Hosted by site sponsor WebMate.
Silver Tower Mac Pro (Dual Optical) Q&A - Updated April 13, 2009
All Mac Q&As >> Silver Tower Mac Pro Dual Optical Q&A (Home)
To be notified of new Q&As, sign up for EveryMac.com's bimonthly email list.
How much faster are the "Early 2009/Nehalem" Mac Pro models than the "Early 2008" Mac Pro models?
Please note that all models mentioned in this Q&A have been discontinued. The "Early 2009" Mac Pro line was replaced by the "Mid-2010" line on July 27, 2010.
In the company press release trumpeting the arrival of the "Early 2009/Nehalem" Mac Pro, Apple heralded that this model uses "Intel 'Nehalem' Xeon processors and a next-generation system architecture to deliver up to twice the performance of the previous generation system".
In fine print, Apple notes that this statement is based on synthetic performance benchmarks and that the "Early 2009/Nehalem" is 1.9 times faster than the previous "Early 2008" model in "SPECfp_rate_base2006" results.
It is worth noting that this official comparison is between a previous generation Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.8 (Early 2008) built-to-order with two 3.2 GHz Quad Core Xeon X5482 processors which were offered for US$1600 more than the stock model and a Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.26 (2009/Nehalem) built-to-order with two 2.93 GHz Quad Core Xeon (X5570) processors which is US$2600 more than the stock model.
Apple also released a deluge of real-world testing results that again show the top-of-the-line custom configured "Early 2009/Nehalem" model to be between 1.1 and 1.8 times faster than the previous top-of-the-line custom configured "Early 2008" model.
Regardless, as the marketing department at any company generally is compelled to present the most favorable set of test results, rather than objective ones, independent third-party analysis always is essential. Additionally, it would no doubt be worthwhile to know the performance of the stock models rather than just the most expensive options.
In its review, the industry-standard MacWorld reported:
The new [low-end 2.66 GHz] quad-core's score in our overall system performance suite, Speedmark 5, was 16 percent faster than that of the previous 2.8 GHz eight-core Mac Pro. It was also 27 percent faster in our Photoshop tests, and 20 percent faster at Compressor than the older system. . .
Because many applications have a difficult time using even four processors efficiently, the advantage of having eight [cores in the stock high-end 2.26 GHz model] was not apparent in most of the application tests that make up our Speedmark benchmark test suite. In fact, the new eight-core system posted a lower Speedmark score than the quad-core system, and bested it in just one test -- Cinema 4D, where it posted a 28 percent faster time.
In a second report covering the high-end custom configured model (with dual 2.93 GHz Quad Core Xeon X5570 processors, just like the model Apple tested), MacWorld added that this model was:
17 percent faster than the standard 2.26 GHz Eight-Core Mac Pro in our Speedmark tests, 16 percent faster in our ProRes Compressor test and 23 percent faster in Cinema 4D.
In a review geared toward video professionals, DigitalArts tested the high-end stock model and found:
Our motion graphics/VFX test in After Effects CS4 provides a great way of measuring the performance of the processors, RAM and drive system combined. The 'Nehalem' Mac Pro completed rendering our 10-second 3D composition of VFX on four HD uncompressed layers in an outstanding 6 minutes and 49 seconds. This is almost a third of the time it took the older Mac Pro.
In a series of tests, MacPerformanceGuide put a top-of-the-line dual 2.93 GHz Quad Core equipped custom configured "Early 2009" Mac Pro model through its paces and discovered that the "Early 2009" model is:
About 10-30% faster than a 2.8 GHz MP08, and about 0-20% faster than a 3.2 GHz MP08. Exceptions include applications that can utilize more than 8 cores effectively.
In effect, the MP09 is a little faster at the same clock speed, but offers 16 virtual cores capable of 50-80% more raw computing power. Unfortunately, very few programs can use that power, think science, math and video here, not everyday photo applications.
In another very in-depth review, ArsTechnica put a custom configured 2.66 GHz Eight Core (X5550) Mac Pro model through a battery of tests geared toward professional artists and concluded:
There is no denying that the dual socket Mac Pro Nehalem Xeon is a beast of a machine for certain applications, and it will only get faster as software developers write better multithreaded code. It definitely isn't the best option for Photoshop or certain video tasks, but for 3D rendering and simulation with the right code base, it is monstrous.
The always excellent BareFeats also has a fantastic array of test results comparing a variety of Mac Pro models in Cinebench & Geekbench, Professional Applications, Core Image Graphics, and 3D gaming tests as well as a follow up comparing the real-world performance differences between the Quad Core and Eight Core configurations.
Ultimately, it should come as no surprise that the "Early 2009/Nehalem" Mac Pro models are the fastest professional systems Apple has released to date. However, discontinued Mac Pro models remain competitive and are well worth consideration for those who place more emphasis on value than the absolute maximum in performance.
To purchase a used Mac Pro, high-quality storage or memory for the Mac Pro, visit site sponsor Other World Computing.
Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices
<< Mac Pro Dual Optical Drives Q&A (Main) | All Mac Q&As
Established in 1996, EveryMac.com has been created by experts with decades of experience with Apple hardware. EveryMac.com includes, and always has included, original research incorporating detailed, hands-on inspection of packaging, computers, and devices as well as extensive real-world use. All information is provided in good faith, but no website or person is perfect. Accordingly, EveryMac.com is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind whatsoever. EveryMac.com, and the authors thereof, shall not be held responsible or liable, under any circumstances, for any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the information within. For complete disclaimer and copyright information please read and understand the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy before using EveryMac.com. Copying, scraping, or use of any content without expressed permission is not allowed, although links to any page are welcomed and appreciated.