PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro (Early 2008) Geekbench Benchmarks




MacRumors
Jan 10, 2008, 08:08 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

PrimateLabs (http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/01/mac-pro-performance-january-2008/) provides some early Geekbench 2 benchmarks on the just-released 8-Core "Harpertown" Mac Pro at 2.8GHz compared to the old 8-Core "Clovertown" 3.0GHz Mac Pro.

Despite the slower clock speed, the new "Hapertown" Mac Pro outperformed the older "Clovertown" Mac Pro in Integer, Memory and Stream performance, reflecting its faster memory (800MHz vs 667MHz) and bus (1600MHz vs 1333MHz). The new Mac Pro, however, did lag behind in floating point performance, compared to the older higher-clock speed model.

Apple introduced (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/08/apple-announces-penryn-mac-pros-and-xserve/) the new Mac Pro earlier this week.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/10/mac-pro-early-2008-geekbench-benchmarks/)



WildPalms
Jan 10, 2008, 08:11 AM
Dazzling! Ahh yes, its good to be Mac, dont wanna go back!

Eidorian
Jan 10, 2008, 08:12 AM
I believe that the biggest benefits will be seen in SSE4 applications. Video editing sees big improvements in this department.

On another front 45nm is a heck of a lot cooler as well. I've seen the heatsinks for the new 45nm Core 2 Duo and they chopped it in half from the older 65nm Core 2 Duo! :eek:

Intel seems confident that these new processors are cool if they're doing that to their somewhat respectable stock fans.

eXan
Jan 10, 2008, 08:16 AM
I think that real-world benchmarks would be more useful than this synthetic test...

Plumbstone
Jan 10, 2008, 08:18 AM
Pretty pleased that my year old 8-core MacPro still wins (just) on overall score with half the RAM...Was a bit more expensive though so for the new ones are a pretty good deal....

mmendoza27
Jan 10, 2008, 08:23 AM
Of course, when apple releases an update to take advantage of the SSE4 instruction set, we'll see updates to these benchmarks and we should see some hefty improvements.

I think Apple did a good job updating an already beautiful workstation.

Eidorian
Jan 10, 2008, 08:26 AM
Of course, when apple releases an update to take advantage of the SSE4 instruction set, we'll see updates to these benchmarks and we should see some hefty improvements.

I think Apple did a good job updating an already beautiful workstation.Rumor goes that 10.5.2 is Penryn enhanced. It was thought that this release was holding back the Mac Pros.

janvandervoort
Jan 10, 2008, 08:30 AM
when you consider the fact that the new Mac Pro is so much more affordable than the old Mac Pro and it’s hard to call this upgrade anything less than impressive

For those who are not pleased by the fact that the box wasn't upgraded: the MacPro is a classic design that will never ever feel dated...

netdog
Jan 10, 2008, 08:39 AM
I believe that the biggest benefits will be seen in SSE4 applications. Video editing sees big improvements in this department.

On another front 45nm is a heck of a lot cooler as well. I've seen the heatsinks for the new 45nm Core 2 Duo and they chopped it in half from the older 65nm Core 2 Duo! :eek:

Intel seems confident that these new processors are cool if they're doing that to their somewhat respectable stock fans.

Yes, SSE4 is not even implemented yet at the OS-level, though I think we all expect that to change on Tuesday.

Will Geekbench need a rewrite to be able to correctly identify those gains or will the OS handle it.

In either case, given that SSE4 makes for MAJOR speed increases according to Intel, given these results today, when rendering we can expect the 2.8 to...dare I say it...blow away the old 3.0 octo. Frankly, video is the main reason I got this machine (or rather that my wonderful woman got it for me) and I am really impressed given what I have read.

I will be able to speak from real-world experience once the RAM and drives arrive!

richard.mac
Jan 10, 2008, 08:43 AM
what about this one? http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/32012 this person has a score of 13992 using a 1.83 GHz core duo with 2 gigs memory and Mac Pro mobo. is this for realyo?

netdog
Jan 10, 2008, 08:46 AM
what about this one? http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/32012 this person has a score of 13992 using a 1.83 GHz core duo with 2 gigs memory and Mac Pro mobo. is this for realyo?

Makes you wonder why we bought Mac Pros, eh? :confused:

Eidorian
Jan 10, 2008, 08:50 AM
Yes, SSE4 is not even implemented yet at the OS-level, though I think we all expect that to change on Tuesday.

Will Geekbench need a rewrite to be able to correctly identify those gains or will the OS handle it.Geekbench needs to be re-written in order to show the gains from newer instruction sets and CPU features.

I doubt that they will though. Geekbench is designed to be a generic and broader benchmark for a variety of processors. It's "supposed" to truly benchmark a processor instead of taking advantage of each processors special little tricks to make it faster.

budward
Jan 10, 2008, 08:58 AM
Okay, I have a Mac Pro 2.66 with 4 x 1GB sticks...

I just bought a new Mac Pro from Apple and didn't choose for Apple to upgrade my RAM (you guys know why) so It comes with 2 x 1GB ..

If I was to buy 2 x 2gb from OWC can I mix 1GB and 2GB sticks? Or am I going to run into problems with? That would give me a total of 6GB RAM

1GB x 2
2GB x 2

I guess I am asking if I need to stay consistent with the same size ram throughout.. and if not does it effect the Mac Pro in anyway.. (It's all 800MHZ) not the older Mac Pro ram...

Thanks in advance.

fluidedge
Jan 10, 2008, 09:07 AM
nice

i'd be very interested to know about the new MP 'single 2.8 GHz chip' benchmarks

richard.mac
Jan 10, 2008, 09:08 AM
Makes you wonder why we bought Mac Pros, eh? :confused:

i think it may be a bug in geekbench or geekbench not liking hackintosh's non Apple liscenced hardware. i saw a few other TGTBT scores but im just waiting to hear if its true.

allpar
Jan 10, 2008, 09:20 AM
...these new processors into existing Pros?

nickane
Jan 10, 2008, 09:24 AM
Since the april 8-core came at such a premium, I guess the many shoestring professionals who waited for 8-core across the board can be pleased they saved their money all this time...

gnasher729
Jan 10, 2008, 09:30 AM
...these new processors into existing Pros?

Maybe, but the fast versions of the chips are rather expensive; you would probably be better off financially selling an old MacPro on eBay and buying a new one instead of trying to upgrade it.

There are other risks apart from the obvious one that you might damage the Mac or the processors: It could be that old MacPro's "know" that they have a chip without SSE4. An application that uses SSE4 needs to check whether it is available, because otherwise it would just crash. Now if an app does that and the computer says "no SSE4 here" even though there is a Penryn chip there, then you won't get any improvements coming from new code, only improvements from the fact that old code still runs faster.

BenRoethig
Jan 10, 2008, 09:30 AM
Yes, SSE4 is not even implemented yet at the OS-level, though I think we all expect that to change on Tuesday.

Will Geekbench need a rewrite to be able to correctly identify those gains or will the OS handle it.

In either case, given that SSE4 makes for MAJOR speed increases according to Intel, given these results today, when rendering we can expect the 2.8 to...dare I say it...blow away the old 3.0 octo. Frankly, video is the main reason I got this machine (or rather that my wonderful woman got it for me) and I am really impressed given what I have read.

I will be able to speak from real-world experience once the RAM and drives arrive!

Yeah, I would expect full SSE4 support before too long. Rumor has it, SSE4 was designed with Apple in mind.

Full of Win
Jan 10, 2008, 09:46 AM
News Flash: Two computers with different amounts of RAM, different GHz's and different FSB's preformed differently on test!

One of the most basic tenets of experimental design is to remove as many of the variables as possible before running any test. The fewer variables, then the easier it is to attribute a reason to what remains as different. There are way to many points of difference to make much use out of these numbers.

Small White Car
Jan 10, 2008, 09:56 AM
If I was to buy 2 x 2gb from OWC can I mix 1GB and 2GB sticks?

The computer and the OS support what you're suggesting. It will work.

HOWEVER...
The Final Cut Pro documents strongly suggest keeping everything symetrical:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304492

So you have to ask yourself, if Apple's high-end software suggests this, might it be something I should be doing, even if I'm not using Final Cut Pro?

heisetax
Jan 10, 2008, 09:59 AM
Okay, I have a Mac Pro 2.66 with 4 x 1GB sticks...

I just bought a new Mac Pro from Apple and didn't choose for Apple to upgrade my RAM (you guys know why) so It comes with 2 x 1GB ..

If I was to buy 2 x 2gb from OWC can I mix 1GB and 2GB sticks? Or am I going to run into problems with? That would give me a total of 6GB RAM

1GB x 2
2GB x 2

I guess I am asking if I need to stay consistent with the same size ram throughout.. and if not does it effect the Mac Pro in anyway.. (It's all 800MHZ) not the older Mac Pro ram...

Thanks in advance.


The only restriction is that the dimms be put in with exact pairs, ie same size, speed, numbers of memory chips & such. The inside computer covers shows how to put your dimms in. In my 17 month old Intel Mac Pro I have 6 2 GB dimms & the orginal 2 512 MB dims for a total of 13 GB.

I'm sure that you will have a good time with your new Intel Mac Pro. I have with mine.

Bill the TaxMan

guzhogi
Jan 10, 2008, 10:35 AM
I posted this in the other Mac Pro thread on the front page that a good place to look for RAM is dealram.com. It has a comparison of prices for kinds of RAM. You can chose specific kinds of RAM (PC3200, PC4200) or specific computer models (Apple Mac Pro, iBook, or Dell and Gateway computers). You can also get flash memory (Compact Flash, SD, even USB flash drives). I was able to get a 32 GB (yes, gigabyte) USB flash drive for only $235. Only thing is I don't think it lists the new Mac Pro memory yet.

Raid
Jan 10, 2008, 10:36 AM
News Flash: Two computers with different amounts of RAM, different GHz's and different FSB's preformed differently on test! Quote for truth! I guess though the intent was to see how one of the new ones stacked up to the first 8-core Mac Pro.

A much better test would be comparing an 8-Core 3.0Ghz with 2 GB RAM to a similar spec'd Early 2008 Mac Pro. That would truly show off the change in performance of old vs. new.

jragosta
Jan 10, 2008, 10:52 AM
I think that real-world benchmarks would be more useful than this synthetic test...

Agreed. Even more importantly, they need to do more to minimize variables. It would be nice if they could have used the same clock speed on both machines.

Even if that weren't possible, why didn't they put the same amount of RAM in both machines? Twice the RAM in the newer machine could be skewing the results quite a bit. Equalizing the RAM is an easy thing to do.

jephrey
Jan 10, 2008, 11:02 AM
I also saw something that pairing memory isn't as necessary as it once was. Sorry I don't have a reference, I probably read it on wikipedia at some point, which means it must be true right?:D

J

guzhogi
Jan 10, 2008, 11:03 AM
I posted this in the other Mac Pro thread on the front page that a good place to look for RAM is dealram.com. It has a comparison of prices for kinds of RAM. You can chose specific kinds of RAM (PC3200, PC4200) or specific computer models (Apple Mac Pro, iBook, or Dell and Gateway computers). You can also get flash memory (Compact Flash, SD, even USB flash drives). I was able to get a 32 GB (yes, gigabyte) USB flash drive for only $235. Only thing is I don't think it lists the new Mac Pro memory yet.

Just checked and they only have the older Mac Pro. For the old one, a 4 GB RAM stick is $332 and change. I checked how much it would cost to upgrade the new Mac Pro to 4 4GB sticks (I know different kinds of RAM, but close enough). Just to upgrade to 4 4GB from the standard config (2 x 1 GB) is $4300. If I were to get 4 4GB sticks from dealram.com, it would be only about $1333. What a rip off.

EagerDragon
Jan 10, 2008, 11:22 AM
what about this one? http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/32012 this person has a score of 13992 using a 1.83 GHz core duo with 2 gigs memory and Mac Pro mobo. is this for realyo?

Diferent version of geekbench maybe?

twoodcc
Jan 10, 2008, 11:42 AM
sounds good to me. just imagine the 3.2 ghz mac pro :eek: :apple:

jfpoole
Jan 10, 2008, 11:54 AM
Even if that weren't possible, why didn't they put the same amount of RAM in both machines? Twice the RAM in the newer machine could be skewing the results quite a bit. Equalizing the RAM is an easy thing to do.

From the article:

It might seem unfair to compare a new Mac Pro with more RAM against an old Mac Pro with less RAM. However, both Mac Pros have two FB-DIMMs installed. Since Mac Pro performance increases dramatically when it's configured with four FB-DIMMs sticks, I figure it's more important to make sure the two Mac Pros have the same number of FB-DIMMs installed rather than the same amount of memory installed.

Also, Geekbench itself isn't incredibly memory hungry (Geekbench prefers faster RAM instead of more RAM) so I doubt the performance of the old Mac Pro will suffer from having less memory installed.

jfpoole
Jan 10, 2008, 12:25 PM
i think it may be a bug in geekbench or geekbench not liking hackintosh's non Apple liscenced hardware. i saw a few other TGTBT scores but im just waiting to hear if its true.

I took a look at that result and my guess is that someone's running Mac OS X as a virtual machine. Geekbench has a couple of known issues when running under virtual machines that can cause scores to be overinflated. I've marked that result as invalid so it won't show up in the Top Geekbench 2 Scores (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top) listing.

FWIW the result in question isn't from a Hackintosh with a Mac Pro motherboard. Hackintoshes rarely report the hardware they're running on accurately. I guess people want to pretend their $800 PC is equivalent to a $2700 Mac. :rolleyes:

nagromme
Jan 10, 2008, 02:13 PM
The real news is that the new model they are testing is much CHEAPER than the old, yet performs similarly. Even faster models do exist of course.

! V !
Jan 10, 2008, 03:05 PM
Reminds me of the Vector Engine days, when people used to ohh ahh over numbers, yet only a few application taken full advantage of its capabilities.

What a waste?

SSE4 is great, however if developers do not allow they applications to utilize it, this becomes another Vector Engine scenario. History repeats itself.

10.5.2 might be SSE4 compliant, however how much faster is the OS going to operate if its still loading from a HDD rather than flash memory.

What next numbers of SSE4 with 10.5.2 loading from flash memory? :rolleyes:

! V !
Jan 10, 2008, 03:07 PM
The real news is that the new model they are testing is much CHEAPER than the old, yet performs similarly. Even faster models do exist of course.

I suspect that the extra 1GB of ram in the new model is giving it a hugh boost, SSE4 might have a slight edge as well, however not by that much.

andy721
Jan 10, 2008, 03:39 PM
Yes, SSE4 is not even implemented yet at the OS-level, though I think we all expect that to change on Tuesday.

Will Geekbench need a rewrite to be able to correctly identify those gains or will the OS handle it.

In either case, given that SSE4 makes for MAJOR speed increases according to Intel, given these results today, when rendering we can expect the 2.8 to...dare I say it...blow away the old 3.0 octo. Frankly, video is the main reason I got this machine (or rather that my wonderful woman got it for me) and I am really impressed given what I have read.

I will be able to speak from real-world experience once the RAM and drives arrive!

your women gave you the new mac pro? WTF. You must of been good in bed or listen to her BS. :D

illegalprelude
Jan 10, 2008, 03:52 PM
So does this mean it will run Myspace faster then my 1.6 G5? *Runs away* :D

! V !
Jan 10, 2008, 04:51 PM
your women gave you the new mac pro? WTF. You must of been good in bed or listen to her BS. :D

His split personality is a woman. ;) :D

! V !
Jan 10, 2008, 04:52 PM
So does this mean it will run Myspace faster then my 1.6 G5? *Runs away* :D

Safari will feel snappier. :eek:

slmielke
Jan 10, 2008, 10:27 PM
Apple has posted SPECfp_rate_base2006 data of:
8* 2.8 GHz 68.5
8* 3.2 GHz 72.6
8* 3.0 GHz(old) 55.9

which suggest that the new "harpertown" processors offer a substantial improvement in floating point (FP) performance as compared to the older processors--even at the lower clock speeds. The Geekbench data seems strange in that it suggests the old 3.0 GHz processors are 12% faster than the new 2.8 GHz harpertown processors, which is about DOUBLE what one would guess purely on the clock difference--normally performance scales sub-linearly with clock speed (consider, for example, Apple's benchmarks that show the 3.2 GHz processors as ~6% faster than the 2.8 GHz processors as compared to a raw clock difference of 12%). Additionally, one would expect that a refined processor with 50% more L2 cache, faster memory, and a faster bus would provide a significant improvement in FP performance as Apple's data suggests. The Geekbench FP performance seems suspect, if it is right this is a very disappointing result....

AidenShaw
Jan 10, 2008, 11:20 PM
...which suggest that the new "harpertown" processors offer a substantial improvement in floating point (FP) performance as compared to the older processors--even at the lower clock speeds....

SPECfp to a great degree measures memory bandwidth at least as much as floating point arithmetic speed.

One would expect the Stoakley platform to be much better than the older chipset at memory bandwidth, and therefore to perform much better on SPECfp than expected from simple comparisons of CPU frequency.

It's not at all surprising that the 2.8 Stoakley easily bests the 3.0 5000X at SPECfp, and not at all surprising that other benchmarks would show something different.

phjo
Jan 11, 2008, 04:31 AM
SPECfp to a great degree measures memory bandwidth at least as much as floating point arithmetic speed.

One would expect the Stoakley platform to be much better than the older chipset at memory bandwidth, and therefore to perform much better on SPECfp than expected from simple comparisons of CPU frequency.

It's not at all surprising that the 2.8 Stoakley easily bests the 3.0 5000X at SPECfp, and not at all surprising that other benchmarks would show something different.

Something different maybe, but to see that when normalizing the results to the same clock, the old xeons are supposedly somewhat 8% faster in floating point calculations than the new ones in the geekbench tests makes one wonder at how unreliable the geekbench tests must be... (I am very surprised they published such results !)

phjo

AtomicPunk
Jan 11, 2008, 12:31 PM
I think that real-world benchmarks would be more useful than this synthetic test...

I got my real-world benchmark, as I had ordered my Dual 2.8Ghz Quad Core Mac Pro on Tuesday. It came and I set it all up yesterday.

Here is my Real-World benchmark... you ready?

********* FAST!!! So much so, I got bugs in my teeth. :D

But seriously, I still think it is a bit early to tell. I mean, we have to receive updated software that has been optimized for SSE4. But so far, on my end, it's all good. I am so glad I toughed it out and waited for this batch of Mac Pros to come out. I was seriously struggling by the end of this year, aching to make my purchase. My poor little G4 is sitting in the corner, retired... kind of feel bad for the little inanimate object that served me so well.

JeffDM
Jan 12, 2008, 10:53 PM
...these new processors into existing Pros?

I think it would work at 16% slower clock speed. I don't know if it's still true, but Intel tends to lock the clock multiplier so that the CPU runs at a certain multiple faster than the bus. If you put the chip in a slower bus, you're going to get a lower speed.

JeffDM
Jan 12, 2008, 10:55 PM
Okay, I have a Mac Pro 2.66 with 4 x 1GB sticks...

I just bought a new Mac Pro from Apple and didn't choose for Apple to upgrade my RAM (you guys know why) so It comes with 2 x 1GB ..

If I was to buy 2 x 2gb from OWC can I mix 1GB and 2GB sticks? Or am I going to run into problems with? That would give me a total of 6GB RAM

1GB x 2
2GB x 2

I guess I am asking if I need to stay consistent with the same size ram throughout.. and if not does it effect the Mac Pro in anyway.. (It's all 800MHZ) not the older Mac Pro ram...

For best performance, you want to have matched sets of four, so it should be 1GBx4.

mistercoffee2
Jan 13, 2008, 02:27 AM
For best performance, you want to have matched sets of four, so it should be 1GBx4.

Can you back this up with some benchmarks? Sorry, I don't question the statement and you are not the first person to say it. But I would like to see some test results before I go spending a lot of money on memory. I have searched and find conflicting information on every page I read. The new Mac Pro configuration guide does not address the question of "Best Performance" only that DIMMs must be installed in pairs of 1GB, 2GB or 4GB.

I want 6GB of memory now and more later. If I believe you are correct and buy 4x1GB DIMMs I will lock myself into a max of 8GB without replacing all the memory with 2 or 4GB DIMMs. So I need to know what the performance hit is if I use a mix of 1 and 2GB DIMM pairs. I had to chuck the 2x512MB DIMMs to upgrade my iMac to 2GB. Will I now have to chuck the 2x1GB DIMMs to upgrade the Mac Pro? Anyone, Help please.

Maybe I will do some test myself. 2x1GB, 2x2GB and 2x1GB + 2x2GB. Anyone know of a FREE memory benchmark?

I also find it odd that the 2GB machine ships with one DIMM on the top board and one on the bottom. When adding memory you must first move the DIMM from the bottom board to the top board and then add the new DIMM pair to the bottom board.

eXan
Jan 13, 2008, 02:41 AM
Can you back this up with some benchmarks? Sorry, I don't question the statement and you are not the first person to say it. But I would like to see some test results before I go spending a lot of money on memory. I have searched and find conflicting information on every page I read. The new Mac Pro configuration guide does not address the question of "Best Performance" only that DIMMs must be installed in pairs of 1GB, 2GB or 4GB.

I want 6GB of memory now and more later. If I believe you are correct and buy 4x1GB DIMMs I will lock myself into a max of 8GB without replacing all the memory with 2 or 4GB DIMMs. So I need to know what the performance hit is if I use a mix of 1 and 2GB DIMM pairs. I had to chuck the 2x512MB DIMMs to upgrade my iMac to 2GB. Will I now have to chuck the 2x1GB DIMMs to upgrade the Mac Pro? Anyone, Help please.

If there's a performance difference, its not big enough to be noticable. Don't bother with it too much.

iTeen
Jan 13, 2008, 02:42 AM
where can we get the geekbench test again?

JeffDM
Jan 13, 2008, 08:35 AM
Can you back this up with some benchmarks? Sorry, I don't question the statement and you are not the first person to say it. But I would like to see some test results before I go spending a lot of money on memory. I have searched and find conflicting information on every page I read. The new Mac Pro configuration guide does not address the question of "Best Performance" only that DIMMs must be installed in pairs of 1GB, 2GB or 4GB.

This is for the old Mac Pro, but here it is:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=12

I haven't seen a memory test that actually uses a program that can use four or more cores simultaneously, I think that's where the speed boost is. All or most of those programs use only one or two cores, and I think that's why the apparent boost is so low, it's being limited by the processor FSB and the program is only on one processor at a time.


I also find it odd that the 2GB machine ships with one DIMM on the top board and one on the bottom. When adding memory you must first move the DIMM from the bottom board to the top board and then add the new DIMM pair to the bottom board.

That's news to me, and the docs do confirm that.

mistercoffee2
Jan 13, 2008, 02:08 PM
This is for the old Mac Pro, but here it is:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=12

I haven't seen a memory test that actually uses a program that can use four or more cores simultaneously, I think that's where the speed boost is. All or most of those programs use only one or two cores, and I think that's why the apparent boost is so low, it's being limited by the processor FSB and the program is only on one processor at a time.



That's news to me, and the docs do confirm that.

Thanks for the link JeffDM. I'm starting to understand. If I go with 2x1GB and 2x2GB then there will be 2GB, half of the 2GB DIMMs, accessible by only 2 FBD channels.

Do you think Apple places a DIMM on each board to ensure memory on each branch of the North Bridge?

JeffDM
Jan 13, 2008, 02:20 PM
Thanks for the link JeffDM. I'm starting to understand. If I go with 2x1GB and 2x2GB then there will be 2GB, half of the 2GB DIMMs, accessible by only 2 FBD channels.

Do you think Apple places a DIMM on each board to ensure memory on each branch of the North Bridge?

I really don't know. I think it might be for more even cooling. I'm not sure if the northbridge even cares, but I don't feel like reading the Intel documents.

mashny
Feb 1, 2008, 06:40 PM
I got my real-world benchmark, as I had ordered my Dual 2.8Ghz Quad Core Mac Pro on Tuesday. It came and I set it all up yesterday.

Here is my Real-World benchmark... you ready?

********* FAST!!! So much so, I got bugs in my teeth. :D

But seriously, I still think it is a bit early to tell. I mean, we have to receive updated software that has been optimized for SSE4. But so far, on my end, it's all good. I am so glad I toughed it out and waited for this batch of Mac Pros to come out. I was seriously struggling by the end of this year, aching to make my purchase. My poor little G4 is sitting in the corner, retired... kind of feel bad for the little inanimate object that served me so well.

I feel the same way: I have a G4 400 that I've had for the last eight years, that has served me extremely well. Just ordered a new Mac Pro and, according to Apple, should be receiving it by February 18th. I have to admit, as excited as I am about the new computer, I feel a bit bad about giving the G4 to a friend of a friend. Sigh.

fluidedge
Feb 2, 2008, 03:53 AM
can anyone give any Quad core bench marks.

I'm hearing the Q2.8 is only fractionly slower than the Octo2.8 as not many apps can take hold of 8 cores yet (many can't grasp hold of 4!)

BenRoethig
Feb 2, 2008, 05:09 AM
can anyone give any Quad core bench marks.

I'm hearing the Q2.8 is only fractionly slower than the Octo2.8 as not many apps can take hold of 8 cores yet (many can't grasp hold of 4!)

It's more or less the same group of super high end apps that are able to take advantage of 4-cores. For a good 75%+ of the apps out there, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between dual, quad, or 8-core at the same clock speed.

mperkins37
Feb 4, 2008, 05:39 PM
I just pulled a 10436 on geekbench, on my new macpro, Pretty cool, BTW I don't believe that post on pg 1 it has to be a fluke.
I got the wrong ram delivered, so I will re-test once the 800mhz ram comes, (Its running on 667 mhz Ram sticks now, as apple messed up & put the wrong ones in.)
Should lift it a bit.
COOL!

Roy
Feb 4, 2008, 09:30 PM
I just pulled a 10436 on geekbench, on my new macpro, Pretty cool, BTW I don't believe that post on pg 1 it has to be a fluke.
I got the wrong ram delivered, so I will re-test once the 800mhz ram comes, (Its running on 667 mhz Ram sticks now, as apple messed up & put the wrong ones in.)
Should lift it a bit.
COOL!


If you can't trust Apple to put the right ram in the Mac Pro, then who can you trust. Not doubting you, but hard to believe.

diamond.g
Feb 5, 2008, 07:12 AM
Diferent version of geekbench maybe?

Most likely Geekbench only looks at the CPUID and not the actual clocks the system is running at. It is well know amongst OC'ers that the lower end chips run at high speeds with good cooling. Either that or it could be the VM thing.

cmr164
Jul 6, 2008, 08:26 PM
your women gave you the new mac pro? WTF. You must of been good in bed or listen to her BS. :D

Mine 'allowed' me to buy one. Does that count?

MP single 2.8GHZ quad, 500G drive, 4G additional RAM, Aperture preinstalled.

Anxiously awaiting delivery :)