Contradicting Xbench results?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Panzo, Jul 4, 2009.

  1. Panzo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    #1
    For starters for those who dont know Xbench is a utility for mac which benchmarks your machine, it determines your machines performance based on some standard im not quite sure about. While benchmarking my macbook pro 15" 4gb ram 2.66ghz 2009 model (has the built in and dedicated graphics chip) i found myself very confused at the results.

    When on the Better Battery Life in the energy saver preference pane, the xbench showed a total score of 145.4. Details can be viewed here: http://pastebin.com/m1e4ebbfe

    On the other hand when on the better performance in the energy saver preference pane, the xbench showed a total score of 143.8??? Results can be viewed here: http://pastebin.com/m5600e470

    This doesn't make sense to me, how can better battery life, intended to prolong the use of the laptop battery life outperform the setting which is set to boost performance???

    Any Ideas?
     
  2. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #2
    That is strange. Normally when I Xbench my 2.66 mbp I get a score of around 175 to 190 (depends if I have any programs running in the background).
     
  3. Panzo thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    #3
    i just xbenched it again.... with alot of programs running and i got 149.92..... this doesnt make sence, im getting a higher benchmark when i have more programs running :S:S:S Wtf ?


    can you post one of the detailed result sheets please?
     
  4. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #4
    1 Moment.
     
  5. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #5
    Here they are. I am a little lazy to post as thumbnails so I put em as file attachments.

    Oddly I get the same scores as you and I now remember why. Its because of the Disk test. Without the disk test I get around mid 180's.

    Edit: They won't post the file attachments 1 sec I will post a link then.

    9400M Test

    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=379956&doc2=1&setCookie=true

    9600M GT Test
    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=379957&doc2=1&setCookie=true

    For Reference here is a 9400M Test without the disk test.
    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=379958&doc2=1&setCookie=true
     
  6. Panzo thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    #6
    i will try the 9400 without the disk test and let you know :D

    get 226 from the 9400 without the disk check checked! so everything is on par, thanks you for the detailed description :)
     
  7. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #7
    For those of you who don't know... XBench is an inconsistent piece of junk.

    It makes the old MacBench program (think way back...) look like a good indicator of performance.

    That's why. It's just highly variable.
     
  8. emt1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #8
    1. Xbench sucks.
    2. Setting the power settings to "performance" or "better battery life" has NO effect on speed or anything like that. It only changes the time it takes for the laptop to turn the display off or to sleep.
     
  9. Panzo thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    #9

    and a good alternative would be?



    on the contrary im pretty sure it allows you to switch between the 9400m and the 9600gt, im pretty sure about that.
     

Share This Page