MacWorld post MDD Benchmarks

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html</a>;



The dual 1.25GHz looks like it's pretty darn quick. 19% faster than both dual 1GHz machines.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    Hmmm what snake oil are they using for that? Not bad. Can't wait to see more tests.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:

    <strong><a href="http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html</a>;



    The dual 1.25GHz looks like it's pretty darn quick. 19% faster than both dual 1GHz machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think both the new 1GHz and 1.25GHz machines are a bit of a disappointment in performance terms. There seems to be little difference between the old and new 1GHz machines, despite the new architecture, and the difference between the 1GHz and 1.25GHz machines seems to be no more than what the raw megahertz difference would dictate, despite the larger cache size. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 09-18-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 16
    Only 19% A little arctic silver oughta change that with my old dual gigger.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    thttht Posts: 3,231member
    <strong>Originally posted by RodUK:

    I think both the new 1GHz and 1.25GHz machines are a bit of a disappointment in performance terms. There seems to be little difference between the old and new 1GHz machines, despite the new architecture, and the difference between the 1GHz and 1.25GHz machines seems to be no more than what the raw megahertz difference would dictate, despite the larger cache size.</strong>



    If Apple improved the core logic performance of the MDD Power Macs, you won't be seeing it in benchmarks because most benchmarks don't measure that sort of performance. What they did was integrate FireWire, Ethernet, and ATA/100 onto the system controller ASIC along with a direct PCI bus. This alleviated bus contention on the PCI bus or older system controller since said items were on the PCI bus or didn't have DMA, nonblocking access, whatever, in the system controller.



    One would have to be read or writing across (pushing data across) the network, across the Firewire bus, across the ATA bus, and across the PCI bus while doing something memory intensive to really see if it is better than the QS machines.



    As for CPU performance, I would contend that memory technology such as DDR won't provide a large impact on PPC G4 performance as long as there is a large backside cache present. So, performance increases are more directly proportionate to MHz increases than memory performance. On the x86 side, memory performance is more important because x86 CPUs stopped using backside cache (because it was expensive) awhile back, and I get the feeling that the x86 ISA (8 registers) plays a factor as well.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    I don't know, I benched my dual 1 GHz with a couple different benchmarking programs, and in all cases mine was faster than the previous DP 1 GHz Mac, especially in I/O and video tests. But also in overall and specific speeds.



    I don't doubt that the 1.25 is faster still - how could it not be. I just think that there's a misconception that the new DP 1 GHz is only as fast as the last one, and I don't believe that's true. With the faster disk bus, faster DDR RAM and faster FSB it makes a noticable difference in my opinion.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Yeah, if both dual 1GHz machines had identical components (Hard drive, video card, ect.) than their performance would be identical.



    If both machines are "stock" however, then the new G4 would win because some of its parts are faster.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Note also that the 1.25GHz machine was artificially constrained to 256MB. MacWorld actually downgraded the top-line machine RAM-wise for parity with the other machines. If you buy the stock version at the Apple Store, though, it comes with 512MB of RAM, and that's a big difference in OS X.



    Of course, it's a big difference on every Mac, but still.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    That's kinda weird, the old PowerMac DP 1Ghz G4 beat the new DDR model.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    <a href="http://barefeats.com/pmddr6.html"; target="_blank">http://barefeats.com/pmddr6.html</a>;



    More benchmarks.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Taking into account the usual, um, loosely constrained tests that Bare Feats conducts, the most salient thing to come out of those tests is that the DDR really kicks in when you're doing a lot of I/O. The DDR PowerMacs mopped up the benchmarks when there was a network transfer going on in the background. And the 1.25GHz's performance scaled just about linearly relative to clockspeed.



    That makes the DDR RAM worth it in my book: Between that and QE, the machines are capable of working under significantly heavier loads than the old machines (esp. running 10.1). I know there's a lot of emphasis on single-app performance, but to me the increased multitasking capabilities are a clear advantage: I rarely do one thing that seriously engages the CPU, but I'm prone to starting things off, backgrounding them if they take a while, working on something else, maybe firing up a game without quitting anything for a few minutes...
  • Reply 11 of 16
    Good eye Amorph



    It's funny that he writes:

    [quote]It's important to note that compared to the old SDR Power Mac, there is still no advantage to having DDR memory. <hr></blockquote>



    And them reports seeing a %19 and %22 advantage under load. Extrapolating that data could logically bring you state the conclusion that DDR allows your 1Ghz Mac under load to equal the performance of a 1.25GHZ SDR machine based on guestimating the linear projected speed increase due to the megahertz advantage.



    yadda yadda yadda it sounds like DDR will definitely benefit a Multitasker.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    "Processors that were 25 percent faster did not equate to 25 percent faster performance overall; however, we ran our Speedmark tests on all machines with 256MB of RAM"



    Benchmarking all these MDDs without 2GB of RAM in each one is like drag racing with cars that have governors on them set to crap out at 65 MPH. What a waste of human resources.



    Are they daft over there at MacWorld or what?
  • Reply 13 of 16
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Machines should be tested as they ship. Dollars to seconds is the only meaningful benchmark as far as I'm concerned. The new machines are a better deal than the old ones -- which they smoke at their respective price points. Especially so for the bottom two, which you must remember, should properly be compared to the cacheless SP800 and the SP933. The DP867 and DP 1Ghz easily outperform those two machines.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    I'm assuming of course that the dp 867Mhz Powermac is faster than the sp 933Mhz machine only when multitasking, and only with programs that take advantage of the dual processors.



    From some benchmarks I've seen the dp 867Mhz machine is a mixed bag compared to the sp 933Mhz.



    Curious that Apple didn't make a dp 933Mhz machine as the entry Powermac.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Perhaps, but the difference in non-DP aware apps would be minimal. And remember that the DP867 doesn't even replace the SP933, it replaces the cacheless SP800, which it should absolutely own. Ick, I hate that expressio.n
  • Reply 16 of 16
    [quote]Originally posted by dygysy:

    <strong>I'm assuming of course that the dp 867Mhz Powermac is faster than the sp 933Mhz machine only when multitasking, and only with programs that take advantage of the dual processors.



    From some benchmarks I've seen the dp 867Mhz machine is a mixed bag compared to the sp 933Mhz.



    Curious that Apple didn't make a dp 933Mhz machine as the entry Powermac.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The days of multiprocessor unaware applications are numbered. Moreover, as the system itself is now multiprocessor aware, you are looking at obsolete benchmark data that doesn't reflect the rapidly changing nature of the latest versions of most applications in a multiprocessor aware system context.



    The idea that the MDD Macs are slower than previous models is residing in quite a twisted reality distortion field.
Sign In or Register to comment.