![]() ![]() Plus, why are they used as a reference if they don't represent real life values? And why is it that the MBP get so poor xBench results (40-73, average 57) compared with the G5, when real life tests show that the MBP is a lot closer to G5 performance than these tests show (Dual G5 average: 220, Quad average: 190. ![]() To my surprise, the overall xbench score was at merely 60.37 A friend of mine has the previous version of the 15.4' MBP (not Santa Rosa). I know that these results depends of RAM configuration, graphic card and so on, but still: the results are really inconcistent, which makes be question how interesting benchmarks done by a benchmark program really are. I just ran xbench on my brand new MBP 15.4' 2.4 Intel Core 2 Duo with the 256MB GeForce 8600M GT inside. I would like to say that i thik i have a pretty good CPU, so why am i only getting 68 on my xbench scores If the benchmark results are set to a baseline of a 2GHz G5 then surely i should be getting somewhere near this I am currently running 10.4.5 natively, using the prepatched iso. Higher scores are better, with double the score. Plus, why are they used as a reference if they dont represent real life values And why is it that the MBP get so poor xBench results (40-73, average 57) compared with the G5, when real life tests show that the MBP is a lot closer to G5 performance than these tests show (Dual G5 average: 220, Quad average: 190. Geekbench 6 scores are calibrated against a baseline score of 2500 (which is the score of an Intel Core i7-12700). The results vary from 101 (actually, 23!) to 279. To make sure the results accurately reflect the average performance of each processor, the chart only includes processors with at least five unique results in the Geekbench Browser. I just had a look at some submitted benchmarks found at. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |