New Macbook 2.4ghz Geekbench Results

Wow..not bad at all!
Here are mine: (Not New Macbooks mind you)
Geekbench Score 2564
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Mac OS X 10.5.5 (Build 9F33)
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
Model MacBook (Late 2006)
Memory 2.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Integer Score 2204

Then
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/22952

Now
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81684

now who has the 2.0Ghz model..............

Eidorian said:

Then
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/22952

Now
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81684

Click to expand...

thanks Eidorian… as always!

And this, my friends, is why Macs are so much better.

Geekbench Score 1361
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Windows x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Model Dell Inc. Dell DV051
Memory 1014 MB 533 MHz

ohemetophobia said:

And this, my friends, is why Macs are so much better.

Geekbench Score 1361
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Windows x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Model Dell Inc. Dell DV051
Memory 1014 MB 533 MHz

Click to expand...

Find me a Mac with identical specs.

ohemetophobia said:

And this, my friends, is why Macs are so much better.

Geekbench Score 1361
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Windows x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Model Dell Inc. Dell DV051
Memory 1014 MB 533 MHz

Click to expand...

that is irrelevant

i have a q6600 setup that scores a ~6700 geekbench

dukebound85 said:

that is irrelevant

i have a q6600 setup that scores a ~6700 geekbench

Click to expand...

Of course it scores that high, that's a freakin' Quad-core processor.

ohemetophobia said:

Of course it scores that high, that's a freakin' Quad-core processor.

Click to expand...

my point was that pc's arent bad in terms of performance lol

dukebound85 said:

my point was that pc's arent bad in terms of performance lol

Click to expand...

True, but I spent about $1000 for this computer in mid-2006, and could have instead gotten an iMac (at a slightly higher price) that would run at around 2337.

ohemetophobia said:

True, but I spent about $1000 for this computer in mid-2006, and could have instead gotten an iMac (at a slightly higher price) that would run at around 2337.

Click to expand...

The iMac Core Duo started off at US$1,299.

It's not still not identical hardware.

new macbook (lower model 2.0ghz) with only finder open and right after a restart

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81708

dnguyen said:

new macbook (lower model 2.0ghz) with only finder open and right after a restart

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81708

Click to expand...

It's a little depressing Apple didn't go with the P8400 (2.26 GHz) for the low end model.

We're using Montevina P Series Penryn processors now.

dnguyen said:

new macbook (lower model 2.0ghz) with only finder open and right after a restart

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81708

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Its not that far from my Mac Mini;

http://browse.geekbench.ca/user/reclusivemonkey/profile

I think I'm right in saying Geekbench doesn't test the GPU.

Heres the results of my 2.4Ghz

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81724

I'm installing my 7200rpm drive a little later (if I can find a screw small enough!)

Will post back with updated results.

So after comparing the results it seems the 2.4 has a nice speed advantage, but is it enough to justify the price gap? I think it's a matter of preference but either way you really can't go wrong. Both machines are stunning.

vendettabass said:

I think I'm right in saying Geekbench doesn't test the GPU.

Heres the results of my 2.4Ghz

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81724

I'm installing my 7200rpm drive a little later (if I can find a screw small enough!)

Will post back with updated results.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any appreciable change since Geekbench doesn't test the hard drive.

arun21 said:

You can go here to see my results:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81689

The only app I had running was Finder and Geekbench (obviously). Not quite sure what to make of the results. Any body want to chime in?

Click to expand...

Seems pretty similar to my 2.4 alu iMac

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/81794

Looks like the 2GB of DDR3 outperforms my 4GB of DDR2 if I am reading correctly (not an expert by any means)

PC Magazine benchmarks:

Ping Guo said:

PC Magazine benchmarks:

Click to expand...

The GMA X3100 pulls about 800-900 in 3DMark 06 using the default.

It is synthetic but I highly doubted Apple's it's 5x faster then other IGPs.

Eidorian said:

The GMA X3100 pulls about 800-900 in 3DMark 06 using the default.

It is synthetic but I highly doubted Apple's it's 5x faster then other IGPs.

Click to expand...

Actually the Macbooks with x3100 was at around 6-700 .

Davidkoh said:

Actually the Macbooks with x3100 was at around 6-700 .

Click to expand...

I've gotten 846. *shrug*

I always use Intel's latest drivers on the MacBook.

here is my geekbench!!! For late 2007 model i figured it would be worse an what it was. im kind of HAPPY that the performance is not that much better than mine. i just got it a few months ago and did not want to have to upgrade to the new one dont have the money to. lol

You guys are gonna laugh...

My 2001 PC desktop, P4 1.7GHz, 1GB RAM, Geekbenches at about 770 with nothing running. I know I'm way overdue to upgrade. I'll be buying a MacBook shortly; I just want to see what happens at the WWDC.