New benchmarks

in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
For the dual 867 MHz, go see those nice benchmarks. Very interesting.

<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;

Tell me what you think of all these.


  • Reply 1 of 12
    [quote] if you were to compair a new and previous Dual 1Ghz, it is less than a 3% increase in speed, <hr></blockquote>

    I'd buy the QS, it's cheeper now.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    The place the DDR benefits the most is when you do a lot of I/O tasks - not CPU tasks (obviously).

    So if you are doing any video captures to disk, the system bus has plenty of bandwith left over for other tasks to do their thing thanks to DMA (Direct Memory Access) in the I/O channels.

    For some people this can really be a reason to upgrade. If you already have a fast modern G4 then there is no compelling reason to upgrade for the modest CPU speed gains you will gain.

    Playing Quake III is hardly "worth" getting a new dual-drive G4 IMHO. If you do DVD or Video work all day and night then yeah get one. Every little bit helps.

    I have a G4/450 and even the lowest end model would be light years ahead of what I have now DDR FSB or not.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    [quote]The place the DDR benefits the most is when you do a lot of I/O tasks - not CPU tasks (obviously).<hr></blockquote>

    Y'know, I keep hearing that, but until I see benchmarks supporting that on these new Macs, I ain't gonna believe it.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Of course I just feel icky defending Apple, but some of you people really have a lot of difficulty understanding which machine replaced which.

    The ddr DP867 replaced the sdr SP800

    The ddr DP1Ghz replaced the sdr SP933

    The ddr DP1.25Ghz replaced the sdr DP1Ghz

    There's no doubt that each new machine SMOKES it's former stablemate, DRR SDR or whatever, EACH MACHINE IS MUCH FASTER THAN THE MACHINE IT REPLACES!!!

    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 6 of 12
    psst... as far as i know there was never a dual 867 "OLD". There was however, a dual 800.

    edit: I'm not trying to be snide, but if it comes across that way, then you'll understand how you came across to others in your post.

    food for thought!

    [quote]Originally posted by Xidius:

    <strong>I'm sorry I failed to "saw" a Dual 867 NEW put up against a Dual 867 OLD.

    Be fair. When you find a NEW Dual 1Ghz put up against an OLD Dual 1Ghz, with reasonably equal specifications, I will listen.

    - Xidius

    [ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: Xidius ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

    [ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: liquidh2o ]

    [ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: liquidh2o ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 12
    My own benchmark results. My Mac:

    Mirror face Dual 1 GHz/167 w/GeForce 4 Ti/768 MB of RAM.

    CocoaBench, a free benchmarking program. My results and then a comparison of the results they've gotten on previous Macs.

    And SpeedRun, another free benchmarking program. Mine is the Mac highlighted in blue near the bottom.

    As you can see, according to these programs, my Mac is faster than all previous macs, including the previous dual 1 GHz. Obviously this isn't very scientific but the fact that two different programs both agree that the new one is faster than the old one should suggest that it might have some basis in fact.

    Edit: You'll notice the disk I/O is vastly superior to any previous model Mac, including the QS Dual 1 Ghz.

    [ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Xaqtly ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 12
    I know everyone gets huffy about the new 1gig dual optical not smokin' the old QS but as matsu pointed out its a whole lot cheaper AND its gonna absolutely rocket in Digital video or Audio. We are getting a new 1 ghz at work and I cant wait to see it running tons of 24/96 tracks in Logic for OSX. Now if only they could shut the damn thing up.....
  • Reply 9 of 12
    The first link was OS9 benchmarks.

  • Reply 10 of 12
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Some of those SpeedRun benchmarks are screwy - look at the first column and compare the G4/500 with the G4/800 for example. Or compare the drive scores of the 450 and the 800. Whoever set the thing up wasn't careful about using similar video cards, hard drive setups, etc. Pretty useless therefore, IMO.

    [ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 12
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    what's with the eMac in that test? It benched slower than my 400mhz iMac DV!
  • Reply 12 of 12
    bah, another bunch of useless Q3 benchmarks, this time even without SMP acceleration! How is it possible to do a mistake like that?

    When is people gonna learn? NEVER!
Sign In or Register to comment.