New Macbook 2.4ghz Geekbench Results

[arun21]

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?

 

[macbooker15]

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

 

[Eidorian]

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

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

 

[budkid]

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

 

[richard.mac]

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

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

thanks Eidorian… as always!

 

[ohemetophobia]

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

 

[Eidorian]

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

Find me a Mac with identical specs.

 

[dukebound85]

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

that is irrelevant

i have a q6600 setup that scores a ~6700 geekbench

 

[ohemetophobia]

that is irrelevant

i have a q6600 setup that scores a ~6700 geekbench

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

 

[dukebound85]

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

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

 

[ohemetophobia]

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

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.

 

[Eidorian]

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.

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

It's not still not identical hardware.

 

[dnguyen]

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

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

 

[Eidorian]

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

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

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.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

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

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

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

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

 

[vendettabass]

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.

 

[Ryffie]

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.

 

[Eidorian]

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.

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

 

[Adidas Addict]

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?

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)

 

[Ping Guo]

PC Magazine benchmarks:

 

[Eidorian]

PC Magazine benchmarks:

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.

 

[Davidkoh]

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.

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

 

[Eidorian]

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

I've gotten 846. *shrug*

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

 

[krypticos]

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

 

[Nistilian]

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.