03-27-2012, 03:04 PM

32 bit!

07-10-2012, 06:43 AM

Here's the old girls geekbench

07-11-2012, 10:39 AM

I'm just curious as to why to use geekbench vs novabench which also includes GPU benchmarking...?

07-11-2012, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Nethfel

I'm just curious as to why to use geekbench vs novabench which also includes GPU benchmarking...?

There's probably no logical explanation for it from a factual standpoint.

One of my issues with Geekbench has always been it's lack of gpu testing. I think that quantifying the gpu aspect of todays computers is VERY important in being able to make logical buying decisions (new or used)...and just to see how a person's current computer stacks up against newer models.

Geekbench is probably one of the more well known benchmarking apps. Everymac.com uses it...and here's a fairly popular web link that is used for model comparisons:

Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

If Novabench is superior...I'm all for it. Actually...another very good & free benchmarking program (which tests both cpu & gpu) is Cinebench:

MAXON | 3D FOR THE REAL WORLD: CINEBENCH

- Nick

07-11-2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Nethfel

I'm just curious as to why to use geekbench vs novabench which also includes GPU benchmarking...?

Because geekbewnch only takes into account processor and RAM the places where intel excels. It's also not compatible with the newer Power Architecture so it can't show where x86-64 fails. Geekbench shows Mac's in the best light no matter whether it's Intels best light or Apples .

07-11-2012, 09:44 PM

Last weekend, I picked up a new MacBook Pro (13", i5) and decided to compare this to my old 08 MB (C2D). I ran three different tests - Geekbench, Novabench and a test I wrote myself (I couldn't get Cinebench to work on the old 08 MB and I didn't feel like trying again). Here's what I got:

image001.png

image002.png

image003.png

My test was quite simple. I timed how long it took the computer to count to 10,000,000 and added that to the time it took to create and delete 50,000 plain text files with the word "Test" in it.

07-11-2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by vansmith

Last weekend, I picked up a new MacBook Pro (13", i5) and decided to compare this to my old 08 MB (C2D). I ran three different tests - Geekbench, Novabench and a test I wrote myself (I couldn't get Cinebench to work on the old 08 MB and I didn't feel like trying again).

Pretty neat that you designed your own test...regardless of it's simplicity!

Regarding Cinebench. Was it version 11.5? If so...were you unable to run both the cpu & OpenGL (graphics) tests.

In case it wasn't version 11.5...here's the link:

MAXON | 3D FOR THE REAL WORLD: CINEBENCH

- Nick

p.s. Congrats on the new computer!!! Where did the "starving student" find the $$$$??

07-11-2012, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by pigoo3

Pretty neat that you designed your own test...regardless of it's simplicity!

Thanks. It doesn't test much beyond CPU speed and file I/O but it does help to show how much faster the new machine is. Surprisingly, both machines did the counting and file creation at relatively the same speed but the new machine was magnitudes faster at removing the files.

Originally Posted by pigoo3

Regarding Cinebench. Was it version 11.5? If so...were you unable to run both the cpu & OpenGL (graphics) tests.

Yeah, it was 11.5. It kept failing on the OpenGL tests.

Originally Posted by pigoo3

p.s. Congrats on the new computer!!! Where did the "starving student" find the $$$$??

Months of saving + student discount + living frugally.

07-11-2012, 11:42 PM

Congrats Van on the new MBP! Good going.

So Where can we download VanBench®??

07-12-2012, 03:49 AM

I'd quite like to use van bench too

07-12-2012, 08:20 AM

I wrote it for my use but I can certainly fine tune it such that it works for everyone else. I'll report back.

07-12-2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Germany_chris

Because geekbewnch only takes into account processor and RAM the places where intel excels. It's also not compatible with the newer Power Architecture so it can't show where x86-64 fails. Geekbench shows Mac's in the best light no matter whether it's Intels best light or Apples .

I guess I just don't feel that is a complete test of a system as graphical power directly plays into the overall functionality of a modern day system. So much of the GUIs now are enhanced by the GPU that only looking at the CPU and RAM is only looking at a smaller picture of the total environment. A simple example would be two systems side by side, one with a dedicated GPU and one without, but everything else the same - Geekbench would show them as basically the same system in terms of performance but that would be inaccurate because most likely the one with a dedicated GPU would outperform the non dedicated on many tasks that incorporate the GPU as well as the CPU.

07-15-2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nethfel

I guess I just don't feel that is a complete test of a system as graphical power directly plays into the overall functionality of a modern day system. So much of the GUIs now are enhanced by the GPU that only looking at the CPU and RAM is only looking at a smaller picture of the total environment. A simple example would be two systems side by side, one with a dedicated GPU and one without, but everything else the same - Geekbench would show them as basically the same system in terms of performance but that would be inaccurate because most likely the one with a dedicated GPU would outperform the non dedicated on many tasks that incorporate the GPU as well as the CPU.

More my concern is IO speed only because when have no really good way of cross platform benching between Nvidia and ATI. Cinebench is nice but doesn't let CUDA come into play. and back an fourth. I'm still not a Geekbench lover, it's just not a system test like xbench, but x bench has proven to unreliable and nor has it been updated in half a decade.

07-16-2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Nethfel

So much of the GUIs now are enhanced by the GPU that only looking at the CPU and RAM is only looking at a smaller picture of the total environment.

I really wish this trend towards GPU accelerating everything would stop because it went overboard (and continues to do so). For example, why do I need a GPU accelerated web browser? I don't. Do I need a fully accelerated desktop environment (I'm looking at you Windows and *nix)? No. I'm willing to guess that 90% of what is accelerated doesn't need to be and does little but showcase programming skill. This is above and beyond the major problem with GPU acceleration - it degrades the performance for anyone who doesn't have a decent GPU.

During the Opera 12 release cycle, they were testing GPU acceleration which, as a company that officially supports four platforms, is a tricky endeavour. During the development process, I tried the builds with it on and it was a disaster with no discernible improvement in performance. Thankfully, it isn't enabled by default. You've got me thinking though what kind of performance difference I might see with it on and off. Hmmm...off to testing I go!

07-16-2012, 10:26 AM

Agreed Van and well said.