Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Mar 2013 22:01 UTC
Apple John Siracusa: "On paper, the Mac Pro may no longer be a viable product, but it would be a mistake for Apple to abandon the concept that it embodies. Like the Power Mac before it, the Mac Pro was designed to be the most powerful personal computer Apple knows how to make. That goal should be maintained, even as the individual products that aim to achieve it evolve." I agree wholeheartedly. The Mac Pro - and the PowerMac before it - are amazing products, and I would be quite sad to see them go. They may not always lead the pack in performance, but when it comes to sheer engineering and interior design, they are among the very best. I have zero need for a Mac Pro, but to this day, I always take a few minutes to admire it whenever I pay a visit to my Apple retailer.
Thread beginning with comment 554996
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Mac Pro is actually cheap
by wigry on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:40 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

First you need to understand that Mac Pro is not a device for regular users. It has 2 physical processors which makes things complicated - most software will run SLOWER on 2 CPU system than on single-CPU system hence most consumer-level multicore single CPU PC-s can outperform Mac Pro quite easily. Meaning that Mac Pro requires special software/programs/algorithms to show its benefit.

That said, it is obvious that Mac Pro competes in serious workstation market with other heavyweights like Lenovo D30, Dell Precision T7600 or HP Z820.

Compared to these machines, Mac Pro is actually the cheapest option. The question if you really need and can benefit from this kind of powerhouse is a totyally different story.

For single and multiCPU performance comparison, there have been couple of Gigabyte mobo reviews and only in very specific cases the multi CPU system excels. The reviewers had hard time finding the algorithms/tasks that would benefit serious parallel processing with minimal memory access (thats the thing what brings multi-CPU system to its knees as the required data might not be L3 cache of the current chip but either in other chip or in main memory causing massive wait for data to arrive. In single CPU system the caches are accessible to all cores)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6808/westmereep-to-sandy-bridgeep-the...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6533/gigabyte-ga7pesh1-review-a-dual-...

Edited 2013-03-10 18:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mac Pro is actually cheap
by tidux on Mon 11th Mar 2013 18:49 in reply to "Mac Pro is actually cheap"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

I'm pretty sure Linux and FreeBSD run things faster on multiple physical CPUs. That's just a Windows/OSX problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac Pro is actually cheap
by wigry on Mon 11th Mar 2013 20:10 in reply to "RE: Mac Pro is actually cheap"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

The problem comes down to the fact that multiple CPU-s must communicate with each other and that brings the performance down. They must wait after each other. Only very careful program tuning and specific algorithms can allocate both CPU-s and keep them busy without any need for them to communicate with each other. Nothing to do with platform nor operating system. This is basic multi-CPU issue.

Cores on a single CPU can communicate much much faster than different CPU-s

Reply Parent Score: 1