Geekbench scores? Does running it in 64bit yield a higher score?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by PerplexShyt, May 14, 2012.

  1. PerplexShyt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #1
    I am running geekbench on my MacPro 3,1
    • 2 x 2.8 Quad Core CPU
    • ATI Radeon 5770
    • 10 gb DDR2 ram
    • SSD bootdrive
    My Mac Pro feels pretty fast. But when running it through geekbench, i get roughly around 10,000 score in 32bit mode (I didn't purchase it)

    I was wondering, would that score go up in 64bit mode? Because For some reason, I feel like it should have a higher score.

    Thanks.
     
  2. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #2
    Looking at the Mac Geekbench browser, I'd say: yes.

    jas
     
  3. PerplexShyt thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #3
    hmm didn't notice that.
    thanks.


    I guess I can't ask for a higher score when I have FSB, and DDR2 ram.

    Maybe i should overclock now
     
  4. ssgbryan, May 14, 2012
    Last edited: May 14, 2012

    ssgbryan macrumors 6502

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #4
    It is just a benchmark. I wouldn't get too worked up over it. If it feels fast & you don't spend time waiting on the computer to respond, why do you even worry about it?
     
  5. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #5
    Score is normal for the model in 32-bit. That Mac is over 4 years old. The SSD and the GPU play zero part in your score. A quad 2.8 Westmere will score roughly the same thanks to it's hyper threaded cores.
     
  6. PerplexShyt thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #6
    i just need reassurance that I have a computer that is better than the general population for my own pitiful sake
     
  7. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #7
    Geekbench was designed for the ego in all of us.
     
  8. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #8
    Well. +1 for sense of humor.;)
     
  9. ssgbryan macrumors 6502

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #9
    Are you sure about that? My score on Geekbench went higher when I replaced the boot drive with an SSD. (My Geekbench 64 score is 6257 for a MacPro 1,1)

    Replacing the 5150's with a pair of 5355's is my summer project (which should move me up to around 11,000 or so).
     
  10. derbothaus, May 14, 2012
    Last edited: May 14, 2012

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #10
    Well. It does not test the Hard drive at all so pretty sure. My score didn't go anywhere between 1TB caviar black vs. 600GB Velociraptor vs. OWC 240GB 6G vs. Intel 520.
    Xbench tests the hard drive. Geekbench tests are Integer (Processor), Floating point (Processor), Memory (Memory Performance), and Stream (Memory Bandwidth). No HD in there.
    Your numbers are also off for what a 5355 will bring you close to 10000. Probably not 11,000. But who knows Geekbench is just a guidepost not law. GB results are also skewed by the OC'ing too.
     
  11. ssgbryan macrumors 6502

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #11
    Well, currently, my score is about 20% higher than what Geekbench says an average MacPro 1,1 is supposed to run. I have seen a number of results that are over 10,000 & mine is the highest I have seen for a 5150. I am betting to be closer to the top end than the average.
     
  12. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #12
    Maybe you should go pro?
     
  13. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #13
    you don't…

    My i7 Hackintosh scores about 17,000..
     
  14. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #14
    And my Mac Pro scores around 29000. So? :)

    jas
     
  15. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #15
    meaning 10,000 not so much
     
  16. gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #16
    2008 Mac Pro vs. Sandybridge i5 2012

    Up to date Sandybridge desktop CPUs are much more efficient at running Geekbench tests; a modest £700 home built PC can make any 4 year old Mac Pro look slow.
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/581489/609923
    This doesn't mean it is not still a fast computer that will happily do the task you set it with a good turn of speed. Compared with the standard, off the shelf, crippled laptop offerings your average PC World punter buys it is still a fast box.
    Don't worry, be 'appy as the McFerrin say. :D
     
  17. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #17
    (I know, I was teasing.)

    jas
     
  18. gpzjock, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 15, 2012

    gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
  19. freespeed macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    Oh yes, I too have gotten caught up in the geekbench madness. I spent about 600 bucks taking my Mac pro 1,1 from 4k to 10.5k score. Amazing what 8 cores, 16GB of RAM, and a 5770 can do. But I guess apple got the last laugh with its 32bit EFI. :apple:
     
  20. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #20
    Benchmarks

    Benchmarks are not the only way to test system performance. I have seen the w3680 with higher than 15,000, but real raw performance is determined by what applications you are using and if all or most of the cores are working.

    Only video rendering, encoding, and some audio encoding software would make use of all 6 cores in a w3680, but simple applications like MS Office, games would only use less than 2 cores, or none.
     
  21. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #21
    No cores? :eek:
    Future Tech perhaps.
     
  22. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #22
    AFAIK, most games don't even go above 2 cores, let alone 4.. Perhaps down the road maybe there will be games that will require a min of 4 cores, but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

    I used to be a strong gamer, but got out of it at a young age.
     
  23. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #23
    I just liked the "no cores" as that would mean your computer is not running. It is like most software. Most can use 2 some use closer to 4 very very few scale over that. After a quad core CPU at high clock speed all you need to worry about is your GPU. Games are not CPU or memory bound anymore unless you are trying to run Physix off the CPU because you have AMD. That'll bring it to it's knees.
     
  24. Suraj R. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    Canada
    #24
    Truer words have never been said.
     
  25. Tutor, Jul 3, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013

    Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #25
    Yes. A couple of my fastest multi-OS systems score only about 34,000 in 32bit mode, but score over 40,000 in 64bit mode. So your scores will definitely increase.

    ----------

    Please stop referring to my ego as mucho grande-est. And yes, I like being on page one of top scores, as close to the top as possible. Unlike Alabama and Auburn's football teams, that no. 1 position has eluded me for 4 years in a row [ http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update ]. And yes, it was too outside of Cupertino, CA, for it was in Birmingham, AL.
     

Share This Page