Your mac pro geekbench score.

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jjahshik32, Aug 2, 2008.

  1. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #1
    I'm curious if anyone else is having the same results. When I run geekbench the 32-bit mode version on my 2.8ghz mac pro I get 8420.

    I clearly remember just 3-4 months ago when I had the same 2.8ghz 8 core model mac pro, I used to get 7650-7700ish in total geekbench. So far I've ran it 10 times and it gets anywhere from 8300-8500.

    Maybe the newer updates actually made the mac pro's faster??

    [​IMG]
     
  2. sash macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #2
    Sorry for the double post...

    OK, as I can't delete the post, some more letters. I've also noticed that the score's fluctuating quite a bit. Somehow the second run give the highest score, at least on my machine.

    It could be that the app is getting better.

    sash

    PS -- Actually, the first run gives me 8350+, the second 8500+, and the third around 8400. From the 3rd one the score remains more or less stable.
     
  3. sash macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #3
    Same score more or less.

    sash
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #4
    After running Geekbench I'm glad I didn't upgrade to the second generation Mac Pro. The first gen 4 core with an 8800GT upgrade kit holds its own just fine.
     
  5. vinylator macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    #5
    4863

    MacPro 2,66 - 2 gig RAM - ATI X1900XT 512MB

    I guest the RAM makes a big difference?
     
  6. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #6
    Nothing to do with RAM really. More the fact that they have 4 extra CPU cores. So that accounts for the doubling in performance. The 4 core second gen Mac Pros are inline with the 4 core first gen Mac Pros in terms of performance. I'll wait till the next Mac Pro refresh before upgrading I think.
     
  7. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
  8. mperkins37 macrumors 6502a

    mperkins37

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #8
    Last time I checked my score was # 6 all time with 10655 or so.
    That was a few months ago
    Macpro 3.2 8GB ram, 10,000 rpm Raptor startup drive.
     
  9. sash macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #9
    Not bad... What's the highest (and with which config)?
     
  10. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #10
    that score is probably with using the 64-bit geekbench.
     
  11. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #11
    6297 for my single processor Hac Pro (3.2 gHz Core 2 Quad). :p
     
  12. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #12
    But its a Hackint0sh!! OSX feels broken!! :cool:
     
  13. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #13
    Okay, wait a minute. The OP's quad is getting almost the same score as sash's 8 core. What's up with that?
     
  14. nurivo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    #14
    The OP has a 2.8GHz Dual-Quadcore. So no surprise about his result ;)
     
  15. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #15
    Well, other than only having two of my three eSATA ports working, it "feels" just like my iMac, MBP and Mini - except a lot faster. ;) Not bad for a sub-$1,000 computer.
     
  16. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #16
    Oh, I guess I was just misunderstanding his sig. Plus, I thought I read somewhere in another thread that he had a single cpu quad core.
     
  17. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #17
    From my experience, I used a Q9300 2.5ghz core 2 duo quad from an inspiron 530 that ran kalyway 10.5.3 right out of the box, fw400, even the media cards picked up, wifi as well (only ethernet not working).

    I do agree that its very fast but I found out a few programs I wanted to use just didnt work quite right, especially vlc player or parallels wouldnt work. Just felt crippled.
     
  18. kahine macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #18
    Just used the free 32bit version - havent done much with geekbench before so not sure what's considered good/bad/avg
     

    Attached Files:

  19. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #19
    That's pretty good score.
     
  20. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #20
    Hmm, that's peculiar. VLC runs fine on mine when I run it (which isn't all that often). I use Fusion instead of Parallels and it has had no problems with Win XP SP2 virtual machine.
     
  21. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #21
    Try running an mkv h264 with vlc, for some reason I kept getting stuttering and skipping performance. Also parallels wont work as it failed to boot and vmware fusion works ok though.

    Either way it felt too broken and there's nothing like a real mac. :D
     
  22. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #22
    Well, I have a clip from Live Free or Die Hard that's an MKV in x264 with a DTS 5.1 sound track and it plays without any dropped frames. It's encoded in vbr, but averages around 14 mbps. What was the cpu that your hackintosh had? Might it have been an older one?

    Yeah, I was hoping Apple would come out with a headless iMac with an extra drive bay. But alas, I waited as long as I could and went the hackintosh route. I did buy a retail copy of Leopard to go with it, so my conscience is clear. :)
     
  23. jjahshik32 thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #23
    It is the newer dell inspiron 530 with the q9300 the newer version as to your older Q6600.

    The vlc didnt have any video stuttering but it was the sound that was stuttering.

    Also parallels just doesnt work in a hackint0sh along with a few other programs I'd like to run.

    This was a machine that my cousin had, he really wanted osx but couldnt afford it so I set it up for him using kalyway 10.5.2 and update combo for the 10.5.3 so far.

    Everything seemed to work fine except for a few things. Like when sound would play for the osx sound effects.. it sounded broken too especially emptying the trash.

    VLC player played fine but the audio skips and had to use mplayer. Also for some reason parallels with the newest version wouldnt let me install or when it tries to find the hdd it saids failed to boot. But vmware fusion worked fine.

    I was thinking about buying a q9300 from dell with the inspiron 530 because its so damn cheap at a measly $700 with coupons. But in the end after playing with the hackint0sh that I installed on my cousins, I came to realize its not as good as the real deal.

    I'm very glad that I sold my 17" mbp and couped up 95% of what I paid for it and opted for the mac pro, its that much more powerful, ease of use and I love the 4 hdd trey and especially able to put up to 32gb of RAM.

    Its a shame though.. my cousin uses mac pros at his work and he too felt that it wasnt nearly the same on his inspiron 530 as the mac pro or even the macbook pro that they have there as well, so he ended up installing windows xp on it (he hates vista).
     
  24. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #24
    here's mine for 10.5.2 and 10.5.4

    for 32bit, it is around 5700 on 10.5.4
     

    Attached Files:

  25. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #25
    That sounds like a mobo issue. Virtually all hackintoshes have to have their audio patched to work correctly with OS X. For my build, after the install I had to install NVidia drivers and run the Taruga audio patch. Haven't had any issues since.
     

Share This Page