geekhack

geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: iMav on Sun, 07 September 2008, 05:37:16

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: iMav on Sun, 07 September 2008, 05:37:16

Playing around with geekbench and though it would be cool to see results from other members.

My score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=75920)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: zwmalone on Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:16:30

My Score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/75981)

I'll have to boot into Ubuntu and see if it makes a difference.

And then, I'll drag my dying PowerMac G4 Quicksilver out of the closet and do that too.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: xsphat on Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:53:04

My Score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/75988)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: bigpook on Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:54:30

My score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/75987)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: ashort on Sun, 07 September 2008, 16:20:09

The iMac's score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/76001)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: D-EJ915 on Sun, 07 September 2008, 23:25:56

1GHz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=76051
2.2GHz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=76053

go figure, lol.  This is of course with my computer running for a few days with lots of crap open so not the best scores but are indicative of real-world performance...

and my score from 5 months ago, apparently also at 1GHz http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/49658

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: jemkeys on Mon, 08 September 2008, 06:53:53

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/76098

There's my score

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: xsphat on Mon, 29 September 2008, 21:35:24

Quote from: xsphat;8541

My Score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/75988)

This was with my old MacBook, this is with my new one:

My Score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/79590)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: D-EJ915 on Mon, 11 October 2010, 23:13:51

Core 2 Quad @ 3.52GHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299161

Opteron 6128 @ 2GHz
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299691

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Hak Foo on Tue, 12 October 2010, 00:51:00

I need to switch to DDR3 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299726)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Rajagra on Tue, 12 October 2010, 04:38:22

Quote from: ripster;232803

You need a real processor.

You mean like my i7?
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299794 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299794)

Only running Geekbench in 32-bit mode unregistered mode. Still, 9128 doesn't seem bad for a two year old system.

Edit> Two year old system overclocked from 2.67 to 3.48GHz that is:


And my old workhorse, used for non-gaming stuff, scores 2217 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/299807).

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: timw4mail on Thu, 14 October 2010, 06:12:38

Peh, i7.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300494

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mr_a500 on Thu, 14 October 2010, 06:28:20

Bah! Geekbench is not available for BeOS or Amiga?? What the hell? :wink:

Should I just post my AIBB Amiga benchmark?

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mr_a500 on Thu, 14 October 2010, 12:33:01

 :blank:

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 14 October 2010, 12:48:20

My workstation (at work) is pretty beastly:

My score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300622)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 14 October 2010, 13:35:13

Quote from: timw4mail;233668

Peh, i7.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300494

What is with those low mem scores? Can you run the same under nix?

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: timw4mail on Thu, 14 October 2010, 13:51:58

Quote from: instantkamera;233820

What is with those low mem scores? Can you run the same under nix?

Not sure what the deal is with the memory speed either.
(http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/1416368.png) (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1416368)

Maybe reverting back to my default timings of 7-7-7-20 would give me better results.

As for Linux, an installer doesn't seem to exist for Gentoo.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 14 October 2010, 14:18:00

Quote from: timw4mail;233826

Not sure what the deal is with the memory speed either.

Show Image

(http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/1416368.png) (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1416368)

Maybe reverting back to my default timings of 7-7-7-20 would give me better results.

As for Linux, an installer doesn't seem to exist for Gentoo.

dont need an installer, it uses the standard c/c++ libraries included with either 32 or 64 bit machines, so the precompiled script can be run from command-line.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/geekbench/Geekbench21-Linux.tar.gz

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: timw4mail on Thu, 14 October 2010, 16:56:35

That's better:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300729

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: timw4mail on Thu, 14 October 2010, 19:17:40

Quote from: ripster;233918

Damn that's nice - over 10K.  I was going to wait until 8 cores came down for my next build but that's pretty impressive.

It's my overclocked multi-threaded monster gaming/folding machine. And not a spec of Intel or Nvidia :P

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: timw4mail on Thu, 14 October 2010, 20:52:28

Quote from: ripster;233963

Oh yeah,  I meant to say I'm waiting for Intel's affordable 8 core.

Affordable Intel? That's an oxymoron :p

Actually 32-bit and 64-bit have different scores.

32bit: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300792
64bit: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300791

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: D-EJ915 on Thu, 14 October 2010, 22:21:35

HP Z400 2.66GHz 12GB ram http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300809

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 15 October 2010, 06:37:14

Quote from: timw4mail;233953

It's my overclocked multi-threaded monster gaming/folding machine. And not a spec of Intel or Nvidia :P

Its a bit better, but I am certain you would post mad digits from a *nix install.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Rajagra on Sat, 16 October 2010, 20:29:41

I doubt I can get my early i7 up to 4GHz without naughty voltages, but I nudged it up to a reliable 3.7GHz and a GB score of 9648 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/301542).

Useful tip for Intel users: temperature readings are not reliable, especially without calibrating them. But if you use RealTemp (http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/) for monitoring it tells you how far you are from "TJMax", i.e. are you below the maximum safe temperature, and that's all you really need to know.

Edit> More thrust, Scotty!!!


Getting me past the magic 10K mark: 10038 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/301689).

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: microsoft windows on Tue, 19 October 2010, 19:59:44

I should upgrade my Gateway2000 to Windows XP and then check to see the Geekbench score.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 11 January 2011, 21:25:38

new build:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=341313

Overall Geekbench Score:      9761

I call a bit of BS, as I was forced to run the 32 bit binary on my 64bit machine.
Which makes me wonder where it pulls all it's info from?

Quote

Operaing System: Linux 2.6.36-ARCH[strike] i686[/strike]

no:

Quote

2.6.36-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Jan 8 14:15:27 CET 2011 x86_64

Quote

Motherboard   Unknown Motherboard

no:

Quote

Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes
System Information
        Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
        Product Name: GA-890FXA-UD5

tsk tsk, we have DMI for a reason people.

Anyway, when I tried running the 32bit bin on another workstation it segfaulted, leading my to believe that something gets lost in translation so to speak. I'd love to rock the 64nit bin to see, but apparently we have to pay ...

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: panda-R on Tue, 11 January 2011, 21:35:58

I don't overclock, but sometimes I watch naughty movies on my computer.

7487 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341319)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 11 January 2011, 21:39:45

Quote from: panda-R;277160

I don't overclock,

nor do I ... yet

Quote

but sometimes I watch naughty movies on my computer.

7487 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341319)

Likewise. Sadly, I have to run 32bit binaries for that too. Totally limits my bone-width :(

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: panda-R on Tue, 11 January 2011, 22:31:07

Quote from: instantkamera;277162

Likewise. Sadly, I have to run 32bit binaries for that too. Totally limits my bone-width :(

64bit binary naughty movies are more bone-nerific?

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: db_Iodine on Wed, 12 January 2011, 02:09:55

9259 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341393)
Just a little overclocked.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 12 January 2011, 07:33:50

Quote from: db_Iodine;277260

9259 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341393)
Just a little overclocked.

I was going to say 3.2 -> ~4 isn't a little (although it IS common with our proc), but then I see my freq. listed as 3.62. So unless you have torbo-core turned off, im assuming your base clock is 3.6ish? It must report the highest speed achieved?

Im also surprised to see your score is a chunk lower than mine, we have essentially the same computer, your has the OC advantage, and you appear to be using ddr3 1600 where as I have mine set to the absolute lowest @ 1333 (even though I have MORE RAM, I dont see that to be really tested in this bench, only bandwidth). Do you have a linux installation? (I have been contending for some time, looking at these scores, that the linux libs perform better in certain areas (mem)).

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: NimbleRabit on Wed, 12 January 2011, 07:53:52

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341461

So low, makes me sad =/.  I'll have to overclock later and see how much of a difference that makes.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: kidchunks on Wed, 12 January 2011, 08:28:16

Quote from: ripster;277191

OCN's Sandy Bridge Overclocking guide gave me a headache. (You have to be registered - Link (http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/908782-sneak-peak-my-sandy-bridge-overclocking.html))

Maybe Sandy Bridge WILL be the end of OverClocking and hence OCN?

Well, from what I read they may be releasing two diff cpus. One for the avg joe who doesn't want to OC and one for the OC enthusiast.

Reminds me of evga's superclocked cards...

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: 2084 on Wed, 12 January 2011, 09:11:36

Haven't got geekbench installed right now, but highest score was with a hackintosh somehow, 15months ago, which I rarely boot anymore.

10441 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/174760)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 12 January 2011, 09:22:39

Quote from: 2084;277332

Haven't got geekbench installed right now, but highest score was with a hackintosh somehow, 15months ago, which I rarely boot anymore.

10441 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/174760)

nice memory scores.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: db_Iodine on Wed, 12 January 2011, 09:43:41

Quote from: instantkamera;277294

I was going to say 3.2 -> ~4 isn't a little (although it IS common with our proc), but then I see my freq. listed as 3.62. So unless you have torbo-core turned off, im assuming your base clock is 3.6ish? It must report the highest speed achieved?

Im also surprised to see your score is a chunk lower than mine, we have essentially the same computer, your has the OC advantage, and you appear to be using ddr3 1600 where as I have mine set to the absolute lowest @ 1333 (even though I have MORE RAM, I dont see that to be really tested in this bench, only bandwidth). Do you have a linux installation? (I have been contending for some time, looking at these scores, that the linux libs perform better in certain areas (mem)).

Turbo off, steady 4GHz. The turbo just boosts the speed of one core, so I'd rather boost all of them manually, and have "cool & quiet" turned on.

I have only windows installed on this computer and linux on my laptop, so I can't compare the two. The OS might make some difference there.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 12 January 2011, 10:03:06

Quote from: db_Iodine;277346

Turbo off, steady 4GHz. The turbo just boosts the speed of one core, so I'd rather boost all of them manually, and have "cool & quiet" turned on.

I have only windows installed on this computer and linux on my laptop, so I can't compare the two. The OS might make some difference there.

I understand turbo to boost up to three cores, no?

I am def going to have a crack at OCing this ***** once I get the stock cooler off.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: db_Iodine on Wed, 12 January 2011, 11:04:15

Quote from: instantkamera;277356

I understand turbo to boost up to three cores, no?

I am def going to have a crack at OCing this ***** once I get the stock cooler off.

You're right. Somehow I had the idea it was only one.

I managed to get my cpu at 4.4GHz semi stable (Passed most tests, but failed on Prime95), but I never wanted the highest possible clocks for 247 use so I lowered it down to 4.0GHz. It's fairly easy to OC with the current generation cpu's and mobos. At least you can't really break anything with OCing if you use common sense.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 12 January 2011, 11:08:51

Quote from: db_Iodine;277382

You're right. Somehow I had the idea it was only one.

I managed to get my cpu at 4.4GHz semi stable (Passed most tests, but failed on Prime95), but I never wanted the highest possible clocks for 247 use so I lowered it down to 4.0GHz. It's fairly easy to OC with the current generation cpu's and mobos. At least you can't really break anything with OCing if you use common sense.

Yeah, it's crazy how easy they make it, and yet they cant even apply the proper voltage for a stock CPU. I had to set vcore myself because My STOCK cpu was given 1.45v or something in the BIOS. I set it to a more reasonable 1.325 for now.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 12 January 2011, 11:24:23

interesting, highest score ever (so far):
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/318534

49034

48 cores and 128GB ram. **** me.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: aynjell on Wed, 12 January 2011, 13:14:34

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341561

Work machine, without closing out all my work apps or really doing anything besides install->run. not the greatest, not the worst. I can work on it just fine. plus it has 4 monitors. :O

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: didjamatic on Wed, 12 January 2011, 13:47:42

Too bad you can only test a single system/OS, I'd love to see my VMware server cluster results if I could pool it's resources.  :)  Actually, I could create a VM and assign it all of those resources and run their test.  But I'd have to shut down production systems to do that.

80 Xeon X5570 cores
320GB RAM
NetApp SAN over iSCSI w/20TB Fiber Channel and 50TB SATA

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: AndrewZorn on Wed, 12 January 2011, 14:10:42

9669, but I might have to try to run it again after restarting/closing programs/etc.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341574

I like benchmarking my i7 860 because 3.8ghz sounds pathetic, but the 860 beats the 920 (that everyone else bought) at similar clocks (sort of).  Doesn't change the fact that my overclock should be better, but it's nice to prove to myself the 860 was the better choice.  Integrated southbridge is nice too if like single cards.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Nadger on Wed, 12 January 2011, 15:37:37

My Score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/341596)

Though im too cheap to pay for it so it was running in 32bit mode.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 01 February 2011, 10:29:43

I tried a bit of an overclock... 3.6 base with 4Ghz turbo on stock cooler, just for fun. I was able to break 10000, i got 10846:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349227

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 01 February 2011, 10:50:46

Im not keeping the OC (for now) as I had to really push voltages to even get it there (which isnt much of an OC), but I had left the memory timings and speed at "safe" settings to make sure all was well when I originally built this box. Im now going to manually set those to where they SHOULD be, and I think that alone will get me to ~10000 even. I would be happy with that for a "stock" machine.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: microsoft windows on Tue, 01 February 2011, 10:52:27

Geekbench is  stupid because  it  won't  run  on  my 486.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Brian8bit on Tue, 01 February 2011, 11:01:26

You're very testy today Rip...

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 01 February 2011, 11:03:37

Quote from: microsoft windows;288296

Geekbench is  stupid because  it  won't  run  on  my 486.

geekbench will run on any x86 hardware.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 01 February 2011, 11:09:00

Quote from: ripster;288295

I'm going to cheat and just get the highest score without bothering with Prime95.

What is the best burn-in program these days?

Funny enough, geekbench is actually a good indicator of stability (or INstability, at least). If voltage is just a hair low, it would hang during FP LU Decomposition, if voltage was even more inadequate, I get a kernel panic.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: EverythingIBM on Tue, 01 February 2011, 15:05:10

I feel sad.... here's mine:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349346 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349346)

1609 :sad:

But apparently it has the "IBM IBM Bios". I'm skeptical now.
(and I actually have 4GB of memory; but the computer reserves a gig to itself always, and I'm running x86 anyways)

EDIT:
if you want some fun trivia, the motherboard is always stated as MSIS instead of MSI... don't know why. One cool thing about the mobo is that it has a gold pin to hold the CMOS battery in, and a lavender PCI-e x16 lever.

EDIT#2:
I had a better idea, I looked up other models of 6225 IBMs:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=6225 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=6225)
They all have the same motherboard obviously, but the scores vary. Apparently mine got the lowest 0_o
The highest score has the same bloody [strike]processor as I do[/strike], the SAME MODEL!

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mr_a500 on Sun, 24 April 2011, 13:32:57

Oooh, now I'm up to a whopping 1780 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/400534).

(at least it beats my previous 244)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: audioave10 on Sun, 24 April 2011, 14:00:50

Score...4286.
I didn't bother to save it online.
E8500 @ 3.8Ghz
4 GB DDR2 1000 RAM
GTX 275 896MB
WD 640GB Black

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: reaper on Sun, 24 April 2011, 21:04:28

^ Then I fail (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/400676). =(

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: audioave10 on Sun, 24 April 2011, 21:08:08

That 6-core is wicked!

Hey, Ripster, with that UEFI board you can easy OC that to a 4.5Ghz - 4.8Ghz range with no stress.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: vils on Mon, 25 April 2011, 05:34:02

Not bad for a typewriter (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/400798)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: iMav on Mon, 05 September 2011, 08:22:37

Not bad for a mobile i5 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/476399)

This is in a new Mac mini.  Thought about getting the quad-core i7 (server edition).  But wanted the better discrete graphics.  As far as getting the mobile i5 over the i7?  I was impatient and took whatever they had at the local Apple store.  :)

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 05 September 2011, 08:42:58

I got 6581 for my Thinkpad X220 Netbook. Seems pretty decent for a Netbook eh?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25869[/ATTACH]

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: bavman on Mon, 05 September 2011, 11:12:18

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/419548 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/419548)

My pc running hackintosh. Although i heard you can score about 1k higher with the 64-bit paid version, but who would waste their money on that?

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: sam113101 on Mon, 05 September 2011, 15:26:47

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/476595
Not bad.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: IvanIvanovich on Thu, 08 September 2011, 12:56:51

1224 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/478325)-HTPC

130 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/478361)-Retro Gaming

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: verbel on Fri, 09 September 2011, 15:00:57

Quote from: ripster;336742

10,770 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/392938).

Geekhack is the only place I know where lower is better.

Ripster is that score with your CPU over clocked? I have pretty much the same setup except I have a ASRock MB and I get 8592.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: keyboardlover on Fri, 09 September 2011, 15:03:15

Call me Mr. Taco bell, I can make your ASRock!

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: verbel on Sat, 10 September 2011, 04:02:38

Thanks I'll try giving it a read through. Gonna take a while its a bit of a jungle.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Index on Sun, 11 September 2011, 00:41:40

My score (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/479625)

Hrm, seems ok =/

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Xuan on Mon, 12 September 2011, 19:03:13

mine (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/480539). Thinkpad X201 notebook.

Quote from: keyboardlover;410840

I got 6581 for my Thinkpad X220 Netbook. Seems pretty decent for a Netbook eh?

(Attachment) 25869[/ATTACH]

 
Not netbook, Notebook.

Title: Geekbench score thread
Post by: forTruce on Mon, 12 September 2011, 23:31:42

Quote from: ripster;232780

Still got those beat. (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280974)

Those early necro-thread scores crack me up.  BigPook - I TOLD you to get a Intel Quad!

I'm callin' you out Ripster...
:) (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/480615)

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mistakemistake on Tue, 07 August 2012, 01:10:40

This thread is hella old. Let's see some new scores?
15,008 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/880144)

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Nadger on Tue, 07 August 2012, 22:24:50

New Score: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/928759
Old Score: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/341596

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Anynoupy on Wed, 08 August 2012, 08:14:04

There's my score (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/929633) :)

The 1156 i7 CPUs seem to still be doing great, and it's largely enough for my everyday use !

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: funkymeeba on Wed, 08 August 2012, 22:41:38

Here's my home Linux machine: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/931466

Since it gives few details on my machine, it's a stock Xeon E3-1230 processor on an ASUS P8B WS motherboard. My particular Linux is Funtoo. Not a bad score for a machine that uses a rather low amount of power.

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mistakemistake on Wed, 08 August 2012, 22:42:58

Quote from: funkymeeba on Wed, 08 August 2012, 22:41:38

Here's my home Linux machine: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/931466

Since it gives few details on my machine, it's a stock Xeon E3-1230 processor on an ASUS P8B WS motherboard. My particular Linux is Funtoo. Not a bad score for a machine that uses a rather low amount of power.

OHHH the E series Xeon! Nice!

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: WRXChris on Wed, 08 August 2012, 23:02:33

2600k @ a modest 4.5GHz/1.32V, ASUS P67 Sabretooth MB, 8GB GSkill 1600 9/9/9/24, Win 7...  best rig I've ever built!

13,452 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/931491)

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: The_Beast on Wed, 08 August 2012, 23:25:02

11812 w/ 3770k, I was expecting more but I have no OC and only 8Gb ram
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/931537

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: csm725 on Thu, 09 August 2012, 05:11:30

2500k @ 4.4, 16GB 1600MHZ RAM, some open programs:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/932097
10,552

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: Hak Foo on Tue, 04 September 2012, 00:25:35

Stupid question: why does browser not show correct CPU speed?

Mine:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1002724


At stock, 8337.  So basically, your 33 percent overclock is getting you about 25 percent more performance.

Title: Re: Geekbench score thread
Post by: mistakemistake on Wed, 11 September 2013, 09:51:39

how am i still winning?