Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro 2010 Benchmarks inside

Chad H

Chad H

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 13, 2008
764
0
Auburn, AL
Hey guys,
I finally got my 2010 3.2Ghz Quad core Mac Pro this past Friday. Got everything up and running so I thought I would run a few tests. I ran xbench and Geekbench 64bit. My Mac Pro has the ATI 5870 card, OWC 120GB SSD main drive, and 16GB RAM. Let me know if you want me to run anymore tests or have any questions fire aways. :)
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 6.17.29 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 6.17.29 PM.png
    110.2 KB · Views: 267
  • Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 6.18.39 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 6.18.39 PM.png
    62.3 KB · Views: 270
Looks good... as expected, it scores about 10% higher than my 2.93 Quad...
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 5.21.09 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-08-29 at 5.21.09 PM.png
    76.5 KB · Views: 148
Chad H said:
Hey guys,
I finally got my 2010 3.2Ghz Quad core Mac Pro this past Friday. Got everything up and running so I thought I would run a few tests. I ran xbench and Geekbench 64bit. My Mac Pro has the ATI 5870 card, OWC 120GB SSD main drive, and 16GB RAM. Let me know if you want me to run anymore tests or have any questions fire aways. :)
Click to expand...

For comparison can you run the 32-bit GeekBench?
 
Chad H said:
Hey guys,
I finally got my 2010 3.2Ghz Quad core Mac Pro this past Friday. Got everything up and running so I thought I would run a few tests. I ran xbench and Geekbench 64bit. My Mac Pro has the ATI 5870 card, OWC 120GB SSD main drive, and 16GB RAM. Let me know if you want me to run anymore tests or have any questions fire aways. :)
Click to expand...

do you have CS5 by chance ?

would love to see a good run of https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/200558/

and or Digilloyds PS tests
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Benchmarks.html

we need to get another machine for lighter PS work and not sure I want to pony up for the 6 core since this is not a main PS machine :)
 
I just ran geekbench 64-bit. Scored 10055. I have a 2 X 2.8 quad-core xeon, 10.6.4, 6GB RAM, on a macpro almost 4 years old. I want to upgrade to the new 8 core macpro. How much performance am I going to squeeze out of this machine? I render a lot of video and compression. Will I see a noticeable gain or just a waste of money? Thanks in advance.
 
With my system in sig:

Geekbench 64bit - 16174
Geekbench 32bit - 14364
XBench - 379
PS Speed Test - 16 sec
 
dpavid said:
I just ran geekbench 64-bit. Scored 10055. I have a 2 X 2.8 quad-core xeon, 10.6.4, 6GB RAM, on a macpro almost 4 years old. I want to upgrade to the new 8 core macpro. How much performance am I going to squeeze out of this machine? I render a lot of video and compression. Will I see a noticeable gain or just a waste of money? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Your mac pro you have currently is probably faster than the new 2.4 8 core. if you have a 2.8 octo then it is the 2008 version. I have the same as you get some more ram, an ssd and the thing will fly and you will save alot of money too! the new 8 core isnt worth the money get a 6 or 12 if your going to upgrade.
 
tomscott1988 said:
Your mac pro you have currently is probably faster than the new 2.4 8 core. if you have a 2.8 octo then it is the 2008 version. I have the same as you get some more ram, an ssd and the thing will fly and you will save alot of money too! the new 8 core isnt worth the money get a 6 or 12 if your going to upgrade.
Click to expand...

great advice. if i do go to a 6-core, how much performance increase will i really get? I produce two 30 minute tv shows per week. Render time takes about 45 minutes per show on average in DVCPro HD. If the new machine will only cut my render time down by 15-20 minutes, its not worth it. It won't save me enough time to justify the price. Your thoughts....
 
as reference to the numbers up above
2008 2.8 octo with 14 gigs memory using CS5

I get a geekbench in 64 of 11337
PS test 15 - 16 seconds


so the real world for PS is about the same but sboerup not sure if he is running CS5 ? and did a warmup run ?

also not sure it was setup in PS correct ? the 11 second times posted elsewhere ? not sure those are accurate either ? I see other scores more around 13 avg ?
then again a rough count in seconds or trying to avg down for better or up for safe ? not doubting anyone just curious to double check and re run 3 times again from fresh reboot and do a warmup run as this can effect the time ?
 
MacPro Early 2009 2x 2.93 GHz Quad Core

For a comparison: I have attached my 64-Bit Geekbench 2.1.6 results...
I wonder how the "usual" results for a comparable MacPro 2010 would be...
 

Attachments

  • Screendump Geekbench 2010-09-02 11.45.14.png
    Screendump Geekbench 2010-09-02 11.45.14.png
    83.2 KB · Views: 178
Hey guys, sorry for the delay. Finally got to run the 32 bit benchmark. Let me know if you want any other tests or data. :)
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-09-02 at 8.19.01 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-02 at 8.19.01 PM.png
    72.6 KB · Views: 108
GeekBench does not mean much to me ?
real world tests are what matter to me :)


retouch artist or digilloyd PS test or other ones !

my old 3,1 8 core 2.66 gets 11337 or something like that in geek bench ? but in PS will get beat by the newer 4 core 3.2 I am willing to bet !
 
3.2 quad or 2.4 8 core?

Hey Guys,
This is my first post so please dont mind my etiquette. I just ordered a 3.2ghz quad with 8 gigs of memory. Im second guessing it as its almost the same price sas the 2.4 quad. I have been running a 2.5 power pc mac pro quad 2005 for years and love the machine. I own a studio and just started dabling around with video canon 7d etc. Would you take the cPU over the cores? Can someone breakdown the pluses and minus of them both. I also own fcp and premiere master suite so Its a bit of everything but mainly concerned with protools(not really worried as my last machine was more than capable)/fcp and after effects(concerned with rendering times as current render times are pretty bad depending on the plug ins.) bottom line is the 3.2 ghz going to be an upgrade compaired to my 2.5 quad? :eek:

Thanks,
 
frankbuddas said:
Hey Guys,
This is my first post so please dont mind my etiquette. I just ordered a 3.2ghz quad with 8 gigs of memory. Im second guessing it as its almost the same price sas the 2.4 quad. I have been running a 2.5 power pc mac pro quad 2005 for years and love the machine. I own a studio and just started dabling around with video canon 7d etc. Would you take the cPU over the cores? Can someone breakdown the pluses and minus of them both. I also own fcp and premiere master suite so Its a bit of everything but mainly concerned with protools(not really worried as my last machine was more than capable)/fcp and after effects(concerned with rendering times as current render times are pretty bad depending on the plug ins.) bottom line is the 3.2 ghz going to be an upgrade compaired to my 2.5 quad? :eek:

Thanks,
Click to expand...

its going to be night and day !!!!! even jumping to my 1,1 when they first came out from the Power PC was HUGE

memory ? you might want to boost it later ? you can monitor that and decide :)

but you did good :) the 3.2 is going to be quicker than the 2.4
I am not sure the 3.3 is going to be that much quicker (yes it will be quicker but not always 2 cores quicker) in some things than the 3.2 ? the cache will help and some programs the extra 2 cores might help ? but time will tell ;) looking at the PS tests the last years 3.3 compared to the 6 core 3.3 shows things are closer than it should be ?
 
Yippiee!

:cool:
Honumaui said:
its going to be night and day !!!!! even jumping to my 1,1 when they first came out from the Power PC was HUGE

memory ? you might want to boost it later ? you can monitor that and decide :)

but you did good :) the 3.2 is going to be quicker than the 2.4
I am not sure the 3.3 is going to be that much quicker (yes it will be quicker but not always 2 cores quicker) in some things than the 3.2 ? the cache will help and some programs the extra 2 cores might help ? but time will tell ;) looking at the PS tests the last years 3.3 compared to the 6 core 3.3 shows things are closer than it should be ?
Click to expand...

Heres all the specs.

3.2 ghz processor quad core.
8gigs memory
HD5870 card

Thats great to know that I will notice a difference with the 3.2 quad. I think Ill stick with the faster processor then the reason is protools is still 32 bit and Id rather have the CPU 3.2 than the cores. Now i have this 2.5 quad which I love thats just going to sit here. The only reason I upgraded was because cs5 and protools no longer support power pc other than that I loved the machine. It has 8 gigs memory and has done me well over the past 5 years. Plus I hear After Effects is mainly graphic card and cpu dependent as well. Thanks for your response!
 
you getting the ram 3rd party ? its cheaper ? your choice just good to know

with PS and SL the 8 gigs is out the window :) and 16 is the new start I think :)

PS you can now use way more than the old 3 gigs of past :)
 
Honumaui said:
you getting the ram 3rd party ? its cheaper ? your choice just good to know

with PS and SL the 8 gigs is out the window :) and 16 is the new start I think :)

PS you can now use way more than the old 3 gigs of past :)
Click to expand...

I got the 8 gigs when I custom ordered it only for like 300 more. I plan on grabbing another 8 gigs from crucial or something. I cant wait to install my CS5 mastersuite. Now I just need to wait for it lol .......:rolleyes:
 
Chad H said:
Hey guys, sorry for the delay. Finally got to run the 32 bit benchmark. Let me know if you want any other tests or data. :)
Click to expand...

I just ran it on my 2.5 quad in 32bit mode and got a score of 3497 doe that mean my new 3.2 with 16 gigs will be 3xs as fast? That would be awesome!!!! :eek:


Summary

Section Description Score Geekbench Score
Geekbench 2.1.6 for Mac OS X PPC (32-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 3993 3497
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 4477
Memory Memory performance 1782
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 1770
 
My PS speed test was 15-16 seconds. This was done with CS5 immediately after a fresh reboot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back