or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Post Your Cinebench Results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post Your Cinebench Results

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Cinebench 10 is out and is a free download. Get it here. I think it would be interesting to see cinebench results from the members here and the various machines that they have. Here's mine.

MBP 2.16 ghz C2D
2 gbs RAM
X1600 GPU with 128 mb VRAM


Cinebench 10 scores

open gl 3653
single cpu render 2305
multiple cpu render 4288

Post your machines specs and your score.
post #2 of 62
CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2445 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8404 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3557 CB-GFX


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

AND.....I just upgraded to Cinema v10 Studio. Happy times

I can overclock this to 3ghz, which I might do soon - I think i'll hit just a touch over 10000, however yesterday I just blew a PSU and motherboard by doing that - with a GFX overclock aswell, and that cost me quite a bit of wedge - not to mention an 'emergency' day out today to source new bits, so im going to play safe for a while now its up and running again.
post #3 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2445 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8404 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3557 CB-GFX


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

AND.....I just upgraded to Cinema v10 Studio. Happy times

I can overclock this to 3ghz, which I might do soon - I think i'll hit just a touch over 10000, however yesterday I just blew a PSU and motherboard by doing that - with a GFX overclock aswell, and that cost me quite a bit of wedge - not to mention an 'emergency' day out today to source new bits, so im going to play safe for a while now its up and running again.

I think my MBP scores are pretty respectable in light of yours. You only really crushed me in the multiple cpu rendering test. Not unexpected either.
post #4 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think my MBP scores are pretty respectable in light of yours. You only really crushed me in the multiple cpu rendering test. Not unexpected either.

indeed, its quite amazing the power you can get in a laptop these days. Your MBP scores more than double my last custom build dual proc renderbox!

Its a shame that Cinema doesn't really utilize the potential of the gfx card, my new card scores virtually the same as my old card which was an nvidia 7600gs, infact, pretty much all current cards score the same, but fire up colin mcrae dirt and you'll be in my dust!

here's looking forward to barcelona (agena FX) smoking the lot of us (I dont really like intel all that much)
post #5 of 62
MBP 2.33 ghz C2D
2 gbs RAM
X1600 GPU with 128 mb VRAM


Cinebench 10 scores

open gl 3799
single cpu render 2463
multiple cpu render 4545

Huh. My open gl and single render scores are better than the mighty quad Pro? I guess that's sort of moot, since the quad does, in fact, use the extra processors to its advantage, but still.

Nice to know that the fans on this thing can go berserk, if need be.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #6 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Nice to know that the fans on this thing can go berserk, if need be.

Yeah if you've got a MBP and want to hear what the fans sound like just run the cinebench.
post #7 of 62
heres the score from my Mac Pro 3ghz 8 core , nah I found these on the wires

Rendering (Single CPU): 3210 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18695 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.82

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 4989 CB-GFX

IIRC, Intels 45nm next gen chips scored above 22000 on an early beta of Cinebench
post #8 of 62
here is the score when I overclock to 3ghz on a 1333mhz bus - equivalent to an intel q6850 extreme.

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3069 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 10544 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3834 CB-GFX


************************************************** **
post #9 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

here is the score when I overclock to 3ghz on a 1333mhz bus - equivalent to an intel q6850 extreme.

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3069 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 10544 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3834 CB-GFX


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

Interesting results. Don't know why me and adda were able to keep it so close on the open gl bench. Your earlier comment on Barcelona is spot on. It will be interesting to see how they stack up against the evil empire.
post #10 of 62
My 15" MBP 2.33 ghz C2D with
2GB ram, 256 MB GPU:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : gar

Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2.33
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Color Depth : 32-bit Color

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2526 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 4709 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3829 CB-GFX


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

My 3 years old 1.8Ghz 20"iMac G5 with 2GB ram:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : gar

Processor : PowerPC G5 (3.0)
MHz : 1.8ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : NVIDIA NV34MAP OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : 32-bit Color

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 1196 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 588 CB-GFX


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


The NVidea 64MB GeForce FX 5200 GPU in the revA iMac G5 is probably the saddest videocard ever used.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #11 of 62
Thread Starter 
I wish someone with a Core duo and a g4 machine would post results.
post #12 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gar View Post

My 15" MBP 2.33 ghz C2D with
2GB ram, 256 MB GPU:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : gar

Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2.33
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Color Depth : 32-bit Color

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2526 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 4709 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3829 CB-GFX


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

My 3 years old 1.8Ghz 20"iMac G5 with 2GB ram:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : gar

Processor : PowerPC G5 (3.0)
MHz : 1.8ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : NVIDIA NV34MAP OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : 32-bit Color

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 1196 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 588 CB-GFX


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


The NVidea 64MB GeForce FX 5200 GPU in the revA iMac G5 is probably the saddest videocard ever used.


The g5 scores are pretty disappointing, or the core 2 scores are pretty amazing.

I guess the MBP feels teh snappy compared to the g5 iMac.
post #13 of 62
CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : MacFirm

Processor :
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2341 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 4398 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 2751 CB-GFX


************************************************** **
post #14 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacFirm View Post

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : MacFirm

Processor :
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2341 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 4398 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 2751 CB-GFX


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

Interesting Macfirm. I guess you've got a 24" iMac?

The scores between your machine and mine are very similar except the open gl score where my MBP had a decisive advantage. I guess the ATI cards are well tuned for open gl.
post #15 of 62
2003 17" iMac G4:

Tester : Me

Processor : G4
MHz : 1000
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.3.9

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce4 MX OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1440x900
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 444 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 67 CB-GFX

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by gar View Post

The NVidea 64MB GeForce FX 5200 GPU in the revA iMac G5 is probably the saddest videocard ever used.

Not quite!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #16 of 62
My Octo-core Mac Pro..

Processor: Mac Pro
GHz : 3
Number of CPUs : 8
Ram: 4GB DDR2 667MHz
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : ATi x1900 XT 512MB
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : Millions

OpenGL Standard Test: CB 5157
Single CPU Render Test: CB 3228
Multiple CPU Render Test: 18132

post #17 of 62
iMac 2.4ghz core 2 Duo

OpenGL: 5034
Single CPU: 2599
dual CPU: 4885
post #18 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddha View Post

My Octo-core Mac Pro..

Processor: Mac Pro
GHz : 3
Number of CPUs : 8
Ram: 4GB DDR2 667MHz
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.3.10

Graphics Card : ATi x1900 XT 512MB
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : Millions

OpenGL Standard Test: CB 5157
Single CPU Render Test: CB 3228
Multiple CPU Render Test: 18132


I think we have a winner.
post #19 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

2003 17" iMac G4:

Tester : Me

Processor : G4
MHz : 1000
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.3.9

Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce4 MX OpenGL Engine
Resolution : 1440x900
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 444 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 67 CB-GFX

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





Not quite!

I still can't figure out why Apple went with Intel chips in their laptops.
post #20 of 62
i bet im one of the only people who actually succeeded in getting the program to not to run at all. I completely crashed it on my old iBook G4 because i was running 4 other openGL apps, 2 flash apps, and a coule of hd movies.

post #21 of 62
Can somebody with a MacBook or MacMini GMA950 post a score for comparison, please?
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #22 of 62
i cant find official word from Maxon, but it seems to me looking over Cinebench data that the CB result for a single processor is normalised to an Intel Core 2 Duo. This was certainly the case in previous versions of Cinebench, which in its last iteration was normalised to a P4.

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php
http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/stuff.htm

For example, a Core 2 running at 2ghz (2000mhz) scores 2000 in the benchmark when running on windows XP 32 bit. I would then concur that it is the differences in operating systems and architectural differences in the motherboard, ram, etc that then vary the result within about 10% of the baseline.

Therefore, Macs are scoring slightly better than the baseline in general than PC's, and that the open Gl subsystem and drivers on macs is better than on windows, with a slight favour to Ati cards over the current generation of nvidia cards.

Therefore the poster who showed 18000+ for the 8 core thread benchmark has the processing equivalent of a single theoretical 18ghz core 2, and that the 1ghz G4 scoring 444 has the processing power of a 0.44ghz core 2
post #23 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Therefore the poster who showed 18000+ for the 8 core thread benchmark has the processing equivalent of a single theoretical 18ghz core 2, and that the 1ghz G4 scoring 444 has the processing power of a 0.44ghz core 2



Well, it's nice to know what the baseline is anyway.

(starts saving up for a C2D Mac)

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #24 of 62
Well, this is what I got from my all new iMac:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : marian

Processor : Interl Core Duo 2
MHz : 2.8 GHz (the 'extreme' version)
Number of CPUs : 2 (cores, of course)
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.9

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO OpenGL Engine (256MB)
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3032 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5683 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5622 CB-GFX


Hmmm..... first impression - not too bad at all
BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...
hmmmm.... TBC later

Also, before I bought this Mac I wasn't able to find any info about it (2.8 GHz version)

If you are in the situation I was in, let me know and I'll post the reply.


Regards
marian

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 2445 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8404 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3557 CB-GFX


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

AND.....I just upgraded to Cinema v10 Studio. Happy times

I can overclock this to 3ghz, which I might do soon - I think i'll hit just a touch over 10000, however yesterday I just blew a PSU and motherboard by doing that - with a GFX overclock aswell, and that cost me quite a bit of wedge - not to mention an 'emergency' day out today to source new bits, so im going to play safe for a while now its up and running again.
post #25 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post

BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...
hmmmm.... TBC later

not even close.
post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

here is the score when I overclock to 3ghz on a 1333mhz bus - equivalent to an intel q6850 extreme. *

what are the negative aspects of overclocking, if any?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

what are the negative aspects of overclocking, if any?

If you want to overclock a core 2, its pretty simple and easy.

First look around the net to see what kinds of overclock people are getting so you know what you can expect. Try to find someone with the same motherboard, chip and what kind of cooling they are using.

For example Im using an Asus p5n-e sli with a Q6600, looking around you will see that the q6600 can go up to around 3.4 Ghz relatively easily, but that it doesn't OC as easily as a dual core which can go to about 3.8.

Also Motherboards vary in the amound of stable FSB they can push out, and you might have a chip that can go to 4ghz, but your motherboard might not be able to handle the FSB speed of 500mhz in order to set an x8 multiplier.

Multiplyers are set on the chip (except for extreme editions) and cannot be changed, so in order to OC it is the FSB that needs to be raised, which is why a good quality MB is important.

Also there are FSB holes, you might be unlucky to find that your motherboard won't run if you set a FSB of 425-440 but will run ok at 420 or 450!!! In my case I went for a bigger overclock of 1600 FSB and my computer wouldn't POST - that might be bad news, but I got over the problem by removing the CMOS battery and that reset the Bios back to factory defaults of 1066.

I'd play it safe, you'd be unlucky to find a q6600 that wont run at 3ghz 1333FSB, so thats a good first step to try for.

Hopefully on your motherboard, you can unlock the FSB to RAM. I have DDR2 667, but overclocking the FSB to raise the chip speed would also raise the Ram speed and I didn't want to do that, because I didn't hold up much hope of my ram running at 800+

Fortunately the MB i Have allows me to unlock the FSB:Ram ratio, so I left the ram at 667 - Incidently which is half of 1333, so the ram still runs at 1:1 ratio (FSB's are quad clocked, Ram double clocked, so the real speed is 333mhz for ram and FSB)

The negative. You can destroy your computer if you get silly or are unlucky!

The Power Supply Unit must be up to it. I cant stress that enough! Overclocked compoinents pull more power than ususal, this can burn out the PSU.

I knew that and was OK about it because I knew I had to upgrade the PSU anyway. What I wasn't expecting was that when the PSU died it would spike the MB and take that out aswell. Bugger - that cost me a new Motherboard too.

If you dont cool your chip enough that will overheat and possibly die if it doesn't sense the overheat and back off. Incidently the Intel HSF was up to the job of cooling at 3ghz - afterall, you can get Intel chips that run at 3ghz with the same fan, but you might want to invest in a better tower heatpipe cooler to keep things in check.

Case ventilaton might require a bit of an upgrade. Get a couple of silent 120mm fans.

Basically if you are sensible and prepared to spend a little bit of money, with the Intel core 2 chips there are few negatives to having a sensible overclock.
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post

BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...
hmmmm.... TBC later

unfortunately, while I put alot of weight in the CPU benchmark of cinebench, the OGL test serves one specific task only, and that is to advise people on what card will run Cinema 4d the best if you are going to build a computer to run cinema 4d.

The OGL scores are completely bunk for testing graphics cards, because the scene it uses is pretty lightweight and uses a miniscule fraction of the capabilities of modern GFX cards. It exists only to advise builders of PCs what card to buy to run cinema 4d.

Cinebench is the only benchmark in the world that would have a 2600 pro besting a 8800 series card.

Incidently, that is not all though, because I have a sneaking suspicion that in actual use, when models get complicated on the screen when running Cinema 4d, a card like an 8800 gts will provide a much better fluid user experience than the 2600 pro.
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

...I knew that and was OK about it because I knew I had to upgrade the PSU anyway. What I wasn't expecting was that when the PSU died it would spike the MB and take that out aswell. Bugger - that cost me a new Motherboard too....

Tsk tsk. ...You need some solid capacitor mobo like the Gigabyte Intel chipset ones, those are very very good I believe. For 3ghz OC Intel Quad with nvidia8800 OC, you should be looking at Zalman/ Enermax or better to run at least clear of 800W. (1000W rating with 80% efficiency) ...??? Or something like that? I am only experience nonetheless in teh overclocking AMD64 Venice and nVidia 6600GT, nVidia 8500GT. Kingston DDR400 RAM - tighter timings, PCIExpress bus upped a bit. Me overclocking used to be in my signatures over the past few years but as you can see my PC is in deep hibernation now. Core 2 Quad ... boy that sounds good though. Get a decent motherboard!!! \
post #30 of 62
Seriously though I love Asus, I have an Asus A8N-Sli [normal] for Socket939 AMD64. For my company for CCTV use (24 hours writing to RAID1 250gig drives) I ordered a custom build pair of boxes which use Gigabyte DS-4 P35 chipset. I feel Gigabyte has the edge on Asus at the moment. Also in the GPU department. Just my preference at this stage.
post #31 of 62
Hmmmm thought so

IS there any detailed and comprehensive test that would measure CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, LAN etc for Mac?
It would be nice to compare the results with PC but maybe even more importantly I would like to see the differences between my new IMac and MacBook that I also happen to have?

Cheers


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

unfortunately, while I put alot of weight in the CPU benchmark of cinebench, the OGL test serves one specific task only, and that is to advise people on what card will run Cinema 4d the best if you are going to build a computer to run cinema 4d.

The OGL scores are completely bunk for testing graphics cards, because the scene it uses is pretty lightweight and uses a miniscule fraction of the capabilities of modern GFX cards. It exists only to advise builders of PCs what card to buy to run cinema 4d.

Cinebench is the only benchmark in the world that would have a 2600 pro besting a 8800 series card.

Incidently, that is not all though, because I have a sneaking suspicion that in actual use, when models get complicated on the screen when running Cinema 4d, a card like an 8800 gts will provide a much better fluid user experience than the 2600 pro.
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post

Hmmmm thought so

IS there any detailed and comprehensive test that would measure CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, LAN etc for Mac?
It would be nice to compare the results with PC but maybe even more importantly I would like to see the differences between my new IMac and MacBook that I also happen to have?

Cheers

http://www.xbench.com/
post #33 of 62
Thanks

Not sure how accurate this test is (especially on GFX side - MacBook faster that ATI Radeon 2600 Pro...) but at least you can compare CPU speeds (although not sure whether this app uses Core 2 Duo - last update mid/late 2006...

Anyway, cheers

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

http://www.xbench.com/
post #34 of 62
8-core Mac Pro, 5GB Ram, Raid Stripe Startup disk, X1900 ATI 512MB VRAM

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : Koen Delbroek

Processor : Intel Xeon
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1900 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <1920x1200t>
Color Depth : <Millions>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3200 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18789 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.87

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 4872 CB-GFX


************************************************** **
post #35 of 62
My Mac isn't a Pro Machine, but I was impressed after seeing the results. With my Dell AMD Tk-53 and 1150 HyperMemory (integrated 256MB) graphics card as well as Casper integrated GFX computer we both got around 170 CB-GFX in Cinebench R10, but my MacBook with X3100 got 1651.
The results were:

Open GL : 1651 CB-GFX
Single Core: 2101
Dual Core : 4013
Factor : 1.91.

More than good enough for me
post #36 of 62
I have a 2.8 GHz 4 GB ram iMac 24" and recieved almost identical scores as you with 10.5.1. I was a touch slower but I did perform the test while doing some small stuff like emptying the trash and using the finder. My multiplier was identical.



Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post

Well, this is what I got from my all new iMac:

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : marian

Processor : Interl Core Duo 2
MHz : 2.8 GHz (the 'extreme' version)
Number of CPUs : 2 (cores, of course)
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.9

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO OpenGL Engine (256MB)
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3032 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5683 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5622 CB-GFX


Hmmm..... first impression - not too bad at all
BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...
hmmmm.... TBC later

Also, before I bought this Mac I wasn't able to find any info about it (2.8 GHz version)

If you are in the situation I was in, let me know and I'll post the reply.


Regards
marian

************************************************** **
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #37 of 62
This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : Superclock

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz
MHz : 4700
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX


************************************************** **
post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlitofraaa View Post

This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : Superclock

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz
MHz : 4700
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX


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

I wish such a computer was a mac.
post #39 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlitofraaa View Post

This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!

CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **

Tester : Superclock

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz
MHz : 4700
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX


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

These results don't make sense. Buddas Octo core MP didn't score as high on the multiple cpu render.
post #40 of 62
He's lying. No way a dual 3GHz could get anywhere near that.. or even half of that. I would think his shading score would be higher with his 8800 also.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Post Your Cinebench Results