Author Topic: Geekbench score thread (Read 14380 times)

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

zwmalone · « **Reply #1 on:** Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:16:30 »

My Score

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.

xsphat · « **Reply #2 on:** Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:53:04 »

My Score

bigpook · « **Reply #3 on:** Sun, 07 September 2008, 13:54:30 »

My score

ashort · « **Reply #4 on:** Sun, 07 September 2008, 16:20:09 »

The iMac's score

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #5 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

jemkeys · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon, 08 September 2008, 06:53:53 »

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

There's my score

xsphat · « **Reply #7 on:** Mon, 29 September 2008, 21:35:24 »

Quote from: xsphat;8541

My Score

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

My Score

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #8 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

Hak Foo · « **Reply #9 on:** Tue, 12 October 2010, 00:51:00 »

I need to switch to DDR3

Rajagra · « **Reply #10 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

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.

timw4mail · « **Reply #11 on:** Thu, 14 October 2010, 06:12:38 »

Peh, i7.

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

mr_a500 · « **Reply #12 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?

mr_a500 · « **Reply #13 on:** Thu, 14 October 2010, 12:33:01 »

keyboardlover · « **Reply #14 on:** Thu, 14 October 2010, 12:48:20 »

My workstation (at work) is pretty beastly:

My score

instantkamera · « **Reply #15 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?

timw4mail · « **Reply #16 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.

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.

instantkamera · « **Reply #17 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

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

timw4mail · « **Reply #18 on:** Thu, 14 October 2010, 16:56:35 »

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

timw4mail · « **Reply #19 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

timw4mail · « **Reply #20 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

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

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #21 on:** Thu, 14 October 2010, 22:21:35 »

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

instantkamera · « **Reply #22 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

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

Rajagra · « **Reply #23 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.

Useful tip for Intel users: temperature readings are not reliable, especially without calibrating them. But if you use 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.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #24 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 19:59:44 »

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

instantkamera · « **Reply #25 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 ...

panda-R · « **Reply #26 on:** Tue, 11 January 2011, 21:35:58 »

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

7487

instantkamera · « **Reply #27 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

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

panda-R · « **Reply #28 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?

db_Iodine · « **Reply #29 on:** Wed, 12 January 2011, 02:09:55 »

9259
Just a little overclocked.

instantkamera · « **Reply #30 on:** Wed, 12 January 2011, 07:33:50 »

Quote from: db_Iodine;277260

9259
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)).

NimbleRabit · « **Reply #31 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.

kidchunks · « **Reply #32 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)

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...

2084 · « **Reply #33 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

instantkamera · « **Reply #34 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

nice memory scores.

db_Iodine · « **Reply #35 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.

instantkamera · « **Reply #36 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.

db_Iodine · « **Reply #37 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.

instantkamera · « **Reply #38 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.

instantkamera · « **Reply #39 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.

aynjell · « **Reply #40 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

didjamatic · « **Reply #41 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

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #42 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.

Nadger · « **Reply #43 on:** Wed, 12 January 2011, 15:37:37 »

My Score

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

instantkamera · « **Reply #44 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

instantkamera · « **Reply #45 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.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #46 on:** Tue, 01 February 2011, 10:52:27 »

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

Brian8bit · « **Reply #47 on:** Tue, 01 February 2011, 11:01:26 »

You're very testy today Rip...

instantkamera · « **Reply #48 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.

instantkamera · « **Reply #49 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.

News:

Author Topic: Geekbench score thread (Read 14380 times)