btazap.blogg.se

A 2.93GHz Core i7 quad-core iMac costs less than half as much as the 12-core Mac Pro, which was just 17 percent faster overall-almost all of the performance benefit of the 12-core Mac Pro was in our multi-processor savvy application tasks. Looking at some BTO options on the iMac, however, the iMac fares better and costs considerably less. The 12-core Mac Pro was 34 percent faster, overall, than the 2009 8-core 2.26GHz Xeon Nehalem Mac Pro, and 42 percent faster than the 2009 quad-core 2.66GHz Xeon Nehalem Mac Pro.Ĭompared to the high-end standard configuration 27-inch iMac with a 2.8GHz Core i5 quad-core processor, the 12-core Mac Pro was 33 percent faster overall.

Testing the 12-core Mac Pro with 12GB of RAM (six 2GB DIMMs provided by Crucial) showed very little improvement over the 12-core Mac Pro with 6GB of RAM-just one Speedmark point.

It was outperformed by a $3699 built-to-order (BTO) Mac Pro with a 3.33GHz 6-core Xeon Westmere processor, which was faster in 10 of our 17 tests, and matched the 12-core Mac Pro’s scores in two other tests.

The new 12-core Mac Pro was 26 percent faster overall than the new low-end Mac Pro, a quad-core system running at 2.8GHz.Īs shown in our “ Fastest Macs money can buy” report, the 12-core Mac Pro was not the overall speed king in our tests. The 12-core Mac Pro’s Speedmark 6.5 score was 21 percent faster than the 8-core 2.4GHz Xeon Mac Pro, with a 52 percent higher MathematicaMark score, 36 percent faster CineBench R15 CPU score, and 19 percent faster HandBrake result. Results from HandBrake, CineBench CPU, and MathematicaMark (all using the available 24 virtual processing cores), were the fastest we’ve seen. With iMacs and lower-priced Mac Pros outperforming the 12-core model at many everyday tasks, it was only in the handful of high-end, specialized software tests that the 12-core Mac Pro shined. If the $5000 price didn’t give it away, our tests of the 12-core Mac Pro show that this Mac Pro is not meant for the average consumer.