Game Benchmarks on current Mac Pro 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon

[Irishman]

Hey, guys and gals,

I'm looking to decide the difference in gaming performance between the 3.06GHz iMac and the entry-level Quad-core Mac Pro.

I've found a plethora of online figures showing framerrates of modern game benchmarking running native under OS X.

But, I haven't found anything regarding the Mac Pro games to speak of, especially with the upgrade GeForce 8800 GT card.

Does anyone own this Mac Pro and can attest to its performance on modern games?

This will play a part in my decision making process.

Before anyone goes there, no comments about how the Mac isn't a gaming platform. I'm over that.

 

[Lindley]

The 8800 upgrade will probably have more effect on performance than the number of cores.

 

[Irishman]

The 8800 upgrade will probably have more effect on performance than the number of cores.

I agree. That's why I didn't opt to spend an extra $1000+ for the extra 4 cores. I'm not not planning on using pro level apps.

I'm considering the Mac Pro for expandability.

 

[FordSVT]

So few programs are written to really take advantage of four cores that unless you do a stupendous amount of multitasking with hardware-hogging apps it's just not worth it.

A fast dual core machine with a lot of ram and a great video card is going to be a smoking machine with or without two extra processors.

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

 

[Brent]

Faster vid card vs. more cores = better gaming, go for the faster vid card.

I'd rather have a faster dual core CPU than a quad core for gaming, MHz matters more than cores for gaming.

 

[rType]

The 8800GT isn't exactly top of the line itself these days. Nvidia's 9800GX2, GTX260, GTX280, and upcoming 9800GTX+ all offer substantially improved performance, as do AMD's 4850 and 4870 cards. That said, the 8800GT is certainly adequate for all modern games, save perhaps Crysis if you're looking to drive a 24-30" display at native resolution.

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

Intel's upcoming Larrabee architecture is expected to hit retail in 2010 with anything from 24-48 cores. Of course Larrabee isn't a CPU, it's going up against Nvidia's Geforce/Tesla and AMD's Radeon/Firestream GPUs for Gaming/GPGPU/HPC work.

 

[Lindley]

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

It's because they're hitting the wall on processor speed. Multiple cores is the easier way forward. We'll start seeing more programs designed to take advantage soon enough.

 

[Arrqh]

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

It's because they're hitting the wall on processor speed. Multiple cores is the easier way forward. We'll start seeing more programs designed to take advantage soon enough.

Yeah, it's sort of like a chicken/egg thing... you won't see a lot of software that takes advantage of more then 2 cores until the hardware becomes commonplace. And writing software that takes advantage of multiple cores is in many cases not an easy task. And we've only got a few more times the transistor size can drop before we have to totally redesign how we build CPUs to get them to go faster...

Personally, the more cores the happier I am. Need more render buckets!

 

[Irishman]

The 8800GT isn't exactly top of the line itself these days. Nvidia's 9800GX2, GTX260, GTX280, and upcoming 9800GTX+ all offer substantially improved performance, as do AMD's 4850 and 4870 cards. That said, the 8800GT is certainly adequate for all modern games, save perhaps Crysis if you're looking to drive a 24-30" display at native resolution.

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

Intel's upcoming Larrabee architecture is expected to hit retail in 2010 with anything from 24-48 cores. Of course Larrabee isn't a CPU, it's going up against Nvidia's Geforce/Tesla and AMD's Radeon/Firestream GPUs for Gaming/GPGPU/HPC work.

And that, for me, is the big selling point of the tower.

I'm willing to take a slower clock speed proc (even though it's 4 versus 2 cores in the iMac), to trade for the ability to upgrade everything a year or two down the line.

IF the out of the box performance of the 8800GT is phenomenal out of the box.

 

[rType]

So I decided to go and actually take a look at Apple's product line.

The 24" 3.06GHz C2D iMac is shipping with an 8800GS for $2200, the 1-way 2.8GHz Quad Xeon Mac Pro when equipped with an 8800GT (but no display) is going for $2450.

The 8800GS is essentially a slightly neutered 8800GT, they're both G92-based products, 112 stream processors on the GT compared with 96 on the GS, similar ratios down the line with most of the other relevant statistics. In isolation one would almost certainly opt for the 8800GT, however when dealing with Apple we can't. The performance difference between the GS and the GT, assuming that Apple has not stepped wildly outside the reference specs for those cards, is worth maybe $50, probably less, it is not worth the price difference that exists between the iMac and the Mac Pro, especially if you'd also be needing a display for the Mac Pro.

As others have mentioned, higher-clocked dual-core vs. lower-clocked quad-core is basically a wash for gaming purposes. Most of the additional cost in the Mac Pro comes from the use of Xeon CPUs, in turn dictated by Apple's decision to differentiate iMac from Mac Pro by having the latter offer multiple CPU sockets. Intel removed 2-way support from their budget/mainstream lines a few years back when they realised the feature was preventing them from charging ungodly amounts of money for Xeon, and clearly Apple hasn't been able to convince Intel to change that policy.

So, strictly for gaming purposes, performance edge to the Mac Pro w/8800GT, however the iMac w/8800GS is significantly better value for money whilst still offering perfectly respectable gaming performance.

 

[Irishman]

So I decided to go and actually take a look at Apple's product line.

The 24" 3.06GHz C2D iMac is shipping with an 8800GS for $2200, the 1-way 2.8GHz Quad Xeon Mac Pro when equipped with an 8800GT (but no display) is going for $2450.

The 8800GS is essentially a slightly neutered 8800GT, they're both G92-based products, 112 stream processors on the GT compared with 96 on the GS, similar ratios down the line with most of the other relevant statistics. In isolation one would almost certainly opt for the 8800GT, however when dealing with Apple we can't. The performance difference between the GS and the GT, assuming that Apple has not stepped wildly outside the reference specs for those cards, is worth maybe $50, probably less, it is not worth the price difference that exists between the iMac and the Mac Pro, especially if you'd also be needing a display for the Mac Pro.

As others have mentioned, higher-clocked dual-core vs. lower-clocked quad-core is basically a wash for gaming purposes. Most of the additional cost in the Mac Pro comes from the use of Xeon CPUs, in turn dictated by Apple's decision to differentiate iMac from Mac Pro by having the latter offer multiple CPU sockets. Intel removed 2-way support from their budget/mainstream lines a few years back when they realised the feature was preventing them from charging ungodly amounts of money for Xeon, and clearly Apple hasn't been able to convince Intel to change that policy.

So, strictly for gaming purposes, performance edge to the Mac Pro w/8800GT, however the iMac w/8800GS is significantly better value for money whilst still offering perfectly respectable gaming performance.

I'm surprised you didn''t address upgradeability.

I can get them speced out to within 60 dollars of each other.

 

[rType]

Possibly because I don't know anything about upgrading Macs.

If the future flexibility offered by the Pro is important to you, and the compromises (no display) required to obtain price parity between the iMac and Pro aren't, go for it.

 

[Irishman]

Possibly because I don't know anything about upgrading Macs.

If the future flexibility offered by the Pro is important to you, and the compromises (no display) required to obtain price parity between the iMac and Pro aren't, go for it.

Well, I can get most any high-performance LCD display for very low prices, so I can find a monitor whose picture competes VERY well against the iMac, and for far less money.

Will it look as cool together as the iMac? Nope.

 

[Lindley]

Possibly because I don't know anything about upgrading Macs.

Open the box, plug in the hardware. It's pretty simple *if* you get one of the designs that can actually be opened. Many of the iMac models make it hard to get at anything except RAM and the Airport card.

 

[FordSVT]

Possibly because I don't know anything about upgrading Macs.

Open the box, plug in the hardware. It's pretty simple *if* you get one of the designs that can actually be opened. Many of the iMac models make it hard to get at anything except RAM and the Airport card.

But that's kind of the point, isn't it? PC's can be tremendously flexible and upgradeable, Macs by and large are not. Not that this is an issue for most people, who either never upgrade their computers or possibly upgrade their RAM and video card, both of which are similar in price to parts for a PC. The move to Intel based hardware definitely helped in this area.

 

[Lindley]

That's one of the reasons I always liked the tower design---it's *really* easy to open. Unfortunately, I enjoy the convenience of a laptop too much to go back to a tower now.

 

[Jim Steele]

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

It's the new Megahertz Myth (tm).

 

[Irishman]

And now I hear of six and eight core machines in the immediate future? In home and business computers? There's a point of diminishing returns here, folks... unless you're working for Fermi Labs mapping neutrinos or something... smells like the marketing people are taking over now, "more cores is better! Trust us!".

It's the new Megahertz Myth (tm).

bumpadump