2.8GHz Quad core benchmarks

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Phillie14586, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. Phillie14586 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #1
    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?
     
  2. philipma1957, Oct 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2010

    philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #2

    Attached Files:

  3. Eastend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    Nara, Japan
    #3
    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/
     
  4. Martyimac macrumors 6502a

    Martyimac

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Location:
    S. AZ.
    #4
    I ran mine yesterday and got 9947, with 10Gig of ram.
     
  5. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #5
    32 or 64 bit version? The # would imply 64 bit.

    My 3.2 got 10050 with the freebie 32 bit version.

    cheers
    JohnG
     
  6. Martyimac macrumors 6502a

    Martyimac

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Location:
    S. AZ.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #7
    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
     
  8. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Rebel Film macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #9
    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.
     
  10. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #10
    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
     
  11. Rebel Film macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #11
    I'm getting 4895 on 32-bit while browsing, that's around some of your mac mini scores...
     
  12. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #12

    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.
     
  13. Phillie14586 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Eastend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    Nara, Japan
    #14
    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.
     
  15. sch8mid, Oct 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010

    sch8mid macrumors member

    sch8mid

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Location:
    Black Forest - Germany
    #15
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. MFDoom macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    #16
    I'll be interested to see how my scores compare. I recently upgraded to 12GB and my machine still feels sluggish...
     
  17. Rebel Film macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #17
    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?
     
  18. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Did you clone your system from another Mac, like a MacBook or Mini?
     
  19. Rebel Film macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #19
    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?
     
  20. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    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?
     
  21. Rebel Film macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #21
    Yes, I get around 5500 to as low as 4800 with the standard ram :(
     
  22. Martyimac macrumors 6502a

    Martyimac

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Location:
    S. AZ.
    #22
    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.
     
  23. donw35 macrumors regular

    donw35

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Martyimac macrumors 6502a

    Martyimac

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Location:
    S. AZ.
    #24
    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.
     
  25. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #25

    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
     

Share This Page