VaiOSX Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150870 http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150688 http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150801 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pion Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 man, these result are pretty {censored} lol. my Intel 650 beats it (score 76). edit; ops enter wrong number. 650 3.4ghz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryder Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 man, these result are pretty {censored} lol. my Intel 640 beats it (score 76). Yes, but for the price it's a nice machine. Your Intel 640 is a 3.2 GHz processor, with 800 MHz FSB, right? Just wait until Apple ships the Intel PowerMac's (I presume they will be called Mac Pro). That will be the power user's machine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaiOSX Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 what is the Xbench result for an ADP machine ? Anybody here can post it ? Also, it would be good if we can get Xbench results (with a 8f1111a version) from new PCs with a Core Duo CPU to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I don't think xbench does SMP so well, either, does it? And that machine doesn't have the fastest hard drive in it. Still seems slightly low though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykell9999 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 man that doesnt look good at all, my crappy p4 503 ( 2.66 ghz, single core, no HT ) machine has a score in the mid 60's, 66.xx more or less. i thought they were supposed to be 3 -4x faster............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjr1028 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 xbench isn't a very useful benchmark. Its results tend is differ depending on the time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berehon Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Just look in UI tests of new imacs. It cant be correct. I cant believe that GMA900 two-three times faster then x1600. It seems xbench doesn't love ati cards. BTW on xbench.com there is a note about this. Edited January 16, 2006 by berehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts