Mac Pro 2010 Benchmarks inside

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Chad H, Aug 29, 2010.

  1. Chad H macrumors 6502a

    Chad H

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #1
    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. :)
     

    Attached Files:

  2. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #2
    Looks good... as expected, it scores about 10% higher than my 2.93 Quad...
     

    Attached Files:

  3. bzollinger macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #3
    For comparison can you run the 32-bit GeekBench?
     
  4. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #4
    do you have CS5 by chance ?

    would love to see a good run of http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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 :)
     
  5. dpavid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Location:
    Mililani, Hawaii
    #5
    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.
     
  6. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #6
    With my system in sig:

    Geekbench 64bit - 16174
    Geekbench 32bit - 14364
    XBench - 379
    PS Speed Test - 16 sec
     
  7. dpavid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Location:
    Mililani, Hawaii
    #7
    are the numbers relative? if I ran 10055 and yours did 16174. Does that mean its literally 160% faster or are the numbers arbitrary?
     
  8. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    My mac pro see sig gets 12800 in geekbench 64 not bad for a old boy :)
     
  9. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    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.
     
  10. dpavid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Location:
    Mililani, Hawaii
    #10
    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....
     
  11. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #11
    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 ?
     
  12. Chad H thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Chad H

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #12
    Sorry been busy guys. I'll post some more test results tonight. :)
     
  13. englishman macrumors 6502a

    englishman

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #13
    12,250 for mine (2009 2.26) 32 bit for cpmparison
     
  14. oilfighter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    #14
    I would echo the request to run the photoshop test located here:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=200558

    I'm debating between 3.2 quad and the base 2.8 quad, and I'm wondering if the 3.2 quad is worth the money.
     
  15. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #15
    hey no worries :)
     
  16. ortholing macrumors newbie

    ortholing

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Location:
    Planet Terra
    #16
    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...
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Chad H thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Chad H

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #17
    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. :)
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #18
    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 !
     
  19. frankbuddas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    #19
    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,
     
  20. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #20
    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 ?
     
  21. frankbuddas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    #21
    Yippiee!

    :cool:
    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!
     
  22. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #22
    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 :)
     
  23. frankbuddas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    #23
    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:
     
  24. frankbuddas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    #24
    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
     
  25. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #25
    My PS speed test was 15-16 seconds. This was done with CS5 immediately after a fresh reboot.
     

Share This Page