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 byĬrucial) 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.įastest 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |