MP5,1 CPU Upgrade to x5690, GeekBench results low

[diavolo770]

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Pro to dual x5690's from the stock E5645's. I've been watching YouTube videos documenting the results and everything I've seen shows results around 25,000 (give or take) on the multi-core score.

Here's my 'before' Geekbench score:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11006212

and here's the 'after':

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11557092

I'm only seeing an improvement of between 500-600 points on both the single and multi core scores.

I didn't get a Cinebench score before I upgraded but the post-upgrade score comes out to 1513 - 1612 across half a dozen tests.

I'm running the latest version of GeekBench with Mojave 10.14.2 (both pre and post upgrade) so my last-luster performance improvement is both disappointing and not making a whole lot of sense. I realize synthetic benchmarks aren't the best representation of real-world performance so I'm doing some other CPU-intensive tasks to see if I can "feel" a marked improvement.

Can anyone offer some insight to why my performance hardly improved?

 

[t8er8]

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Pro to dual x5690's from the stock E5645's. I've been watching YouTube videos documenting the results and everything I've seen shows results around 25,000 (give or take) on the multi-core score.

Here's my 'before' Geekbench score:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11006212

and here's the 'after':

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11557092

I'm only seeing an improvement of between 500-600 points on both the single and multi core scores.

I didn't get a Cinebench score before I upgraded but the post-upgrade score comes out to 1513 - 1612 across half a dozen tests.

I'm running the latest version of GeekBench with Mojave 10.14.2 (both pre and post upgrade) so my last-luster performance improvement is both disappointing and not making a whole lot of sense. I realize synthetic benchmarks aren't the best representation of real-world performance so I'm doing some other CPU-intensive tasks to see if I can "feel" a marked improvement.

Can anyone offer some insight to why my performance hardly improved?

Are you sure there wasnt any background tasks running like backups or anything else open while you were doing these new tests, I always find I get the highest score after a fresh reboot on a geekbench test, although this minor improvement is kind of an anomaly ive never seen.

 

[h9826790]

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Pro to dual x5690's from the stock E5645's. I've been watching YouTube videos documenting the results and everything I've seen shows results around 25,000 (give or take) on the multi-core score.

Here's my 'before' Geekbench score:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11006212

and here's the 'after':

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11557092

I'm only seeing an improvement of between 500-600 points on both the single and multi core scores.

I didn't get a Cinebench score before I upgraded but the post-upgrade score comes out to 1513 - 1612 across half a dozen tests.

I'm running the latest version of GeekBench with Mojave 10.14.2 (both pre and post upgrade) so my last-luster performance improvement is both disappointing and not making a whole lot of sense. I realize synthetic benchmarks aren't the best representation of real-world performance so I'm doing some other CPU-intensive tasks to see if I can "feel" a marked improvement.

Can anyone offer some insight to why my performance hardly improved?

The score looks very normal to me

 

[t8er8]

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Pro to dual x5690's from the stock E5645's. I've been watching YouTube videos documenting the results and everything I've seen shows results around 25,000 (give or take) on the multi-core score.

Here's my 'before' Geekbench score:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11006212

and here's the 'after':

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11557092

I'm only seeing an improvement of between 500-600 points on both the single and multi core scores.

I didn't get a Cinebench score before I upgraded but the post-upgrade score comes out to 1513 - 1612 across half a dozen tests.

I'm running the latest version of GeekBench with Mojave 10.14.2 (both pre and post upgrade) so my last-luster performance improvement is both disappointing and not making a whole lot of sense. I realize synthetic benchmarks aren't the best representation of real-world performance so I'm doing some other CPU-intensive tasks to see if I can "feel" a marked improvement.

Can anyone offer some insight to why my performance hardly improved?

You were on westmere 6 core already, you were basically only gaining a higher clock so it might not be that bad

 

[diavolo770]

Are you sure there wasnt any background tasks running like backups or anything else open while you were doing these new tests, I always find I get the highest score after a fresh reboot on a geekbench test, although this minor improvement is kind of an anomaly ive never seen.

I shut down as many background tasks as possible and disabled as much as I could such as Creative Cloud sync, OneDrive and Google Drive background sync, Time Machine, etc... before I ran the bench the first time. I'm using Monity to watch the CPU temps and fan speeds which all seemed to be at reasonable level at idle and while under load.

So, after about an hour sitting at idle while I was researching the problem, I ran Geekbench again and the first test after sitting got me a multi-score of 26,354 and one more yielded 25,314. I've rebooted a couple times and re-run Geekbench with similar results.

Initially I thought that maybe I didn't give it enough thermal paste and it was throttling but the temps never indicated that. Letting it "settle in" doesn't seem like a very scientific explanation so I'm going to keep digging into it.

 

[Fooze]

It looks like you are using 64gb of RAM. Are they configured as 8x8GB stocks? Try removing the sticks in slot 4 and 8. Your Geekbench score will go up significantly, but real world performance will be less noticeable. Cinebench score is not affected by the number of RAM sticks used.

 

[aslowdodge]

Out of curiosity, what does removing ram from slots 4 and 8 do?

 

[Fooze]

These Xeon Westmere X5600 series processors have a triple channel memory controller. Slots 3/4 and 7/8 are shared. This drastically affects the scores in Geekbench which has several tests that max out the memory bandwidth. Real world performance isn't nearly as drastic.

Here's one of many posts where this topic is discussed.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/triple-channel-memory.1581022/

 

[pl1984]

It does seem odd that a 40% clock increase would result in a 4% increase in multithreaded core score. I did notice you used two different versions of GB between the scores. Perhaps that might help explain the low increase in score?

 

[h9826790]

It does seem odd that a 40% clock increase would result in a 4% increase in multithreaded core score. I did notice you used two different versions of GB between the scores. Perhaps that might help explain the low increase in score?

GB4 multithread score is non linear, super hard to understand and compare.

 

[pl1984]

GB4 multithread score is non linear, super hard to understand and compare.

I feel a 40% increase in clock speed should result in more than a 4% increase in multithread GB score. Even the single thread score is only 20% higher.

 

[hugoZA]

Something wrong with your score. I just upgraded to x5690 today and the result are at the link below:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11577925

 

[h9826790]

Something wrong with your score. I just upgraded to x5690 today and the result are at the link below:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11577925

OP’s RAM is not in the optimum triple channel config. That has a huge impact in GB4 score.
[doublepost=1547017366][/doublepost]Anyway, IMO, GB4 is not that “stable” as GB3.

In GB3, we can really predict the score and the result usually fall within that range. Even though RAM config or background can still affect the score, but just few %. Won’t make the user “panic”.

But in GB4, just little bit deviate from the optimum situation can result in a very large penalty in score. Definitely not in a linear scale. Really hard to understand and compare the result.

 

[pl1984]

OP’s RAM is not in the optimum triple channel config. That has a huge impact in GB4 score.

It may not be the optimal configuration however I would expect, all else being equal, a 40% increase in clock speed would result in more than a mere 4% increase in multithreaded score. Wouldn't it be ironic if he configured the memory to its optimal state and he observed more than a 4% increase in multithreaded score?

Anyway, IMO, GB4 is not that “stable” as GB3.

In GB3, we can really predict the score and the result usually fall within that range. Even though RAM config or background can still affect the score, but just few %. Won’t make the user “panic”.

But in GB4, just little bit deviate from the optimum situation can result in a very large penalty in score. Definitely not in a linear scale. Really hard to understand and compare the result.

I'm no fan of GB but one thing it should be reasonable for is to measure performance changes due to changes made to the same system. If a 40% increase in processor clock isn't represented by more than a 4% increase in multithreaded score than GB is a completely useless benchmark.

 

[h9826790]

It may not be the optimal configuration however I would expect, all else being equal, a 40% increase in clock speed would result in more than a mere 4% increase in multithreaded score. Wouldn't it be ironic if he configured the memory to its optimal state and he observed more than a 4% increase in multithreaded score?

I'm no fan of GB but one thing it should be reasonable for is to measure performance changes due to changes made to the same system. If a 40% increase in processor clock isn't represented by more than a 4% increase in multithreaded score than GB is a completely useless benchmark.

IMO, it is quite useless now indeed.

 

[Paradiseapple]

T

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Pro to dual x5690's from the stock E5645's. I've been watching YouTube videos documenting the results and everything I've seen shows results around 25,000 (give or take) on the multi-core score.

Here's my 'before' Geekbench score:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11006212

and here's the 'after':

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11557092

I'm only seeing an improvement of between 500-600 points on both the single and multi core scores.

I didn't get a Cinebench score before I upgraded but the post-upgrade score comes out to 1513 - 1612 across half a dozen tests.

I'm running the latest version of GeekBench with Mojave 10.14.2 (both pre and post upgrade) so my last-luster performance improvement is both disappointing and not making a whole lot of sense. I realize synthetic benchmarks aren't the best representation of real-world performance so I'm doing some other CPU-intensive tasks to see if I can "feel" a marked improvement.

Can anyone offer some insight to why my performance hardly improved?

hank you for showing me this. My trader says the same: my score is normal

 

[pegamonstro]

Hi all,

I really need some help here, I recently acquired a Mac Pro 5,1 mid-2012 already maxed out but I find it incredibly slow and I'm getting the feeling something is wrong with this machine.

1. It takes forever to boot, I understand 128Gb RAM will take a while to test but it's painfully slow, same as the boot.

2. I found it slow therefore I downloaded Geekbench5 and tested it out, it seems the results I am having on single core are 10x lower than what it should be and on multicore 6x lower! Something is definitely wrong with this!

3. Geekbench results also show RAM running at 666Mhz when installed RAM is 1333Mhz! Bear in mind I bought the machine already refurbished, are the CPUs failing and therefore the RAM slowing down or vice versa?

I am not a very tech savvy person and purchased this machine for work to aid with CPU rendering, I really need these CPU and RAM working properly! Does anyone know any possible cause/solution for this matter?

I don't seem to find much information on this out there but every test result I see are far far higher than what I'm getting... Can anyone shed some light on this and let me know if there is any solution for this please?

Below are my results on Geekbench I got and my system specs, by comparison with other systems it is really disappointing:

P.S. Sorry for the long post

 

[h9826790]

Hi all,

I really need some help here, I recently acquired a Mac Pro 5,1 mid-2012 already maxed out but I find it incredibly slow and I'm getting the feeling something is wrong with this machine.

1. It takes forever to boot, I understand 128Gb RAM will take a while to test but it's painfully slow, same as the boot.

2. I found it slow therefore I downloaded Geekbench5 and tested it out, it seems the results I am having on single core are 10x lower than what it should be and on multicore 6x lower! Something is definitely wrong with this!

3. Geekbench results also show RAM running at 666Mhz when installed RAM is 1333Mhz! Bear in mind I bought the machine already refurbished, are the CPUs failing and therefore the RAM slowing down or vice versa?

I am not a very tech savvy person and purchased this machine for work to aid with CPU rendering, I really need these CPU and RAM working properly! Does anyone know any possible cause/solution for this matter?

I don't seem to find much information on this out there but every test result I see are far far higher than what I'm getting... Can anyone shed some light on this and let me know if there is any solution for this please?

Below are my results on Geekbench I got and my system specs, by comparison with other systems it is really disappointing:

P.S. Sorry for the long post

View attachment 920060



View attachment 920069
View attachment 920071
View attachment 920072

1) As you said it takes long time for the cMP to test all 128GB RAM during boot, no work around. You can only wait.

2) Your GB result is very normal, I can't see anything wrong.

3) Google "DDR" should help you understand why it shows 666MHz.

 

[pegamonstro]

1) As you said it takes long time for the cMP to test all 128GB RAM during boot, no work around. You can only wait.

2) Your GB result is very normal, I can't see anything wrong.

3) Google "DDR" should help you understand why it shows 666MHz.

Thank you.

I realised DDR will only show half speed, I read it somewhere after.

I realised what was happening, I was looking at CB5 and those guys were using CB4... I'm a stoopid.. I'm sorry to have wasted your time guys and thanks for the help and patience.
P.S. Here's my comparable results:

 

[allinthemind]

Hi all,

I really need some help here, I recently acquired a Mac Pro 5,1 mid-2012 already maxed out but I find it incredibly slow and I'm getting the feeling something is wrong with this machine.

1. It takes forever to boot, I understand 128Gb RAM will take a while to test but it's painfully slow, same as the boot.

2. I found it slow therefore I downloaded Geekbench5 and tested it out, it seems the results I am having on single core are 10x lower than what it should be and on multicore 6x lower! Something is definitely wrong with this!

3. Geekbench results also show RAM running at 666Mhz when installed RAM is 1333Mhz! Bear in mind I bought the machine already refurbished, are the CPUs failing and therefore the RAM slowing down or vice versa?

I am not a very tech savvy person and purchased this machine for work to aid with CPU rendering, I really need these CPU and RAM working properly! Does anyone know any possible cause/solution for this matter?

I don't seem to find much information on this out there but every test result I see are far far higher than what I'm getting... Can anyone shed some light on this and let me know if there is any solution for this please?

Below are my results on Geekbench I got and my system specs, by comparison with other systems it is really disappointing:

P.S. Sorry for the long post

View attachment 920060



View attachment 920069
View attachment 920071
View attachment 920072

From what I understand you need to download Geekbench 4.
gb5 has a different scoring system that apparently results in much lower scores.

 

[minifridge1138]

You results are from GB 5. You can’t compare your score to GB 4 scores from other people.

For GB 5, your score looks typical for the hardware.

For Single Core, these machines aren’t too impressive. It won’t be very different from an iMac or MacBook Pro.
They do better in the Multi Core, typically about 2.5x better. Which makes sense because they have 24 cores compared to 8.

GB 5 made a lot of changes. Some of that included tests that are optimized for newer CPU architectures. As a result, hardware that scored well in GB 4 get drastically lower scores in GB 5. Which makes sense because these CPUs are 10+ years old.

A quick search of GB 5 scores found this: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2346095

It’s a 2010 Mac Pro with two 2.66Ghz processors. It scores are 544 and 5276. Which is lower than yours with 3.46 GHz processors. As we said, this is typical.

Remember, comparing Geek Bench scores only tells you how good two computers are at running Geek Bench.