Contribute
Register

Post macOS/OS X Geekbench Benchmarks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huananzhi F8D + x2 E5 2678v3 + 128Gb Samsung DDR4 Reg ECC + OpenCore + Monterey

monterey.png

(Xcode benchmark, compare to Mac results)
xcode.png

cinebench.png

geekbench4.png
geekbench5.png
 
Last edited:

For a 2.5GHz Xeon 12-core x2: the Cinebench R23 and the GB 822 / 14454, these scores look right.

The GB4 score threw me for a moment, before I took it for what it is.

Amazing how new kit has outpaced this recently uber expensive elite Xeon.

Reminds me of what a bargain the M1 Studio is compared to previous offerings.

I hear legacy video like AfterEffects needs to stack frames in memory to run, so are RAM hungry up to a point, but even at 8K seems like 128G is a lot.

When you have to fill that RAM from a content project RAID5 spinner that runs at say 600MBs, you would wait 2 mins just to load half your system memory.

If you use large PCI4 2x striped SSDs you could get load time down 5 seconds, but then you have a time budget for getting project to/from shared storage for access by other project members. Soon you discover that project teamwork means that raw workstation power only means so much to productivity. Then you work backwards to how (somehow) feature movie projects were being cut using FCP and Avid on G4 / G5 back at turn of millennium, while FX houses were putting together phat render farms for hollywood features. You see credits listing thousands names involved in a 2 hr movie. And somehow before all this computer juju amazing spectacles were made from passing around strips of film.

Suddenly the power of a Mac Studio becomes unintuitive for ordinary use. "Look I'm browsing the web looking at text and pictures using 25x a Cray XMP!"

A CPU benchmark cannot tell us about how fast real work can get done. It only lets us compare generations of kit for basic computational chores.

A system that goes 2x more than another system allows a basic step of increased productivity. Changing how work actually gets done usually takes at least a 10x step.

After being through 40 years of steps, today, it seems we are at limits not of PC power, but limits of how people think about work and what one person's work can add as value to the culture. All signs are that as personal computing has advanced we have completely stalled on cultural advances and are maybe going backwards. I think Jobs would find himself bewildered at effects like the Anti-Vax movement, where computings promise fulfilled has left so many scared and resentful of its results, even as the technology provided the collective power to save their lives. Never mind NFTs.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" — H S Thompson.
 
I think Jobs would find himself bewildered at effects like the Anti-Vax movement, where computings promise fulfilled has left so many scared and resentful of its results, even as the technology provided the collective power to save their lives. Never mind NFTs.

Who's to say... Don't forget Jobs chose holistic healing instead of surgery to treat his cancer.
 
@smoothmove Your Ryzen 9 5950X CPU has 16-cores & 32-threads. Geekbench shows your CPU as having 8-cores & 32-threads. Maybe this is an issue in Geekbench, in which case you can ignore this message.

However, something may be set wrong. The most logical place to start looking for somthing not being set correctly is within the AMD patches in your config.plist. As the first three usually need to be amended and set with the correct core number for your CPU.
 
Just reserved my AMD Ryzen 7 5700X at my local Micro Center, picking it up in a couple of hours. But first I wanted to get one last bench in for the Ryzen 7 1700 and compare to other Mac SMBIOS using the same processor.

Screen Shot 2022-05-20 at 7.24.07 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Oops!, had the wrong memory settings before. Upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5700X on an A320 motherboard.

Screen Shot 2022-05-20 at 11.00.50 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Would you check Activity Monitor when your system is idle: enable View > All Processes and under CPU sort by %CPU to show greatest usage at top.

Do you find kernel_task using about 30-40% continuously on otherwise idle system?

Thx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top