Not every task is memory intensive, but many tasks are. While that same limitation applies to the 2013 Mac Pro, going to 18 CPU cores generates a lot of contention for access to memory. To “feed the beast”, e.g., a 8/10/18 core CPU, memory access can be a major performance bottleneck. There is a huge gaping hole in Apple’s design: memory bandwidth. 8 slots instead of 4 would at least have allowed 256GB. How exactly is a pro machine that can use at most 1/4 of the supported memory a pro machine? I guess the case wouldn’t have been as pretty for presentation or something. It’s also lame that these CPUs support up to 512GB memory, but Apple allows for a maximum of 1/4 that. But my guess is that the iMac Pro be slower than the 2017 iMac 5K on most all tasks excepting those tasks that use 8/10/18 CPU cores efficiently and/or heavy use of the fast GPU. It has quad-channel memory which ought to help close the gap to the base clock of the 4.2 GHz iMac 5K, which also turbos to 4.5 GHz. The most likely CPU for the base iMac Pro is the W-2145, which runs at 3.7 GHz with Turbo Boost up to 4.5 GHz. I’d like to present the table here, but its copyrighted, so look at the "Intel® Xeon® W Processors for Mainstream Workstations” sections. And even if not downclocked, the Intel XEON lineup shows clock speeds well below the 4.2 GHz of the 2017 iMac 5K. There are hints out there that the iMac Pro will be SLOWER than the 2017 iMac 5K, due to downclocked CPUs. See yesterday’s 4-Core CPUs do not Leave Much Grunt for Other Tasks and Will the iMac Pro Be Worth The Cost?. Recently I bought a 2017 iMac 5K for solid reasons and yesterday I discussed the switchover and the gear I’m using. SEND FEEDBACK Related: 2017 iMac 5K, 4K and 5K display, iMac, iMac 5K, iMac Pro, Mac Pro, memory
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |