The Enigma Called Geekbench

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by flowrider, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #1
    I am really puzzled by the last release of Geekbench, Geekbench 4.1. After releasing Geekbench 4.0 last year, which changed some parameters that drastically lowered scores I was puzzled. Now Geekbench has released Geekbench 4.1 that raises scores. My cMP's configuration has not changed through all all of this. But, now I am even more puzzled. There seems to be no baseline. To me, the scores are meaningless.

    Lou
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Sharky II macrumors 6502a

    Sharky II

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    In each iteration of geekbench, they change the machine which set the baseline score. The baseline machine gets faster, so your score will go down in comparison.
     
  3. flowrider thread starter macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
  4. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #4
    It doesn't so much get faster, as get faster at different things...
     
  5. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #5
    I still use GeekBench 3 to compare performance between two systems. The scores make much more sense to me. Plus, the OpenCL benchmark in GeekBench 4 has never worked for me.
     
  6. Synchro3, Apr 2, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017

    Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #6
    The Geekbench 4.1 result is much more plausible than the Geekbench 4.0.3 result, especially the multi core result.

    For comparison my computers.

    Mac Pro 5,1 Xeon W3690: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/2296391
    Core i7-7700K (no overclock): https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/2297126
     
  7. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #7
  8. SoyCapitanSoyCapitan macrumors 68040

    SoyCapitanSoyCapitan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    #8
    It looks correct to me. With 4.1 my Skylake PC @ 4.6Ghz measures about 6000 SC and 19000MC.

    Never compare new version of Geekbench to previous version obviously.
     
  9. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #9
    This is good advice for just about any benchmark suite.

    They are updated to be relevant for current systems, and that can eliminate any meaningful comparison with the older version.

    Sometimes it's because a component was "broken" by newer systems.

    For example, consider an application where the core code actively uses about 20 MiB of RAM. If you run that code on a system with 512 KiB of cache, it gives the memory system a good workout and is a good test.

    On the other hand, if you run it on a Xeon with 40 MiB of cache, the core code sits in cache and it screams. It's "broken", however, because you can no longer compare the real life performance of the Xeon to the older system. The Xeon may seem to be hundreds or thousands of times faster, but on a code that doesn't fit in cache it may only be 5-10x faster.
     
  10. jerwin, Apr 2, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #10
    There's a white paper:

    http://geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf

    In addition:

    Did geekbench 4.0 also break out the cryptography workload? Some mobile chips have cryptography engines that hit above their weight.

    Granted, end to end encryption is normal now, and it's disappointing to use a device that can't keep up with the workload.
     
  11. Sharky II macrumors 6502a

    Sharky II

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    You're right - I think they've basically just changed the baseline again in the 4.1 update... very silly to keep moving the goal posts. Perhaps they are trying to get the score more similar to the previous version or something, the scores are higher than before.

    It also takes much less time to run now, around 60% of the time of the 4.0 update.
     
  12. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #12
    Ryzen did come out recently, and apparently it didn't do so well on GB 4.0.

    Since the purpose of a benchmark is to model real world performance, occasionally tweaking the benchmark is to be expected.
     
  13. Theophany macrumors 6502a

    Theophany

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    NW London.
    #13
    Synthetic benchmarks are always a bit sketchy, in fairness. They serve a purpose insofar as they allow you to compare different hardware setups across the same version of the benchmark, but the tasks a benchmark uses may not be representative of your daily workload.

    For a photographer, it would make more sense to time a Lightroom import and convert to DNG or render a large file in Photoshop whereas a dev would compare compile times and a video pro Premiere export times.

    Things like Geekbench are great for willy waving, but they're not terribly relevant to each individual's usage case. I think the reason for the raised score in GB 4.1 is because the CPU tasks have been changed/tweaked to adequately benchmark Ryzen chips.
     
  14. splifingate macrumors 6502

    splifingate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Location:
    ATL
    #14
    My scores fluctuate, even within the same build.

    Why does Synchro3, using a Titan X, derive a lower Metal score than I--using a 980ti--in GB4.1?

    Why do I not fully realise a noticeable improvement in perceived performance between a 5,1 and a 1,1?

    Should not the 'Baseline' be between users of the same hardware--using the same software--to compare?

    http://cbldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Zippy-239x300.jpg
     
  15. Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #15
    I did the Metal-Benchmark in OS X El Capitan. I will repeat the same Metal test in Sierra.
     
  16. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #16
  17. Synchro3, Apr 4, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017

    Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #17

Share This Page