 | ||
There are four CPU options, each with varying core counts. The more cores you get, the lower your base CPU frequency is. In the old days, that would be the end of the discussion - you either choose more cores or more frequency, a tradeoff that is ultimately determined by your workload. Starting with its Nehalem architecture back in 2008, Intel introduced two key technologies that changed the face of multicore on the desktop: power gating and turbo boost. The former is a technology that can almost entirely remove power to a core (both active and leakage) when idle, while the second takes advantage of that freed up thermal budget to drive any active core(s) at higher frequencies. Subsequent implementations of Intel’s Turbo Boost technology have scaled the aggressiveness of this opportunistic frequency scaling, but the basic principle remains the same.
Apple advertises core count and base frequency for all of the Mac Pro CPU options, but to really understand what you’re getting yourself into you need to look at each CPU’s max turbo states vs. number of active cores. Neither Apple nor Intel do a great job of publicly exposing this information, Apple avoids doing so in order to keep things clean/simple, and Intel avoids doing so because perhaps it’s fun? Either way I’ve compiled the data on the four CPU options into the charts below.
I've left base clocks out of the graphs although you can see them noted in the legend at the bottom of each chart.
This first chart has the y-axis starting at 0MHz, but the next one is the more interesting as it starts at 2.7GHz and better illustrates/exaggerates the sort of frequency tradeoff you can expect vs. core count:
The 4, 6 and 8 core CPU options all offer the same peak single core frequency (3.9GHz). This is very important as single threaded performance remains the gate for system responsiveness outside of thread heavy applications. The 12-core CPU sacrifices around 10% of this peak single core performance.
Early on the 8-core CPU holds the advantage over the rest, being able to hit a higher 2-core max turbo. The octa-core’s crossover point happens at 3 active cores, beyond this point the quad and six core CPUs maintain a slight max turbo advantage.
The key takeaway here is that more cores isn’t necessarily better. You need to weigh the needs of your applications against the number of cores in your system. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. For kicks I looked at the CPU load for a handful of my benchmarks:
Application version seems to have a huge impact on threading. Running our Photoshop benchmark on CS5 vs. CS6 is the difference between loading 2 - 8 cores vs. 3 - 10. The same is true if I compare Final Cut Pro 10.0 vs. 10.1; the latest version from Apple (optimized for the new Mac Pro), makes great use of all 12 cores/24 threads. Workload also has an impact. I took our old Final Cut Pro 10.0 benchmark (1080p) and ran it on 10.1, saw a maximum of 1217% CPU usage. I ran our new 4K benchmark on 10.1 and saw nearly full virtual core utilization (2114% CPU usage).
Final Cut Pro 10.0 - 1080p Benchmark
Final Cut Pro 10.1 - 1080p Benchmark
Final Cut Pro 10.1 - 4K Benchmark
Offline 3D rendering applications typically have the easiest time of chewing up tons of cores, while many others are likely better suited by having fewer cores running at a higher frequency. There's also a serious multitasking benefit if you're the type of person that runs multiple thread heavy workloads in parallel. It's pretty nice having a fairly responsive system while rendering a beefy 4K project in Final Cut Pro. The responsiveness comes courtesy of having a ton of cores in addition to extremely fast IO. That PCIe SSD definitely comes in handy.
If you want the best balance of heavily threaded performance without sacrificing performance in lighter workloads, the 8-core configuration seems to be the best bet. There are definitely bragging rights associated with the 12-core system, but unless you absolutely need a ton of cores you’re likely better suited by the 8-core configuration.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
Dandu - Friday, January 10, 2014 - link
Hi,It's possible to use a 2 560 x 1 440 HiDPI definition, with a NVIDIA card, a 4K Display and the (next) version of SwitchResX.
I have tested that : http://www.journaldulapin.com/2014/01/10/ultra-144...
Haravikk - Sunday, January 12, 2014 - link
The news about the USB3 ports is a bit strange, doesn't that mean a maximum throughput of 4gbps? I know most USB3 storage devices will struggle to push past 500mb/sec, but that seems pretty badly constrained. Granted, Thunderbolt is the interface that any storage *should* be using, but the choices are still pretty poor for the prices you're paying, and no-one offers Thunderbolt to USB3 cables (only insanely priced hubs with external power).Otherwise the review is great, though it'd be nice to see more on the actual capabilities of Apple's FirePro cards. Specifically, how many of the FirePro specific features do they have such as 30-bit colour output, EDC, ECC cache memory, order-independent-transparency (under OpenGL) and so-on? I'm assuming they do given that they're using the FirePro name, but we really need someone to cover it in-depth to finally put to rest claims that consumer cards would be better ;)
eodeot - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link
I'd love a realistic comparison with an i7 4770k and say, 780ti.You also compare 12 cored version to older 12 core versions that hide behind (fairly) anonymous xeon labeling that hide their chip age (sandy/ ivy bridge/haswell...). I'd like to see in how any real world applications does a 12 core chip perform faster. Excluding 3d work and select video rendering, I doubt there is much need to extra cores. You note how its nice to have buffer of free cores for everyday use, while heavy rendering- but I never noticed a single hiccup or a slowdown with 3d rendering on my i7 4770k with all 8 logical cores taxed to their max. How much of better performance then "butter smooth" one already provided with a much cheaper CPU can you get?
Also you compare non apple computers with same ridiculous CPU/GPU combinations. Who in their right mind would choose a 4core Xeon chip over a haswell i7? The same goes for silly "workstation" GPU over say a Titan. Excluding dated opengl 3d apps, no true modern workstation benefits from a "workstation" GPU, if we exclude select CUDA based 3d renderers like iray and vray rt that can benefit from 12gb of ram. GPUs included with Apple Mac pro have 2gb... Not a single valid reason a sane person would buy such a card. Not one.
Also, you point out how gaming makes the most sense on windows, but do no such recommendation for 3d work. Like games, 3d programs perform significantly better under directX and that leaves windows as a sole option for any serious 3d work...
I found this review interesting for design Apple took, but everything else appears one sided praise...
pls.edu.yourself - Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - link
QUOTE: "The shared heatsink makes a lot of sense once you consider how Apple handles dividing compute/display workloads among all three processors (more on this later)."Can anyone help point me to this. I think one of my GPU's is not being used.
PiMatrix - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Apple Fixed the HiDPI issue on Sharp K321 in OS 10.9.3. Works great. Supported HiDPI resolutions are the native 3840x2160, and HiDPI: 3200x1800, 2560x1440, 1920x1080, and 1280x720. You can also define more resolutions with QuickResX but the above seem to be enough. Using 3200 x1800 looks fantastic on this 4K display. Great job Apple!le_jean - Monday, March 10, 2014 - link
Any information on updated 60Hz compatibility concerning Dell's UP 2414Q in 10.9.3?I would be very interested to get some feedback in relation to:
nMP & Dell UP 2414Q
rMBP & Dell UP 2414Q
I remember in anandtech review of late 2013 nMP there have been issues concerning that specific display, while Sharp and ASUS performed just fine
philipus - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link
As a happy photo amateur, I have to say the previous Mac Pro is good enough for me. I have the early 2008 version which I like because of its expandability. Over the years I have added drives, RAM and most recently a Sonnet Tempo Pro with two Intel 520 in order to get a faster system. As cool and powerful as the new Mac Pro is, it would cost me quite a lot to add Thunderbolt boxes for the drives I currently use, so it is not worth it for me.I do agree that it is about time a manufacturer of desktop computers pushed the platform envelope. It's been tediously samey for a very long time. I'm not surprised it was Apple that made the move - it's in Apple's DNA to be unexpected design-wise. But as much as it is nice to see a radical re-design of the concept of the desktop computer, I think a future version of the Mac Pro needs to be a bit more flexible and allow more user-based changes to the hardware. Even if I could afford the new Mac Pro - and I would also place it on my desktop because it's really pretty - I wouldn't want to have several Thunderbolt boxes milling around with cables variously criss-crossing and dangling from my desk.
walter555999 - Saturday, June 7, 2014 - link
Dear Anand, could you post how to connect a up2414Q to macbook pro retina (2013) ? I have tried a cable mini display port-HDMI. But there are no image in the dell monitor. Thank you very much. WalterFasarinen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Thanks for an excellent review. (And hello, everybody; this is my first post on this site.)I noticed, in the "GPU choices" section, what seems to be a very useful utility for monitoring the GPU. The title on the top of the screen is "OpenCL Driver Monitor"; the individual windows (which are displaying graphs of GPU utilisation) seem to be titled "AMDRadeonXL4000OpenCLDriver".
I'm probably just being dim, but a bit of googling doesn't shed much light. If anybody could point to me to where this utility can be obtained from, I'd be most grateful.
Thanks ....
pen-helm - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
I showed this page to a Mac user. They replied:I'm pretty sure that this simple fix takes care of the issue with
monitors where OS X doesn't offer a HiDPI mode:
http://cocoamanifest.net/articles/2013/01/turn-on-...