Macworld Forums: Speedmark 6.5 test results - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Speedmark 6.5 test results here

Question:
What are the results for a Mac Mini with 4Gb memory?
And a Mac Mini with 4Gb mempry and a 2.66Ghz cpu?

You should release this test as an app.

The test is actually a series of tests in commercially available apps, which is why we can't release it.

Hm. I was hoping to see my mid-2009 MBP 15" 2.8 GH on there.

Very nice job,

thank you.

13" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo 4GB RAM (Mid 2010)
iMovie '09 Export to iTunes 10 for iPhone
33 ???

That must be a typo, otherwise this would be almost twice as fast as the 12-core Mac Pro....

Why is it that the 13 inch dual core and 15 inch i5 both got a 137?

mojo66, on 07 October 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

Good eye. Fixed.

Do you guys still have the resources to test the last generation of macs and a few random ones? It's always interesting to compare scores that way and see what's what. (I've also got a Mid-09 MBP. ;-))

This is the most complete list I've seen. Thanks. Clearly the Westmere CPUs make the biggest difference, though the 27" iMac 2.93GHz Core i7 Quad-Core is impressive, too. What is surprising is that doubling the RAM makes little or no difference in your overall test scores; the same goes for doubling the cores in the Westmere Mac Pros. No doubt this has to do with the serial nature of most of your tests, which don't necessarily reflect real world condition where power users will run numerous apps at one time, working conditions which can take advantage of the additional RAM and CPU cores. Unfortunately, few applications have as yet been optimized for these advanced systems. Neither, for that matter, have most budgets been upgraded for the new high-end Macs.

cycomachead, on 08 October 2010 - 12:40 AM, said:

It depends on the availability. We try to keep the current line available for testing, but older machines tend to get used by people on staff. Sometimes we borrow Macs from Apple, and those machine have to be returned.

i want to get a new mac but i need to see real world test dealing with audio. i have been waiting to see an example of this for a while now and have not seen it yet. in my world i would run logic with 40 tracks and 4 to 5 processors on every track with safari open and mail and skype with a video conference with a client while im working. thats just how i work my situation currently is i have 5 to 6 instruments open at one time and my computer just can not handle that type of processing period. im on an "imac core duo, 4 gigs of ram".

This was very interesting to me as I am probably going to retire my older Mac Pro quad 2.66 and get a 27" iMac.

Within the article you mentioned some numbers/results that were directly influenced by the use of SSD storage. It seems to me a good additional story would be how to take some models that scored a bit less that people might already have and what to do to get more out of them. Though some additions to the system are somewhat out of reach for most, there are places that will do some upgrades other than Apple. I believe that both RAM and SSD can go a long way to improve performance of some systems.

Also, shouldn't there be some note about whether some systems benefit from more RAM? I know those are BTO from Apple but are worth testing so that people get a better idea of cost and performance. A Mac Mini might fair well with additional RAM as opposed to a lower line iMac etc.

Overall this article was for me a real find and enjoyable as well.