Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post your old Mac's Geekbench Score here!
- Thread starter im_to_hyper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PowerBook G4 15" Aluminum (1.5GHz, 768 mb ram, 80gb HD) = 474
Really? You must have been running programs in the background, because I have no idea how the score could be so close.
I can't even get it to run on OS 10.3
^If you mean your eMac, it won't run 10.3. 1.42 had 10.4 preinstalled, I guess that 10.3 could not contain some hardware specific drivers.
No, he means GeekBench won't run on his G4, which he states has 10.3.9 on it.
That's because GeekBench requires 10.4 or later.
Its a pity we cant figure out a relative score going back to the 128k Mac.
If that had a score of say, 1.0, and everything else made since that was scored relative it might be interesting in a sad, geeky kinda way.
Pity different banchmarking programs can't be given a translation, converstion score ratio or something so they could all be shoehorned together to create one mega scorecard spanning 25 years of the Mac....
If that had a score of say, 1.0, and everything else made since that was scored relative it might be interesting in a sad, geeky kinda way.
Pity different banchmarking programs can't be given a translation, converstion score ratio or something so they could all be shoehorned together to create one mega scorecard spanning 25 years of the Mac....
There's the benchmark software "Speedometer 4", which will run on pretty much any 68020 or higher Mac in the "Classic" Mac OS. So this means the Macintosh II through the Mirror Drive Doors Power Macintosh G4; in Mac OS 7 through 9.2.2. (I don't know if it'll run in System 6 or not.)
And while Speedometer 3 will run on a 68000 CPU, it does not have PowerPC native libraries, so not a good comparison on a PPC, and there aren't any benchmark apps that run natively on both OS 9 and OS X - Intel.
Well, not to super-revive my old thread but holy wow. I had to share. Look what Leopard did to the performance of a G5! This is the same machine found in my sig (1.6GHz G5).
For certain Macs, looks like Leopard really kills performance... but I much prefer it and modern application compatibility, to using Tiger.
This would be super awesome if this was available! Make a little score chart to evenly compare performance increases along the way!
- First entry is the G5 running 10.5.8 with 2GB DDR PC3200 RAM
- Second is 10.4.11 with 2GB RAM
- Third is 512MB PC2700RAM.
For certain Macs, looks like Leopard really kills performance... but I much prefer it and modern application compatibility, to using Tiger.
This would be super awesome if this was available! Make a little score chart to evenly compare performance increases along the way!
Attachments
I have benchmarks going back to a 128k Mac (one that I even ran on an Apple II). The problem is that they are so tiny that they have to get put in a loop 1000 times or more to take more than a millisecond on a current Mac Pro or even an iPad.
Here's one I dug up: The Byte Magazine Prime Sieve benchmark (published circa '82 and '83) took 281 seconds in Applesoft Basic on an Apple II+. Around 6 seconds on a Mac 512Ke using Consulair C. And 54 microseconds on a MBP 13 2.53GHz C2D in llvm compiled C.
Last edited: