2020. 2. 15. 05:20ㆍ카테고리 없음
The CPU: One socket, lower clocks At this point, you're probably disappointed that I didn't buy the 12-core machine because you wanted to see it stomp all over everything. It was not an easy choice to buy the 8-core over the 12-core, especially since I do 3D work most of the time. I've never seen a generation of CPUs complicated so much by a variety of factors. The price was a big one—it's never been this expensive to get a mid- to high-end Mac Pro, largely because of how expensive this round of Xeons are. The 8-core E5 v2 retail price is around $1800, and the 12-core is a crazy $2750 at Newegg. Apple pays less for this, but you get the idea—this is the priciest generation of Xeons I've seen from Intel. Teardown and tests by OWC revealed that the CPU is user-replaceable, but that may not be much incentive to upgrade for a $700 savings over Apple's 12-core price.
If you do decide to do a CPU swap yourself, keep the old CPU around in case you need support. In the past, you could spend more and get a faster chip with the same total core count. Finding the best performer this time around is less straightforward and depends on your task. If you read my, you saw that applications, even professional ones that cost thousands of dollars, rarely use more than one core for many operations.
Many tasks would be faster with the higher 3.9GHz turbo clock speed of the 3.0GHz 8-core Xeon E5 1680 v2. The 2.7GHz 12-core's turbo maxes out at 3.4 GHz, so things like Mari texture bakes, most Maya operations, Bullet Physics sims, Nuke comps, and Lightroom RAW edits would suffer if I had the lower-clocked 12-core. Apple knows all these things, and it's likely the reason that almost all their review units were 8-core machines. I've seen a few people surprised that the recent generation of higher-clocked iMacs could beat this machine for certain single-threaded operations, but that highlights how little people understand about the Xeons. Xeons offer workstation-class features like ECC memory, more PCIe lanes for GPUs, 4K and Thunderbolt 2, lots of cache, and more cores on one CPU die—but they are not going to be faster for single-threaded operations than the newest desktop CPUs. Xeons are simply not clocked as high.
Atomcraft Mac
If Apple made an -based iMac, the iMac would completely dominate for single-threaded tasks. Unfortunately, that leads us to the chief feature of Xeons that's missing in this generation of Mac Pro—and that's dual-CPU configurations. The sweet spot CPU configuration would have been a dual 6-core or 8-core machine that would give you the max 3.9GHz turbo speed for poorly threaded operations, and then you'd get 12 3.5GHz cores or 16 3.0GHz cores for rendering and double the total bandwidth for added PCIe devices. It would just consume a bit more power and generate a bit more heat. Apple still needs these to compete with companies like Dell or HP that still offer dual CPU configs.
View Devin Edwards’ profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Devin has 16 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Devin’s connections and jobs at similar companies. Atom-IDE is a set of optional packages to bring IDE-like functionality to Atom and improve language integrations. Get smarter context-aware auto-completion, code navigation features such as an outline view, go to definition and find all references. My mac doesn’t support CUDA, so maybe this can be the solution!! July 3, 2012. John Stanowski. Every time I try to add an OBJ I get a placeholder that says “OBJ For use with Trapcode Form.” Any idea what that’s all about? Is Form preventing AtomKraft from working?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Apple needs these dual socket machines because Xeons never use newer technology than what is available in a desktop CPU. That's why the mantra on any hardware forum is 'a single socket Xeon makes no sense.'
It's ironic that Apple should take away all those extra CPU threads from the one Mac that had the ability to tap them. But don't take my word for it.
CPU Benchmarks For the benchmarks below, I tested against my 2010 2.66GHz Mac Pro, the dual 2.4GHz 8-core HP Z820, and 2.4GHz dual 8-core Dell T5600 that I reviewed in August 2012. These machines aren't current, but they are a good indicator of the kind of hardware that Apple could have made as a mid-end dual-CPU configuration if the company made a Sandy Bridge Xeon instead of updating the Westmere Mac Pro tower. These machines were only slightly more expensive than the 8-core Mac Pro, with the HP Z820 coming in at $6,840 with these specs:.
Dual E5-2665/8 Core/2.4GHz with 20MB cache. Intel® C602 chipset. 16GB quad-channel RAM. NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2GB. 500GB – Windows 7 Professional. Dual-layer DVD-RW The Dell was the same configuration but a bit more expensive at $7409.
Obviously, these machines aren't set up to match the Mac Pro's disk speed or GPU, but where disk output was a factor, the same external drive was used. The faster PCIe SSD of the Mac Pro doesn't play any role in these CPU or GPU scores since applications are already in RAM when they start measuring times.
None of the benchmarks push any memory limits, so the 16GB RAM of the PC workstations does not affect their outcome. To be safe, Mavericks' App Nap feature was disabled for the applications, but this didn't seem to make a difference.
Photoshop has always been faster on OS X, even when it was 32-bit on the Mac and 64-bit on Windows. My set of tests does a lot of edits on a large 16-bit image, simulating what a photographer or retoucher might do in day-to-day work. There are good machines for Photoshop, but I would assume that the latest iMac wouldn't be far behind due to the hit-and-miss nature of multithreading in Photoshop. As a side note, if you're a Lightroom user, I did some quick tests to see how it used the Mac Pro's eight cores/16 threads. It taps them but not extremely well.
/ CPU history while exporting a heavily filtered batch of 7D RAW files to JPEG. If you want to read more on Lightroom with the new Mac Pro, there are some extensive benchmarks comparing it to the recent iMacs. In sharp contrast to the Photoshop numbers, Photozoom Pro is obviously favoring Windows for whatever reason. I don't know what BenVista is doing to make the Mac version so hobbled, but it's working.
I upgraded to Photozoom Pro 5 which has OpenCL GPU optimizations, and it brought my score to a whopping 13:05. You're reading that correctly: the very expensive 12-core is the only new Mac Pro model that can beat the 2010 dual hexacore 2.66GHz Mac Pro for 3D rendering. This is the real problem for my work: without a dual-CPU option, Apple's machines will always lose to older dual-CPU configs from other workstation vendors that cost the same due to the older CPUs. A dual 12-core 2.7GHz E5 v2 from those vendors would be expensive, but it would be terrifyingly fast for 3D renders or other well-threaded video compression operations.
There's no way to spin this—Apple needs dual socket workstations to compete. Did I mention this machine cost me more than the 12-core Mac Pro from 2010? That's something. No conspiracy theories here—it's common knowledge on forums like CGSociety's that Mental Ray for Windows is dog-slow compared to OS X and Linux on the same hardware.
The gcc-based compiles on OS X (no, it's not compiled with clang) and Linux perform much better, but that doesn't make up for the lack of a dual CPU. The year-old dual 8-core 2.4GHz Z820 running CentOS shames the 8-core Mac Pro. Since I only had access to the 12-core 2.7GHz Xeon E5 for the Cinebench benchmark above, we'll have to guess that it fares noticeably better than the 2010 Mac Pro but still only scores around 647 seconds. That's great for a single CPU but not enough to catch the older dual 8-core 2.4GHz HP machine. Because of the MSVC compiler issues that affect Mental Ray for Maya on Windows, V-Ray for Maya is compiled with Intel C on Windows, gcc 4.1 on Linux, and gcc 4.2 on Mac OS X. This probably explains the more consistent result.
Clearly Intel's compiler works well, because the dual HP config in Windows is untouchable. Bullet Physics is the industry standard for 3D rigid body simulations, and it's in 3D packages like Cinema 4D, Lightwave, Maya, Houdini, Blender, and more. It's extremely fast, even though it only uses one CPU core. While this benchmark result is a solid victory for the fast memory and newer 8-core Xeon, an iMac or higher-clocked gaming rig would beat out the others due to the single-threaded nature of Bullet Physics. The good news is that there is a Bullet Physics GPU-accelerated OpenCL version in the pipeline,. This is one of those rare cases where Apple's all-eggs-in-the-GPU basket should play out well.
As with Mental Ray on Windows, this likely has more to do with a poor compiler on Windows than it does with raw performance versus the Mac version. Nevertheless, it is a real-world result, and it points out why using a synthetic benchmark can be misleading. If you use AE's 3D software renderer, it will be fast on these machines. I didn't get benchmarks from the PCs when I had them because some of the plugins used in this Nuke script were only on my Mac.
But from the benchmark, we can almost guess the result if performance is on par between platforms: Nuke is far better multithreaded than After Effects, but, for this scene, it still isn't able to saturate all 24 threads of the 12-core 2010 Mac Pro. This means the 8-core pulls ahead significantly as Nuke showed about 14 of 16 active threads at peak. The 32-thread HP and Dell 2.4GHz workstations would likely fare a bit better than the 2010 Mac Pro because of the lower clock speeds with newer Xeon architecture—but it wouldn't be better than the higher clocked 8-core Xeon E5 v2. If you're a Nuke user, this 8-core machine looks like the sweet spot unless you plan to integrate its 3D scanline renderer or a third-party renderer like AtomKraft or V-Ray—those will saturate all threads so they will perform best with dual-socket machines.
Atomkraft For Mac
This is the way that video compositing in programs like Nuke or Autodesk Smoke is headed, so the lack of a dual socket machine is going to eventually hurt film compositors too. By stripping out the second CPU, Apple may be trying to cherry pick its users by being rid of those demanding 3D users once and for all. But the convergence of video and 3D rendering is increasing as dynamically ray-traced content takes place in more video applications. Contrary to what Nvidia or Apple would say, that isn't going to move to the GPU because it's all done in 32-bit color space and involves other things like render passes that are too complicated for GPU renderers. If you read these benchmarks out of context, it could seem like I set the Mac Pro up for a series of right hooks—gotchas to make it look bad. But, save for a couple, these are the exact same benchmarks I did the dual hexacore Mac Pro in 2010. This is, after all, the machine I bought to replace that machine.
Thanks to the lack of dual CPU sockets, you would have to spend a lot more money on the 12-core to get marginal improvements over machines from three years ago. You can get competing workstations for the same price that would best it, thanks to dual-socket configurations with lower-clocked Xeons that cost a lot less. It's bad for Apple that these configurations aren't offered—the company needs the most powerful options for creative users or those users will go elsewhere. Apple needs dual Xeons to compete in the high-end Xeon creative content world, regardless of how Final Cut Pro X and Resolve work. This isn't like the 17-inch MacBook Pro where people would grumble and move on to the 15-inch Retina model—it's a problem. My proposal: throw in the extra CPU and I'll pretend it's a GPU.
That will consume the same power under load as another GPU and it will solve people's multithreaded render speed problems.
How to use RealmCraft – Survive & Craft for PC and MAC You can run all Android games and applications on your PC or MAC computer. Using a free software called Bluestacks, you don't need to purchase anything but games or applications it self if it isn't free. Download Bluestacks from. Install BlueStacks from installation file with following the on-screen instructions. Once Bluestacks is installed add your Google account in it. Type RealmCraft – Survive & Craft in Search bar and install it. Now you can use RealmCraft – Survive & Craft on your PC or MAC.