Nehalem Mac Pros Arrive: Unboxing and Benchmarks

MacRumors forum user WonderSausage received his 2009 Nehalem Mac Pro yesterday. The system was configured as a Dual 2.93GHz Quad-Core system with 6GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4870 card. Additional high quality photos posted to Flickr with commentary in the discussion thread.
The early GeekBench benchmark for the Nehalem system gave a whopping total score of 17,665, placing it at the very top of the list of all GeekBench 2 scores. The previous #1 placeholder was a Sun Microsystems Sun Fire X4450. This also eclipses the results of the previous top-of-the-line 3.2GHz 8-core Mac Pro which delivers a score as high as 11,030 but with many results in the 9,000 range. As expected, the largest gains in the new systems revolved around multi-threaded functions and memory performance. To give some more perspective on this value, see GeekBench's cumulative table of all Mac performance benchmarks as of January 2009.
Meanwhile, another reader was able to benchmark his Nehalem 2.26GHz Mac Pro which resulted in a Geekbench score of 11226-13113. Again the Nehalem processors excelled at multi-threaded tasks but the raw clock speed of the 2.26GHz processor was slower than the 3.2GHz processor at single-threaded tasks.
This same observation was also seen in Cinebench benchmarks compiled by Tesselator and charted by PowerPaw:

In this example, the new 2.26GHz 8-core Nehalem performed comparably to previous 2.8GHz 8-core processor in multi-threaded tasks, but worse at single threaded tasks. Meanwhile, the multi-core performance of the new 2.93GHz processor significantly outpaced the previous generation machines.
As a result, depending on your work flow (multi-threaded vs single-threaded), it may make more sense to buy a faster Quad-Core than a slower Octo-Core. While some are hoping that Apple's push for multi-threaded support in Snow Leopard may change this equation, developer support and the eventual impact of Grand Central remain unknown.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Most consumer grade apps struggle to use more than one core so it's interesting to see my 3.2GHz 2008 mac pro beat the 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro in every 'single theaded' benchmark by quite a margin.
2008 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 2341
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 2858
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 2579
Lua single-threaded scalar: 5441
2009 2.26GHz 8 Core Mac Pro
Blowfish single threaded scalar: 1353
Text Compress single-threaded scalar: 1659
Image Compress single-threaded scalar: 1473
Lua single-threaded scalar: 2388
Basically (from further benchmarks posted in that previous thread). If you use multi-core apps the 2009 2.26 Mac Pro is on par with the 2008 3.2Ghz Mac Pro. If you use apps that only use a single core, like most consumer based apps as well as pro apps like Adobe Illustrator the 2008 3.2GHz Mac Pro is a lot faster.
Food for thought for those considering a 2.26GHz 2009 mac pro. You can pick-up a second hand or apple refurb 3.2GHz for less than the 2.26GHz model and get equal or better performance :)
Someone please help!
Can someone help? i'm now totally confused by these benchmark tests. I've just ordered 8 CORE 2.26GHz machine with the upgraded Graphics card and will max out the ram to 24GB. Will this spec be faster for final cut pro / logic pro / motion than a 4 CORE 2.93 Ghz machine???
Someone please help!
the first question you need to ask is:
are FCP / LP / M written to take advantage of multi-threading by 4 or more cores?
if not then clock speed might be more crucial in term of performance.
Can someone help? i'm now totally confused by these benchmark tests. I've just ordered 8 CORE 2.26GHz machine with the upgraded Graphics card and will max out the ram to 24GB. Will this spec be faster for final cut pro / logic pro / motion than a 4 CORE 2.93 Ghz machine???
Someone please help!
With Snow Leopard on the horizon, your 8-core beast will be the better choice in the long run, I believe.
Perhaps I will still buy it now. It's getting more difficult to postpone it every day! I think maybe the best strategy is to order it just before I leave for two weeks so the lead time will be covered by my absence.
[ Read All Comments ]

One of the most frequent reasons for an iPhone to go on a trip to the Apple Store's Genius Bar is because of water damage. Typically, a water damaged iPhone can be replaced for a flat $199...
TheVerge's Joshua Topolsky summarizes the iPad 3 casing findings reported earlier today, but also adds his own sources regarding some details of the iPad 3.
Image from RepairLabs
As...
Last July, Apple discontinued the white MacBook from its consumer lineup, pushing consumers toward the company's popular MacBook Air line or the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The company didn't kill...
Popular iPhone Twitter client Tweetbot has finally arrived on the iPad, with a user interface instantly familiar to any current Tweetbot user. Designed for the Twitter power-user, Tweetbot packs a...
Last month, we noted that Apple had signed a pair of leases for over 300,000 square feet of space in Sunnyvale, the company's first venture into the city next door to its home in Cupertino,...