Is this a healthy Geekbench score?

What say you?
Benchmark Summary Single-core   Multi-core
Integer Score              3037 38110
Floating Point Score       2939 39373
Memory Score               1973   4071
Geekbench Score            2785 31807
System Information
Operating System      Mac OS X 10.9.5 (Build 13F34)
Model                 MacPro5,1
Model ID              MacPro5,1
Motherboard           Apple Inc. Mac-F221BEC8
Processor             Intel Xeon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz
                        2 Processors, 12 Cores, 24 Threads
Processor ID          GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2
L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB x 6
L1 Data Cache         32.0 KB x 6
L2 Cache              256 KB x 6
L3 Cache              12.0 MB
Memory                64.0 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
BIOS                  Apple Inc.     MP51.88Z.007F.B03.1010071432
Compiler              Clang 5.0 (clang-500.2.76)
Thanks for looking,
f

See:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Similar Messages

Mac Mini GeekBench score for 2.26, 4GB and 320 HD

I just got my new Mac mini.
People have been asking about "is it worth it to get the upgrades", I won't comment on that as its really a personal perspective thing, but here is the score for my machine (all factory upgrades).
Proc Int Perf: 2483
Proc Float Perf: 4331
Memory Perf: 2448
Memory Bandw: 1840
Geekbench score : 3058
My decision was based on wanting a replacement for my Dual G5 1.8, 3GB Power Mac. This new mac mini is very fast (in my opinion) even with the "slow" 5400 RPM disk. The idea is that I'm waiting for Leopard to come out to replace the Power Mac fully, this Mac Mini will then replace my AppleTV for Media Center using Plex. I wanted as much flexibility so I went 2.26 and 4GB memory. I also think this thing is an incredible piece of art, I couldn't bring myself to crack the case
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5484)
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5.6 (Build 9G2030)
Model: Macmini3,1
Motherboard: Apple Inc. Mac-F22C86C8
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 2.26 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 32.0 KB
L1 Data Cache: 32.0 KB
L2 Cache: 3.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 1.06 GHz
Memory: 4.00 GB
Memory Type: 1067 MHz DDR3
SIMD: 1
BIOS: Apple Inc. MM31.88Z.0081.B00.0812030802
Processor Model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer (Score: 2483)
Blowfish single-threaded scalar -- 1477, , 64.9 MB/sec
Blowfish multi-threaded scalar -- 3254, , 133.4 MB/sec
Text Compress single-threaded scalar -- 1575, , 5.04 MB/sec
Text Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 3204, , 10.5 MB/sec
Text Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 1426, , 5.86 MB/sec
Text Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 3070, , 12.2 MB/sec
Image Compress single-threaded scalar -- 1607, , 13.3 Mpixels/sec
Image Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 3081, , 25.9 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 1322, , 22.2 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 2579, , 42.1 Mpixels/sec
Lua single-threaded scalar -- 2382, , 917.2 Knodes/sec
Lua multi-threaded scalar -- 4822, , 1.85 Mnodes/sec
Floating Point (Score: 4331)
Mandelbrot single-threaded scalar -- 1546, , 1.03 Gflops
Mandelbrot multi-threaded scalar -- 3259, , 2.13 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded scalar -- 2889, , 1.40 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded scalar -- 6285, , 2.86 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded vector -- 2313, , 2.77 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded vector -- 5399, , 5.61 Gflops
LU Decomposition single-threaded scalar -- 645, , 573.9 Mflops
LU Decomposition multi-threaded scalar -- 1307, , 1.15 Gflops
Primality Test single-threaded scalar -- 2932, , 438.0 Mflops
Primality Test multi-threaded scalar -- 4739, , 879.6 Mflops
Sharpen Image single-threaded scalar -- 4158, , 9.70 Mpixels/sec
Sharpen Image multi-threaded scalar -- 8603, , 19.8 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image single-threaded scalar -- 5454, , 4.32 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image multi-threaded scalar -- 11114, , 8.74 Mpixels/sec
Memory (Score: 2448)
Read Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2967, , 3.63 GB/sec
Write Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2587, , 1.77 GB/sec
Stdlib Allocate single-threaded scalar -- 1833, , 6.84 Mallocs/sec
Stdlib Write single-threaded scalar -- 2493, , 5.16 GB/sec
Stdlib Copy single-threaded scalar -- 2364, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream (Score: 1840)
Stream Copy single-threaded scalar -- 1785, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream Copy single-threaded vector -- 1995, , 2.59 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded scalar -- 1934, , 2.51 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded vector -- 1922, , 2.59 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded scalar -- 1619, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded vector -- 2127, , 2.96 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded scalar -- 1748, , 2.42 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded vector -- 1597, , 2.99 GB/sec

Just to compare... a Mac Mini 2007 with 2.0GHz and 667 DDR2 memory:
Proc Int Perf: 2189
Proc Float Perf: 3879
Memory Perf: 1786
Memory Bandw: 1479
Geekbench score : 2628

Does anyone know the geekbench score of the 2011 2.0GHz Macbook Pro?

Does anyone know the geekbench score of the 2011 2.0GHz Macbook Pro? I have heard different numbers and it all seems way exaggerated. I believe it is between 8800+... Help.

I found this online, but I was wondering if this is a real list of actual scores, or if someone made these up... I will have the:
MacBook Pro 15" 2.0GHz, 8GB Ram, 750GB (7200rpm) HDD... Not sure if this info is helpful at all?

Upgraded Memory, much lower Geekbench Score

Yesterday I upgraded my memory from the factory-installed 4GB to 6GB by replacing one of the original 2GB sticks with a G.Skill 4GB stick. Having the extra memory is great, but my Geekbench score went down from 5401 to 5180. Specifically, my Memory score went down 498 points and my Stream went down 818 points.
Is this drop due to the fact that I now have two unmatched sticks? Or is there something specific to the G.Skill memory that caused the drop?
You can see the detailed scores on my Geekbench profile (http://browse.geekbench.ca/user/football751/profile).
And yes, teh new memory I bought is DDR3 1066, P/N: F3-8500CL7S-4GBSQ.

Probably dropped because you are using unmatched RAM. Matching RAM increases memory speed several percent because the hardware can take advantage of the dual channel architecture.

Geekbench score should be higher (new Mac vs older Mac)

Hello, I have a Mac Pro 2006 1,1 model that has been upgraded to an 8-core x5355 cpu, a 280x gpu, an ssd drive, etc. its geekbench score went from about 4,800 to about 9,500 (after these additions). After that, i ran a geekbench test on another, newer Mac, and the score was at about 10,500, but it performed VASTLY superior to the older Mac. For example, when using Open Broadcast to stream a video game running on the mac to Twitch.tv, the cpu usage would be at around 50 percent (so all 8 cores would show about 50 percent usage each(, and if i tried to view my broadcast simultaneously on google chrome, it would just to about 80 percent usage. On the newer Mac, I ran the same test, and it was only at about 5-10 percent usage for each of the 8 cores when simply streaming, and about 10-20 usage when streaming AND viewing the stream on google chrome. I even added more window captures to the feed, and it wouldnt tax the CPU. The GPUs were the same in the comparisons. So does that mean that geekbench isn't really testing CPU performance, or something?

The next upgrade for your 1,1:
Lycom DT-120 M.2 PCIe to PCIe 3.0 x4 Adapter (Support M.2 PCIe 2280, 2260, 2242)
Samsung XP941 256GB PCIe 2.0 x4 M.2 SSD MZHPU256HCGL at Amazon
XP941 bootable in the '09 MacPro - Bootable NGFF PCIE SSD - Page 9
* XP941 are bootable in all Mac Pro models and are of the same design as the blade SSD used in nMPs

Geekbench score - Why so low?

Hello,
I have a Mac Pro 3,1 running at 3.0 ghz which isn't that much slower than the 3.2 2008 model. Why is my geekbench score so much lower than most of the 3.0 mac pros and 3.2 mac pros? Here are my specs:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1,6 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP31.006C.B05
SMC Version (system): 1.25f4
I am also using the 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, and 32 bit kernel. In addition, I have a 4870 Radeon card.

Ok, another question.. Its amazing u don't have a intel mac but yet u know so much
I want to run Paralells or VM Fusion. How much memory is enough, or where do I want to be? Last nite, for instance, i was getting spinning beach balls while both emulators were loading. Remember, my 2008 mac pro which is the 3.0 model(not clovertown!!!!!!) has 2GB of memory.
Also, by seeing the benchmarks, the 3.2 version of the 2008 mac pro doesn't seem all that much faster than mine, except in cases with memory.

Low geekbench score

Single-Core Score: 1147
Multi-Core Score: 2049
Does anyone know why geekbench score is so low?

[Solved] A friend of my had the same problem on his iPhone 6 Plus 64gb IOS 8.1.2. He had scores 35% lower than what geekbench 3 said they should be.
Then he uninstalled IAPCrazy and the scores became even higher then what geekbench expected
Problem solved.

Really low PowerMac G5 Quad Geekbench score, what gives?

My lovely Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz has done me proud over the last few years and I wanted to see how it was comparing to all these new intel macs using Geekbench.
I was surprised to see that I scored an insulting 1663 while, I think, everyone else was in the 3000's or more. What's going wrong? I have 7gb RAM and quit as many apps as possible, can I do any more?
Here's my link: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/64558
Does anyone have an tips for me? is my mac just too old? help me increase it's score.
I have also just created a new, blank user (all apps quitted and nothing running in background) and tried it again on that to no avail, here's my result: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/64976
You can also compare my results with the other Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5GHz's here: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/performance/64976/4
My results are all the bottom ones on the far right hand column, this is most disconcerting.
It turns out that it's my lowest score yet, what do think the problem could be?
I have the processor prefpane and it shows all four processors going through the motions when the tests are being done... Is this a major problem or something a fresh Leopard install could fix? I'm hoping not, but this may be the answer.
Might I have not been using my mac to it's full potential?
I need help please.

This could all be related to the bit rating , which relates to how and how much RAM is utilized...
The system has 64 bit memory addressing, which allows support for up to 4 terabytes of system memory. Of course, we aren't able to go there yet.
Memtest (and Rember) support 64 bit memory addressing.
"Memtest executes in 64-bit mode on PPC G5, Intel Xeon-based Mac Pros, and the latest Macbook Pro Core 2 Dual systems running MacOS 10.4 or later, allowing virtually any amount of installed ram to be tested. On all other systems, memtest executes in 32-bit mode with a maximum testable limit of 2 GB."
Your inability to test the entirety of the installed RAM may indicate a problem, or it may indicate some impatience.
Or, it may just be a result of the fact that 64 bit implimentation results in an actual net loss of performance due to the architectural requirements of 64 bit memory addressing..... You might take a look at this article and check the section on "32 bit vs. 64 bit, and "Pros and Cons".
But, I wander off point (possibly).....
Generally accepted principles of testing RAM allow for the memory to be tested in loops, which tests various sizes of memory allocation. Testing all RAM, especially with over 2-4GB, will take some time. Allowing the test to run is important.
The Memtest of 130MB has no meaning what so ever.....
Note the instruction in Rember to choose "All" memory for best results.
Again, did you pose the question regarding your test results to support at GeekBench? They may have some experience with these types of issues......
Now that I've gone through this "disertation", it dawns on me, *Did you use the 32 bit or 64 bit version of Geekbench?*
Message was edited by: japamac

How does this affect my credit score?

Back in 2009, I defaulted on two USAA credit cards. At the time, I negotiated with them and settled for less than the full balance. On my credit report, these accounts' descriptions state "Account paid for less than full balance" and "Charged off account." The recent payment history shows the code "CO" (collection) for every month for the last 24 months and the 90+ days late bucket is populated with every date from the most recent month going back. In other words, they continue to report this as 90+ late every month. Is this accurate? Do I just have to wait another year or so for this to fall off my report? I'm not disputing that I settled for less, but the fact they report every month as 90+ concerns me (even though it also shows a zero balance). Very interested in your thoughts or any advice you have. Thank you!

I believe they should be properly marking it as CO from the point of CO, but I am not 100% certain. Even at that, I'm not sure it affects your score any different once the initial CO is seen. You should get a more knowledgable response here shortly, but curious myself.

15" MBPr (2012) getting Geekbench Score of 6500, Should be 10,000. HELP!?

Hi,
I always felt that my MBPr was under performing, and after about 10 months of it, I got fed up and started running benchmark tests... GB2 put this machine at <7,000 while other machines with the exact same spects are getting 11,000+. Could somebody please point in the right direction to get this corrected? I'm ready to run any tests or programs you guys recommond. Please help, as I have only 1 month left of warranty, and if this machine really is faulty, I'd like to get it fixed by then.
Thanks.

Here's the link to my model of MBPr. The low scores are my uploads... it's quite disheartening.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=model:%22MacBook%20Pro%20(Ret ina)%22%20platform:%22Mac%22%20processor:%22Intel%20Core%20i7-3615QM%22%20freque ncy:2300%20bits:32
Here's the output you guys wanted:
Hardware Information:
          MacBook Pro - model: MacBookPro10,1
          1 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 CPU: 4 cores
          8 GB RAM
Video Information:
          Intel HD Graphics 4000 - VRAM: 512 MB
          NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M - VRAM: 1024 MB
System Software:
          OS X 10.8.3 (12D78) - Uptime: 0 days 0:8
Disk Information:
          APPLE SSD SM256E disk0 : (251 GB)
                    disk0s1 (disk0s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
                    Macintosh HD (disk0s2) /: 215 GB (145.46 GB free)
                    Recovery HD (disk0s3) <not mounted>: 650 MB
                    BOOTCAMP (disk0s4) /Volumes/BOOTCAMP: 35.14 GB (3.22 GB free)
USB Information:
          Apple Inc. FaceTime HD Camera (Built-in)
          Apple Inc. Apple Internal Keyboard / Trackpad
          Apple Inc. BRCM20702 Hub
                    Apple Inc. Bluetooth USB Host Controller
FireWire Information:
Kernel Extensions:
          com.logmein.driver.LogMeInSoundDriver          Version: 1.0.0
          com.github.osxfuse.filesystems.osxfusefs          Version: 2.4.2
          com.bresink.driver.BRESINKx86Monitoring          Version: 9.0
Problem System Launch Daemons:
Problem System Launch Agents:
                 [failed] com.apple.mrt.uiagent.plist
Launch Daemons:
                 [loaded] com.adobe.fpsaud.plist
                 [loaded] com.ea.origin.ESHelper.plist
                 [loaded] com.google.keystone.daemon.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinserver.plist
                 [loaded] com.microsoft.office.licensing.helper.plist
Launch Agents:
                 [loaded] com.bumblebee.mousefixer.plist
                 [loaded] com.google.keystone.agent.plist
                 [failed] com.logmein.logmeingui.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinguiagent.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinguiagentatlogin.plist
User Launch Agents:
                 [failed] com.apple.CSConfigDotMacCert-(REMOVED, PERSONAL)-SharedServices.Agent.plist
                 [loaded] com.spotify.webhelper.plist
                 [loaded] com.valvesoftware.steamclean.plist
User Login Items:
          gfxCardStatus
          uTorrent
          USBOverdriveHelper
          BetterTouchTool
3rd Party Preference Panes:
          Flash Player
          Java
          USB Overdrive
Internet Plug-ins:
          Flash Player.plugin
          FlashPlayer-10.6.plugin
          googletalkbrowserplugin.plugin
          JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
          npgtpo3dautoplugin.plugin
          o1dbrowserplugin.plugin
          QuickTime Plugin.plugin
          SharePointBrowserPlugin.plugin
          Silverlight.plugin
          SlingPlayer.plugin
User Internet Plug-ins:
Bad Fonts:
          None
Top Processes by CPU:
              23%          ntfs-3g
               9%          mds
               2%          fontd
               1%          EtreCheck
               1%          WindowServer
               1%          activitymonitord
               0%          Activity
               0%          coreservicesd
               0%          Finder
               0%          SystemUIServer
Top Processes by Memory:
          205 MB          Messages
          128 MB          Google
          123 MB          WindowServer
          102 MB          mds
          74 MB          Dock
          33 MB          Activity
          33 MB          Finder
          25 MB          loginwindow
          25 MB          SystemUIServer
          25 MB          NotificationCenter
Message was edited by: delslow (added link to GB results)

Geekbench Air 2011 slow on battery?

I have sold my 2010 Macbook Air 11-in and just bought a custom 11-in 2011 Macbook Air (1.8Ghz, 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM). I tried running GeekBench 64-Bit on my machine and got similar results as my sister's late 2010 Macbook Pro 15-in (2.67GHz, 4GB RAM).
However my Geekbench score is only 1/3rd when on battery power whereas my sister's Macbook Pro score is unaffected while on battery.
Does this mean that there is only limited CPU power for the 2011 Macbook air while on battery?

Here are the XBench Test Results for:
* CPU
* Memory
* Disk
* Open GL
You can see that with the exception of the disk tests, everything else was 1/3rd slower on battery vs AC power.
AC POWERED RESULTS:
Results          264.05
          System Info
                    Xbench Version                    1.3
                    System Version                    10.7 (11A2063)
                    Physical RAM                    4096 MB
                    Model                    MacBookAir4,1
                    Drive Type                    APPLE SSD SM128C
          CPU Test          218.99
                    GCD Loop          291.99          15.39 Mops/sec
                    Floating Point Basic          189.12          4.49 Gflop/sec
                    vecLib FFT          137.46          4.53 Gflop/sec
                    Floating Point Library          438.93          76.43 Mops/sec
          Memory Test          565.53
                    System          613.96
                              Allocate          2044.09          7.51 Malloc/sec
                              Fill          377.37          18348.46 MB/sec
                              Copy          572.37          11822.06 MB/sec
                    Stream          524.18
                              Copy          512.52          10585.83 MB/sec
                              Scale          506.52          10464.50 MB/sec
                              Add          547.73          11667.72 MB/sec
                              Triad          531.97          11380.17 MB/sec
          Quartz Graphics Test          345.08
                    Line          332.33          22.13 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
                    Rectangle          429.05          128.09 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
                    Circle          329.21          26.83 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
                    Bezier          294.88          7.44 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
                    Text          367.55          22.99 Kchars/sec
          OpenGL Graphics Test          144.70
                    Spinning Squares          144.70          183.56 frames/sec
          Disk Test          358.14
                    Sequential          225.81
                              Uncached Write          435.10          267.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Write          323.32          182.94 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          100.98          29.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          413.11          207.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                    Random          865.25
                              Uncached Write          775.31          82.08 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Write          601.23          192.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          1824.65          12.93 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          891.39          165.40 MB/sec [256K blocks]
BATTERY POWERED RESULTS:
Results          81.95
          System Info
                    Xbench Version                    1.3
                    System Version                    10.7 (11A2063)
                    Physical RAM                    4096 MB
                    Model                    MacBookAir4,1
                    Drive Type                    APPLE SSD SM128C
          CPU Test          50.37
                    GCD Loop          81.44          4.29 Mops/sec
                    Floating Point Basic          39.58          940.36 Mflop/sec
                    vecLib FFT          28.93          954.43 Mflop/sec
                    Floating Point Library          136.93          23.84 Mops/sec
          Memory Test          202.44
                    System          190.30
                              Allocate          577.88          2.12 Malloc/sec
                              Fill          123.19          5989.74 MB/sec
                              Copy          169.03          3491.17 MB/sec
                    Stream          216.22
                              Copy          214.08          4421.75 MB/sec
                              Scale          207.74          4291.95 MB/sec
                              Add          230.70          4914.48 MB/sec
                              Triad          213.67          4570.93 MB/sec
          Quartz Graphics Test          108.28
                    Line          106.93          7.12 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
                    Rectangle          126.13          37.66 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
                    Circle          97.73          7.97 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
                    Bezier          98.28          2.48 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
                    Text          117.79          7.37 Kchars/sec
          OpenGL Graphics Test          41.51
                    Spinning Squares          41.51          52.66 frames/sec
          Disk Test          345.46
                    Sequential          220.05
                              Uncached Write          403.11          247.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Write          308.79          174.71 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          100.83          29.51 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                              Uncached Read          393.55          197.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                    Random          803.21

Low cpu benchmark scores on MBP 2,53

Hi, i think there might be something wrong with my hardware/software... i've ran some benchmarks like Xbench and Geekbench and found out that my score is very low, compared to, for example, early 2008 mbps. here's the screen with my results from geekbench:
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5287/picture1wm4.png
and that's the test made on early 2008 mbp:
http://pic.ipicture.ru/uploads/081124/OvChEYSR5I.png
mac mini:
http://img.leprosorium.com/39996
What could this be?

Boot times seem reasonable although I would've expected an improvement over my beat up prev gen MBP with loads of stuff on it.
But look at this - http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/89870 - this is for MBP5,1 same as your model, same RAM and a slightly higher clocked CPU (2.8Ghz) - it gets 3614. So GeekBench incompatibility can be ruled out. More over if both Geek and XBench are slow I would suspect something else is wrong.
May be run Apple Hardware Test, Reset PRAM and PMU and retry. If all fails take it to the Apple Store and have them look at it - it is possible the CPU is stuck in lower speeds or something else. Ask them to try a replacement unit.

Balance dropped, score dropped. FICO scores a mystery.

They only reason to pay for the service of credit monitoring here on myFICO is so you have some idea of where you stand when you apply for any type of credit or loan. All the information about understanding FICO scoring is all cookie cutter garbage that you can read on any other "credit monitoring" service. And the people that work for myFICO have no idea what they are talking about either. They just repeat the same cookie cutter garbage I was just mentioning. I really hope they are providing their "services" for free, because if they receive any kind of compensation, it is undeserved. My statement balance on my American Express Everyday card went from $50 to $0 and my scores dropped by 11, 12, and 17 points (Equifax, TransUnion and Experian.) I brought the statement balance back up to $50 the VERY next month. Did my scores recover the lost points I just lost a month ago? No. And I am sure all these "credit experts" will say, "something else in your report must have changed." That is code for, "I have no idea what happened, I am just as clueless as you why your score changed the way it did." The precise formula for generating your FICO score is a well guarded secret. It is the same formula used in determining battle damage to your characters in the old Sega Master System game Phantasy Star. Sometimes when attacked, your character would lose 6 health points, other times 80 health points, and even other times 3/4ths of your total health, and so on and so on. This is how FICO scoring works. The formula basically goes, OOGA BOOGA, OOGA BOOGA, this is your updated score. The only advice on this site (again which you can find on EVERY other credit monitoring service) that is worth anything is what responsible credit habits you should be practicing. Other than that, just hope for the best. Your score is a mystery, and it always will be.

Beavakos wrote:
What difference does it make if there are any negatives on my report? I lost points for doing something negative, which is bringing my balance to zero, than returning it back to its previous balance. THAT IS ALL I DID. I thought time heals all wounds when it comes to credit. Any credit missteps I might have had taken should be corrected with time. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. Nothing in my report changed except TIME. If I have two dollars in my bank account, and spend one dollar, then deposit one dollar, I should have now have TWO dollars AGAIN. ?????????????????I understand what Beavakos is saying here and we all get it. Most of us love analyzing data which is why we are here after we've already cleaned up our reports and greatly increased our scores. Again, I understand how Beavakos feels - it is said time and again that UTIL has no memory and what is lost due to UTIL will be regained - well, not always true. Looking strictly at the data two things changed on Beavakos' report: 30 days were added to age and UTIL went from something above 0% to 0%, then back again and yet Beavakos' score did not fully recoup the loss. The reason for this, I think, is very clear - we do not know as much as we think we know about FICO or any other scoring algorithm. If I lost 10 points for going from 5% UTIL down to 0% UTIL but then gained those 5 points back by raising my UTIL to 5% again then scoring algorithm's are not as complicated as they are made out to be and are thus not worth paying for. The previous scenario is simple math and if indeed it was only that I should be able to retest that hypothesis time and again and get the same exact results - not happening. That said, I do not believe that scoring is a crap shoot or something only a witch doctor can understand. It is a complicated mathematical equation that has 100's, if not 1000's, of factors all having a different weight at a different time and I believe there is no one that can determine with 100% accuracy the effect any one factor, forget about multiple factors, will have on your score. Not even the people who wrote the code would know as no one person wrote the whole code. We should probably stop getting so frustrated with how our scores react to the different changes in our reports. The reason we get upset is that we think this is some simple black and white game and it's not. It is very complicated and we will never know what we want to know to the accuracy level we want to know it. What's important is we know what hurts our score to a high degree and what helps our score to a high degree. Take care of all those things we know about and your score will go up; don't take care of those things and your score will go down. After that it is just a game we play to see how we can get to 800...

Is this respectable or not

2.8 ghz P4 retail box
875p MB
1gig Geil ultra ddr400 ram (set at 2.55v)
120gig Seagate SATA HD
ver 1.8 bios (set at turbo mode)
ATI radeon 9800 pro (AA set to 2x standard voltage and gpu settings)
Just ran 3D Mark Pro in 800x600 and scored 5514 3d marks
I dont know if this is a good score or not...anyone have any input?
I tried to use ultra turbo mode but system wont boot with it...any suggestions on how I can get it to run in Ultra?
System temp maxed at 41.7C during the test and runs at 33.1c idle...is that an ok range for that load and for idle.
Thanks
einsteins

Einsteins-First off run the benchmark as noted at 1024 x 768 (32bit high color) resolution. Go to your ATI control panel and set the sliders for both Direct 3D and Open GL to performance mode. Shut down AA and AF. Vertical sync off. Now you are properly running the test in its standard configuarion.
Next-3Dmark 2003 (unlike 3D mark 2001)is very-very video card dependant. Bios tweaks are always helpful-but you will not see a significant increase with them. Overclocking your card to its limit(no tearing,artifacting,slowdowns,crashing to desktop etc)will have a significant effect. (My Radeon 9800pro is clocked at 421/371-I also have a special fan under the card exhausting heat out the rear of the machine)As far as most effective system tweaks-overclocking the system will give the greatest yields. My system scores just over 5800 at stock and just over 6400 overclock. I'm sure there is more overclocking headroom for my card. I am using only cas3 ram currently and an older(Stable)bios without the special modes(fast-turbo-ultra). Good luck!!!!
Intel P4 3.00ghz(non overclocked-HT enabled)
1024 Crucial DDR3200(upgrade to Mushkin Level II $ permitting)
ATI Radeon 9800 pro
120 gig Western Digital Spec Ed.
Toshiba 16x48 DVD-Rom
Plextor 48x24x48 CD RW
Creative Audigy2 6.1 Platinum
Cooler Master201c
Windows XP home
875P neo

ASR1001 High Memory Usage - Healthy?

Hi,
My SolarWinds NPM shows very high memory utization (up to 99%) on all ASR1001. CLI outpu belows confirms this:
---------------sh platform software status control-processor br
Load Average
Slot Status 1-Min 5-Min 15-Min
RP0 Healthy   0.11   0.29   0.29
Memory (kB)
Slot Status    Total     Used (Pct)     Free (Pct) Committed (Pct)
RP0 Healthy 3944728 3906172 (99%)    38556 ( 1%)   3801056 (96%)
CPU Utilization
Slot CPU   User System   Nice   Idle    IRQ   SIRQ IOwait
RP0    0   2.80   2.90   0.00 94.29   0.00   0.00   0.00
         1   3.60   5.60   0.00 90.80   0.00   0.00   0.00
Is this considered 'healthy' as in shown in the output?
Thanks.
Larry

Hi,
This is not normal. There are a couple of things that you should look at.
1-You don't have enough memory on the router and so you need to install more memory.
2-There is feature or could be bug that is hugging up 99% of your memory.
If this is a critical router for you, I suggest you start analyzing the issue sooner than later.
Opening a ticket with TAC may be the first step.
HTH

Is this a healthy Geekbench score?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for