"Even at $7,000, the new Mac Pro is only 8% faster than an iMac"

[TopWargamer]

 

http://bgr.com/2013/12/23/mac-pro-benchmarks-performance-tests/

 

“It should be no surprise that the new 8-core Mac Pro is the fastest Mac we’ve tested, but it was only 8 percent faster overall than our previous champ, a [configured to order] 2013 27-inch iMac,” Macworld’s James Galbraith wrote. “That custom system has a speedy quad-core 3.5GHz Core i7 processor, a 3TB Fusion Drive, 8GB of RAM, and Nvidia GeForce GTX 780M graphics.”

 

The iMac Galbraith describes, by the way, costs $2,699 — or $4,100 less than the new Mac Pro in question.

 

Laugh...laugh with me. Laugh at the overpriced stupidity. What else is there to even say about this?

[Freaky_spider]

trash can 0 (or rolling pin)

 

imac        1

[Kamina]

iMac has Firepro? 

[CwGoh]

I guess you are paying for the Apple superiority again. But with that money you can build a workstation PC that trashes both of the Macs, just pointing it out. 

[Mo5]

So an overpriced Mac Pro is barely faster then an overpriced iMac... Interesting :huh:

[CwGoh]

iMac has Firepro? 

No, consumer-class 780M

[Kamina]

No, consumer-class 780M

Then how could this test be any accurate. 

Oh and that Xeon processor. They could have gotten away with an i7 4960x.

[flibberdipper]

I loathe Apple.

[Freaky_spider]

Then how could this test be any accurate. 

Oh and that Xeon processor. They could have gotten away with an i7 4960x.

idk, maybe render times? or benchmark scores

[CwGoh]

Then how could this test be any accurate. 

Oh and that Xeon processor. They could have gotten away with an i7 4960x.

OS X benchmarking is kind of crap anyways. Inconsistent runs, not enough core optimisations, etc. But I believe the Mac Pro will be quite faster in intended workloads, like rendering.

[CwGoh]

I loathe Apple.

I too, but they have driven the market in a few ways that as PC users also have to be thankful for.

[TheMissxu]

Did they test it in games or OpenCL/CUDA compute?

[helping]

I too, but they have driven the market in a few ways that as PC users also have to be thankful for.

In what way? They don't really do much at all in the PC market. 

 

You can make an argument they were a push towards the ultrabook PC line. 

[JAKEBAB]

In what way? They don't really do much at all in the PC market. 

 

You can make an argument they were a push towards the ultrabook PC line. 

smart phone, ipod and tablet. before android became a thing those were all superior products from anything on the market and to this day for a dedicated portable music player the ipod is arguably the best choice.

 

Op i don't believe this really it can't be accurate.

[MasterJV]

What do you expect from a trash can?

[Freaky_spider]

What do you expect from a trash can?

that it stinks? what did you expect?

[CwGoh]

In what way? They don't really do much at all in the PC market. 

 

You can make an argument they were a push towards the ultrabook PC line. 

Off the top of my head...

1) Usability > Features. (Eg. The thing is actually works without me struggling with it for a day). Software used to be a pile crap of "features" but was never able to work. Apple kind of showed people that people need software that works with ease, not with a ton of features. I think this has the greatest impact on PCs as a whole. 

 

2) Power efficiency. Apple moved to RSIC (PowerPC) because of its power efficiency (aka. performance to power ratio). This caused Intel to optimise x86 in the early 80s and subsequently again a few years ago when Jobs threatened to use AMD chips in the Macbook airs, Intel started to develop the ULV chips, giving us a whole new era in power efficiency.

 

3) Build quality. BAck in the day, only Apple and ThinkPads were well build laptops, now most companies are jumping to make their flagships' nicely constructed in response to Apple's strong, but wasteful "unibody" construction.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

They don't even mention what kind of benchmark they're running, what an absolutely useless result. If they're running a game sure, but I doubt the laptop i7 and 780M of the iMac will be even close to this result when doing actual workstation work versus the new Mac Pro. Still very expensive but that has always been the case of the Mac Pro, but what an absolutely useless article.

 

Laugh...laugh with me. Laugh at the stupidity of people who actually read articles like this and see them as a valid source of information. -.-

[Maskot]

So wait, they're testing an 8core with firepro computer against a quadcore with mobile geforce...

THIS MAKES NO SENSE, if the testers were dumb enough to buy the mac pro, they're probably also dumb enough to only use 4core tests.  Someone tell them to render highly tessellated 3D models and video rendering...

[Emperor_Piehead]

In what way? They don't really do much at all in the PC market. 

 

You can make an argument they were a push towards the ultrabook PC line. 

don't forget the high res laptop screen with their retina display on the macbook pro

[alchemist11]

k0an  jamesdbailey 

• 3 hours ago

• −
•  

Thanks for saying that. This article is 100% clickbait.

 

 

 

Steve LeBlanc  k0an 

• 2 hours ago

• −
•  

This site [bgr] is 100% clickbait.. Yet I click on it, so I have only myself to blame.

 

 

 

Looks like TopWargamer is the fool. The Verge has their review out and in many cases the benchmarks versus the iMac is nearly double.

[Cosmos_i7]

In one benchmark it is. May I point you to the article to which this article refers to: http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster-weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html

 

 

We also ran another Photoshop test, one that uses only features that take advantage of the GPU. The new Mac Pro with its dual graphics finished this test in 162 seconds, 37 percent faster than the 2012 12-core Mac Pro, 48 percent faster than the 4-core Mac Pro from last year, 30 percent faster than our CTO 2013 iMac, and 17 percent faster than a high-end 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

Importing took around 131 seconds on the 2012 quad-core Mac Pro, but just under 16 seconds on the new Mac Pro. That was about one-third the time it took to for the 2013 CTO iMac with Fusion Drive to import the footage.

Rendering the project after applying the effects and analyzing the color took 80 seconds on that Retina MacBook Pro, but just under 40 seconds on the new Mac Pro.

 

I think you can read the rest for yourself.

[Aho]

The only relevant test there was FCPX. Just take a look at the raw performance of the machine.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-myFXiEh2Q

 

While I understand most of everyone on this forum are PC gamers, you should still be a bit more objective.

[helping]

smart phone, ipod and tablet. before android became a thing those were all superior products from anything on the market and to this day for a dedicated portable music player the ipod is arguably the best choice.

 

Op i don't believe this really it can't be accurate.

PC market

 

Off the top of my head...

1) Usability > Features. (Eg. The thing is actually works without me struggling with it for a day). Software used to be a pile crap of "features" but was never able to work. Apple kind of showed people that people need software that works with ease, not with a ton of features. I think this has the greatest impact on PCs as a whole. 

 

2) Power efficiency. Apple moved to RSIC (PowerPC) because of its power efficiency (aka. performance to power ratio). This caused Intel to optimise x86 in the early 80s and subsequently again a few years ago when Jobs threatened to use AMD chips in the Macbook airs, Intel started to develop the ULV chips, giving us a whole new era in power efficiency.

 

3) Build quality. BAck in the day, only Apple and ThinkPads were well build laptops, now most companies are jumping to make their flagships' nicely constructed in response to Apple's strong, but wasteful "unibody" construction.

I'd be inclined to disagree on 1, that sounds more like opinion but maybe you just have preference towards their design style. "User friendly" seems relative to me. 

 

Third falls under ultrabook, which I already acknowledged. 

 

The 'driving' you describe sounds more like extortion and exclusion rather than new design, concept, and innovation. Of course this is in reference to more so the modern PC market going back of a couple of years. 

 

Apple doesn't do much of anything in the PC market, they just buy the technology, mush it together, and sell it with a markup. All while throwing lawsuits at everyone and their gardener.  

 

don't forget the high res laptop screen with their retina display on the macbook pro

I can give you that one. 

[CwGoh]

PC market

 

I'd be inclined to disagree on 1, that sounds more like opinion but maybe you just have preference towards their design style. "User friendly" seems relative to me. 

 

Third falls under ultrabook, which I already acknowledged. 

 

I can give you that one. 

But still these are contributions. But I must restate, Apple influence and "innovation" in the market are greatly exaggerated.