: Benchmark results
May 13th, 2012, 06:03 PM
Tried out GeekBench for the first time with my mid-2010 13" MBP. Came out with a score of 3459, below the mid-2009 15" MBP. That doesn't sit too well with me. Mind you, I'm fine with the performance of my MBP, but, when I know it could/should be doing better- that makes me a bit disappointed and has me wondering what I can or should be doing to improve the results. In a previous post, I mentioned that BlackMagic Speed Tests were better after an SMC reset to get my Negotiated Link Speed to what it's supposed to be (3 Gigabits). I ran my GeekBench test with that particular Link Speed. Not sure how much GeekBench's results come from read and write speeds.
May 13th, 2012, 06:26 PM
Don't put a lot of store in GeekBench - it's only good when comparing two very similar things and "speed' and "fast' mean far different things depending on whether you are using AfterEffects say or Photoshop.
May 13th, 2012, 06:43 PM
I get 6067 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/665819) on my MBP
May 13th, 2012, 06:47 PM
10,060 with a bunch of apps running on my 2011 15".
May 13th, 2012, 07:02 PM
Thanks for rubbing it in, guys.
May 13th, 2012, 07:13 PM
These benchmarking apps really love multi-cored CPUs. My MBP has a quad core i7 that runs at 2.2GHz and gets a score of about 10,300. But my old Core Duo 2.0GHZ MB only got about 2,600. I know theres a huge leap in that score; but for some things there is not a whole lot of difference. I can still have multiple tabs open in safari, mail in the background, play music in iTunes and have a few other little things on the go and have pretty much the same user experience now in 2012 that I had back in 2006 with the old BlackBook (god rest its poor soul! lol!)
So to be honest these scores are pushing the machine far harder in some respects than you'd ever do in normal circumstances. As posted above; different apps have different demands. Some require heavy lifting of raw amounts of data, graphics, memory, hard drive dependent tasks etc...
May 13th, 2012, 08:01 PM
Very well put.
May 13th, 2012, 09:54 PM
2,914 on my Late-2006 iMac. lol. I agree with Chimpur, I don't think my machine is slow by any means. It runs at load with certain tasks but that's about it.
May 13th, 2012, 11:02 PM
Very true. I just put an SSD in our old iMac and it now flies and feels like a new machine. Sure it wouldn't crunch video like my newer MacBook can but for day to day work it is no different.
May 13th, 2012, 11:12 PM
Yup - the only time I notice the difference going back and forth from the 2.26 Core2 MPB and the 2.2 Quad is when I'm handling a lot of images.
Of course the 2.2 has 550 megs per second and 16 gigs of ram versus 150-200 and 8 gigs but as mentioned on day to day use it's not all that different.
One reason we adore the 2.4 and 2.26 unibody MacBooks - they just fly with an SSD, have incredible battery life, durable and cheap.
For day to day they are great and I was really surprised when a client opened a huge PS file and it was smooth and speedy ( some 3400 x 2800 or some such - I was shocked )
iMacs, MacBooks of all sort and MacPros can all benefit and really takes away some of the frustrations of the earlier machines.
Our 20" Alum iMac we use for admin is just sweet to use for any task.
May 14th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Yeah video encoding is way quicker on my MBP than any of my previous Macs. And some online flash content runs better too. But some tasks your at the mercy of outside influences. Downloading a file won't be much quicker on a new machine over an old one (well if it was the original wireless b airport compared to the new wireless n with MIMO then you could achieve faster speeds). But my point is that there are some things that you just can't speed up; even with the fastest 12 core Mac Pro even!