Resolved Mac Pro Geekbench Drop

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by mgb3558, Sep 29, 2017.

  1. mgb3558 macrumors newbie

    mgb3558

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2017
    #1
    Just purchased a Mac Pro 5,1 and decided to make some upgrades to it. After changing out the CPUs for the dual six core 3.46 I got a score of 18,163. Pretty awesome. Next step, upgrade the RAM and try and get that score over 20,000! Changed out the 8GB of 1066 RAM (4 modules) for 16GB of 1333 RAM (1 module OWC).

    Performed SMC/PRM reset, system recognized all the changes, yet upon doing the geekbench test again, my score fell off the cliff down to 15,122. . . Nothing is standing out as to what the issue could be. And absolutely nothing really explains the massive drop especially since geekbench is seeing the RAM.

    Any ideas?



    Screen Shot 2017-09-13 at 5.51.01 AM.png

    Screen Shot 2017-09-29 at 9.05.30 PM.png
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Dr. Stealth, Sep 29, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017

    Dr. Stealth macrumors 6502a

    Dr. Stealth

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Location:
    SoCal-Surf City USA
    #2

    Not sure what your issue could be but for reference I'm running the same two processors and here is my GB 4 score.

    So I guess the bad news is you need to figure out what the issue is.

    But the good news is once you do you will be very happy with your x5690's.

    Capture.PNG
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Fooze macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    #3
    The CMP will achieve the highest Geekbench scores when slots 1-3 and 5-7 are populated with RAM sticks. If you only have 1 of the 8 slots populated then you will notice a huge performance hit in these synthetic benchmarks. Real world performance is much less noticeable.
     
  4. leon771 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    Seems to me that it is because you only have a single RAM slot populated.
    Buy more RAM.
     
  5. mgb3558 thread starter macrumors newbie

    mgb3558

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2017
    #5
    Thanks, that must be my problem. I was stressing out that maybe I applied the thermal paste incorrectly or a hundred other different issues. I installed the old 4 RAM modules back in and the Geekbench Score shot back up. That had me worrying that maybe the new RAM was defective! Good to know it's just a superficial hit and everything is working how it should. I guess I will have to wait to flaunt the Geekbench score until I grab a couple more modules.
     
  6. DPUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    #6
    Check out used server RAM on eBay... thoroughly tested (!!!) and a lot less expensive.
     
  7. SoyCapitanSoyCapitan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    Location:
    Paris
    #7
    1 module doesn’t have enough bandwidth to feed 12 cores (or even less)
     
  8. carpsafari Suspended

    carpsafari

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    #8
    And the cause for it is the crappy OWC ram.
    Needs to be told.
     
  9. frou macrumors 6502

    frou

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #9
    When you see talk of CPUs/Motherboards being "dual-channel", "triple-channel" etc, this is the phenomenon that's referring to.
     
  10. LightBulbFun macrumors 68000

    LightBulbFun

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Location:
    London UK
    #10
    ok i see a couple things amiss

    the reason your score is bad is because your running just 1 memory stick, for maximum performance your meant to run 3 sticks per CPU, I dont recommend OWC ram as well, you can get suitable RAM for silly cheap on ebay thanks to all the used servers being parted out

    secondly your boot ROM is VERY out of date (as in even before High sierra your boot rom is out of date) https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1321?locale=en_US download this then once thats done when you go to install High sierra install its Boot ROM update
     
  11. mp2017 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    #11
    This is why Geek Bench scores have little value outside of benchmarking.
     
  12. flowrider macrumors 603

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
  13. mp2017 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    #13
    That a more capable system scores lower on the benchmark than a more capable one.
     
  14. LightBulbFun macrumors 68000

    LightBulbFun

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Location:
    London UK
    #14
    your ignoring the fact geekbench also benchmarks the memory, and in this case the system is severely limited by having only 1 RAM stick between 2 high bandwidth CPUs...
     
  15. mp2017 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    #15
    I am doing no such thing. It's the reason I said "little value outside of benchmarking". If the goal is to obtain the highest Geekbench score than the four 2GB modules should be used. If the goal is to run applications then the single 16GB module is the better choice.
     
  16. LightBulbFun macrumors 68000

    LightBulbFun

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Location:
    London UK
    #16
    if 1 16GB module is so much better then why did anyone bother with multi channel memory and such? if that application is very memory intensive (which if it uses 16GB of ram it probably is) its going to be severally hurt by the reduced bandwidth that running with 1 16GB RAM stick is going to give. (which is what geekbench is showing)
     
  17. mp2017 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    #17
    All else being equal configuring for multiple channels is preferred. However, outside of benchmarks and some very specific cases (of which I can't think of off the top of my head but I'm sure there are some), such configurations don't offer much in the way of real world performance increases.

    For situations where 8GB of memory is insufficient a single 16GB module is preferable to four 2GB modules. The lack of memory and the corresponding thrashing to disk will erase any advantage gained by configuring insufficient memory capacity in order to obtain a multiple channel configuration. In an ideal configuration the OP would use four 4GB modules. I suspect he did not as he wants the ability to increase his memory in the future without having to discard memory he already purchased.
     

Share This Page

16 September 29, 2017