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)
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.
2.8GHz Quad core benchmarks
- Thread starter Phillie14586
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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)
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?
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?
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?
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.
This # looks consistent with what I would expect from the 2.8.
congrats on the new machine!
JohnG
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.
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 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
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!
Last edited: