New hardware benchmarks

torqued

Here is an independent comparison of the new hardware vs. the old directly from Apple. On the Canadian web page they have not updated the graphics page from the old G4s.



Old G4s:







New G4s:







I know there are differences in video cards etc... but hopefully it will be of some use to somebody out there.



Torqued



[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Torqued ]</p>

onlooker

All I can say is that I new the Nvidia card was going to smoke that ATI card, and I still think ATI's next card will not be much sitting next to GeForce 4 TI. And by the time ATI comes out that new card some people are squaking about. Nvidia will have a Next Generation Card ready that will put the rest to shame again.



That's all I have to say a'bout that.

bobthetomato

I'm not sure if those speed boost claims aren't a bit overblown. Barefeats tested and found no speed advantage with the new DDR Powermac over tha same clock speed SDRAM Mac



<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html"; target="_blank">Their test results</a>

zapchud

Barefeats benchmarks = useless.

I shouldn't need to explain why. search-function for those who don't know

cecilb.demented

[quote]Originally posted by r-0X#Zapchud:

<strong>I shouldn't need to explain why. search-function for those who don't know </strong><hr></blockquote>



what?

falcon

Um these benchmarkes are uterly useless. As you pointed out, different video cards.



The Radeon 9000 was never ment to contend with the Geforce4 Ti's. Why many in the Mac world think that is absolutely beyond me. Its ATi's Geforce4MX. And its certainly kicks its ass.



The Radeon 9700 is the king. Being ~2x as fast as a Ti4600 its so fast its kinda ridiculous. But dont believe me.



<a href="http://www.retel.dk/showreview.php?id=3&page=11"; target="_blank">http://www.retel.dk/showreview.php?id=3&page=11</A>;

And thats not using FSAA which is what the 9700 excels in.

serrano

The 9700 spanks the Ti.

zapchud

[quote]Originally posted by cecilb.demented:

<strong>



what?</strong><hr></blockquote>



<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001343"; target="_blank">GRRRRRRRRRRR </a>

tigerwoods99

The Radeon 9700 OWNZ YOU. It's faster than the GF4 Ti, better image quality, better 2D, ATI still makes the only Mac retail cards, ATI has better Mac drivers.



I don't know about you, but I want this card.

dplat

On the Quake test the new 1 GB machine shows a speed improvement of ~11% over the previous 1 GB.



Can all of this difference be attributed to the ATI 9000 Pro?

programmer

[quote]Originally posted by dplat:

<strong>On the Quake test the new 1 GB machine shows a speed improvement of ~11% over the previous 1 GB.



Can all of this difference be attributed to the ATI 9000 Pro?</strong><hr></blockquote>



Probably.



And the Barefeats tests don't really mean much either, except that they are probably processor bound rather than memory bound (thus same processor == same speed).

bryan fury

so buy a 867 dual and add a radeon 9700?

paul

also overclock the system bus to 167.... :eek:

bryan fury

ill leave that to the experts...

g-news

I just found something very interesting today.

Hotwardware has been reviewing the Radeon 9700 which was officially released today for the PC. They also tested the 9000 Pro. The test machine was a P4 2.4GHz with 533MHz effective bus.

That is currently the 2nd fastest computer on sale, apart from the 2.7GHz overclocks that you can get in some places.



Now compare:







Are my eyes sore, or is the DP 1.25GHz REALLY faster than the P4?



Amazing.



G-News



[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: G-News ]</p>

-@-

[quote]Originally posted by G-News:

[QB]Are my eyes sore, or is the DP 1.25GHz REALLY faster than the P4?



Amazing.



G-News

QB]<hr></blockquote>



Cant just compare one Quake benchmark to another Quake benchmark, they must be exactly the same. Thought a 'quaker' knew that.



Besides Apple benchmarks are rigged, 90% faster in Photoshop indeed...

g-news

And what makes you think 1024x768x32 isn't equal to 1024x768x32? Apple used high quality settings, that's about as sure as it can be.

Plus, last time they had Q3 benchmarks in there, they weren't with s_mixahead and chunksize adapted. (two tweaks without effect on quality of the game, but compensating for certain programming shortcomings.)



So, in what respect are these benchmarks not comparable?



G-News

kecksy

Cool, the Dual 1.25GHz isn't as slow as I previously thought. It may be a tad slower than a 2.53GHz P4, but it's not that much slower.

xaqtly

Considering your eyes can't distinguish individual frames at speeds above 80 fps, going over 100 fps is pretty much irrelevant anyway. So if it's 105 FPS or 195 FPS it really doesn't matter... it'll look the same to your eyes.



[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Xaqtly ]</p>

kecksy

[quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:

<strong>Considering your eyes can't distinguish individual frames at speeds above 80 fps, going over 100 fps is pretty much irrelevant anyway. So if it's 105 FPS or 195 FPS it really doesn't matter... it'll look the same to your eyes.



[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Xaqtly ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



True, but most gamers don't care. They'll replace one $500 video for another if it will give them 20 more frames per second. It's like buying a Dodge Viper. Most people will never drive above half its top speed.

g-news

True, true, the problem is that Q3's physics are FPS bound, and the optimum is 125FPS (or 1000) for various highly technical reasons I'm not going to dig into.

And since framerates are never constant, it's desirable to have a framerate that is high enough so that it never drops below those 125 FPS.

And now with FPS in the 300s with the Radeon 9700, we're definitely getting to that point where even a custom map loaded with tons of players is not going to force us below 125 FPS.

Of course, anything above 125 FPS avg is great, and sufficient for 99.99% of all players.



G-news