Let's test the NEW Cinebench 2003 on our G5

gabidgabid
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Go here and you can find the beta version of Cinebench optimised for the G5.



I'll post score from a stock 1.8 soon...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    gabidgabid Posts: 477member
    And here is the promised score:



    Quote:

    CINEBENCH 2003 v1

    ************************************************** **



    Tester :



    Processor : PowerMac G5

    MHz : 1800

    Number of CPUs : 1

    Operating System : MacOS X 10.2.8



    Graphics Card : nVidia FX 5200 Ultra

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 249 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU





    Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 231 CB-GFX

    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 682 CB-GFX

    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1064 CB-GFX



    OpenGL Speedup: 4.60



    ************************************************** **



    Scores seemed to vary minorly over multiple tests.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by myself!!

    fine. do you also have some numbers to compare these with other machines?



  • Reply 3 of 11
    staphbabystaphbaby Posts: 353member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy



    http://barefeats.com/g5c.html
  • Reply 4 of 11
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by staphbaby

    http://barefeats.com/g5c.html



    oh we know these numbers already? i thought it was something new here... ok then ..
  • Reply 5 of 11
    staphbabystaphbaby Posts: 353member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy

    oh we know these numbers already? i thought it was something new here... ok then ..



    barefeats was working with a beta release (i think - well, i'm assuming that's what "pre-release" means), rather than a final release, so there might be slight differences. indeed, the results above are slightly better than what barefeats got.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    staphbabystaphbaby Posts: 353member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by staphbaby

    barefeats was working with a beta release (i think - well, i'm assuming that's what "pre-release" means), rather than a final release, so there might be slight differences. indeed, the results above are slightly better than what barefeats got.







    whoops, i should have read the first post more closely. it's still in beta, so yes, the barefeats results are for more-or-less the same thing. i blame maccentral for publishing the news of g5-optimised cinebench without mentioning the word "beta" once



    edit: [digging own hole even deeper]: seems maccentral now mentions that it is a public beta ? i'm sure it wasn't there before though. off to my corner...
  • Reply 7 of 11
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by staphbaby





    whoops, i should have read the first post more closely. it's still in beta, so yes, the barefeats results are for more-or-less the same thing. i blame maccentral for publishing the news of g5-optimised cinebench without mentioning the word "beta" once



    hey no problem



    here are my G4/400 numbers... i hope that i can get one of those new crazy machines soon... 



    Code:


    Rendering: 43 CB-CPU

    C4D Shading: 56 CB-GFX

    OpenGL SW-L: 142 CB-GFX

    OpenGL HW-L: 86 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 2.55x







    i'm going to test if there is a difference between the "normal" and the "G5-optimized" version...
  • Reply 8 of 11
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy



    i'm going to test if there is a difference between the "normal" and the "G5-optimized" version...



    since the G5-version crashes when starting i can't test this ...
  • Reply 9 of 11
    gabidgabid Posts: 477member
    Nice to see that my numbers are slightly higher than BareFeats'. Also nice to see the 1.8 being faster than the DP 1.42 G4: 105.2 sec (G5) vs. 107 sec (DP G4) render time.



    It'll be interesting to try this again with Panther to see if there is any difference and then again with the final version of this app.
  • Reply 10 of 11
    staphbabystaphbaby Posts: 353member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gabid

    Nice to see that my numbers are slightly higher than BareFeats'. Also nice to see the 1.8 being faster than the DP 1.42 G4: 105.2 sec (G5) vs. 107 sec (DP G4) render time.



    How much variation were you getting between results? Barefeats' methodology is notoriously shonk... it's possible that he didn't average his figures.



    And it is nice to see a benchmark which was traditionally not-so-good for Apple hardware looking significantly more competitive.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    gabidgabid Posts: 477member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by staphbaby

    How much variation were you getting between results? Barefeats' methodology is notoriously shonk... it's possible that he didn't average his figures.







    Not that large: for the render time I saw between 105.2 and 105.9 sec. It seemed (and this is not scientific at all !) that I could get faster speeds if I ran just the render test on its own and more than one run in a row.
Sign In or Register to comment.