AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Bench Your New Mac With Factorial Bench
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bench Your New Mac With Factorial Bench - Page 2

post #41 of 79
3/16/08 at 2:26am
Here's my beast. I haven't upgraded the RAM yet (planning to toss in another 8 GBs) but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this test, given the results above.

("MacPro3,1") with 8 cores, running at 3.20 gHz.
Frontside bus: 1.60 gHz
Installed memory: 2.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 8 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Thread # 3 created.
Thread # 4 created.
Thread # 5 created.
Thread # 6 created.
Thread # 7 created.
Thread # 8 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 4: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.337436 seconds at 18,692,484 factorials per second.
Thread # 3: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.367753 seconds at 18,278,154 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.383481 seconds at 18,070,360 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.389489 seconds at 17,992,224 factorials per second.
Thread # 5: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.379379 seconds at 18,124,098 factorials per second.
Thread # 6: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.381275 seconds at 18,099,220 factorials per second.
Thread # 7: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.437760 seconds at 17,388,160 factorials per second.
Thread # 8: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 1.432518 seconds at 17,451,788 factorials per second.
logout

[Process completed]
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #42 of 79
3/16/08 at 6:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by J120387 View Post

messiah, how many macs do u own?

Three personally, five total in the household...



...I know!
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #43 of 79
3/18/08 at 2:30pm
PowerBook G4 (17-inch 1.67 GHz) ("PowerBook5,7") with 1 cores, running at 1.67 gHz.
Frontside bus: 166.48 mHz
Installed memory: 1.50 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 1 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 200,000,000 factorials calculated in 32.257911 seconds at 6,200,030 factorials per second.
logout

[Process completed]


hmm, the above was on Leopard installed on the hard drive - so I booted over into tiger on a fw 400 external.



PowerBook G4 (17-inch 1.67 GHz) ("PowerBook5,7") with 1 cores, running at 1.67 gHz.
Frontside bus: 166.48 mHz
Installed memory: 1.50 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 1 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 200,000,000 factorials calculated in 52.750747 seconds at 3,791,416 factorials per second.
logout
[Process completed]
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 79
3/19/08 at 3:49am
Thread Starter 
Hmmm - it should make no difference where the OS was residing or what OS version it was - this is a straight C application that doesn't do any disk I/O and is too small to need to be loaded in segments.

I wonder if your Tiger boot had some other processes running? Like whatever is in Login Items?
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #45 of 79
3/19/08 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Hmmm - it should make no difference where the OS was residing or what OS version it was - this is a straight C application that doesn't do any disk I/O and is too small to need to be loaded in segments.

I wonder if your Tiger boot had some other processes running? Like whatever is in Login Items?


Could be.

Hang on I'll hop over and disable anything and try again ....

hah - you were right !
Two words - "Net Barrier" on the Tiger disc. Interestingly (or not) I had Little Snitch running on the Leopard disc when testing so I'd expect some nano seconds improvement on that score if I disabled it.

PowerBook G4 (17-inch 1.67 GHz) ("PowerBook5,7") with 1 cores, running at 1.67 gHz.
Frontside bus: 166.48 mHz
Installed memory: 1.50 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 1 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 200,000,000 factorials calculated in 31.813558 seconds at 6,286,628 factorials per second.
logout
[Process completed]

Results for my MP 2.66 Quad are straight in line with what others have posted - low 3's.

Und finally

(null) ("iMac7,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.00 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 2.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 8.872523 seconds at 11,270,751 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 8.888610 seconds at 11,250,353 factorials per second.
logout
[Process completed]
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 79
3/20/08 at 5:13pm
N101-Mac:~ Name101$ /Users/Name101/Desktop/factorialBench/factorialBench ; exit;

(null) ("MacBookPro4,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.50 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.407347 seconds at 13,500,110 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.460093 seconds at 13,404,659 factorials per second.
logout

[Process completed]


./factorialBench 2 4000000000


(null) ("MacBookPro4,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.50 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

2,147,483,647 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 1,073,741,823 factorials calculated in 79.865624 seconds at 13,444,355 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 1,073,741,823 factorials calculated in 80.862756 seconds at 13,278,571 factorials per second.




Same MacbookPro but a larger benchmark.. seems to scale well

2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply

2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply
post #47 of 79
3/20/08 at 6:28pm
This does not make me happy...... I don't know why its this slow....

(null) ("MacBookPro3,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.40 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 13.023079 seconds at 7,678,676 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 13.085910 seconds at 7,641,807 factorials per second.
logout
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:00pm
Thread Starter 
Amazing. NetBarrier taking almost 50% CPU, or stomping on the L1 cache every time it gets the CPU for its 10 milliseconds.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #49 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
This does not make me happy...... I don't know why its this slow....

You have some other processes running. Check Activity Monitor.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #50 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:03pm
Anybody have some ideas as how to make it faster like it SHOULD be??? Its only 6 months old.

Checked that. Nothing else running.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name101 View Post

N101-Mac:~ Name101$ /Users/Name101/Desktop/factorialBench/factorialBench ; exit;


./factorialBench 2 4000000000


(null) ("MacBookPro4,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.50 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

2,147,483,647 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 1,073,741,823 factorials calculated in 79.865624 seconds at 13,444,355 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 1,073,741,823 factorials calculated in 80.862756 seconds at 13,278,571 factorials per second.




Same MacbookPro but a larger benchmark.. seems to scale well

Yep. It is almost linear with CPU clockspeed.

It limited your iterations to 2^31-1 because this is not a 64-bit app. The biggest number that a 32-bit signed integer can hold is 2,147,483,647. I guess I could make it unsigned - then it could count to 2^32-1, which is twice as much.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #52 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

You have some other processes running. Check Activity Monitor.

Reply
Reply
post #53 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:14pm
Wow.. that is just over half my performance.


This is What i had Running when i did the test.


2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply

2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply
post #54 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

Anybody have some ideas as how to make it faster like it SHOULD be??? Its only 6 months old.

Checked that. Nothing else running.

The only other explanation is that one of your cores is turned off.

Do both green bars show full blast in Activity Monitor?

The bench just asks the OS how many cores there are - it doesn't test them to see if they are working. And it will make 2 threads even if one core is shut down, and the Mach kernel will just swap the threads on that one core.

This would be rare, but if one of your cores blew out or somebody used BSD to turn it off, then that would explain it. I still think there might be a background process running though.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #55 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post


Choose "All processes" from the popup, not just user processes.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #56 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

The only other explanation is that one of your cores is turned off.

Do both green bars show full blast in Activity Monitor?

The bench just asks the OS how many cores there are - it doesn't test them to see if they are working. And it will make 2 threads even if one core is shut down, and the Mach kernel will just swap the threads on that one core.

This would be rare, but if one of your cores blew out or somebody used BSD to turn it off, then that would explain it. I still think there might be a background process running though.

How would I go about turning them on/off?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name101 View Post

Wow.. that is just over half my performance.


This is What i had Running when i did the test.

Yeah I don't know what happened. It was lightning fast when I first got it and about 2 months ago I seen the spinning beach ball for the first time.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:34pm
I see the beach ball a little bit.
but this is the 4th day in uptime
and i have working prjects on Morph age and Photoshop
and just a lot of junk that stays open untill i restart my computer.

When i had windows running i would have to do "Program Clean up" to keep it running smoothly.
but mac wow.... just wow i love it.

and to be honest I think i could squeeze a little more points out of the bench mark. if i restarted and then used the program.

but i wonder what is happening with background programs Footloose301

2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply

2.5ghz | 4GB RAM | 250GB HDD | 512MB V/Ram 8600M
Pure Bliss!!
And a FREE! Ipod Nano 4GB (student Deal)
Reply
post #59 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

How would I go about turning them on/off?

You have to have the hwprefs BSD tool installed. This gets installed with the CHUD package from the Developer Tools.

Just to check, try typing "hwprefs" in Terminal and see if it knows what the hell you are talking about.

Before you go messing with that though, what about the two green bars in the Activity Monitor? Choose "Floating CPU Window" from the Window menu.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #60 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

You have to have the hwprefs BSD tool installed. This gets installed with the CHUD package from the Developer Tools.

Just to check, try typing "hwprefs" in Terminal and see if it knows what the hell you are talking about.

Before you go messing with that though, what about the two green bars in the Activity Monitor? Choose "Floating CPU Window" from the Window menu.

Yeah now I've got this thing in the bottom left of my screen with both green bars lighting up.

When typing this, both of them take up 2-3 blocks each. When I run that benchmark they both go completely solid.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

You have to have the hwprefs BSD tool installed. This gets installed with the CHUD package from the Developer Tools.

Just to check, try typing "hwprefs" in Terminal and see if it knows what the hell you are talking about.

Before you go messing with that though, what about the two green bars in the Activity Monitor? Choose "Floating CPU Window" from the Window menu.

Hey, $20 paypal if you can figure it out. haha

I have no idea why its moving so slow and its bothering the crap out of me.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

Hey, $20 paypal if you can figure it out. haha

I have no idea why its moving so slow and its bothering the crap out of me.

The bars are supposed to go completely solid - that is what the benchmark is doing - maxing out the CPUs.

Since both cores are working, it's a background process. Or maybe Time Machine was backing up while you ran the test.

Both bars should not be at 3 bars when typing, so I think something is running in the background. Spotlight is another possibility.

As noted, check "All Processes."
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #63 of 79
3/20/08 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Since both cores are working, it's a background process. Or maybe Time Machine was backing up while you ran the test.

Both bars should not be at 3 bars when typing, so I think something is running in the background. Spotlight is another possibility.

As noted, check "All Processes."

Well I'm not using Time Machine.

I keep trying to upload a pic of the "All Processes" and photobucket won't upload it, Takes forever.

Also, in the other pic it shows that the CPU idles around 90-98% most of the time.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 79
3/21/08 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Amazing. NetBarrier taking almost 50% CPU, or stomping on the L1 cache every time it gets the CPU for its 10 milliseconds.

Ya lives and learns !
Thanks for the test, lundy.

No mo Intego in these here parts.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 79
4/6/08 at 1:38pm
("MacBookAir1,1") with 2 cores, running at 1.60 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 2.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 11.578892 seconds at 8,636,405 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 11.669031 seconds at 8,569,692 factorials per second.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #66 of 79
11/19/09 at 7:03pm
SuperDuper was running in the background while this was going on. Not sure what that matters but here it is.

(null) ("iMac11,1") with 8 cores, running at 2.80 gHz.
Frontside bus: 4.29 gHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 8 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Thread # 3 created.
Thread # 4 created.
Thread # 5 created.
Thread # 6 created.
Thread # 7 created.
Thread # 8 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 4: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.342400 seconds at 10,672,814 factorials per second.
Thread # 7: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.352761 seconds at 10,625,814 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.361095 seconds at 10,588,308 factorials per second.
Thread # 3: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.362580 seconds at 10,581,652 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.364567 seconds at 10,572,760 factorials per second.
Thread # 8: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.357341 seconds at 10,605,169 factorials per second.
Thread # 5: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.367399 seconds at 10,560,113 factorials per second.
Thread # 6: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.372122 seconds at 10,539,087 factorials per second.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #67 of 79
11/20/09 at 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

SuperDuper was running in the background while this was going on. Not sure what that matters but here it is.

(null) ("iMac11,1") with 8 cores, running at 2.80 gHz.
Frontside bus: 4.29 gHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 8 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Thread # 3 created.
Thread # 4 created.
Thread # 5 created.
Thread # 6 created.
Thread # 7 created.
Thread # 8 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 4: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.342400 seconds at 10,672,814 factorials per second.
Thread # 7: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.352761 seconds at 10,625,814 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.361095 seconds at 10,588,308 factorials per second.
Thread # 3: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.362580 seconds at 10,581,652 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.364567 seconds at 10,572,760 factorials per second.
Thread # 8: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.357341 seconds at 10,605,169 factorials per second.
Thread # 5: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.367399 seconds at 10,560,113 factorials per second.
Thread # 6: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.372122 seconds at 10,539,087 factorials per second.

Run it without SD in the background.

Someone with a 3 ghz dual quad has the 'best' score. That's from 2008. You should be able to beat that.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 79
11/20/09 at 4:42am
Logged out and back in.

For the record, it seems this doesn't even max out my processor according to my dock icon. Not sure why not. Maybe because it is so quick?

(null) ("iMac11,1") with 8 cores, running at 2.80 gHz.
Frontside bus: 4.29 gHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 8 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Thread # 3 created.
Thread # 4 created.
Thread # 5 created.
Thread # 6 created.
Thread # 7 created.
Thread # 8 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 4: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.288634 seconds at 10,923,546 factorials per second.
Thread # 7: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.297217 seconds at 10,882,734 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.308406 seconds at 10,829,985 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.309185 seconds at 10,826,330 factorials per second.
Thread # 6: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.309673 seconds at 10,824,043 factorials per second.
Thread # 3: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.312440 seconds at 10,811,092 factorials per second.
Thread # 5: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.320036 seconds at 10,775,694 factorials per second.
Thread # 8: 25,000,000 factorials calculated in 2.312718 seconds at 10,809,792 factorials per second.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #69 of 79
11/20/09 at 9:27pm
My top of the line maxed out Mac Mini (Late 2009)

("Macmini3,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.66 gHz.
Frontside bus: 1.06 gHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 6.669110 seconds at 14,994,504 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 6.766785 seconds at 14,778,067 factorials per second.

Pretty impressive! I love my Mac Mini!
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 79
11/21/09 at 7:41am
And a not quite top-of-the-line Mac mini but maxed out:

(null) ("Macmini3,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.00 gHz.
Frontside bus: 1.06 gHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 8.732085 seconds at 11,452,019 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 8.779958 seconds at 11,389,576 factorials per second.


edit: comparing the results to Mr. Smith's directly above, the ratio of times is essentially identical to the ratio of CPU clock speeds. I guess this means this is, for the most part, a CPU power test.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 79
11/21/09 at 9:16pm
Lundy, want to redo the script so my processor will go to all out full power to see what this thing can really do?
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #72 of 79
11/21/09 at 9:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Lundy, want to redo the script so my processor will go to all out full power to see what this thing can really do?

It's written in pure C, with some objective-C for one or two things. There's nothing that could cause wait states, so I'm not sure what's causing the bars not to go full throttle. Maybe the OS or other background processes are thrashing or entering wait states.

If anything on your machine is causing disk access during the test, that could slow it down.

If there's a Mach command to set yourself to real-time priority, I'm not aware of how to do it.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #73 of 79
11/22/09 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

It's written in pure C, with some objective-C for one or two things. There's nothing that could cause wait states, so I'm not sure what's causing the bars not to go full throttle. Maybe the OS or other background processes are thrashing or entering wait states.

If anything on your machine is causing disk access during the test, that could slow it down.

If there's a Mach command to set yourself to real-time priority, I'm not aware of how to do it.

It is now filling the bar up. No change in time though. Kinda surprised it was not faster but I guess 2.8 GHz is 2.8 Ghz sometimes.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #74 of 79
11/22/09 at 9:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

It is now filling the bar up. No change in time though. Kinda surprised it was not faster but I guess 2.8 GHz is 2.8 Ghz sometimes.

It could be made faster - for example it uses recursion to calculate the factorial of 16. I could do that without recursion.

Sometimes the problem you run into with these raw CPU benchmarks is that the compiler tries to "help" you by optimizing away all of your code if it doesn't really do anything except loop. Even if it loops adding to a counter, the compiler will just compute the answer ahead of time and remove the loop. For example, if you try and add all the numbers from 1 to 100, the compiler will recognize what you are doing and just assign 5050 to the result.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #75 of 79
11/22/09 at 10:13am
What about upping the number of fractuals since the time it takes to 200M on some of these machines is only 2 secs. How about 1B (5x) or 2B (10x) as many.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 79
11/24/09 at 6:09pm
PowerBook G4 (15-inch 1.67/1.5 GHz) ("PowerBook5,6") with 1 cores, running at 1.50 gHz.
Frontside bus: 166.40 mHz
Installed memory: 1.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 1 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 200,000,000 factorials calculated in 44.098306 seconds at 4,535,322 factorials per second.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 79
11/25/09 at 7:30am
(null) ("iMac7,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.40 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 2.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.216119 seconds at 13,857,864 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.240518 seconds at 13,811,166 factorials per second.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 79
11/26/09 at 8:22am
iMac 2.6 ghz with 1 ghz fsb, 4gbs RAM:

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 6.611974 seconds at 15,124,076 factorials per second.
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 6.652347 seconds at 15,032,288 factorials per second.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 79
1/23/10 at 6:19pm
Just got the logic board replaced for the 2nd time thanks to NVIDIA's faulty video controllers. Apple silently made all Santa Rosa 15" and 17" 2.4's with the NVIDIA 8600M GT cards a 3 year free logic board replacement!!!

Happy! This notebook has never run this cool or this fast!!!!


(null) ("MacBookPro3,1") with 2 cores, running at 2.40 gHz.
Frontside bus: 800.00 mHz
Installed memory: 4.00 GB

200,000,000 factorials will be calculated by creating 2 threads.

Thread # 1 created.
Thread # 2 created.
Waiting for threads to finish...
Thread # 2: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.273503 seconds at 13,748,534 factorials per second.
Thread # 1: 100,000,000 factorials calculated in 7.334293 seconds at 13,634,579 factorials per second.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Bench Your New Mac With Factorial Bench