Geekbench For Mac 2010 2.8 Quad W3530 32-bit

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by englishman, Aug 21, 2010.

  1. englishman macrumors 6502a

    englishman

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #1
    Can anyone provide this please I can't find it on Geekbench yet.
     
  2. dissolve macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    #2
    Ran it last night and got around 8500. I'll try and do it later today to get the exact value. I have the 2.8 quad, stock 3GB RAM (for now), and the 5870. Hope that helps.
     
  3. GoogleFish macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    #3
    Can you give an idea of the noise level, especially with that video card. That's the same set up I'm looking for, just concerned about how loud the machine is, especially when idling.
     
  4. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #4
    8500 in 32bit is pretty impressive. I was expecting high 7000s. I'm guessing in 64bit it would go low 9000s. Mine is stuck at the local FedEx depot -- in fact tracking says it's on the van for delivery... for Monday! What a tease.
     
  5. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #5
    8200 is impressive? Guess i'm glad that I got the hexacore with a score of 15000 . . .
     
  6. Ryan P macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #6
    Doesn't seem that high to me, my 2.66 i7 Macbook Pro gets over 5300 in 32bit and that's only a dual core.
     
  7. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #7
    How about reading my comment in context? Impressive for that processor not in general. The 15000 score on your hex looks weak next to a 2.93 12 core don't ya know.

    Odd trying to compare a laptop w/ a workstation, but it's a higher score by over 50%. And we are talking about machines that are months apart. My 2006 2.66 QC got around 5300 too, so that tells you something about the mobile i7 used in the MBPs. It's also why I opted to save some $ and get an i5.
     
  8. Ryan P macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #8
    Sorry laptop is all I have for the moment as my Mac Pro hasn't arrived yet and trying to live vicariously through you guys! :) But it is an interesting question if Ghz per Ghz if the i7 mobile parts are as fast as the server parts. I was surprised to find my 2.66 mobile part has a turbo speed of 3.33!
     
  9. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #9

    Off topic alert:

    My 2.66 C2D (2009) clocks in at slightly over 3700 so that i7 core does help quite a bit. :)

    ciao
    Johng
     
  10. dissolve macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    #10
    Ok I get 8850 on my 2.8 quad. As for noise, the machine is about 3 feet away from me and I hear nothing...maybe a slight fan hum and occasionally the HDD. I haven't stressed the graphics card too much so I can't comment on its fan. Played a game for a little while last night and didn't notice anything excessive, but I wasn't paying attention.
     
  11. englishman thread starter macrumors 6502a

    englishman

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #11
    Compared to this 2009 Octo
     

    Attached Files:

    • ggg.gif
      ggg.gif
      File size:
      48.1 KB
      Views:
      109
  12. dissolve macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    #12
    Show off :p
     
  13. englishman thread starter macrumors 6502a

    englishman

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #13
    I know and I wonder how representative it is of my daily tasks :eek:
     
  14. lssmit02 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    #14
    To put it in perspective, the Core i7 2.93 gets over 10,000. It's a quad too, but it has much more aggressive turbo mode.
     
  15. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #15
    I guess I'm confused on what context you meant that I didn't understand. I was only stating that for an extra $1k it theoretically will give you double the performance. Seems like a smart move to me, just glad I did it is all . . . Of course a 12 core would be that much higher, I'm just surprised to see how low the 2.8 Quad really scored . . .
     
  16. lssmit02 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    #16
    8850 is not bad, considering an 8 core from 2008 (X5472) score a 9198. In other words, the 2.8 2010 4 core is almost as fast as a 3.0 2008 8 core built just two years earlier, on a program that is multi-threaded. I would imagine that the 2010 2.8 Mac Pro would be considerably faster on single threaded applications, given that result.
     
  17. Cynicalone macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
    #17
    This my 09 Model, without a restart.

    I'm very curious to see the benchmarks on the 12 core models.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #18
    Actually that's not too surprising.

    The 2008 8 core doesn't have hyperthreading while the 2009-10's do, so the new quads function more like an eight core machine for many applications.

    Doesn't seem that impressive, maybe that's because I have a $1300 machine that does better on this benchmark.
     
  19. Garamond macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    #19
    I got 11548 on my 2007 Mac Pro Dual Quad-Core 3 GHz

    At the Geekbench site I just saw a 12-core doing 30889
     
  20. Vylen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  21. Garamond macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    #22
    you're right :(
     
  22. Garamond macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    #23
    Here's my "old" 2007 Mac Pro, I think it does well compared to the 12-cores.

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Vylen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #24
  24. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #25

Share This Page