Benchmark 2011 15" 2.5 GHz 16 GB RAM

[bobbykasthuri]

FYI not seen this particular spec up so here is the geek bench score (just got it and I'm jazzed). But lower than expected...?

 

[yusukeaoki]

Quit all your running application!!!

 

[thundersteele]

FYI not seen this particular spec up so here is the geek bench score (just got it and I'm jazzed). But lower than expected...?

What did you expect? The stock 2.5 GHz machines reach up to 11700 points, you have a few more, seems fine.

 

[Jaro65]

Is bus frequency of 100 MHz correct? I thought it would be much higher than that.

 

[thekev]

I'm not sure how much ram adds to benchmark scores. You don't buy ram for benchmarks anyway. You buy it if you run programs that push around a lot of data.

 

[thundersteele]

I'm not sure how much ram adds to benchmark scores. You don't buy ram for benchmarks anyway. You buy it if you run programs that push around a lot of data.

Not much I think. The benchmark seems to be focussed more on RAM speed than on pure amount. So 8 GB of 1600 RAM would probably achieve a higher score.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Is bus frequency of 100 MHz correct? I thought it would be much higher than that.

This is the reference clock or base clock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Overclocking

----------

Not much I think. The benchmark seems to be focussed more on RAM speed than on pure amount. So 8 GB of 1600 RAM would probably achieve a higher score.

Yes, but only 5-10 percent, even in RAM-benchmarks. Much less in real applications, so not worth the money. Before you ask for references: Someone compared all RAM types (up to 2100 MHz) here on MR. Search here or use Google. Thank you!

 

[thundersteele]

Yes, but only 5-10 percent, even in RAM-benchmarks. Much less in real applications, so not worth the money. Before you ask for references: Someone compared all RAM types (up to 2100 MHz) here on MR. Search here or use Google. Thank you!

This thread is about benchmarks, not about real life