MP All Models Geekbench 5 Extremely Low Score for Mac Pro 5,1

[MapleGreen]

Hi there
I've recently installed Geekbench 5
and in the first run I surprised with the extremely low scores and metal benchmark that failed!
I am on High Sierra 10.13.6 and RX580 GPU
It would be great if we compare scores with someone who installed macOS Catalina beta on cMP


this is Geekbench 5 release note :

• Geekbench 5 is 64-bit only, dropping support for 32-bit processors and operating systems. Geekbench 5 does not include any of the compromises required to run on 32-bit systems. This enables Geekbench 5 to include more ambitious benchmark tests with larger data sets and longer running times.

 

[handheldgames]

Perhaps this is what intels security mitigation’s in Fw 144.0.0.0 gave us? That or there is a bug causing the issue.

 

[bsbeamer]

All MP4,1/MP5,1 CPU's are basically EOL'd by Intel and no longer being updated for security vulnerabilities/mitigation. All mitigation methods provided are from Apple and software level, or require disabling HT to (at least partially) mitigate.

OP - was HT disable performed for this benchmark?

Also will say, this is a bad benchmark and has been for some time. Some people on this forum swear by it, but real world results are often much better (or much different) than what this benchmark will say.

 

[MapleGreen]

All MP4,1/MP5,1 CPU's are basically EOL'd by Intel and no longer being updated for security vulnerabilities/mitigation. All mitigation methods provided are from Apple and software level, or require disabling HT to (at least partially) mitigate.

OP - was HT disable performed for this benchmark?

Also will say, this is a bad benchmark and has been for some time. Some people on this forum swear by it, but real world results are often much better (or much different) than what this benchmark will say.

Hyper threading was enabled for this benchmark.
I have no problem in real life performance and I had really good Scores in Geekbench 3
3000 Single-score and 28000 Multi-score Approx.

 

[s.m.t.]

Mine was very similar to your results...

 

[Pressure]

Not sure why it should be a surprise. These Mac Pros are from 2009-2012. They are old and probably do not support many of the instructions used to speed up the sub level benchmarks. Just look at the Mac mini (Late 2018) candidly beating our dinosaurs.

 

[s.m.t.]

Not sure why it should be a surprise. These Mac Pros are from 2009-2012. They are old and probably do not support many of the instructions used to speed up the sub level benchmarks. Just look at the Mac mini (Late 2018) candidly beating our dinosaurs.

That’s what I assumed when I saw the score. They probably updated the tests to best stress more modern hardware. I don’t think the scores between 4 and 5 are comparable.

 

[MapleGreen]

Not sure why it should be a surprise. These Mac Pros are from 2009-2012. They are old and probably do not support many of the instructions used to speed up the sub level benchmarks. Just look at the Mac mini (Late 2018) candidly beating our dinosaurs.

I think performing this Benchmark on Catalina shows better Score
hope some one do this and share with us
[doublepost=1567631642][/doublepost]

That’s what I assumed when I saw the score. They probably updated the tests to best stress more modern hardware. I don’t think the scores between 4 and 5 are comparable.

I checked Geekbench site on version 5 section
other results are very low even newer processors
[doublepost=1567631900][/doublepost]

I think performing this Benchmark on Catalina shows better Score
hope some one do this and share with us
[doublepost=1567631642][/doublepost]

I checked Geekbench site on version 5 section
other results are very low even newer processors

this is top scores in version 5 so far

 

[tpivette89]

They are calculating the scores completely differently from Geekbench 4, so the scores between the two benchmarks cannot be compared.

Here is what my dual X5677s (w 48GB RAM) scored yesterday:



Meanwhile, this is the same setup in Geekbench 4:

 

[yurc]

No surprise there. Each time new iteration geekbench comes out, scores are always sliding down on newer version due different baseline CPU measurement.

At circa GB3, dual X5690 scores at 28.000~31.000
At circa GB4, dual X5690 scores at 17.000~20.000

GB5 seems more even worse.

I was start ignoring benchmark result when GB4 comes, because they tend to make me thinking my system are too slow and craving for newer latest and greatest hardware.

 

[Krevnik]

Geekbench scores are relative to a baseline CPU. Primate Labs outlines the baseline on their website:

"Geekbench 4 CPU and Compute scores are calibrated using a Microsoft Surface Book with an Intel Core i7-6600U processor as a baseline with a score of 4,000 points."

"Geekbench 5 CPU scores are calibrated using an Intel Core i3-8100 processor as a baseline."

With Geekbench 5, the baseline is also set to 1000 points, not 4000 like Geekbench 4.

 

[MIKX]

Initially quite confusing to be honest .

These grabs are Compute - OpenCL -MSI R 580 8gb.

Geekbench 4

Geekbench 5

 

[MIKX]

Definitely odd results with the GB Vs 5 COMPUTE benchmark.
How can there be such a discrepancy between my MSI RX 580 8gb and an RX 480 ) despite the two two GPUs being so related to each other ?

Also in the GB Cs, 5 singe/multi benchmark it shows my 32 gb of ECC ram's frequency as being 533 Mhz.

 

[smbu2000]

It looks like the compute comparison is using scores from Geekbench 4 and not the upated scores. That RX480 score is about 125k, which is close to the 135k score of your RX580 in Geekbench 4.

It looks to be the same with the CPU comparison scores as well. That i7-4790K multi core score would be close to double that of the 12core E5-2697 V2 in my 6,1 nMP in Geekbench 5.

 

[dustwashere]

Hi there

if that helps you. here are the results of the macbook pro 13 mid 2018 in Geekbench 5. MacPro 5.1 wins

 

[tpivette89]

Definitely odd results with the GB Vs 5 COMPUTE benchmark.
How can there be such a discrepancy between my MSI RX 580 8gb and an RX 480 ) despite the two two GPUs being so related to each other ?
View attachment 856168


Also in the GB Cs, 5 singe/multi benchmark it shows my 32 gb of ECC ram's frequency as being 533 Mhz.
View attachment 856169

DDR = Double Data Rate, so 533mhz x 2 = 1066. This is normal.

 

[dogslobber]

Try running GB4 which should make your computer faster.

 

[yurc]

Try running GB4 which should make your computer faster.

Yep, also running GB3 is make our dinosaurs cMP more faster lol.

But seriously everyone , don’t take seriously GB score too much. I was remembered some barefeats article in past which minds cMP low score on GB4 results during early GB4 launch and then those article now no longer available, I suspect barefeats retracted them.

Also, GB is performs in cherry picking manner. In order gain higher result, disable any background tasks, any monitoring tools, close all active apps and windows, clear all active program runs on menubar, use triple channel config (if cMP), geekbench should give better 10-20% better results compared compared computer in “normal state” with any background task active.

 

[RedTomato]

Sorry to resurrect this thread - Does anyone know where the Geekbench 4 Mac Benchmarks are? When GB5 came out, it seems they just wiped their GB4 Mac Benchmark charts. The only Mac Benchmark chart I can find now is only for GB5.

For me, I have a list of my macs with GB4 scores, and now I'm considering buying another second hand mac, it would be useful to know its prospective GB4 score to compare with what I already have. I'm sure many people will have their own reasons for wanting to look up the GB4 Mac Benchmarks.

 

[bsbeamer]

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu

Go to the Geekbench 4 pulldown at the top menu

 

[itdk92]

Not sure why it should be a surprise. These Mac Pros are from 2009-2012. They are old and probably do not support many of the instructions used to speed up the sub level benchmarks. Just look at the Mac mini (Late 2018) candidly beating our dinosaurs.

Turns out, only on the benchmarks, not on actual professional work luckily..

 

[RedTomato]

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu

Go to the Geekbench 4 pulldown at the top menu

That's the CPU list. That's not what I'm looking for. I wanted the GB4 version of the Mac Benchmark list.

It used to be at https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks but now that only shows the GB5 Mac Benchmarks.

 

[STC1709]

That's the CPU list. That's not what I'm looking for. I wanted the GB4 version of the Mac Benchmark list.

It used to be at https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks but now that only shows the GB5 Mac Benchmarks.

i was looking for this same thing yesterday, the GB4 has to be archived somewhere

 

[tommy chen]

@RedTomato

here are some geekbench4 CPU results of my cMPs

before i change to dual - the 3.33 single

dual 2.93

dual 3.33

dual 3.46

 

[LoneStarX]

Not sure why it should be a surprise. These Mac Pros are from 2009-2012. They are old and probably do not support many of the instructions used to speed up the sub level benchmarks. Just look at the Mac mini (Late 2018) candidly beating our dinosaurs.

I score 32,000 with MacPro 5,1 3.46GHz. That machine still smokes and I have 5 of them that I use in a Kubernetes cluster each with MC Geekbench scores of 28,000 - 32,000.