Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
macrumors.com
Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#2>> "and includes the latest four-channel ECC DDR3 memory running at 1866 MHz to deliver up to 60GBps of memory bandwidth.* "
- It should be "running at 933⅓ MHz". A DDR3-1866 module is 933⅓ MHz, 1866⅔ MT/s, ~15GB/s. They have quad channel DDR3-1866. (If you disagree - check the DDR3 spec. Article at apple.com is simply wrong in stating running at 1866 MHz I know it is a minor point, but when you are listing specs, you have to be precise.) -
Update: sorry, saying "running at 1866 MHz" is Ok. I stand corrected.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#3I'm just excited the older models will be getting less expensive soon so I can afford one.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#4>> "and includes the latest four-channel ECC DDR3 memory running at 1866 MHz to deliver up to 60GBps of memory bandwidth.* " - It should be "running at 933⅓ MHz". A DDR3-1866 module is 933⅓ MHz, 1866⅔ MT/s, ~15GB/s. They have quad channel DDR3-1866. (If you disagree - check the DDR3 spec. Article at apple.com is simply wrong in stating running at 1866 MHz I know it is a minor point, but when you are listing specs, yo…
Absolutely nobody uses that scheme for referring to memory speeds. Everybody uses the effective clock speed, and there's really nothing technically wrong about labeling that with MHz, since Hz isn't restricted to referring to only sinusoidal clock signals. If you're going to be pedantic, then you ought to make clear when you're referring to the memory clock speed or the I/O clock speed or the transfer rate. For anyone who is interested only in using a memory module and not implementing the memory bus, 1866 is the only number that matters.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#5>> "and includes the latest four-channel ECC DDR3 memory running at 1866 MHz to deliver up to 60GBps of memory bandwidth.* " - It should be "running at 933⅓ MHz". A DDR3-1866 module is 933⅓ MHz, 1866⅔ MT/s, ~15GB/s. They have quad channel DDR3-1866. (If you disagree - check the DDR3 spec. Article at apple.com is simply wrong in stating running at 1866 MHz I know it is a minor point, but when you are listing specs, yo…
Absolutely nobody uses that scheme for referring to memory speeds. Everybody uses the effective clock speed, and there's really nothing technically wrong about labeling that with MHz, since Hz isn't restricted to referring to only sinusoidal clock signals. If you're going to be pedantic, then you ought to make clear when you're referring to the memory clock speed or the I/O clock speed or the transfer rate. For anyon…
Hz refers to the number of cycles per second. Everybody uses this as the effective transfer clock, but hey, everybody is wrong.
It's correct to use MT/sec instead, but you're right that it's being pedantic and it's unlikely to confuse anyone who really did care. On the other hand, it does stink of specmanship to quote the doubled frequency. I would have hoped a Pro spec machine would rise above that kind of thing.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#6>> "and includes the latest four-channel ECC DDR3 memory running at 1866 MHz to deliver up to 60GBps of memory bandwidth.* " - It should be "running at 933⅓ MHz". A DDR3-1866 module is 933⅓ MHz, 1866⅔ MT/s, ~15GB/s. They have quad channel DDR3-1866. (If you disagree - check the DDR3 spec. Article at apple.com is simply wrong in stating running at 1866 MHz I know it is a minor point, but when you are listing specs, yo…
You can also add the dual naming scheme that gives us gems like "PC3-14400" where the latter number is the MBps of bandwidth or something similarly confusing to 95% of people, myself included.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#7I'm just excited the older models will be getting less expensive soon so I can afford one.
Pretty sure that macbook pros are cheaper and faster that that already.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#8I'm just excited the older models will be getting less expensive soon so I can afford one.
Don't be too sure of that.. plenty of pros want upgradable systems... Most of the mac pro users I know tend to keep them 4-5 years or more, with an upgrade cycle every 12-24 months (faster cpu, more ram, ssd, etc) in the same box. The new form factor really limits that, and would probably be better served with a consumer grade CPU etc.. this is much closer to a mid-range desktop a lot of people have been asking for, except it's going to cost an arm and a leg.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#9I'm just excited the older models will be getting less expensive soon so I can afford one.
Don't be too sure of that.. plenty of pros want upgradable systems... Most of the mac pro users I know tend to keep them 4-5 years or more, with an upgrade cycle every 12-24 months (faster cpu, more ram, ssd, etc) in the same box. The new form factor really limits that, and would probably be better served with a consumer grade CPU etc.. this is much closer to a mid-range desktop a lot of people have been asking for,…
Yeah, as much as I love the aesthetics, I'm predicting poor sales unless the price is comparable to other desktops. It's precisely the reason I avoided the Cube back in 2000/2001 and opted for the Tower.
Re: Apple's New Mac Pro Begins Showing Up in Benchmarks
#10I'm just excited the older models will be getting less expensive soon so I can afford one.
Pretty sure that macbook pros are cheaper and faster that that already.
Not even close. They come out at about 1/2 of the new mac pro: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?utf8=%E2%9C...