Post Your Geekbench Scores for the MBA!

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by heatmiser, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. heatmiser macrumors 68020

    Dec 6, 2007
    Has anyone run Geekbench on the Macbook Air yet? I've seen one score for a 1.8 SSD, but I'd like to see scores from 1.6 models too, as well as 1.8s with standard drives.
  2. orthodoc macrumors member

    Aug 25, 2002
    My score was 2015. I have the 1.6 GHz 80 GB HD model.
  3. uber gorilla macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2008
    Out of the Loop

    Sorry, I haven't any Geekbench scores to post.

    However, I was wondering if someone out there could please enlighten me as to what 'Geekbench' is?
  4. OllyW Moderator


    Staff Member

    Oct 11, 2005
    The Black Country, England
    Google? :)
  5. uber gorilla macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2008
    *Groans*... But I can't be bothered Googling something if I can read it here.

    So... gimme gimme!

    Nah, I think I've figured it out. It's basically to do with processor performance as compared to some version of the Powerbook I think. Or something like that. Anyways, it looks like the MBA is hella slow, but for my needs it should do just fine.
  6. Silentwave macrumors 68000

    May 26, 2006
    Gainesville, FL
    Hella slow? :rolleyes:

    So a MBAir with a 1.6GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, and a tiny 80GB 4200 HDD gets a Geekbench score of 2000ish. My MBP with a 2.4GHz C2D, double the RAM, and a HDD that's twice as large and spinning at 7200RPM gets just shy of 3100. So a computer that's clocked 50% faster with twice the RAM and twice the HDD size and significantly improved drive speed would score about 50% better. Wow, i'm soooooo surprised.

    Technically, a score of 1000 is the same as a 1.6GHz PowerMac G5, though their performance chart shows it scores a 967, not 1000, since the chart is an average of the scores for a particular model.
    So a 3 pound 0.16"-0.76" thick MacBook Air with a 4200RPM 1.8" 80GB miniature drive is over twice as powerful as a 44.4 pound, 20"x8"x19" enormous tower.

    Sure, hella slow.

    Also, if you compare it against the latest Mac Pro, the 8 core 3.2GHz Harpertown Mac Pro scores around 9600 on the 64-bit benchmarks. the primate labs blog doesn't specify if they ran 32 or 64 bit benchmarks on the MBAir. Let's assume for argument's sake that they were 64. In that case, a 3.2GHz 8 core Mac Pro with a FRONTSIDE BUS speed equivalent to the clock speed of the slower MBAir, FB-DIMM RAM, and so on is approximately 4.5 times faster.
    I'd say that for a 3lb ultraportable, being about 22% as fast as the fastest mac EVER, with 8 server grade cores clocked at twice the speed is not being a slouch.

    Let's see where it compares against other machines in the mac performance chart. Remember this chart is based on an average of all the systems they have data on for that model:
    -just shy of twice as high a score as a 2.1GHz iMac G5
    -2.18x higher than the fastest PowerBook G4
    -1.36x higher than a dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5
    -1.26x higher than a Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5
    - higher than the dual 2.3GHz and dual core 2.3GHz PowerMac G5s
    - higher than the dual 2.5GHz PowerMac G5
    - within a hair of the dual 2.7GHz PowerMac G5.

    Not so shabby, is it?
  7. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    Geekbench scores

  8. ntrigue macrumors 68040


    Jul 30, 2007
    1.8GHz MBA w/ 1.8HDD scores 2420-2485!

    Attached Files:

  9. .product macrumors member

    Aug 5, 2008
    2392 (1.8GHz/HDD MBA running CoolBook)

    Attached Files:

  10. norsemen macrumors regular

    Apr 2, 2007
    Can anyone post the scores for the new MBAs? Thx in advance.
  11. hitekalex macrumors 68000


    Feb 4, 2008
    Chicago, USA
    Geekbench = 3234

    (MBA 2.13 Ghz running Snow Leopard WWDC build)
  12. three macrumors 6502a


    Jan 22, 2008
    Washington State
    2309 MacBook Air 1.6GHz, 2GB RAM, Leopard 10.5.7
  13. CPPMaster macrumors member

    Jun 12, 2009
    Mba 1.6 80gb Score

    MBA 1.6 80GB 2GB RAM

    Geekbench Version 2.1.2

    SCORE 2132
    Integer 1651
    Floating Point 2939
    Memory 1813
    Stream 1637
  14. jrwmba macrumors newbie

    Jun 9, 2009
    MBA 2.13 running 10.5.7 - 2682. Very interesting I think compared to the above snow lep. score. Perhaps we are all in for a big speed boost in September - we shall see.
  15. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

  16. pgharavi macrumors regular


    Nov 25, 2004
  17. Jsimon9633 macrumors regular

    Jun 26, 2007
    i just tested my new MBA 2.13 and i got a 2541, seems low but probably due to me actually restoring using my time machine.

    I brought the slow from my past machine doh! heh
  18. bigdaddyp macrumors regular

    Aug 19, 2008
    Pics or it didn't happen.

    :) If true that is pretty impressive as my unibody macbook with a 2.4ghz clocked in with a score of 3290.
  19. ayeying macrumors 601


    Dec 5, 2007
    Yay Area, CA
    How did you get Geekbench to run in Snow Leopard? It just crashes for me
  20. Young Turk macrumors 6502

    Jul 9, 2002
    MacBook Air (rev 2) 1.86/SSD, Leopard 10.5.7

    Geekbench 2387

    Young Turk
  21. barbro66 macrumors newbie

    Jul 5, 2009
    MBA 2.13 SSD, running snow leopard 10A394

    Geekbench of 2817

    Not sure why some are getting scores over 3000, doesn't sound realistic to me
  22. arcangel6 macrumors regular


    Aug 21, 2008
    Geekbench Version 2.1.2

    32 bit Score: 2637

    64 bit Score: 2923

    Rosetta Score: 1321

    Not sure what it all means.

  23. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    They sound reasonable to me. I have the 1.8 rev C and already am at 2600 with 32 bit Geekbench with Leopard.
  24. ayeying macrumors 601


    Dec 5, 2007
    Yay Area, CA
    I got a score 2990. 2.13GHz/128GB SSD on a new install Leopard.
  25. MacModMachine macrumors 68020


    Apr 3, 2009
    i was thinking about dropping my 15" mbp 2.8 for a air....i dont use ports at usb would be fine for me

    i was worried about speed...but i only score a 3750 on my 15"....the air scores a little less. so the air should be perfect for me.

    i do alot of web stuff and visual studio stuff in virtual machines. but i want somthing light that i can go anywhere with. i only use about 1.5gb ram max with my virtual machine running.

    i think ill get the air.

Share This Page