# The official ehMac GeekBench Square Off!



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

GeekBench is a really cool, popular Mac program that provides a comprehensive set of benchmarks engineered to quickly and accurately measure processor and memory performance of your Mac. And, its made in Canada by one of our own ehMac members. :clap:








We're going to have a little fun contest. (Winner gets bragging rights of having the fastest Mac on ehMac. Here's what you do:

*[edit - Promo expired Dec, 2010. Get Geekbench 2 from the Mac App Store!]*

*1. Go get GeekBench.* Use promo code *EHMAC* to receive $10 off GeekBench to purchase it for only $9.95 US. (Or use their Get It Free option)

*2. Run GeekBench on your Mac.* (Make sure you are only running GeekBench. It may help to reboot your computer before running)

*3. Submit your results to the MacBench website* and create your profile

*4. Post your MacBench score here and link to your MacBench online profile* to prove your score.

Let's see who's got the fastest Mac! :heybaby:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here's my score *[email protected]*$*#@es 

3733

My GeekBench Score. 

Uhgh... Uhgh.... Can you feel it? Huh! You like that? Come on! Come on! Bring it!


----------



## shooting_rubber (Mar 22, 2008)

3206.

My Geekbench Score.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

I only got 6695 on my Hackintosh. 

Hackintosh : Geekbench Result Browser

A7


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

shooting_rubber said:


> 3206.
> 
> My Geekbench Score.


Aright, he steps up! But... nice try.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

a7mc said:


> I only got 6695 on my Hackintosh.
> 
> Hackintosh : Geekbench Result Browser
> 
> A7


What the heck is a Hackintosh!?!?!  No way, no way, I call cheating!  I want to go to the judges on that one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> I only got 6695 on my Hackintosh.
> 
> Hackintosh : Geekbench Result Browser
> 
> A7


Sorry the challenge was who's got the fastest *Mac* not the fastest install of OSX. You're disqualified as you don't have a Mac.  beejacon


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> Sorry the challenge was who's got the fastest *Mac* not the fastest install of OSX. You're disqualified as you don't have a Mac.  beejacon


YES! The judge has spoken! I've still got the fastest Mac hotrod. No one can dethrone me, or know one dares to try. :lmao:

_(Ok, just let me know when the fake trash talk starts to get too annoying) _


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ehMax said:


> YES! The judge has spoken! I've still got the fastest Mac hotrod.




I beg to differ! While I don't support the notion of Apple losing out to Psystar (or the German company that surfaced recently), I say those hearty souls who hacked OS X onto their PC are people, too!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macaholic said:


> I beg to differ! While I don't support the notion of Apple losing out to Psystar (or the German company that surfaced recently), I say those hearty souls who hacked OS X onto their PC are people, too!


No one says they aren't people , they just don't own Macs and this contest is for who has the fastest Mac. You can't race an Indy car in a Stock Car race and vice versa, that's all that is being said.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

Just so things are clear... I've owned real Macs for many years, and I do own a Macbook Pro. This was not a PC I hacked OSX onto... it is a computer I built from the ground up to be better than a Mac Pro (at the time). It has more ports, it's slightly faster, considerably cheaper, and even quieter. It even has an Apple logo on the side of the box, just like a real Mac.  And I own a real legal copy of Leopard.

Until Apple releases a desktop under $2000, I'm sticking with the hackintosh.

A7


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> No one says they aren't people , they just don't own Macs and this contest is for who has the fastest Mac. You can't race an Indy car in a Stock Car race and vice versa, that's all that is being said.


I agree... So are you stepping up to the plate with your Mac Pro Quad, or are you afraid my MacBook Pro will still spank it. :heybaby:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> YES! The judge has spoken! I've still got the fastest Mac hotrod. No one can dethrone me, or know one dares to try. :lmao:
> 
> _(Ok, just let me know when the fake trash talk starts to get too annoying) _


Yeah, well just wait till I get home and can run the test, we'll see who is trash talkin then. :heybaby:


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

screature said:


> No one says they aren't people , they just don't own Macs and this contest is for who has the fastest Mac. You can't race an Indy car in a Stock Car race and vice versa, that's all that is being said.


Ok then... what is a "Mac"? I guess the single criteria for it being a Mac in your opinion is that it is sold by Apple.

My computer does EVERYTHING a real Mac can do. So why isn't it a Mac?

A7


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I agree... So are you stepping up to the plate with your Mac Pro Quad, or are you afraid my MacBook Pro will still spank it. :heybaby:


I'm at work right now, so it will have to wait a few hours. Besides I want to let a few people get a head for a while so they can feel good about themselves before me and my Quadie smoke 'em.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> Ok then... what is a "Mac"? I guess the single criteria for it being a Mac in your opinion is that it is sold by Apple.
> 
> My computer does EVERYTHING a real Mac can do. So why isn't it a Mac?
> 
> A7


Wasn't made by Apple, not that hard to figure out. Plain and simple.

You may own a PC, but it doesn't make it a Dell just because it runs Windows. 

I also dare say you have to jump through a few hoops when it comes to some updates that the rest of us don't.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

This thread is veering into the realm of the absurd. Pity. "Hackintoshes aren't Macs"?? Like, isn't there some CURIOSITY as to how the Hackintoshes performs? And it's supposed to be a light-hearted thread. Let's leave any anal retention out of it and let the Wookie win for God's sake. 

(ok, let's have TWO categories of races: One, a "Cupertino" category, and the other an "Open" category for any and all PCs -- Apple branded or otherwise -- running Mac OS X. All people put your scores in this one thread like normal. Those who don't like Hackintoshes -- the "Cupertino" category -- simply IGNORE the Hackintosh entries)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

fwiw my 2.4GHz MBP got:

64 bit: 3542
32 bit: 3195
Under Rooooossssseeeeettttttttaaaaaa: 1591


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macaholic said:


> This thread is veering into the realm of the absurd. Pity. "Hackintoshes aren't Macs"?? Like, isn't there some CURIOSITY as to how the Hackintoshes performs? And it's supposed to be a light-hearted thread. Let's leave any anal retention out of it and let the Wookie win for God's sake.
> 
> (ok, let's have TWO categories of races: One, a "Cupertino" category, and the other an "Open" category for any and all PCs -- Apple branded or otherwise -- running Mac OS X. All people put your scores in this one thread like normal. Those who don't like Hackintoshes -- the "Cupertino" category -- simply IGNORE the Hackintosh entries)


So far you and a7mc are the only ones who aren't being light hearted.  Sure post your Frakenmacs scores if you feel you must, but just because it runs on OSX it doesn't make it a Mac and that is just the plain simple truth.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

screature said:


> So far you and a7mc are the only ones who aren't being light hearted.  Sure post your Frakenmacs scores if you feel you must, but just because it runs on OSX it doesn't make it a Mac and that is just the plain simple truth.


My take is you're just jealous you had to spend twice as much for less performance. But what do I know. 

You seem to be confusing a Mac and an Apple. You're right, I don't own an Apple computer. Just like I don't own a Dell computer. But the real question (which I clearly asked in my last post) is *what is a Mac*? If you're so narrow-minded to think that a Mac is strictly a computer created by Apple, then so be it. Some of us like to "think different".

This is my last comment on the matter, so we can keep the thread on track. 

A7


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

for the record i don't own a hackintosh, nor am intersted in making one, nor do I hope Apple is forced to release OS X for any PC as a result of any legal challenge. just curious how they tape out. that's all


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macaholic said:


> fwiw my 2.4GHz MBP got:
> 
> 64 bit: 3542
> 32 bit: 3195
> Under Rooooossssseeeeettttttttaaaaaa: 1591


Link or its not real.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> You seem to be confusing a Mac and an Apple. You're right, I don't own an Apple computer. If you're so narrow-minded to think that a Mac is strictly a computer created by Apple, then so be it. Some of us like to "think different".


A Mac is made by Apple. Period. Think "different" all you want. Some things are defined and are definable. What constitutes a Mac is one of them, just because you want it to be otherwise, doesn't make it so. You could have the fastest computer on the planet for all I care that cost half of what I spent and I wouldn't be jealous, because it isn't about that. 

If you take a Ferrari engine and put it in a Chevy pickup, it doesn't make it a Ferrari. If you can't understand that then oh well, there's nothing else to say.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ok... let's move on. Feel free to post reports from any system running the Mac OS, but only actual Apple made Macs will count towards dethroning me as current reigning champ.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Ok... let's move on. Feel free to post reports from any system running the Mac OS, but only actual Apple made Macs will count towards dethroning me as current reigning champ.


Enjoy it while you can mayor, just wait till I get home...


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Freebie demo at 32-bit: 8887

Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

*I win!*

Hey i am gonna win.

I have an ultra fast score of 219! 

PowerBook G3 (FireWire) : Geekbench Result Browser

Morgan


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

64-bit: 10,264

Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ScanMan said:


> 64-bit: 10,264
> 
> Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


Holy Crap!! I just got my butt kicked and I haven't even had a chance to run the test yet!! There is no way my old 2.66GHz quad is going to beat that!


----------



## machael (Apr 27, 2008)

4160. 

My 4GB of Certified arrived this morning c/o CanadaRAM.com (as well as my 1GB for my faithful G4 800MHz!) :love2:


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

The slowest is me... 

Just notice how slow my laptop is. Now I am that guy that says "Dreaming of a faster Mac, but just can not afford it" lol

Morgan


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Now 10,294. 

It's kinda like xbench in that you should run it a few times to find your sweet spot. This is where I net out...she ain't got no more.

Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Well I did smoke you Mr. Mayor, but ScanMan has me beat by a country mile. :-(

5966


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Geekbench is awesome. Chealion - Geekbench 2 Results : Geekbench Result Browser

Anyway, my home computer gets 4558. iMac (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## Z06jerry (Mar 16, 2005)

*3018* - BlackBook 2.2 - 4GB/320GB/7200
*2796* - Unibody MacBook 2.0 - 2GB/160GB/5400
*3187* - Unibody MacBook 2.4 - 2GB/320GB/7200


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

OK while this is fun and all, without a read and write test from and to the hard disk, this isn't really that much of a real test of your system's performance.

For example somebody with a 10K plus ranking (who shall remain nameless) could have a 5400 rpm hard drive with 2MB cache. Whereas someone with a 6K ranking (who shall also remain nameless) could be running a system drive stripe 0 RAID array with 2 x 10K rpm 16MB cache VelociRaptors.

Not that this is the case, but I think a real complete benchmark needs to take into account ones read and write times from and to your hard disk as well. And there are no sour grapes involved here at all!  :lmao:


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

screature - GeekBench isn't really designed to be a complete computer benchmark (especially because it's aimed at being cross platform)



> Geekbench provides a comprehensive set of benchmarks engineered to quickly and accurately measure *processor* and *memory* performance. Designed to make benchmarks easy to run and easy to understand, Geekbench takes the guesswork out of producing robust and reliable benchmark results.


I'd send jfpoole a note that adding something to benchmark disk throughput as well might be something worth looking into.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Wow, some really fast Macs here!

All I have to say is, I still have the fasted MacBook Pro.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

screature said:


> without a read and write test from and to the hard disk, this isn't really that much of a real test of your system's performance.


Totally agree. My machine gets slaughtered in xbench because of it's LAME-O 8800 vid card and middling Seagate 750 boot disk. 

I had a nice RAID thing happening in my old G4 that kicked it up a notch, but I need four separate internal drives now, and perhaps my hot rod Lincoln days may sadly have come to an end.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

I should add some of my own results to this thread, shouldn't I? Well, here are the scores for my Mac Pro:

32-bit: 4956 Mac Pro : Geekbench Result Browser
64-bit: 5866 Mac Pro : Geekbench Result Browser
Rosetta: 2422 Rosetta : Geekbench Result Browser

Not the highest scores here, for sure, but at least they're higher than ehMax's scores!


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

5800

Early 2008 4-core 2.8GHz MacPro. 

What's interesting is that Screature's 2.6GHz 4 core MacPro, with the same amount, but slightly slower RAM and a slightly smaller L2 cache had a slightly better score than my MacPro which you would think would be slightly faster. What HD are you using, Screature? My boot drive is a Hitachi 750GB, 7200 RPM.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> 5800
> 
> Early 2008 4-core 2.8GHz MacPro.
> 
> What's interesting is that Screature's 2.6GHz 4 core MacPro, with the same amount, but slightly slower RAM and a slightly smaller L2 cache had a slightly better score than my MacPro which you would think would be slightly faster. What HD are you using, Screature? My boot drive is a Hitachi 750GB, 7200 RPM.


Hey Paddy I don't think the hard drive has anything to do with it as Geekbench doesn't perform a read and write test. However I run a a RAID Array stripe 0 as my system drive with 2 x 10K rpm 72GB WD Raptors (1st Gen).

Yours is the single processor quad core and there are some architecture differences that could account for the different (lower) benchmark. [The 2.8 has a faster front side bus a single quadcore so you only have one 16000Mhz front side bus, (the bus is 300Mhz faster ). But you only have one for all four cores whereas with the the 2.6 quad you have two 1300Mhz buses one for each processor so one bus/2 cores.]

It seems that Geekbench isn't very consistent with the results that it returns. I ran it about 3 times with the 5966 being the first result. The subsequent ones came in slower, about the range you reported. So maybe try running it again and who knows maybe you will get a higher result.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

> But you only have one for all four cores whereas with the the 2.6 quad you have two 1300Mhz buses one for each processor so one bus/2 cores.


Ah - that's probably it. Wasn't thinking about that aspect. 

I did run it again, but with Mail and Safari running and got a slightly lower score - no surprise. Given that my score was higher than the previously recorded high score for a single core 2.8 GHz MP, I figure it's pretty good. And it's over 2.5X the score of a DP 2.5 GHz G5, which is what I had until it leaked last fall and Apple replaced it with this MacPro. I decided to forgo the $500 upgrade to the 8 core machine because I don't do video and after talking to a couple of people at Apple came to the conclusion that I wouldn't see much difference. The $500 was probably better spent elsewhere on the RAM upgrades and the hard drives now stuffed in all 4 of its bays!


----------



## normcorriveau (Dec 6, 2005)

My MacBook Pro 4195

and 

My Mac Pro 11173


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ncorriveau said:


> My MacBook Pro 4195
> 
> and
> 
> My Mac Pro 11173


D'oh!  I've been dethroned from having the fastest MacBook Pro. 
:clap:


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

Geekbench for PowerMac: 3374.

In 64-bit 3658. But it keeps putting up a "This result has been flagged as inaccurate." Not really sure why that is.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

ncorriveau said:


> My MacBook Pro 4195
> 
> and
> 
> My Mac Pro 11173


Nice machines. Smokin'! And I like how your 3GHz Pro is tops among its peers. That's the icing on the cake.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ncorriveau said:


> My MacBook Pro 4195
> 
> and
> 
> My Mac Pro 11173


Wow great speeds!!!


----------



## normcorriveau (Dec 6, 2005)

ScanMan said:


> Nice machines. Smokin'! And I like how your 3GHz Pro is tops among its peers. That's the icing on the cake.


Considering how old it is (over a year) I expect to get beat any minute by someone with a newer Quad. Welcome to technology!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

My Mac Pro Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser 9760


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Cliffy said:


> Geekbench for PowerMac: 3374.
> 
> In 64-bit 3658. But it keeps putting up a "This result has been flagged as inaccurate." Not really sure why that is.


Yeah, that's a problem that's been fixed in Geekbench 2.1.2. Sorry about that!


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Yeah, that's a problem that's been fixed in Geekbench 2.1.2.


What am I missing? Your link leads to 2.1.1.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ScanMan said:


> What am I missing? Your link leads to 2.1.1.


Goes to 2.1.2 here.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

For me it goes to the 2.1.2 thing (at the bottom). Click on it, then it goes to a page offering flavours of 2.1.1...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

ScanMan said:


> For me it goes to the 2.1.2 thing (at the bottom). Click on it, then it goes to a page offering flavours of 2.1.1...


I forgot to update the website with the new version number. I just updated the website (if you hit reload you should see the new version number) but Geekbench 2.1.2 downloads have been active since this morning. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

jfpoole said:


> Yeah, that's a problem that's been fixed in Geekbench 2.1.2. Sorry about that!


Ok thanks, it works now! No warning showing on my result.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

*The new 2GHz Mini*

Just tested a new Mini at the Apple Store -- 32 bit only, unfortunately, as the demo version of Geekbench does not allow for 64 bit testing:

Macmini3,1 : Geekbench Result Browser


btw one new iMac is in but the Pros are not in the store yet.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

And here is the new 2.93GHz 24" iMac

iMac9,1 : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My MBP 2.2 Ghz - 4 GB RAM

MacBook Pro (Mid 2007) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macaholic said:


> Just tested a new Mini at the Apple Store -- 32 bit only, unfortunately, as the demo version of Geekbench does not allow for 64 bit testing:
> 
> Macmini3,1 : Geekbench Result Browser
> 
> ...


That is actually pretty darned good!


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

7975

But, i have 8 apps running and one is Toast encoding a video.....so i will test again in the morning and see what i get.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

8389 32 bit

9479 64 bit


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Mac Pro (Early 2008) - 2 * Quadcores, 4 GB RAM, ATI 3870 -->> 9114 (32 bit test)


----------



## lara (Mar 15, 2009)

The G3 Man said:


> Hey i am gonna win.
> 
> I have an ultra fast score of 219!
> 
> ...


Has anyone "beaten" this score yet?

L


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> 8389 32 bit
> 
> 9479 64 bit


What machine is that? From your other honkin' xbench score, I thought you were running one of the newer units.


----------



## rb42 (Jan 21, 2005)

*3861* oh well.....


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

9187 with my Mac Pro


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It is one of the new units 2.66 quad but this program does not test the drive speed and the Velociraptor is right quick


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> It is one of the new units 2.66 quad but this program does not test the drive speed and the Velociraptor is right quick


...aah, that's it. My boot HD kills me on xbench.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I really don't know what they used as a reference drive because nothing touched the Xbench scores and I've had Raptor RAIDs up against it. It was a flaw in the program.

The VRs don't show their true speed in most tests - they do real world incredibly - sustained above average but the aggregate performance is astounding and the fast i/o of the new machines enhance that.

The 2.66 is perhaps the best personal box.

It's not quite as quiet as the 2.8 and not quite as truly unstoppable ( Sherman tank comes to mind ) but the 2.66 is more agile if that makes sense.

Apple really has to make the 2.26 into a 2.66 to make any sense at all.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

MacDoc,

Nice insight, thanks.


----------



## rampancy_fatalin. (Dec 17, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> It is one of the new units 2.66 quad but this program does not test the drive speed and the Velociraptor is right quick


I know you mentioned this before, but how did you get the Velociraptor to fit in the Mac Pro's drive bay? I thought it was physically incompatible (i.e. the plugs for the SATA and power cable didn't match up).


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

My iMac: 2364 geekbench score

My Dell Mini 9 hacintosh: 915 geekbench score 

I'll do my iBook later and insert it into this post.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> know you mentioned this before, but how did you get the Velociraptor to fit in the Mac Pro's drive bay? I thought it was physically incompatible (i.e. the plugs for the SATA and power cable didn't match up).
> __________________


VRs have always been compatible in the optical bay and are now standard pin out config so a 5 x VR array is possible


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*13538* 2.26 12 gigs 64 bit 

Well that honks on paper don't it.

Not too shabby on the 32 bit either 11835


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> *13538* 2.26 12 gigs 64 bit
> 
> Well that honks on paper don't it.


That's wicked, alright. But over the years, I've learned to resist temptation. When I had a IICX, I would have killed for a IICi.

O.K., I traded the damn thing for a IIci.

Don't post stuff like this. It's just making me twitchy again.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes that would be 16 processing functions

4870 card is tres snappy. :clap:

From Xbench

Memory Test....................298.08	
Quartz Graphics Test.......253.40	
OpenGL Graphics Test......213.24	
User Interface Test...........343.57


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> ...Apple really has to make the 2.26 into a 2.66 to make any sense at all.


Hey Doc have you seen that you can now get a 2.93GHz single processor Quad and a 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz dual processor 8 core Mac Pros. When did they quietly slip these options in?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Did not know about the single 2.93 - Apple clearly is tinkering.
Knew about the others.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Did not know about the single 2.93 - Apple clearly is tinkering.
> Knew about the others.


They were surprisingly quite about it. I looked back at the RSS feeds and I can't find anywhere they were announced and when. I wonder why? I mean when the new Mac Pros first came out this year, there basically were only 2 CPU configurations available, now there are six, you think they would have come out with at least a little fan fare.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Hey Doc have you seen that you can now get a 2.93GHz single processor Quad and a 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz dual processor 8 core Mac Pros. When did they quietly slip these options in?


FWIW, (BTO options are easy to miss)



> Build to order options and accessories include: *one 2.93 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor for the quad-core Mac Pro; two 2.66 GHz or two 2.93 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors for the 8-core Mac Pro*; up to 8GB for the quad-core Mac Pro and up to 32GB for the 8-core Mac Pro of 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory; up to four 1TB Serial ATA hard drives running at 7200 rpm; Mac Pro RAID card; up to two 18x SuperDrives with double-layer support; ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics with 512MB of GDDR5 memory; AirPort Extreme® 802.11n; Apple Keyboard, Apple Wireless Keyboard; Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse; Mac OS® X Server Leopard. Complete build-to-order options and pricing are available at Apple - Mac Pro - The fastest and most powerful Mac ever..


Source: Apple Introduces New Mac Pro (Apple's Press Release when they were announced)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

That's really strange Chealion because I know when the new Mac Pros were first posted on the Apple site there were only two options available, the single processor Quad 2.66GHz and the dual processor 8 core 2.26GHz.

The link to the Macworld review of March 23, 2009 indicates this as well Quad-Core and Eight-Core Mac Pros (2009 editions) . No mentions what-so-ever of a 2.93GHz Quad core or of 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz 8 cores.

Apple may have announced them on March 3, 2009 in their press release but they sure weren't available as BTO options at the Apple store when they first went on sale.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Apple may have announced them on March 3, 2009 in their press release but they sure weren't available as BTO options at the Apple store when they first went on sale.


Which store were you using? The Canadian store or the US Store? I know myself for work I was checking the prices (and developer pricing to compare) of the 2.93 Quad Core, and the 2.66 Octo Core on the day they came out. (The BTO options). I think we need some twilight zone music.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chealion said:


> Which store were you using? The Canadian store or the US Store? I know myself for work I was checking the prices (and developer pricing to compare) of the 2.93 Quad Core, and the 2.66 Octo Core on the day they came out. (The BTO options). I think we need some twilight zone music.


Really weird (Canadian Store) because me too and as I say even Macworld in their article listed only two options and this was March 23!

Direct quote:

"_Last year’s standard Mac Pro featured a 2.8GHz eight-core Intel Xeon processor based on the Harpertown/Penryn architecture. *This year, there are two models: a quad-core system with a 2.66GHz Nehalem Xeon processor, and an eight-core model running two quad-core Xeon processors at 2.26GHz. *Also new to the Mac Pros are Nvidia GeForce GT 120 graphics cards and a revamped interior designed to ease user access for upgrading internal components._"

They tested them, which begs the question if there were more models available at the time (especially faster ones) why would the speed test the two slowest models?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

screature - The two models are the "base" models, just as with the Early 2008 version there was only one "base" model that you could select and then BTO your computer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chealion said:


> screature - The two models are the "base" models, just as with the Early 2008 version there was only one "base" model that you could select and then BTO your computer.


No I know Chealion, that isn't the point I was trying to make, when I looked when they first came out I could have sworn there were no other BTO options for the processor (I am apparently loosing my mind :yikes. It is very strange that in the Macworld review, there was no mention of other BTO processor options. In their review they only make mention of the 2.66GHz quad and 2.26GHz 8 core. Surely as responsible and informed journalists if they knew of other processor options and consequential price differences they would make mention of them. But apparently not.

Having now searched other reviews I see that many of them do make mention of the BTO processor options, so clearly I have become blind and or had a seizure while I was looking at the BTO options because I clearly missed them.

I think this is the beginning of my slow decline...:-(


----------



## Freakin (Feb 3, 2009)

Very odd,
I scored 9116 with all of my usual apps open, Safari, Mail, iCal, etc. After a reboot and just running the test, I scored lower with 9090. they're not that far off, but that seems odd that it would go down. I'll look a bit deeper to see what sections affected it.

PS, this is a 2.8 8-core early 2008 MP with 10GB and standard GeForce 8800 GT.

I'll try out the others in the house later tonight to see how they fare against it.


----------



## Freakin (Feb 3, 2009)

I tried it again with some basic apps open and got a higher number, 9220. As expected though, it dropped significantly with Final Cut open.
Mac Pro (Early 2008) : Geekbench Result Browser


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

maximusbibicus said:


> 9187 with my Mac Pro


9798 w/ 10GB or RAM instead of 2GB


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

Freakin said:


> PS, this is a 2.8 8-core early 2008 MP with 10GB and standard GeForce 8800 GT.


There is nothing standard about that machine - wowawee!


----------



## mc_shizzel (May 16, 2009)

13604 from my Mac Pro.

First post


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc_shizzel said:


> 13604 from my Mac Pro.
> 
> First post


Nice going! Welcome to ehMac!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't usually resurrect old threads, but I wanted to let folks know that the ehMac Geekbench coupon expires on Monday, December 13th. If you haven't taken advantage of it already now's your last chance!


----------

