2.8GHz Quad core benchmarks

[Phillie14586]

I am wanting to compare the benchmark data for the 2.8GHz quad core iMac and the 2.8GHz quad core Mac Pro. I found data on the iMac but have not seen benchmark data on the Mac Pro. Anyone seen a comparison of these two machines or know where to find some benchmark data on the Mac Pro?

[philipma1957]

http://db.xbench.com/search.xhtml?text=zzzzz+phil
some xbench
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/306611
64 bit geek bench. I have scored as high as 10000 i was running iTunes this time also an aja test in the thumbnail

[Eastend]

Here is a good Geekbench link for you. I think these are all 32 bit scores, because I have a number of machines on this list but there all 300 points higher than what is on their list, so it has got to be 32 bit scores. Keep in mind Geekbench is only for reference, real world applications differ.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/

[Martyimac]

I ran mine yesterday and got 9947, with 10Gig of ram.

[johnnymg]

I ran mine yesterday and got 9947, with 10Gig of ram.

32 or 64 bit version? The # would imply 64 bit.

My 3.2 got 10050 with the freebie 32 bit version.

cheers
JohnG

[Martyimac]

32 or 64 bit version? The # would imply 64 bit.

My 3.2 got 10050 with the freebie 32 bit version.

cheers
JohnG

It was the 32 bit version and of course I can't duplicate it now. Ran again after installing all my programs and it runs 9820 on average, if you throw out the highs and lows. Sigh. High was 9850, low was 9799. Can't get good consistent results out of geekbench, at least here at home.

[johnnymg]

It was the 32 bit version and of course I can't duplicate it now. Ran again after installing all my programs and it runs 9820 on average, if you throw out the highs and lows. Sigh. High was 9850, low was 9799. Can't get good consistent results out of geekbench, at least here at home.

If it makes you feel any better, an average score of 9820 is very high (clk-clk ratio) when compared to a 3.2GHz score of 10050.

cheers
JohnG

[chrismacguy]

My brand new, just got yesterday, Quad 2.8 Mac Pro scores 8808 in GeekBench as shipped (3GB RAM, HD 5770 - the lowest current configuration) - This could easily break 9500 if it had an SSD over HD, and possibly a better Graphics card in my opinion.

[Rebel Film]

My 2 week old base 2010 2.8 Quad with Vertex 2 120GB SSD and 2TB striped RAID only gets a score of around 5500 in Geekbench 64-bit. Should be worried, the poster above me has a much higher score with a similiar set-up. I was only running Geekbench, nothing else.

[philipma1957]

My 2 week old base 2010 2.8 Quad with Vertex 2 120GB SSD and 2TB striped RAID only gets a score of around 5500 in Geekbench 64-bit. Should be worried, the poster above me has a much higher score with a similiar set-up. I was only running Geekbench, nothing else.

something is wrong two scores just run . one with super duper and safari one with super duper.


http://browse.geekbench.ca/user/philipma1957/geekbench2


scores are 9809 9843 9739 12gb ram

[Rebel Film]

I'm getting 4895 on 32-bit while browsing, that's around some of your mac mini scores...

[Transporteur]

My brand new, just got yesterday, Quad 2.8 Mac Pro scores 8808 in GeekBench as shipped (3GB RAM, HD 5770 - the lowest current configuration) - This could easily break 9500 if it had an SSD over HD, and possibly a better Graphics card in my opinion.


GeekBench is testing neither the hard disc, nor the graphics card, so no, you won't see any difference with an SSD or better graphics card.

[Phillie14586]

Thanks for the links. I knew there would be someone on this forum that knows more than I do about these things. I currently have a 1GHz MDD that looks to have Geekbench scores in the 400's. The 18MP pictures from my new camera take at least 55sec to load in Adobe lightroom. I have several hundred npictures to go through from a trip to ALaska this summer, 55 sec a piece will drive me insane. I would also like to get back to doing some work in iMovie to send videos of the kids back to my parents. I also want to start putting together an HTPC. I need to play with using the TV as a second monitor versus using a streaming device at the TV. Back in the Performa days my Mac quickly went out of date because there was no possibilities to expand. That is what has me adverse to the iMac. I am also not fond of glossy monitors, the computer is in a very bright room. I also only have room for one monitor and I need to keep one of my G4s around to run some kids games in Classic mode. I thought the MacPro was going to be the only option but then I read about the 27" iMacs being able to run as a monitor for a second computer. So I need to confirm that I can use a DVI to minidisplayport to connect the G4 and iMac.

Looking at the Geekbench scores it looks like the order of speed is iMac quad i7 > MacPro Quad > iMac quad i5. So I am struggling with getting a cheaper faster computer with no expandability and a glossy monitor or the more expensive only slightly slower but expandable computer that I can put any monitor on. At this point the expandability is only for future proofing.

[Eastend]

Keep in mind you will not notice any difference between a machine that gets a 8800 score in Geekbench and a machine that gets a 9300 score. We have 5 fairly new Macs in our office and the machines that have around 500 point difference show little or any difference in Pro Applications. However, when you have a 1,000 points difference perhaps renders and encodings do increase in speed a little, but you would probably need a stopwatch to tell the difference. Most of our Mac Pros have an average of 3 hard disk in their bays, that alone is impossible on a iMac, it is simple to install the disk. I once installed a new hard disk in a iMac, I believe it took me just under 2 hours and it actually kind of scared me that I might break something. On a Mac Pro it takes a few minutes to replace a hard drive. For me it would be iMac for play, Mac Pro for work.

[sch8mid]

Custom built Mac : i 7 950 /HD 5770 /6GB Mushkin RAM@1600/ HD 1-10.6.4 - HD 2 Win 7 (boot selection F 12) (under 1000 $)

LianLi Alucase- silent with perfect airflow -3 Hi-Speed PCIe slots - E-sata -6 GB Sata - USB 3 -ATI HD 5770 rev.3 -2 TB HD

Geekbench Stock 3,0 = 12008
Geekbench: 3,6 GHz = 13400 (24/7 settings)
Geekbench :4,2 GHz = 14664
Cinebench 11.5 = 45,2 fr. OpenGL MAC - (88,17 fr. Win 7)
Opencl Bench = 6,7 sec.
Boottime 10.6.4 = 6-8 sec. (@4,2

For me this ridiculous walt disney show , featuring "Ali Baba" Jobs from iGadget Inc., selling recycling computers in cases designed 7 years ago with outdated parts at 3 times the price to innocents has ended ...

First Mac Pro in 1989 - last MacPro 2008 R.I.P.

[MFDoom]

I'll be interested to see how my scores compare. I recently upgraded to 12GB and my machine still feels sluggish...

[Rebel Film]

I got my Kingston 12GB RAM installed now, I'm now getting a whooping 5600 score in Geekbench 64 bit. My set-up is this:

2.8Ghz Quad
12 GB RAM
120GB Vertex 2 SSD
2TB RAID0

I wonder why my score is so low, maybe a problem with the CPU or something?

[Transporteur]

I got my Kingston 12GB RAM installed now, I'm now getting a whooping 5600 score in Geekbench 64 bit.

Did you clone your system from another Mac, like a MacBook or Mini?

[Rebel Film]

I did a fresh install of Snow Leopard on the SSD, put the apps back from a TimeMachine of my MBP and put the home map of the MBP TimeMachine on my Raid. Is that the problem?

[Transporteur]

Hm... that sounds about right. I recall another user having horrible scores after he cloned the system from a Mini to a Pro, but since you've done a clean install on the SSD, I don't think that your data copy process is the cause for your scores.

Have you tried GeekBench with the standard RAM?

[Rebel Film]

Yes, I get around 5500 to as low as 4800 with the standard ram :(

[Martyimac]

Newest run, 8914 with the 32 bit geekbench.
Seems to have stabilized around that area. I don't know where the 9800 runs came from but statistics says I have to throw them out, they don't fall within the 95% flow.
So there it is. 8914 with the 32 bit app. 10 gig of ram, (2-4 gig sticks from OWC and 2-1 gig sticks from apple)

So consider my first posts as outliers and go with this one.

Sorry.

[donw35]

is your speed effected by have four memory modules in a DDR3 system ?

would be interesting to see your score by taking out the two 1 gigs and replace them with one 4gig for 12GB X 3 modules.

[Martyimac]

is your speed effected by have four memory modules in a DDR3 system ?

would be interesting to see your score by taking out the two 1 gigs and replace them with one 4gig for 12GB X 3 modules.

If I had another 4 gig stick, it would be in there. ;)
I might try taking out one of the 1 gigs and running it again.

[philipma1957]

I did a fresh install of Snow Leopard on the SSD, put the apps back from a TimeMachine of my MBP and put the home map of the MBP TimeMachine on my Raid. Is that the problem?


yes do a fresh install again don't tm anything over. load geekbench and check score. the new score is on a fresh (mp dvd disk) install with only geek bench you will get around 8200 if it is 32 bit geekbench. then click and drag 1 file/folder from the tm at a time. run the 32 bit geekbench if the geekbench drops that is the file/folder . no drop do the next file/folder

[chrismacguy]

yes do a fresh install again don't tm anything over. load geekbench and check score. the new score is on a fresh (mp dvd disk) install with only geek bench you will get around 8200 if it is 32 bit geekbench. then click and drag 1 file/folder from the tm at a time. run the 32 bit geekbench if the geekbench drops that is the file/folder . no drop do the next file/folder

actually more like 8800 in a baseline machine. (Mine got 8808 with only FCS installed and not running and Geekbench 32-bit) - Anything below 8000 is bonkers for the latest Quad, as they definitely can get up to 10,000 (Mine will get up there eventually - it defo needs more RAM xD)

[philipma1957]

my all time high for 64 bit geek bench is 10000 even. most of the time 9800 to 9900. my quad is a 2010 2.8 with 12 gb ram and 4 caviar blacks in a raid0. He has killed his speed due to the apps coming from the mbp or some other file or folder.

[chrismacguy]

my all time high for 64 bit geek bench is 10000 even. most of the time 9800 to 9900. my quad is a 2010 2.8 with 12 gb ram and 4 caviar blacks in a raid0. He has killed his speed due to the apps coming from the mbp or some other file or folder.

I just cant see how the heck that can manage to kill geekbench scores. Surely Geekbench shouldnt care what apps you have installed as its a benchmarking application, not tied to a particular app, so long as GeekBench wasnt copied across surely it should cope fine?

[cpnotebook80]

My score is 11270 after installing ocz vertex 2 ssd

[Martyimac]

Tried three different ram configurations and here are the results, averaged.

4 sticks (2-4's and 2-1's for 10gig)---8910
3 sticks (2-4's and 1-1 for 9 gig)-----8850
2 sticks (2-4's for 8 gig)--------------8800

That tells me the amount of ram affects the results more than the number of sticks of ram.

Anyone see this or agree?

[Eastend]

2010 Mac Pro/2.8Ghz/7GB/1TB/120GB SSD Boot drive, This is the 32 bit Geekbench on it.

[philipma1957]

I just cant see how the heck that can manage to kill geekbench scores. Surely Geekbench shouldnt care what apps you have installed as its a benchmarking application, not tied to a particular app, so long as GeekBench wasnt copied across surely it should cope fine?

well the guy that cloned his mac mini hdd osx 10.6.4 and the guy that migrated his mbp both had scores around 4700 to 5200. all of us with a mac pro disk install have score over 8800 for 32bit and over 9700 for 64 bit. now i will say my pro has a mac pro disk install with a 800gb migration from my mac mini ext hdd osx. I still have good numbers.

This is why asked him to do the install then load geekbench from online and test. he has not replied to this. so we can't know what his problem is for sure.. if he does this and his pro only has a fresh install with a fresh download of geek bench and gets bad scores we will be in a different place. It really should give him good scores. if it does he will need to load a piece at a time from his mbp to figure out what is bad. it could take a while to do this. Computers can be a pita if something is wrong.

[johnnymg]

2010 Mac Pro/2.8Ghz/7GB/1TB/120GB SSD Boot drive, This is the 32 bit Geekbench on it.

This # looks consistent with what I would expect from the 2.8.

congrats on the new machine!
JohnG

[chrismacguy]

Computers can be a pita if something is wrong.

Hence why were all here to help :p

[Rebel Film]

well the guy that cloned his mac mini hdd osx 10.6.4 and the guy that migrated his mbp both had scores around 4700 to 5200. all of us with a mac pro disk install have score over 8800 for 32bit and over 9700 for 64 bit. now i will say my pro has a mac pro disk install with a 800gb migration from my mac mini ext hdd osx. I still have good numbers.

This is why asked him to do the install then load geekbench from online and test. he has not replied to this. so we can't know what his problem is for sure.. if he does this and his pro only has a fresh install with a fresh download of geek bench and gets bad scores we will be in a different place. It really should give him good scores. if it does he will need to load a piece at a time from his mbp to figure out what is bad. it could take a while to do this. Computers can be a pita if something is wrong.

I run my own filmproduction company, and I'm swamped with deadlines. Erasing the SSD, also means I need to Sanitary Erase it in Windows to reset it. That's alright, cause then I can update the firmware also, but it will take a day, so I'll have to postpone it untill I have more time. Thnx for the tip though, will try. I tried a new user account today to test if I can get a better score, but no go 5000 with only Geekbench running at 64-bit.

[johnnymg]

I run my own filmproduction company, and I'm swamped with deadlines. Erasing the SSD, also means I need to Sanitary Erase it in Windows to reset it. That's alright, cause then I can update the firmware also, but it will take a day, so I'll have to postpone it untill I have more time. Thnx for the tip though, will try. I tried a new user account today to test if I can get a better score, but no go 5000 with only Geekbench running at 64-bit.

You can do a fast (<1 hour) OSX reinstall on the SSD as a sanity check.

JohnG

[Rebel Film]

You can do a fast (<1 hour) OSX reinstall on the SSD as a sanity check.

JohnG

Reinstalling CS5 Master Collection and Final Cut Studio 3 with a butload of plug-ins takes a lot longer unfortunately, even on a SSD ;)

[johnnymg]

Reinstalling CS5 Master Collection and Final Cut Studio 3 with a butload of plug-ins takes a lot longer unfortunately, even on a SSD ;)

Reinstalling the OS will not delete the apps.

cheers
JohnG

[Rebel Film]

I secured erased my SSD, updated firmware to 1.24 in Windows using the OCZ Toolbox and clean installed OS X and all apps and plug-ins. Performance is a lot better and I'm getting scores around 9000 in 32-bit Geekbench and just over 10.000 in 64-bit. Thnx for helping me out!