Comments on: Mac Benchmark

By: dooder0001

dooder0001 — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:18:36 +0000

Chargrilled, poor flame. It’s a matter of choice. Is the on average 15% premium for a Mac worth it? In some cases, yes; in others no. I, for one, am much more productive on OS X, which I use at home, even though I have worked on Windows XP at work for over 2 years. However, you may not be. What I do know is that a lot of the technology that you take for granted was developed by Apple. Use Mac OS X for at least a year and then post here. Until then, you aren’t qualified to comment on Macs. Have a nice day.

By: blandname

blandname — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:24:12 +0000

Oh come on now chargrilled it’s just hardware. Buy enough of anything, link it together and it’s all good.
I hope that one day you will see the light and use all hardware extensively and come here and report what your numbers are!

By: Chargrilled

Chargrilled — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:27:16 +0000

I am sick of the Mac vs. PC argument. I am sick of all of you Mac freaks! Please do not say your Mac is some piece of technologically advanced machine. You Mac people suck. You are an extreme minority. Macs donâ€™t get viruses because people donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care about Macs. If Macs were popular yeah theyâ€™d get viruses but the fact is no one cares about them.

Macs are based on hype. You see Steve Jobs (apple ceo) rave on in Appleâ€™s web casts and how they are coming out with new hardware etc. Itâ€™s just plain boring. You people are a crappy little minority and you always will be, and hopefully one day I wonâ€™t have to keep reading about Macs because they will be discontinued.

By: jef

jef — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:22:41 +0000

It seems that whenever geekbench reports threaded rates, it combines the rates over all threads. For example, on my single-core processor, I get about the same rate for single-threaded tests and multi-threaded tests. However, with memory read and write, I get exactly half the score for multi-threaded as for single-threaded. Could geekbench be forgetting to combine the rates over all the threads for these tests?

By: Larry McCarty

Larry McCarty — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:05:08 +0000

Aloha from Maui,

I ran this test on my new iMac 2.0 (2gb RAM, 256MB Video, 500gb HD) and got 189.

I got curious and dropped into Parallels running Windows XP Pro and got 369.

Doesn't make sense that an emulated OS would score higher than a Mac running a native OS.

I haven't booted up bootcamp yet to run it but will and post.

By: Alex Weeks

Alex Weeks — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:33:02 +0000

I just setup a new VMware VI 3 lab. I'm going to run this on some of my new VM's and see how they perform. I'm dying to know what kind of score I can get from them.

I'll post results on my website in a few weeks: http://www.vi411.org/

Thanks.

By: LPZ

LPZ — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:14:40 +0000

Needed a Firmware Update

This application led me to discover that my just purchased iMac needed a firmware update.

My first run yielded a score of 178.6 and listed my processor as Genuine Intel(R) CPU 1500 @ 2.00GHz. (See http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&id=55 )

After installing iMac (early 2006) Firmware Update 1.0.1, my score was 190.8 and my processor was listed as Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2500 @ 2.00GHz. (See http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&id=704 )

I noticed a number of other results for iMac (early 2006) in which the processor was listed as Genuine Intel(R) CPU 1500 @ 2.00GHz. I suspect that those machines need their firmwares updated too.

Glad I ran this application, and I hope this helps others.

By: John Martinez

John Martinez — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:09:52 +0000

What about Solaris? Should be a simple recompile.