Benchmarks on 3.2GHz Mac Pro "2008"

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by barefeats, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #1
    I have some early benchmark results that I've run this afternoon:

    Geekbench 64 bit overall rating:
    The 2.8 octo (2008) gets a 9007 rating. (2 x 1GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.0 octo (2007) gets a 9001 rating. (8 x 2GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.2 octo (2008) gets a 10168 rating. (2 x 1GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.2 octo (2008) gets a 10514 rating. (8 x 2GB FB-DIMMs)


    As for Cinebench 10 CPU render score,
    The 2.8 octo (2008) gets a 18561 rating. (2 x 1GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.0 octo (2007) gets a 18916 rating. (8 x 2GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.2 octo (2008) gets a 21106 rating. (2 x 1GB FB-DIMMs)
    The 3.2 octo (2008) gets a 21354 rating. (8 x 2GB FB-DIMMs)

    More to come tomorrow...
     
  2. GimmeSlack12 macrumors 603

    GimmeSlack12

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    Thats some good data. Do you own all of those machines?
    EDIT: Just read your bio, I get it now.
     
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    I'm not that surprised that the RAM didn't increase the scores. 2.8 Ghz looks like the new 3.0 GHz under Penryn. 45nm looks like to be a better improvement on the cooling front and SSE4 looks like fun, on paper.

    I'm glad you posted it here first barefeats!
     
  4. irishgrizzly macrumors 65816

    irishgrizzly

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #4
    Why? Is it because these tests are mostly CPU based?
     
  5. barefeats thread starter macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #5
    The RAM addition didn't increase scores because with the new "Harpertown," you don't have to have two FB-DIMMS on each riser to get the full effect. You can have just one on each riser (as in the case of the 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz Mac Pro which came from the factory that way when you order with just 2GB of RAM.)

    BTW, I just posted a page with some real world tests comparing the 3.2GHz "Harpertown" to the 3.0GHz "Clovertown."
    http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html

    I'll add more models of Mac Pro to the page in the next few days.

    Tomorrow I'll post a page comparing the "standard" Radeon HD 2600 XT to various other GPUs on various Mac Pros and Power Macs. I can't include the GeForce 8800 GT until I receive the kit in March.
     
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
  7. kannonbal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    #7
    Thanks for the comparison! I am looking forward to you next installment.

    Now, if only someone could tell me how much faster the new 8 core is going to be than my 2.16 1st gen Macbook Pro. :D

    Especially when manipulating 1-3 gig RAW panoramas, or rendering out some nice delicious raytraced animations, or that HD video stuff.

    OMG, I am starting to get excited!!

    Cheers, Chuck
     

Share This Page