Don't know if the new Mac Pro's are going to use the new Intel i7's but check out the youtube vid below a Mac Pro 2.66ghz vs i7 2.66GHz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNsctq1wXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNsctq1wXk
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
YouTube Vid a 2.66 Mac Pro vs i7 64-bit windows PC
- Thread starter skyline r34
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. And when the Nehalem Xeon Mac Pro comes out, further ownage will commence.
That's true, I am sorry. However, it may still be unfair. Need to know more info about the specific processors.
Keep in mind on a good day that a Core i7 starts off around US$250. Try getting a Xeon DP for that price.
Hmmm, I just ran Geekbench 32 bit on my MacPro:
2.8Ghz Quad x 2
6GB RAM
ATI 2600 HD 256MB
320GB, 500GB, 2 1TB
My score was 9094
:Integer - 8725
:Floating Point - 15076
:Memory - 2619
:Stream - 2404
Why is my 2.8 getting a better score than the OP's 3.2? Amount of Memory?
2.8Ghz Quad x 2
6GB RAM
ATI 2600 HD 256MB
320GB, 500GB, 2 1TB
My score was 9094
:Integer - 8725
:Floating Point - 15076
:Memory - 2619
:Stream - 2404
Why is my 2.8 getting a better score than the OP's 3.2? Amount of Memory?
I think there is something we don't know about what went on in the OP's test. Anyone disagree?
Hopefully they had enough sense to kill as many background processes as possible for an accurate benchmark and run it several times for an average result.I think there is something we don't know about what went on in the OP's test. Anyone disagree?
I hope so. But did they do it on both machines? Remember... the i7 is running Windows!!!
This test can't be fully accepted because of the different OSs. OS X handles background processes a hell of a lot better.
What's the point of a cross platform benchmark then?I hope so. But did they do it on both machines? Remember... the i7 is running Windows!!!
General comparison only. For a complete and accurate test, the Mac Pro would have to be running Windows as well. Its only fair.
No. Eight threads on a quad-core (even with hyper-threading) will be slower than eight threads on an eight-core, all else remaining equal, so it isn't a fair test of the difference between the core 2 and core i7 technology. We'll see that comparison most directly when there is a Gainestown Mac Pro to compare to my current Harpertown.
In the meantime, the geekbench results for an eight-core core i7 Hackintosh look promising at:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/96514
Though, as always, differences in clockspeeds etc cloud the issue.
And operating system...
Absolutely
, that was in my "etc". Amount and speed of ram are other big ones. As Eidorian correctly says, a big issue will be how careful the test has been with background processes and multiple trials:From the videos, it looks like the test results are from a single run.
Absolutely
From the videos, it looks like the test results are from a single run.
And speed of hard drive...
Really?! Are you sure? I didn't know that.
Then all of the above postings would be irrelevant. If what you say is true, then any Geekbench testing would be hard to believe because when you are testing two machines, operating system, ram, hard drive speed, etc. are all important factors in overall speed. Do you see what I am saying? Would you agree?
Yes geekbench is cross-platform, and CPU only. The entire point is to make a fair benchmark no matter the OS, and one that does not even factor in hard drive speed.
I've benchmarked Geekbench with Linux, OS X (10.5 hackintosh) and Windows XP on the same PC, and scores are a little different but fairly close. Memory scores are higher in OS X, and a lot worse in XP curiously enough.
I've benchmarked Geekbench with Linux, OS X (10.5 hackintosh) and Windows XP on the same PC, and scores are a little different but fairly close. Memory scores are higher in OS X, and a lot worse in XP curiously enough.
Agreed. If they wanted a windows vs osx test they should have installed them on the same computer. If they wanted a hardware test they should have installed the same OS. There are to many variables here to draw any logical conclusion.
The whole test is a fail.
I agree that geekbench is pointless, but I don't see why you decide this due to your surprise that it's CPU only. Geekbench is not affected by hard drive speed, but is affected by operating system, RAM size, RAM speed, motherboard (and many other details) as well as CPU (I'm certain that is what Eidorian meant by "CPU only").
The problem is that it is affected by so much (including about two percent variation between successive runs), not by too little (no hard drive speed). Also, the idea of doing a bunch of tests and assigning each of them some arbitrary importance to come up with one number is an oversimplification.
Yeah that is what I meant. Just for raw hardware the CPU impacts integer and floating point performance and there are memory and stream tests as well.
The best I can manage on my G31 board is about 5500 on Geekbench under Vista Ultimate 64.