Comments on: Geekbench Comparison (April 2007)

By: Ivan

Ivan — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:14:16 +0000

Cool!

By: Drymiotes

Drymiotes — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:52:07 +0000

interesting

By: Primate Labs Blog : Mac Performance (June 2007)

Primate Labs Blog : Mac Performance (June 2007) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:08:26 +0000

[...] been a couple of months since I’ve posted a comprehensive Mac performance comparison using Geekbench and the results from the Geekbench Result Browser. While the last one compared the [...]

By: John

John — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:34:10 +0000

llamasonic,

That's not right, no. There are a number of problems with timers on some AMD-based systems. Other operating systems provide mechanisms for working around these problems but since Mac OS X doesn't support AMD-based systems (at least not officially) and doesn't provide said mechanisms, I can't use them and the odd wonky result slips into the result browser.

I've removed the Hackintosh score from the top scores list. Thanks for pointing it out!

By: llamasonic

llamasonic — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:21:43 +0000

According to the link below the top system is a Hackintosh using an AMD proc – scoring double the results of the xserve. Could this be right?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:57:57 +0000

Maybe the newer and better technology will be suitable instead of the Duodock systems. I second that opinion for an ultramobile with a “home base station.”

By: Russell

Russell — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:58:22 +0000

@Jason: The DuoDock systems were TERRIBLE performance though. I had a late-1996 Duo 2300c (the last, best one made) with the 100MHz PPC 603e chip. It was a DOG. Terribly slow, was slower than comparable 601-based machines of the era. The “good old days” really weren’t. I was so excited to replace that piece of dogmeat with the Powerbook 3400c when it came out….

By: mac professional

mac professional — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:29:36 +0000

Ive been playing with my 5160 Mac Pro ( 4 core at 3 Ghz).Any ideas on my bottleneck?

I can not hit 6,000 avg score, yet I see many other peoplae have, with slower processors.

Best i can do is almost hit 6,000.

I notice that the app only uses 100-200 percent CPU utilization for the most part, some times spiking to 300 percent, thats it.

Ive been playing with my 5160 Mac Pro ( 4 core at 3 Ghz).

I also did a bunch of test, running your app while keeping the processor really busy, including compressing a 4.264 video whille running your program. I set the thread for the codec, to Priority 1, and always in front.

To my surprise I still get scores above 5.000, and clost to 5500.

Any Ideas Vince

By: Comparison results of Intel-based Macs « Koolio

Comparison results of Intel-based Macs « Koolio — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:57:16 +0000

[...] If you’re thinking about getting a Mac, you might want to check out their results. [...]

By: rpasken

rpasken — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:06:47 +0000

Here is what I find odd: If a single core G5 has a base score of 1000, then a dual processor G5 would have a similar performance to dual core Intel at the same speed Where is the benefit in an Intel processor? Considering that I can buy an IBM p5 system (G5 based) that is even faster than the Apple G5 why the switch to Intel