Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you guys remember the benchmarks Jobs used to quote in the G4/5 days? I forgot the name now…. Are those still used by anyone?

I would guess SPECfp? Intel's CPUs were never as good at floating point operations, while they excelled at integer. So, Jobs probably used that metric. But for the most part, he usually compared Apple's computers to WIntels by using certain apps, one of which was always PhotoShop.
 
It looks like the Windows version runs only on Intel or AMD CPUs. Previously, it would run an ARM version on Windows ARM setups.
 
It looks like the Windows version runs only on Intel or AMD CPUs. Previously, it would run an ARM version on Windows ARM setups.

I think they forgot to add a file to the installer. It runs, but the folder is apparently incomplete.
 
I think they forgot to add a file to the installer. It runs, but the folder is apparently incomplete.
Yes. It “installs” but doesn’t produce an exe file. I was going to experiment with how many vCPUs to give it on my M2 Pro Mac mini. Parallels defaults to 4. With 10 to work with I was going to see if 6 made much difference now that Geekbench takes a more “practical” view toward measuring multi-core performance.
 
IMHO Primate Labs has jumped the shark with GB6 (and that's why they yanked GB5 results from their website just 2 weeks after the GB6 release). For "typical" computing, the top-end Mac Studio Ultra simply isn't 75% faster than the 28-core Mac Pro--faster, yes, but not 75% faster. The M1 Max is also not at all faster than the 28-core Mac Pro, even though GB6 suggests it is. Ah, what's "typical" you ask? Answer: it's not what GB6 is measuring. Primate Labs is conflating too many areas of performance into one figure... and that's b.s.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.