Geekbench

This still ONLY In Intel Mac software in 2022? Are you still in 2016?

Geekbench is a great app and does exactly what it's designed to do. I really like to compare my computer to others to see where I can focus on any improvements possible. It's on sale on their site for $4.99, a no brainer.

Frankly very hard to understand what improvements have been done.... - the benchmark inteface (on 10.13) rolled back to light instead of dark as it was on v.4.4.2 - the scores... (tested on i3 Haswell) with v.4.4.2 scores 6.185 multi with v.5 scores 1.185 multi Now what implementations or improvements can cause a loss of +5000 points on same machine a little different score maybe would have more sense since some values have changed into the application, BUT +5000 points its simply ridicolous Giving 1 star since there's no way I can call this "reliable" now

Best in class

WTF?! You have to let it snoop your machine unless you pay first. No go.

It's unfortunate that versions of OS X prior to El Capitan are no longer supported. It would be nice if they made the system requirements for all platforms more obvious to keep users from wasting time trying to get Geekbench working on systems running operating systems that don't meet the software's requirements.

why comes the "direct" update later than with this thread here ?! my geekb. shows 3.1.5 curently the "newest" ...

Mactracker provides CPU benchmarks for the majority of the Mac models, including the variants within the same model line, where the CPU speed differs. Since the list of Apple models is finite (large, but finite) and the specs are consistent between models, I would think there would be little variance in benchmark results for a specific model, once a particular model (for example, a "iMac10,1") is tested and the results posted, whether posted by Mactracker or just other users with the same model. So if I own a iMac10,1 at 3.06GHz for example, why should I or should I not expect that my benchmark result would be significantly different from that listed in Mactracker, for the same iMac10,1 @ 3.06GHz? If the answer is yes, it could be significantly (+/- 5%) different, then I would say, why? if the answer is no, i should expect pretty much the same result, then running the same benchmark when test results for a model have already been posted, seems redundant? If one suspected there was a problem with their system, yes, running a benchmark might help troubleshoot a problem, but if it's just to gauge and compare between models, I would think the results posted in Mactracker are sufficient for comparison. BTW, I'm not advocating that you shouldn't use Geekbench. I can see a use for memory benchmarking, as people do buy third party memory and would want to compare brands or the impact of more/less memory.

Can someone at MacUpdate amend the system requirements to OS X 10.6.6? Geekbench re-added Snow Leopard just one day after the 3.0.0 release, in version 3.0.1. http://www.primatelabs.com/geekbench/release/geekbench3.html

Is 3.1.0 being pushed via the automatic update mechanism? Even a day after MacUpdate announced that 3.1.0 was available, 3.0.2 is still the latest version available on the Primate Labs web site.

Just to let folks know, updating to version 3.0.2 via the usual update process through the application update menu item will not work. You get a dreaded "not properly signed" alert. But updating through MacUpdate Desktop works just fine.

The system requirements for Geekbench 3 appear to be 10.7.5 or greater, not 10.5.8 or greater as listed by MacUpdate.

best tool for cross platform comparison, fair pricing policy over the years, recommend it highly, bought version 3 (cross platform)

How fair is geekbench? To all the GB enthusiasts here: One thing to consider is that scores can be very different between two versions of GB! I've tried v220 against v227 on an iMac G5 running OS 10.5.8: - v220 score = 1044 - v227 score = 1365 This is apparently because they introduced new tests for newer computers and OSes. I had to use v220 because it's the last one supporting Tiger and that's funny to notice that my 10.4 partition gave a 1281 score, which appears a lot better than Leopard in v220 and slightly worse in v227... Other trials on a more recent Intel mac gave worse results with OS 10.8 than with 10.6... In the end, the most important thing is the day to day ‘feeling’ in current tasks and those benches are not really telling you much about that. ;-) (the same applies for a given app that may be not optimized for your system, which ruins its performance, no matter the amazing score it has... the worse being the Finder, the all-time weakest and slowest part of OSX) Anyway, when comparing OSes or computers, be sure to use the same version everywhere, if you want coherent results! (and possibly use the root user to be sure you haven’t anything running in the background ;-)

Great to compare my old slow iMac with the latest models. It remembers me I have to buy a new one asap. :-)

Use it everytime I get a new mac, a great tool!

Whats new: Removed support forPowerPC-based Macs....... Requirements: PPC/Intel, MacOS 10.4...

Great to compare your machine with others. The price is a bit steep though.

is it normal for the 64-bit test in 2.2.0 to be 4-5% lower than what's reported in 2.1.13? i've run both versions several times back to back and the 2.2.0 score is consistently lower.

I just love benchmarking. It is cool to compare with others on-line. Price is a bit high imo