7.6 GigaFLOPS - How about you?

[Mike]

System: PowerBook G4 500mhz, 512mb of ram, OS X 10.1.2

Results: 1651.8 Megaflops

Come monday I'll let you know what I get with my DP1000 G4 :)

[Mike]

tt

[Mike]

tt

[Nostradamus]

As mentioned on <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com" target="_blank">www.xlr8yourmac.com</a> both yesterday and today, one lucky person with a dual 1GHz G4 reports as high as 7625MFLOPS on the Altivec Carbon Fractal test.

<a href="http://daugerresearch.com/fractaldemos/altivecfractalcarbon.html" target="_blank">http://daugerresearch.com/fractaldemos/altivecfractalcarbon.html</a>

My puny G4 500MHz manages 1.6GFLOPS. According to initial 1Ghz G4 benchmarks, a new dual 1GHz is 4.75 times as fast as my 500MHz G4 at Altivec Carbon Fractal Demo.

How does your machine compare? Please post your system and the number of MFLOPS you score and which OS you are under.

**Note: This benchmark can be run on any PPC based Macintosh. For non-G4's, Altivec will automatically be disabled.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>

[MaCommentary]

and my dual 450 can get up to 3.2 GFLOPS making the dual 1Ghz about 2.3 times faster than mine. which is about right if you think about it.

[KidRed]

I got 6.9 the first time I did it.

[sizzle chest]

My dual 450 got about 2860 last night (but I was running a couple other programs at the same time).

I was curious what my iBook would get, but I had no idea how bad it would be.... about 380 megaflops! Yikes! That test really does depend on Altivec.

[Nostradamus]

[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
<strong>My dual 450 got about 2860 last night (but I was running a couple other programs at the same time).

I was curious what my iBook would get, but I had no idea how bad it would be.... about 380 megaflops! Yikes! That test really does depend on Altivec.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The dual 1GHz PowerMac is faster than your iBook by a factor of 20 at this test.

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>

[Ybot]

System: PowerBook G4 550mhz, 512mb of ram, OS X 10.1.2

Results: 1255.5 Megaflops

Is that..good?

[DerekUNCW]

Well, I ran it on my 333mhz Powerbook G3 and got 155.7 Megaflops.

Yippee, I won...........oh wait :(

[sizzle chest]

[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>

The dual 1GHz PowerMac is faster than your iBook by a factor of 20 at this test.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, and my own Powermac is faster than my iBok by a factor of 8 or so. It's weird, you wouldn't think, stacking up a G3-600 versus a G4-450DP, that the G4 would be that much faster, but I guess in an Altivec-reliant benchmark, it would be.

I recall that disabling the Altivec capability on my G4 seriously crippled it on this benchmark (less than 1/2 the score).

[Cosmo]

[quote]Originally posted by DerekUNCW:
<strong>Well, I ran it on my 333mhz Powerbook G3 and got 155.7 Megaflops.

Yippee, I won...........oh wait :( </strong><hr></blockquote>

Odd my 333 iMac got 206megaflops.

[antaisce]

[quote]Originally posted by Cosmo:
<strong>

Odd my 333 iMac got 206megaflops.</strong><hr></blockquote>

PS 2 : 6152 Megaflops, haha

[macaddict]

I usually get around 1.2GFlops with that Demo.

Pretty cool demo, but Cinebench looks even cooler. ;)

[DerekUNCW]

Well, I reran the test under OS 9 and this time I got 194.3 megaflops which is a little closer to yours cosmo. I wonder why it would do 194 under OS 9 and 155 under OS X. Of course I haven't upgraded to 10.1 yet so that may be it. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Brad]

[quote]Originally posted by DerekUNCW:
<strong>Well, I reran the test under OS 9 and this time I got 194.3 megaflops which is a little closer to yours cosmo. I wonder why it would do 194 under OS 9 and 155 under OS X. Of course I haven't upgraded to 10.1 yet so that may be it. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

By adjusting the various options, there can be a huge range of results in either OS. Plus, you need to upgrade to 10.1. :)

[RazzFazz]

[quote]Originally posted by DerekUNCW:
<strong>I wonder why it would do 194 under OS 9 and 155 under OS X. Of course I haven't upgraded to 10.1 yet so that may be it. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I read somewhere that the current scheduler in Mac OS X is not ideally suited for compute-bound applications (such as this fractal benchmark thingy), and slows them down.
Preemptive multithreading doesn't really help here, either - in OS 9, the benchmark can just hog the CPU as long and as much as it sees fit, whereas preemptive multitasking prevents just that.

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ThinkingDifferent]

My 300MHZ B&W G3 got 147.6 MFlops under 10.0.4. :mad:

[Cosmo]

[quote]Originally posted by DerekUNCW:
<strong>Well, I reran the test under OS 9 and this time I got 194.3 megaflops which is a little closer to yours cosmo. I wonder why it would do 194 under OS 9 and 155 under OS X. Of course I haven't upgraded to 10.1 yet so that may be it. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I was in 10.1.2 when i did the test, all the settings were set to default and no other apps were running.

[MacGregor]

MaCommentary: Those dual 450's and 500's really were a great deal. They'll be useful for a long time.

[sizzle chest]

[quote]Originally posted by MacGregor:
<strong>MaCommentary: Those dual 450's and 500's really were a great deal. They'll be useful for a long time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My dual 450 is the only computer I've ever owned that was became faster over the course of my first year using it!

I started of in OS9 all the time, then moved over to OSX and it sped up (due to utilizing the 2nd CPU), then when 10.1 came out it sped up again due to the optimizations. Too bad all computers can't do that.

I'm still very pleased with how fast this thing is for most uses.

[jeromba]

On a Dual 800 with 10.1.2 i've got 5443.3 MegaFlops in 2.4 sec.

Not bad ?

[Mithras]

I'm very curious to see someone's results with a TiBook G4.

I'm still running on my old "top of the line" Powerbook G3/300 (176 MFLOPS). The wifey is using an iBook 600 (370 MFLOPS). This is all under 10.1.

I'm soon going to grad school, where I'll be running lots of computationally intensive scientific apps (Stata, Mathematica, etc.) I'll get a new computer when I go. I've always liked having a notebook; but if the desktops kick so much butt on DP-enabled, AltiVec-enabled code, I might have to reconsider.

So can someone kindly try this on a TiBook, to compare a reasonably-speedy TiBook G4 to the seriously-speedy DP towers?

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Mithras ]</p>

[Krassy]

G4/400Mhz AGP 448MB Ram 1275 MFLOPS

[BungHole]

I got 8123 megaflops on my dual 1 gig, the first scores were in the 7800 range, thats damn good, my dual 450 showed 3026 megaflops. 8123 rocks the house.

[Crusader]

125.4 Megaflops in 113.6 seconds :(
iMac 233 (Rev a) OS 9.

[pepsi]

My Dual 450 got 3376.5 Mflops in 6.8 seconds...

[Nostradamus]

tt?

[Nostradamus]

Any PowerBooks out there?

[Nostradamus]

As more of you get your new iMacs, feel free to post results in this thread.
I'm very interested to see how a 800MHz G4 with no L3 cache and on a 100MHz bus does at this benchmark.

[ThunderPoit]

867 w/ 384MB and os 10.1.2
altivec on: 3209.9MFLOPS
altivec off: 455.2 MFLOPS

:eek:
so altivec /can/ make a difference

[serrano]

277.7 MF

tt = touble tost? :)

[wyntir]

Big bad 157.9 Mflops on my 266 Beige G3 ;)

[Mike]

[quote]Originally posted by janitor:
<strong>tt = touble tost? :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I had traveled back in time to post some messages and it stands for time trouble ;)

[Capt. Obvious]

266mHz PBG3, 10.1.2, 384mb RAM

158mflops in 90.2 sec. after I quit all apps;
146mflops in 97.7 sec. after turned off Altivec code;
145mflops in 98.0 sec. before twiddling anything

[thegelding]

new iMac---4.8 sec with 2777.6 megaflops....so almost exactly half of a dual 800....
[quote]jeromba

On a Dual 800 with 10.1.2 i've got 5443.3 MegaFlops in 2.4 sec <hr></blockquote>

[Junkyard Dawg]

Cool thread...

System:
Powermac G4 400 MHz "Sawtooth" motherboard w/ AGP.
576 MB RAM
OS X, 10.1.2

MFlops:
Altivec ON: 1367
Altivec OFF: 309

Isn't that Altivec sweet? Wintel users, go put those results in your pipe, and smoke 'em!

[jeromba]

Ok dual 800 on 9.2.2 for a change...

With One Processor: 4,7 sec / 2845.8 MF
With Two: 2.3 sec / 5671.7 MF
Altivec Off (Mono): 33.9 sec / 419.9 MF
Altivec Off (Dual): 16.9 sec / 844.0 MF

[Cosmo]

anyone using a "Yikes!" G4? specifically a 350. I'm curious as to whether or not all of the g4s that apple has ever produce can surpass one gigaflop.

also i'm curious if using the older mobo really would make a differance seeing how as it still had 100mhz bus and pc 100 ram.

for those who are confused the yikes! machines used the same motherboard as the b&w g3s. (if you have a g4 with no agp slot you own a yikes! machine)

[Mike]

System: PowerMac G4 Dual 1GHZ, 512mb of ram, OS X 10.1.2

Results: 6991.1 Megaflops at default settings

I can tweak it to go higher but the defaul settings seem to be the fair comparison.

[pismeov]

to those who doubt the power of the g4:

ibook 600 mhz w/ 256 megs of ram.
system 9.2.1

419 mflops ;)

compare that to the earliest g4 tower
hehe

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: pismeov ]

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: pismeov ]</p>

[bunge]

System: TiBook 667 w/512 MB PC133 CL3

2317.3 MegaFlops w/Altivec
332.3 w/o Altivec

[Fobie]

Got just below 400 megafops on my iBook 600/384/15. I had a couple of applications running then but I dont think it matters alot.

[papilio]

Powerbook G3 400MHz (Lombard), 384MB RAM - 230 MegaFlops

[getafx]

Here's a Yikes result:
G4 350mhz 128meg RAM
1st-11.5sec -1175.4megaflops
2nd-11.3sec-1192.7megaflops

-so any G4 gets a Gigaflop

[Ti Fighter]

933 G4 512ram

3337.6 MegaFlops in OSX

so a little less than half the speed of a dual 1ghz, sounds right to me

[Bodhi]

6935.1 MegaFlops in Fractal Carbon

Dual GHz

[TigerWoods99]

I thought Apple says the Dual GHz can get 15 Gflops? What's up with that?

Damn, the 933 is only half as fast? That means it would be a bad deal if I tried getting one. Makes sense but I dunno.

[Ender]

The number they use for propaganda is only theoretical. If you managed to write a program that actually got that in real life, you would be instantly offered jobs with some incredible salary. Conditions are never optimal in the real world... so only 15 GF on paper.

-Ender

[thentro]

on my G4 450 w 256 megs of RAM I got 1599 megaflops with OSX .1.2

if I can only get afew more flops I could break 1600!

[arne]

pb g4 = 1,2 gf

[Daver]

iMac DV SE
500 MHz G3
OS 9.2.1

45.1 seconds, 316.3 MFlops

[Eugene]

I get around 6.9-7.0 GFLOPS on the default settings with my Dual GHz as well.

If I zoom in on an all black portion, I can get 8.1-8.2 GFLOPS. Heh.

[Macrat]

ibook 466 se: 56.1 sec / 256 MegaFlops

[Gulliver]

[quote]Originally posted by ThunderPoit:
<strong>867 w/ 384MB and os 10.1.2
altivec on: 3209.9MFLOPS
altivec off: 455.2 MFLOPS

:eek:
so altivec /can/ make a difference</strong><hr></blockquote>

Same hardware config, but OS 9.2.1:
altivec on: 3108MFLOPS
altivec off: 455MFLOPS

[thentro]

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>I get around 6.9-7.0 GFLOPS on the default settings with my Dual GHz as well.

If I zoom in on an all black portion, I can get 8.1-8.2 GFLOPS. Heh.</strong><hr></blockquote>

heh I got a big bost too

from
1599 to 1699 gflops

damn it! what is with this G4 450 that it wont get that extra inch!!!
:mad:

[bernard]

G4's are still hardly any more useful except for a few (5-6) things. Whats the point of this benchmark? its like running a floting point benchmark on a 68k machine with no FPU and comparing it to one that has one. comparing it to G3 cass machines is, well whats the point? Oh and my G4 gets 1316 and my G3 gets 353 but any other benchmark my G3 is faster oh wait my G3 is faster.

[Ti Fighter]

[quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:
<strong>I thought Apple says the Dual GHz can get 15 Gflops? What's up with that?

Damn, the 933 is only half as fast? That means it would be a bad deal if I tried getting one. Makes sense but I dunno.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This test uses both proccesors fully, so 2 1gig proccessors have the power of 2ghz, twice the speed. In the real world thats not gonna happen, even in photoshop, its gonna use both proccessors but not fully like this app does. So yea it will be faster than the 933 but not double as fast like in the fractal test. Hey if you can afford it get the dual, i would have if i had more $, but the 933 is f'n fast. Just so you get an idea, its not really fair to compare but my 933 with 512 ram feels like 100% faster then my Ti 550 with 512 at work (especially in photoshop).

[onebishop]

Titanium PowerBook G4 800 averaged 2.8 gigaflops and managed to get upto 3.35 gigaflops several times. :eek:

[Multimedia]

System: G4 500MHz Cube 1.5 GB RAM OS 10.1.5

Results: default launch 9.3 seconds 1450.9 MegaFlops or 1.45 GigaFlops

Pretty bad number but this Mac feels quite quick for DSL web browsing, writing, mail.

Looking forward to Jaguar performance improvement. Still on teh fence about moving to the dual 1.25 GHz MysteryMac™

[BoeManE]

Im on a TiBook 667 (Rev B) and I found some weird results.

I ran the test with only Chimera running, and got 2112 MFLOPS. Thats with an instant refresh after launch of the app. (Usually got 2080 right after restart).

But when I zoomed in I got some interesting results:

01x: 1355
02x: 1119
03x: 1179
04x: 1372
05x: 1643
06x: 1776
---
15x: 2159
16x: 2112
17x: 1969
20x: 1528
---

What I find weird is that after 20x zoom, theres only one color to display, but its only working at 1500, while 15x is the fastest at 2159 when it has to dispay two colors).

Maybe it has something to do with the cache beeing loaded or something.

Ona side note: With these results, I want a DP 1.25 GHz machine!! :rolleyes: :eek:

BoeManE

[trevorM]

My powerbook 800Mhz got 1507.5 Megaflops..

Any good???

Hey what are megaflops :confused: <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[G-News]

I tested various CPU modules in a B&W G3 and my Beige G3 quite a while ago and also tested in Altivec Fractal Demo.

Here's the pict:

http://www.g-news.ch/articles/cputest0401/images/fractal.gif

The whole story can be found here, for those who are still interested: <a href="http://www.g-news.ch/articles/cputest0401/" target="_blank">http://www.g-news.ch/articles/cputest0401/</a>


G-News

[spotbug]

I'm still Altivec challenged, but...

B&W G3/350: 215.4 MegaFlops
iBook 700: 483.5 MegaFlops

[eat@me]

System: DP800 (512RAM - not DDR)

6 GigaFlops with Fractal.

I bet the top of the line DP1.2 w/DDR
will get 10 GigaFlops.


Wait until 64bit G5 at MWSF in Jan 2003.
That will probably do 20 Gigiflops +.

[NerV]

2216 MegaFlops on a TiBook 667.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>As mentioned on <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com" target="_blank">www.xlr8yourmac.com</a> both yesterday and today, one lucky person with a dual 1GHz G4 reports as high as 7625MFLOPS on the Altivec Carbon Fractal test.</strong><hr></blockquote>

7.0 GFLOPS, but I was using the machine as a file server at the time. I'd have to go and shut a few things down to get a "pure" test... but the guy above probably did that already so I won't bother.

My first Mac could do about 100,000 FLOPS, so this is a bit of a step up (70,000 times faster :eek: ).

[synapse]

Tested my DP800 at work and got 5534.1 Megaflops. Tested my new DP867 at home and got 6127.3 Megaflops. My old G4/450 got 1341.5 Megaflops

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: synapse ]</p>

[Thereubster]

2852 Mflops on my G4/733 quick(slow)silver running 10.2 with 512 ram
These 733 quicksilvers are cr@p!! :mad: Not even close to half of a DP800!!

[Odenshaw]

1834.9 MFLOPS 7.3 sec.
Powerbook G4 550

[Dual 867]

iBook 500/384 RAM
335.1 MFlops in 42.5 s

-Dual 867

[A@ron]

Indigo iBook 366 running 10.2 = 266 MegaFLOPS

damn now I want a new ddr tower.
A@ron

[giant]

[quote]Originally posted by Ybot:
<strong>System: PowerBook G4 550mhz, 512mb of ram, OS X 10.1.2

Results: 1255.5 Megaflops

Is that..good?</strong><hr></blockquote>

ti500=1693.2 Megaflops

just goes to show, newer ain't always better

[Spart]

[quote]Originally posted by jhtrih:
<strong>125.4 Megaflops in 113.6 seconds :(
iMac 233 (Rev a) OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hehe.

iMac 233 (Rev B, more graphics ram/diff card, shouldnt matter), 384MB RAM (gave the app 100), going with norm setttings about 135 megaflops.

Tweaking the damn thing to all hell I was able to achieve 171.4 megaflops in OS 9 at 640x480, 256 greys, optimized extension set. Took exactly half an hour to render, or 1804 seconds.

I will try Mac OS X shortly, though it doesn't react well to having 256 colors... :( . Ah well.

And no, I don't normally use OS 9. Just booted here to play a little Driver and do the benchmark. ;)

[Banjo Billy]

on my tibook 500mhz with 384mb i get 1901.6 Megaflops with default settings

when i turn off altivec i get 243.5 Megaflops

god bless altivec :D

[Luca]

PowerBook G3, 233 MHz, 160MB RAM, 512k L2 cache, OS 10.1.5: 136.2 megaflops

iMac G3, 233 MHz, 256MB RAM, rev. B: 138.2 megaflops
Same iMac under 9.2.2: 145.5 megaflops

Blue and White G3 upgraded to Newertech G4, 400MHz, 224MB RAM, OS 9.2.2: 1196.2 megaflops
Same computer, second trial: 1275.2 megaflops
Third trial: 1277.2 megaflops
w/o Altivec code: 264.4 megaflops

The second trial for the G4 was actually without multiprocessor code, while all the others were. I thought removing MP code really sped it up, but then I turned it back on and it got the same performance. I didn't write it down, but I closed and opened the program and the first time it got under 1.2 GFlops, and the second run got over 1.2 GFlops. Must be something with the cache (I think the G4 has a 1MB L2 cache).

Also, when I zoomed in, it first got 960 megaflops, then it got 1389. When I zoomed in on a black area, it went as high as 1452 megaflops.

My dad has a PowerBook G4/550, but he took it to work today so I couldn't test it.

I'll have to test it out on my DP G4/500 once I get it :)

[qazII]

Powerbook 3400c 180mhz---59.0 Megaflops.

Pity there's no 68k version of this app....


UPDATE: 58.0 Megaflops with multiprocessor and altivec off...hmm....

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: qazII ]</p>

[Spart]

Hmm...I'm going to go zoom in on blank space and do my little half hour render AND force quit the finder and see what happens...

Maybe I can get 180 megaflops on the slowest G3 ever, ever made.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

How sad that sounds when you guys are throwing around numbers nearly 50 times bigger...

Oh well. My iMac is four years old, damnit! :: grins evilly at the high-end PC's from that era ::

[Spart]

Oh, and I might add, I was able to get this thing down to as little as 13.9 megaflops with really really fast settings (~3 secs to complete). So don't feel bad ;)

[Spart]

Muahaha...did the same test while doing a 100% radial zoom in Photoshop. 0.0 megaflops.

I am the slowest. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[Xaqtly]

iMac/800/Superdrive/768 MB RAM

2480 megaflops.

[Wallstreet Pete]

System: "Wallstreet" Powerbook upgraded to G4 500 Mhz (Powerlogix Bluechip), 384MB RAM, OS X 10.2

Results: Average of just over 1400 MFlops

Not bad for a 4 year old Powerbook when new TiBooks are getting numbers around 1600 MFlops!!

[cwill]

197.1 MFLOPS on a 350 MHz B&W G3 w/ 896MB RAM

[Donny]

I got 197.21 megaflops on my PowerBook G3 pismo (firewire) with 640MB RAM at 400 MHZ running 10.1.5.

seems low to me...

Maybe I just wish it was faster :)

[Luca]

It would be interesting to see how a PowerBook G4/667 with AltiVec off compares to an iBook 700.

It's nice to list numbers w/ AltiVec off, because that really shows you have the processor in a G4 compares to that of a G3, in a non-AltiVec optimized application. Comparing G3s to G4s in a test that is designed specifically to squeeze the most out of AltiVec is not really fair.

BTW, I believe the slowest Mac ever was the first generation 233 MHz Wallstreet, without the L2 cache. The second revision (like mine) had a 512k L2 cache, but I heard that the original cacheless 233 MHz Wallstreets weren't much faster than the 240 MHz 3400.

[iMud]

Mike is that a new dual 1ghz or a quicksilver dual 1ghz?

[MrBillData]

I know of three Lockheed Martin system engineers that are trying to get OS X to run on a VME PowerPC system that is rated at 70 GFLOPS. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> :eek:

<a href="http://www.mc.com/literature/literature_files/conduction-cooled-vme-ppc-sys-ds.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mc.com/literature/literature_files/conduction-cooled-vme-ppc-sys-ds.pdf</a>

[Akac]

On my TiBook 800 while running a bunch of other stuff, I got 2600 megaflops.

Turning Altivec OFF (again with running a bunch of apps) its now abour 282 megaflops.

[MagicFingers]

2970 megaflops with 867QS

[gsxrboy]

[quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:
<strong>iMac/800/Superdrive/768 MB RAM

2480 megaflops.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm interesting

iMac/800/Superdrive/512 MB RAM OS9.22

2865.9 (4.7 secs)

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: gsxrboy ]</p>

[jouster]

Best I can do is 153.9 Mflops on a 333Mhz PB G3 Bronze with 192 M RAM running 8.6.. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Can load the app into my PB 190 OS 7, but it won't run.... Pity, was looking forward to seeing the results.

[thegelding]

iMac 800 running 10.1.5 with 768 ram....
2768.1 megaflops/4.8 seconds

will compare with running 10.2 this weekend (i hope).....g

[curiousuburb]

[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>I know of three Lockheed Martin system engineers that are trying to get OS X to run on a VME PowerPC system that is rated at 70 GFLOPS. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> :eek:

<a href="http://www.mc.com/literature/literature_files/conduction-cooled-vme-ppc-sys-ds.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mc.com/literature/literature_files/conduction-cooled-vme-ppc-sys-ds.pdf</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

from that pdf...

[quote]<strong>
Single-port RACEway Interlink products provide 267 MB/s of communication bandwidth per slot, while dual-port RACEway Interlink products offer 533 MB/s per slot.

This seven-board system contains 22 PowerPC 7410 CPUs. Running at 400 MHz, each is supported by 2MB of L2 cache (266 MHz) and 256 MB of local memory. The I/O supports FPDP (copper) at 160 MB/s. The total compute power is over 70 GFLOPS, and the bisection bandwidth is a huge 1.6GBytes/s, with a power budget of just over 250 watts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

maybe the conformal heat dissipator cringes at PPC hotter than 7410@400
but they are running quads, if not happily yet

imagine ganging 22 SpeedHole DP1.25 with 2Mb L3/ea and 2Gb DDR?

better yet, in less than 6 months,
imagine 22 SpeedHole G5s with 4 Mb L3/ea and 4Gb DDR!

&lt; fuzzy calculation of such hypothetically maxxed h/w... &gt;

uh, maybe 200 GFlops from 22 DP1.25G4, 400GF from 22 G5

anybody want to correct this. tres fuzzy.

and lo, the wagering and whining commences anew until/if we could/should get such gear for silly prices

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: curiousuburb ]</p>

[BoeManE]

This goes to show how powerful the G4 really is!

Usually in a cpu design, speed increases drops off after a while (just look at a PIII chip). The performance/MHz starts out pretty good, and then it gets wors as the MHz increases.

After reading this thread, it doesn't seem like the G4 does that at all! In some cases the performance/MHz even gets better! (especially on DP machines)!

I just found this very interesting.

Now. how woould a G4 compare to a G3 in say, mathematical non-vector equations ?

Anybody know of any good benchmark test to show that?

BoeManE

[Spart]

Alright, I managed to eek out another .4 megaflops to 171.8 in OS 9.2.2 by upping the maxcount a notch. Also ran it in OS X and got 172.

Settings:
In OS 9 and Mac OS X:
Color Speed: 0.1
Max Count: 1048576
Gallery: Zoomed Out.
Window: Fit window to main screen. No zooming afterwards.
In OS 9:
Screen @ 640x480, 256 greys, Finder off via AppleScript, optimized extension set, antialiasing off.
In OS X:
Screen @ 640x480, 256 colors, Finder off via yet another AppleScript, web sharing off, AltiVec Fractal Carbon reniced to -20, dock hidden, modem port disabled so it wouldn't decide to connect to the internet.

Took a freaking hour (3603.6 seconds and 3598.2 seconds, Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X respectively) to do each.

Just to say it again, 233MHz Rev B. iMac, 384MB RAM, OS 9.2.2 & 10.1.5.

[Spart]

How about someone with a dual gig test my settings?

Pretty please?

(wants to see even bigger numbers.)

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>Any PowerBooks out there?</strong><hr></blockquote>

My TiBook 800 is getting about 2.6 GFLOPS on this fractal test.

[Spart]

Anyone know any software for PCs that measures mega/gigaflop performance?

[mrmister]

TiG4 800 DVI, 1GB RAM, 10.1.5

2770 megaflops

[ddma]

iBook 600, 768MB, 10.1.4 - 655M
PowerBook 667, 768MB, 10.1.5 - 2.2G
iMac 17", 768MB, 10.2 - 2.77G

[pim_fortuyn]

g3 / 350 / 192mb

204 mflops

pim

[Marcus]

'Air Vent' dual 867, 256MB DDR RAM, GF4 MX, OS X 10.2:

6007.8 in 2.2 secs

Marcus

[Plaster]

Brand new Dual 867:
6052.6 mflops.

By the way this machine rocks!!!!

[jeromba]

On a Dual 800
with 10.1.2 it's 5443.3 MF in 2.4 sec.
with Jaguar it's 5266.6 MF in 2.5 sec.

edit: Programmer can you test your brand new Dual Gig and give us the result ?

[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>

[Banjo Billy]

[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>BTW, I believe the slowest Mac ever was the first generation 233 MHz Wallstreet, without the L2 cache. The second revision (like mine) had a 512k L2 cache, but I heard that the original cacheless 233 MHz Wallstreets weren't much faster than the 240 MHz 3400.</strong><hr></blockquote>

i had that wallstreet powerbook...your right, it was very slow...my school had a 3400 and i remember no difference in that machine and mine. nothing noticable that is. but the look of the wallstreet kicked butt i thought so i was happy at the time.

[viking]

New 667mhz DVI powerbook (512mb ram) : 2371

[qazII]

[quote]Originally posted by jouster:
<strong>
Can load the app into my PB 190 OS 7, but it won't run.... Pity, was looking forward to seeing the results.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Two reasons for this.
1.PB 190 is not PowerPC.
2.Carbonlib requires 8.6.

[JustAGuy]

Cube 450. 512MB RAM. 10.2. Max. 1320

Scratch that. Had SETI running in the background and forgot about it. Max 1714.

Now I have to wonder why SETI made such a difference. Does OSX truly not understand the meaning of "nice 20"?

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: JustAGuy ]</p>

[Mount_my_floppy]

Its nice to see my computer can still keep up with the old quick silvers, 3.5 on a dual 533. How about Mkeys in RC5 I got around 7,000,000 keys or 7Mkeys from what i remember

EDIT: i hit the 4 instead of three making it 4.5 gigaflops oops heh

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Mount_my_floppy ]</p>

[ZO]

iBook 14inch 600Mhz 384MB ram
Jaguar 6C115, ALL apps closed

405MFLOPS

[cwill]

470.7 MFLOPS on iMac G3, 700 MHz, 768MB RAM, OSX 10.1.5

[dmgeist]

Ibook (600mz w/384mb mem) Running 38 other procceses besides
Fractal Test-Elapsed Time:54.7 seconds-Achieved 260.5 Megaflops....


Dumb Blond Question-Like whats a Megaflop?

[Bigc]

6,9 Gflops Jan QS DualGig 1,5GB Mem

[Mount_my_floppy]

A megaflop is 1/1000 of a gigaflop witch is 1 billion calculations per second making the mac, in a round about way, faster then the speed of light...

[haunebu]

[quote]Originally posted by Akac:
<strong>On my TiBook 800 while running a bunch of other stuff, I got 2600 megaflops.

Turning Altivec OFF (again with running a bunch of apps) its now abour 282 megaflops.</strong><hr></blockquote>

TiBook 800 in 10.2 with AltiVec = 2876.1 megaflops, 4.7 seconds.

TiBook 800 in 10.2 without AltiVec = 422.0 megaflops, 33.8 seconds.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by jeromba:
<strong>On a Dual 800
with 10.1.2 it's 5443.3 MF in 2.4 sec.
with Jaguar it's 5266.6 MF in 2.5 sec.

edit: Programmer can you test your brand new Dual Gig and give us the result ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I already did -- page 2, I think? ~7000 MF

[Spart]

One of my friends tested his dual gig with my settings and got ~8200 MFLOPS. (The old dual gig)

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[TigerWoods99]

Old Dual Gig w/512 MB RAM, 10.1.2: 7001.7 Mflops

Hmm, usually I can get pretty close to 8. Probably cause I'm running other apps right now.

[Bigc]

1.64 GFLOPS, PB G4500, 768MB, Jaguar.

Also see this:

<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=4140912135" target="_blank">Ars speed test relative to G4 400 Mhz</a>

[Stoo]

[quote]1.PB 190 is not PowerPC.
2.Carbonlib requires 8.6. <hr></blockquote>

So I can run this on my 6400? :D No level 2 cache but I'll post results when I get a Crescendo G3/L2 upgrade.

[neumac]

On a new 700 MHz iMac w/ 768M of Ram
with 10.1.5 it's 2222 MF in 6.0 sec.
with 10.2 it's 2455 MF in 5.5 sec.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>One of my friends tested his dual gig with my settings and got ~8200 MFLOPS. (The old dual gig)

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I won't go stripping the machine down to minimal load when I'm actually using it, so I don't see that there is any point in benchmarking it in that state. This test is primarily sensitive to processor speed, memory and cache performance doesn't really matter to it.

[Stoo]

As promised:
6400/180 with 80MB RAM, no l2 cache, Mac OS 8.6:
54.6MFlops!