Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

YouTube Vid a 2.66 Mac Pro vs i7 64-bit windows PC

skyline r34 said:
My geekbench score of my 1 year old Mac Pro

My Mac Pro
Mac OS X Leopard 64-bit
Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core (8-Core)
4GB of Ram
512MB 8800GT
1TB Of Hard Drives
Two 16x SuperDrives
AirPort Extreme Card (Wi-Fi)

Geek Bench Score- 8782

The i7 Windows PC computer 8094

got owned by a Mac

Don't know if the new Mac Pro's are going to use the new Intel i7's but I owned that Windows i7 PC just check out my youtube video 34skyline below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNsctq1wXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geA8w9h9efE&watch_response
Click to expand...

Seems unfair. A Mac with two workstation processors versus one Core i7?
 
Hmmm, I just ran Geekbench 32 bit on my MacPro:

2.8Ghz Quad x 2
6GB RAM
ATI 2600 HD 256MB
320GB, 500GB, 2 1TB

My score was 9094
:Integer - 8725
:Floating Point - 15076
:Memory - 2619
:Stream - 2404

Why is my 2.8 getting a better score than the OP's 3.2? Amount of Memory?
 
wheezy said:
Hmmm, I just ran Geekbench 32 bit on my MacPro:

2.8Ghz Quad x 2
6GB RAM
ATI 2600 HD 256MB
320GB, 500GB, 2 1TB

My score was 9094
:Integer - 8725
:Floating Point - 15076
:Memory - 2619
:Stream - 2404

Why is my 2.8 getting a better score than the OP's 3.2? Amount of Memory?
Click to expand...

I think there is something we don't know about what went on in the OP's test. Anyone disagree?😕
 
Slowstick said:
I think there is something we don't know about what went on in the OP's test. Anyone disagree?😕
Click to expand...
Hopefully they had enough sense to kill as many background processes as possible for an accurate benchmark and run it several times for an average result.
 
Eidorian said:
Hopefully they had enough sense to kill as many background processes as possible for an accurate benchmark and run it several times for an average result.
Click to expand...

I hope so. But did they do it on both machines? Remember... the i7 is running Windows!!!😀😀 This test can't be fully accepted because of the different OSs. OS X handles background processes a hell of a lot better.
 
Slowstick said:
I hope so. But did they do it on both machines? Remember... the i7 is running Windows!!!😀😀 This test can't be fully accepted because of the different OSs. OS X handles background processes a hell of a lot better.
Click to expand...
What's the point of a cross platform benchmark then?
 
Eidorian said:
How so? 8 threads.
Click to expand...

No. Eight threads on a quad-core (even with hyper-threading) will be slower than eight threads on an eight-core, all else remaining equal, so it isn't a fair test of the difference between the core 2 and core i7 technology. We'll see that comparison most directly when there is a Gainestown Mac Pro to compare to my current Harpertown.

In the meantime, the geekbench results for an eight-core core i7 Hackintosh look promising at:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/96514

Though, as always, differences in clockspeeds etc cloud the issue.
 
Ramashalanka said:
No. Eight threads on a quad-core (even with hyper-threading) will be slower than eight threads on an eight-core, all else remaining equal, so it isn't a fair test of the difference between the core 2 and core i7 technology. We'll see that comparison most directly when there is a Gainestown Mac Pro to compare to my current Harpertown.

In the meantime, the geekbench results for an eight-core core i7 Hackintosh look promising at:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/96514

Though, as always, differences in clockspeeds etc cloud the issue.
Click to expand...

And operating system...😀😀
 
Slowstick said:
And operating system...😀😀
Click to expand...

Absolutely 🙂, that was in my "etc". Amount and speed of ram are other big ones. As Eidorian correctly says, a big issue will be how careful the test has been with background processes and multiple trials:
Eidorian said:
Hopefully they had enough sense to kill as many background processes as possible for an accurate benchmark and run it several times for an average result.
Click to expand...

From the videos, it looks like the test results are from a single run.
 
Ramashalanka said:
Absolutely 🙂, that was in my "etc". Amount and speed of ram are other big ones. As Eidorian correctly says, a big issue will be how careful the test has been with background processes and multiple trials:


From the videos, it looks like the test results are from a single run.
Click to expand...

And speed of hard drive...
 
Eidorian said:
Geekbench is CPU only.
Click to expand...
Really?! Are you sure? I didn't know that.

Then all of the above postings would be irrelevant. If what you say is true, then any Geekbench testing would be hard to believe because when you are testing two machines, operating system, ram, hard drive speed, etc. are all important factors in overall speed. Do you see what I am saying? Would you agree?
 
Yes geekbench is cross-platform, and CPU only. The entire point is to make a fair benchmark no matter the OS, and one that does not even factor in hard drive speed.

I've benchmarked Geekbench with Linux, OS X (10.5 hackintosh) and Windows XP on the same PC, and scores are a little different but fairly close. Memory scores are higher in OS X, and a lot worse in XP curiously enough.
 
Firefly2002 said:
Pointless.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If they wanted a windows vs osx test they should have installed them on the same computer. If they wanted a hardware test they should have installed the same OS. There are to many variables here to draw any logical conclusion.
The whole test is a fail.
 
NoSmokingBandit said:
Agreed. If they wanted a windows vs osx test they should have installed them on the same computer. If they wanted a hardware test they should have installed the same OS. There are to many variables here to draw any logical conclusion.
The whole test is a fail.
Click to expand...
.

My point exactly. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Slowstick said:
Really?! Are you sure? I didn't know that.

Then all of the above postings would be irrelevant. If what you say is true, then any Geekbench testing would be hard to believe because when you are testing two machines, operating system, ram, hard drive speed, etc. are all important factors in overall speed. Do you see what I am saying? Would you agree?
Click to expand...

I agree that geekbench is pointless, but I don't see why you decide this due to your surprise that it's CPU only. Geekbench is not affected by hard drive speed, but is affected by operating system, RAM size, RAM speed, motherboard (and many other details) as well as CPU (I'm certain that is what Eidorian meant by "CPU only").

The problem is that it is affected by so much (including about two percent variation between successive runs), not by too little (no hard drive speed). Also, the idea of doing a bunch of tests and assigning each of them some arbitrary importance to come up with one number is an oversimplification.
 
Ramashalanka said:
I agree that geekbench is pointless, but I don't see why you decide this due to your surprise that it's CPU only. Geekbench is not affected by hard drive speed, but is affected by operating system, RAM size, RAM speed, motherboard (and many other details) as well as CPU (I'm certain that is what Eidorian meant by "CPU only").

The problem is that it is affected by so much (including about two percent variation between successive runs), not by too little (no hard drive speed). Also, the idea of doing a bunch of tests and assigning each of them some arbitrary importance to come up with one number is an oversimplification.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is what I meant. Just for raw hardware the CPU impacts integer and floating point performance and there are memory and stream tests as well.

The best I can manage on my G31 board is about 5500 on Geekbench under Vista Ultimate 64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back