zaithe

Q: Geekbench Score Worse than slower computer?!

Here is my current benchmarks in 64 bit:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7274906

 

And in 32bit:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7274925

 

But these scores are better.. with a slower processor and less ram.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1103986

 

I have a 12 core 3.46Ghz processor with 64GB 1333mhz ddr3 ram with a PCIe sata 3 controller as the main disk going near 800MB/s

Mac Pro, OS X El Capitan (10.11.5), 12 core 3.46 Ghz, 64GB ECC Ram

Posted on Jul 8, 2016 10:25 PM

Close

Q: Geekbench Score Worse than slower computer?!

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Grant Bennet-Alder,Solvedanswer

    Grant Bennet-Alder Grant Bennet-Alder Jul 9, 2016 10:22 AM in response to zaithe
    Level 9 (60,976 points)
    Desktops
    Jul 9, 2016 10:22 AM in response to zaithe

    There are a few interesting areas where you fall slightly short of the other benchmark you cite. In almost all, you beat the other benchmark. Both are running on Mac Pro 5,1 systems. You are running 10.11, the other benchmark is running 10.10. You have all four memory slots populated, which is known to slow memory access by as much as ten percent in round numbers. The other benchmark is on a Mac with the 3 populated slots optimally interleaved.

     

    In Integer perfomance, only a few very complex multiple-core operations such as AES (encryption instructions), Sobel, Lua, Djistra fall short of the other benchmark -- all others are faster.

     

    In Floating point operations, all of yours are faster.

     

    In memory access, single-core are slightly slower, multi-core are quite a bit slower.

     

    It is possible the tests have not been constructed as a level playing field for the newer processor, or that changes in 10.11 system libraries have slowed some operations down. The memory difference may be mostly down to your use of the fourth shared memory slot. I would certainly ask the test developer about those differences.

     

    Overall, I would say the performance of the two systems on this test are roughly comparable.

  • by zaithe,

    zaithe zaithe Jul 10, 2016 5:20 AM in response to zaithe
    Level 1 (4 points)
    Desktops
    Jul 10, 2016 5:20 AM in response to zaithe

    Yes, I checked on the mac rumors thread and came to the same conclusion. It would be better for me to put 2 sticks on DIMMS 1-2 and 5-6. And probably even more if i get two more to put in 3 and 7. Thanks for your response. I will accept your answer.

  • by Grant Bennet-Alder,

    Grant Bennet-Alder Grant Bennet-Alder Jul 10, 2016 8:04 AM in response to zaithe
    Level 9 (60,976 points)
    Desktops
    Jul 10, 2016 8:04 AM in response to zaithe

    DIMMs in pairs is the organization required for the 2008 and older Mac Pro.

     

    2009 through 2012 Mac Pro optimally use triples, in slots 1,2,3 on one side, 5,6,7 on the other side. But the slowdown is not really that great, and mostly shows up on artificial tests. If you USE that memory in daily use, the price of not having it is FAR higher -- you will need to simulate the extra memory on your Boot drive instead, which can be 100 times slower.