Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity › Forums › Creative Community Conversations › Geekbench on 4-core Mac Pro

  • Shawn Miller

    January 1, 2014 at 3:14 am

    [Michael Garber] “The local Apple Store got a 4-core Mac Pro today. Had a chance to check it out as most of the reviews I’ve seen have been on the 6, 8, and 12-core models. I ran Geekbench in 64-bit mode and Cinebench on the system. This was on the low-end 4-core with the D300.”

    What was the Cinebench score?

    Shawn

  • Bernard Newnham

    January 1, 2014 at 10:59 am

    As that didn’t mean much to me, I downloaded the trial Geekbench (32 bit only).

    My Core i5-2500 3.3ghz CPU ran –

    2890 single core
    9240 dual core

    Cinebench ran –

    CPU 448cb
    OpenGL 81.95fps

    – the cars racing around the city very smoothly on my GeForce GTX 460 PCi. More fps than the Macpro above, don’t know why.

    Not sure what all that means, but maybe it will give suitable contrast for others. I have the money to upgrade my gear, but currently I’m not rushing – though I don’t run Cinema 4d for a living. I don’t find great problems with editing 1080i.

    More important to me these days is that my 60Mb/s connection which allowed me to download Cinebench at 109MB in a few seconds. Virgin are vaguely promising faster for this year.

    Bernie

  • Gary Huff

    January 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    [Michael Garber] “The local Apple Store got a 4-core Mac Pro today. Had a chance to check it out as most of the reviews I’ve seen have been on the 6, 8, and 12-core models. I ran Geekbench in 64-bit mode and Cinebench on the system. This was on the low-end 4-core with the D300.”

    Did you have to install it yourself? I’m thinking about putting the current GPU beta of RedCineX on the display model here (if they have one) and running my typical test of a particular REDcode clip render from that. That’s the metric most important to me.

  • Daniel Frome

    January 1, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    [Michael Garber] ”
    Geekbench single-core: 3609
    Geekbench multi-core: 14452″

    For comparison, my retina macbook pro, i7 quad core 2.6ghz:

    Single Core: 2960 (Quad Mac Pro is 14% faster)
    Multi Core: 11528 (Quad Mac Pro is 21% faster)

    Some other food for thought: The Mac Pro’s CPU is mathematically 30% faster by pure numbers. Interesting law of diminishing returns that only delivers 14-21% increase in performance on a cpu test… probably ever lower in real-world usage. This has nothing to do with Apple, it’s just technology.

  • Michael Garber

    January 1, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    I didn’t get the CPU score when I was there. The FPS was 73.

    Michael Garber
    5th Wall – a post production company
    Blog: GARBERSHOP
    My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X

  • Craig Seeman

    January 1, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    Barefeats test which seems relevant if you’re considering speed between the two.
    https://barefeats.com/tube03.html

    Seems the iMac is very competitive until one sees the LuxMark test which is multi GPU aware. The dual D300s are a big advantage and this is against the iMac BTO 780M

  • Michael Garber

    January 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Yeah, I downloaded and installed it. A business specialist came over and we both bonded over it. But alas, I couldn’t leverage our new friendship to get a better discount.

    They actually still had FCP 10.0.9 on there. This is because the corporate departments for the disk images are closed for the holidays. So bring a copy of 10.1 with you as well.

    Michael Garber
    5th Wall – a post production company
    Blog: GARBERSHOP
    My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X

  • Pierre Jasmin

    January 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Actually not clear at first glance the test compares against a single Radeon 7970 on the 2010 Mac Pro(not an original card).
    RE:LuxMark here across different cards outside that machine.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-34.html

    Notice how this compute benchmark almost linearly grows as the GPU number increases (e.g. 7990 vs 7970, 2 vs 1 GPU test, it does not really double here as they clock down the second GPU on the card for electrical reasons)- and this means that the D300 is roughly a FirePro 7000 on that test.

    This is a compute only test, does not stress IO from RAM to VRAM and back etc…

    Pierre

  • Craig Seeman

    January 3, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    If only two 7970 or 7990 were possible.

  • Rick Lang

    January 3, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Craig Seeman:
    “Seems the iMac is very competitive until one sees the LuxMark test which is multi GPU aware. The dual D300s are a big advantage and this is against the iMac BTO 780M.”

    Although in the short term, the high-end iMac and high-end MacBook Pro Retina both look very good against the entry-level Mac Pro, during this year as more software is tuned to take advantage of the dual GPUs, the Max Pro will probably look much better for video work. The benchmark results are amazing and the current tuning of FCP X10.1 and Motion 5.1 mean that vendors will quickly respond to ensure their software remains competitive on the Mac Pro.

    Rick Lang

    iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

Page 1 of 2
1 2

Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy