








(11)
Your rating: Now say why...


| Downloads:75,696 |
| Version Downloads:41,892 |
| Type:Utilities : Optimizers |
| License:Free |
| Date:13 Aug 2006 |
| Platform:PPC / Intel |
| Price:Free |
Overall (Version 1.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
+1
+2
Jokyo reviewed on 27 Nov 2011
+3
+3
Mattes.hh reviewed on 13 Jul 2011
+942
The only thing Geekbench is missing is a hard drive benchmarking feature. Xbench has this.
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/20855/geekbench
+10
Rob06au reviewed on 14 Aug 2006
To add to previous post anyone who doesn't read the documentation is asking for problems.
Anonymous reviewed on 31 Jul 2005
While I am glad that more developers are releasing UB applications, I think this may represent a 1 step to the side two steps back approach for Xbench, merely because of the change in the baseline machine.
A Baseline was established and existed for months prior to this. Most of the benchmarks on current machines that exist on the web and many older ones use the older standard. Now everything must be recalculated and adjusted. This is find for the Xbench site (simple recalculation) and for the application except smaller numbers mean slightly lower levels of precision. For third party sites that did reviews based on the previous baseline set it becomes a task. Do you round each task up, round down, leave it alone? A lot of the old reviews can't get the hardware to do this sort of test again. So, I think a markdown for the benchmark is required. The step forward is just that we can get a test result from an intel based mac. Note: Although there weren't any/many intel specific optimizations performed, the intel part was compiled w/ gcc 4 while the ppc w/ 3.3? Sounds like it should be fair.
The text drawing (quartz) bug is still present; if you run it a couple of times the characters are mapped and the test result is about 4x larger than a first time run. For applications like this several runs should be done to get a good 'mark'.
So, if you want to compare your machine to reviews online you may want to keep your older xbench version around since this one doesn't gain you much.
-1
Anonymous reviewed on 05 Nov 2004
+3
Magnus Näsmark reviewed on 07 Sep 2004
Therefore I do not believe Xbench is a reliable tool for benchmarking. When looking at some results reported at XLR8YourMac is see the same thing happening.
Anonymous reviewed on 27 Feb 2004
Anonymous reviewed on 15 Jan 2004
-1
Anonymous reviewed on 29 Aug 2003
It gets low scores on features and ease of use because of the comparison problem.