Apple's Mac Pro: A Discussion of Specifications
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 9, 2006 3:54 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
GPU Options
We had hoped for more extensive GPU options with the Mac Pro, unfortunately Apple only gave us three. The options are now a GeForce 7300 GT for those who aren't doing any real 3D work, an ATI Radeon X1900 XT and a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500.
The Radeon X1900 XT used in the Mac Pro appears to have a 1.3GHz memory clock, which is slower than the 1.45GHz clock of the PC version. The core clock is also slower than the PC version at 600MHz, instead of 625MHz. Historically, ATI Mac Edition cards have always been clocked lower than their PC counterparts; ATI explained the reasoning behind this disparity as having to do with basic supply and demand. The demand for Mac video cards is lower than their PC counterparts, so ATI runs them at lower clock speeds to maintain their desired profit per card regardless of whether they are selling to Mac or PC markets.
The interesting offering on the Mac Pro is the Quadro FX 4500, which is basically a higher clocked version of the GeForce 7800 GTX with some additional workstation class features. With a 450MHz core clock (compared to 430MHz on the 7800 GTX) and a 1050MHz memory clock, the Quadro FX 4500 should actually be slower than the Radeon X1900 XT on the Mac Pro. If you compare the X1900 XT to NVIDIA's offerings on the PC, you generally need a 7800 GTX 512MB (with its faster clock speeds) or a 7900 GTX to outperform the X1900 XT, a vanilla 7800 GTX won't cut it. However, Apple's own benchmarks indicate that the Quadro FX 4500 is faster in games than the Radeon X1900 XT; even though Doom 3 and Quake 4 are the titles of choice, ATI should still be faster. It's tough to say which will run cooler/quieter, the X1900 XT is built on a 90nm process while the Quadro FX 4500 was a 110nm GPU, but with different clocks, transistor counts and fans we'll just have to find out for ourselves.
We're working on getting both cards in house for a head to head comparison, but there could be some explanations for the performance standings being what they are today. NVIDIA's OpenGL drivers may be better than ATI's under OS X or it's also possible that some of the GPU-level enhancements enabled on Quadro GPUs are somehow coming into play in the Quake 4/Doom 3 benchmarks that Apple is reporting.
Finally there's the default configuration option, the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT. If you plan on doing any GPU based rendering, then the 7300 GT is more than enough for OS X, especially since it comes equipped with 256MB of memory. Even 30" Cinema Display owners will have a fairly smooth Exposé experience with 256MB of video memory.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
michael2k - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
fb dimms, found in Mac Pros, are fast serial ram using DDR chips.OddTSi - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "non-ad hoc."I know what FB-DIMMs are, but they're more of a band-aid fix or a hack than a ground-up design.
michael2k - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Maybe you misused "ad hoc". Ad hoc means unplanned and temporary. Why do you think fb-dimm is a band-aid or a hack? Because the RAM chips themselves are not serial in nature?I mean, are you asking "Is there any designs or plans for serial memory chips?"
To be cost effective you either have to use existing infrastructure, or create a logical evolution/adaptation of the existing infrastructure.
AdvanS13 - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
does anyone know apples market segment share for dual processor workstations?peternelson - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
1) I think a gpu swap will need drivers or firmware updating.
2) To buy a commodity sata drive is good but it MIGHT require the apple carrier in order to fit into the chassis.
3) You compare apple memory with commodity FBDIMM.
In the table you quote Apple's UPGRADE (ie on top of base machine) price against the complete cost of the memory. This makes Apple's pricing appear better than it is. Even then it looks like a ripoff, but also consider they are charging you for the base memory in with the basic system price.
aliasfox - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
As far as I've read, the Mac Pros come with carriers in all four bays - carriers that don't need cables (ribbon or round). Didn't know the backs of SATA drives were similar enough that they could just be plugged in.JeffDM - Saturday, August 12, 2006 - link
It's not stated in the Anand article, but all drive carriers are included. Apple's Tech Specs page says it, although it could have been more clearly stated. For what it's worth, I think it is worth downgrading the stock drive to 160GB and spending that difference toward additional drives. Going from 250GB to 160GB saves $75, that price difference would buy you a 250GB SATAII drive.JAS - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
It appears that some people managed to receive their Mac Pro quickly.http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/08/ma...">http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/08/ma...
IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/26/xeon_wood...">http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/2...odcrest_...Check out the memory bandwidth benchmark. Quad channel is needed to match Core 2 systems' memory bandwidth using only dual channel. Dual channel on Xeon 5100 drops to approximately 68% of the quad channel bandwidth. That in numbers is 3.8GB/sec. Not to mention Xeon 5100 series has 25% higher memory FSB. It needs 25% higher FSB and 2x memory channels to achieve the same memory bandwidth numbers the desktop Core 2's can. According to memory latency benchmarks, the latency is also significantly higher on the Woodcrest than Conroe's platform.
The chipset on the Xeon 5100 is worse in performance than the chipset on the Core 2. It will NOT beat Core 2 because of the 25% higher FSB, it will rather be SLOWER. Not to mention FB-DIMM makes it even slower.
SpecFP benchmarks also support this:
Xeon 5160(3GHz/1333MHz FSB/4MB L2/8x1024MB FB-DIMM DDR2-667): 2775
Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93GHz/1066MHz FSB/4MB L2/2x1024MB DDR2-800 5-5-5-15): 3046
Core 2 Extreme gets almost 10% higher in the memory substem portion of the SpecCPU 2K. benchmark, even though it has 2.2% less clock speed than the Xeon 5160.
Look here: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...
"ScienceMark didn't agree completely and reported about 65-70 ns latency on the Opteron system and 70-76 ns (230 cycles) on the Woodcrest system. We have reason to believe that Woodcrest's latency is closer to what LMBench reports: the excellent prefetchers are hiding the true latency numbers from Sciencemark. It must also be said that the measurements for the Opteron on the Opteron are only for the local memory, not the remote memory."
Xeon 5160 got 70-76ns in ScienceMark, what did Core 2 get?? It got 36.75. Xeon 5160's ScienceMark latency is higher than Pentium Extreme Edition 965's latency, and twice the latency of Core 2.
Everest shows the same thing: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/0801/graph...">http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/0801/graph...
Xeon 5160: 99.1
Opteron 285: 57.7(seems higher than FX-62 results but this system uses Registered DDR DIMM, you can see in AT's results that AM2 further lowers latency)
Core 2 Extreme: 59.8
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
dcalfine - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
Overall, I think this is a very well-designed system, and in price comparisons with Dell, the Mac Pro came out over a thousand dollars cheaper for a similar system. I may be a fanboy, but I can admit that Apple still has some work to do here. As good as the Mac Pro is, I think Apple needs to start having better video options. For starters, the X500 chipset is used, which means that there's only one 16X PCIe lane. Also, Apple should get closer with Nvidia and start working in SLI, as well as FX4500X2 and FX5500. A Vanilla FX4500 just doesn't make the cut anymore. Also, the X500 chipset supports one 133X PCIX slot, which, I think, Apple should have incorporated, since not every expansion card has moved to the PCIe format.I'd like to see some speed comparisons between the mac pro and some pcs. I imagine that in most (if not all) test the Mac Pro will come out slightly slower than the PC due to the bells and whistles of Mac OS X, but I'd like to see just how much slower it runs, and how it runs in Boot Camp running Windows/Linux.
But, yeah. Good goin', Apple!
And AnandTech, get your hans on one of these ASAP!