I think my old Brother WP-3400 could take the benchmark title, but I don't want to show Apple up. 
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.
YouTube Vid a 2.66 Mac Pro vs i7 64-bit windows PC
- Thread starter skyline r34
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree to some degree because ram, harddrive doesnt account more than probably 10%-15% of the overall benchmark score, unless its an SSD drive for the hdd.
Did you not notice the OP's confusing title & thread?:
YouTube Vid a 2.66 Mac Pro vs i7 64-bit windows PC
then quoting specs
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)
Almost same spec as mine, except for RAM, I have 16GB at moment, what I really want is Nehalem Xeon MP but hey ho, It's just a bunch of numbers at the end of the day
I noticed the CPU in the PC was a Core i7 920 (2.67 GHz). The memory was 1066MHz.
Overclock it, and the differences would decrease.
Then consider the $$$ difference between the systems, and it shows how much bang for the buck the Nehalem architecture has to offer, particularly in a single CPU setup.
It does make me wonder what Nehalem can do in a DP configuration. //drools
Overclock it, and the differences would decrease.
Then consider the $$$ difference between the systems, and it shows how much bang for the buck the Nehalem architecture has to offer, particularly in a single CPU setup.
It does make me wonder what Nehalem can do in a DP configuration.
//drools I don't get the point of even posting this. First off, your score blows anyhow. 8782 is ****** compared to the scores posted on the geekbench website of 12K+ for i7 computers. Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. You have 2 3.2Ghz processors compared to a single 2.66Ghz processor. Yes it can handle 8 threads, but 8 cores is still better than 8 threads.
You're the kind of person that gives Mac fans a bad name with your extremely biased fanboyism. Why not try to find results with the 965 Core i7 Extreme Edition processor that would make it more equal in clock speed? Find a windows system that is really maxed out like an overclocked 965 Core i7, your top mac with a top windows PC. Like many people have already said this comparison is retarded, but I hope you stoked your ego for a while.
Why are you taking it all too seriously, i'm not a fanboy of anything, "comparison is retarded" then why are you even reading this post, you didn't have to you know, I wasn't comparing 3.2 to 2.66, and why do you need to overclock a i7 just to beat a 1 year old computer lol, "You're the kind of person that gives Mac fans a bad name" PC users does it all the time you can't deny that and How i'm I giving the Mac community a bad rap showing them a Mac is a little faster even if the Mac is 1 year old please man.
Did you not notice the OP's confusing title & thread?:
YouTube Vid a 2.66 Mac Pro vs i7 64-bit windows PC
then quoting specs
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)
Almost same spec as mine, except for RAM, I have 16GB at moment, what I really want is Nehalem Xeon MP but hey ho, It's just a bunch of numbers at the end of the day
Mr.Noisy wait for the next one Sandy Bridge Mac Pro by then it's time to buy a new Mac that's is when I'm buying my next Mac Pro in 2010 but the Nehalem Mac Pro will be fast I heard.
I don't know maybe it's the ram, I only have 4GB and you have 6GB but do you think with 2GB or more ram will change my score?
No you aren't showing anything, your 1 year old Mac is off the shelf enterprise/server hardware that you are comparing against a home PC that costs like 1/3 what the pro does. That's like saying Your Mac pro is faster then a new Mac Book Pro, or Imac, well no duh man they are completely different computers with completely different purposes and relative costs. The test is useless due to these facts, now as others have stated if you wish to test you MP under windows as well too compare directly or against a dual socket i7 based Xeon computer then it would make a lot more sense.
Your fanboyism is in the idea that somehow the apple hardware is better, which is in itself a flawed idea after the end of PPC, it's now all the same, you just bought an incredibly powerful and expensive computer a year ago no wonder it's still fast.
O, now I see what you are saying. I agree. But Geekbench is still a worthless test.
"fanboyism is in the idea that somehow the apple hardware is better" Nope I don't it's better because the PC has the same hardware also, with-in this year sense I owned this Mac Pro I saved enough money to buy other Mac
i'm battling over should I get a 30 inch LED ACD, New 17-inch unibody MacBook Pro or keep putting money away for Sandy Bridge Mac Pro but yea my current Mac Pro is still crazy fast and better then my old 3.6GHz Dell XPS Gen 4 I had.
That is true. Macs use the same hardware as PCs, just a different OS. One Intel Xeon (most models) processor is obviously slower than the new Intel Core i7.
Ok then I'm sorry for misinterpreting, that said it's still a comparision that doesn't makes sense, as per the type,cost, and uses of both machines. As far as your Dell, again an xps is not a dual socket enterprise/server board it is different kind of computer, the most conclusive testing you could do if you wish to compare your Mac Pro would obviously be dual socket e-atx board running identical Xeon as your MP is, or even still the upcoming dual i7 based Xeon systems if you wish to compare the new architecture directly with the old, that said there would still be the x factor of the os difference.
Also your old XPS is extremely antiquated and also not comparable, as Core and it's children offer much much much more performance per clock vs Netburst.
How are you not a fanboy with your "got owned by a Mac" and needing to post a youtube video of your extremely biased, unrelated hardware/price/classification of systems?
What were you comparing then? I can answer that for you, you were comparing your dual socket 3.2Ghz Xeon server class processors vs the slowest 2.66Ghz i7 desktop processor. Wow you really "own." Great completely false statement you have here.
You don't need to, I never said you need to. If you re-read what I wrote and comprehended it, it said that why not make a more relatively fair comparison with equal base clock speeds using the 965 Core i7 of 3.2Ghz instead of the cheap $300 processor that you compared yours against. And then, you could even try overclocking that processor to get even more performance to have a true top of the line Mac vs a top of the line Windows based PC. You also keep talking about "it's 1 year old", what does that have to do with anything, it's still the newest hardware out right now for the Mac Pro's. If you wanted to get the top of the line Mac Pro today it would be the same machine as yours.
Yes, you give the Mac community a bad name. You show a top of the line $5500 Mac Pro, 1 year old yet still the newest hardware possible, vs a gimp $1000-$1500 PC.....and you barely beat it. WOWOWOWOW OWNNNNNEEEEDDDDDDDDDD CONGRATTTTTSSSS
fail more
Considering they are the same...
It might have to do with the channels on the fully buffered DIMMs. I got better memory results by overclocking my RAM from their stock timings and speed.
As said, we're comparing a system with one quadcore CPU to a system with two quadcore CPUs. Even if the i7 is a generation ahead, it's still not fair. Anyway, judging by the tests presented, a single 3.2GHz Core i7 would still probably score the same or better than the OP's Mac Pro.
I believe it would be rather foolish of Intel to invest millions into designing the i7 architecture if wasn't going to beat its predecessor. The simple fact here is that the i7 is better than the Core 2 based CPUs. Or do you think Apple is just going to skip the Nehalem architecture all together, because the old CPUs are better? Didn't think so.
I believe it would be rather foolish of Intel to invest millions into designing the i7 architecture if wasn't going to beat its predecessor. The simple fact here is that the i7 is better than the Core 2 based CPUs. Or do you think Apple is just going to skip the Nehalem architecture all together, because the old CPUs are better? Didn't think so.
It is not against the EULA to benchmark it in general. However, I believe there are exceptions.Isn't it against the EULA of Vista to benchmark it? I thought i heard/read that somewhere way back...
If so, that would make sense because M$ wouldn't want anyone to know how bad Vista really is
And Vista is not bad. It may not be quite as good as OS X, but it is far from bad and only falls short of OS X a smudge. There are many features, as well as some "under the hood" features that can only be found in Windows. Vista has a great UI and stability is solid. Security could be better, but 90 percent of computers run Windows. I could go on and on.....
You are just a Mac fanboy and should spend more time with Windows before judging it. Try it out and conclude your OWN opinion. Sound good?
I would expect the Beta versions are the exception, as they aren't complete, but not the final release.
I'd have to see the EULA issued with a Beta copy to be sure though.
I would expect the Beta versions are the exception, as they aren't complete, but not the final release.
I'd have to see the EULA issued with a Beta copy to be sure though.
Yah...I think you're right. It would make sense!
Thanks for the heads up skyline r34 i may leap frog the nehalem and wait now till 2010, there isn't anything my present MP cant do for me.
Not against the same-board machines on the Windows side, such as the Dell Precisions. Also few months down the line you'll still be stuck with some totally obsolete card, whereas I'll be free to stick whatever I want into my Dells without any kludges.