DP 1250 performance thread

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Post your results here.

My first SETI unit on the DP 1250 took 5h 35min, compared to around 14h on a G4 466 in a Beige G3.

dnet OGR pushes about 27 mnodes/sec, which is faster than a Dual Athlon 1533

Altivec Fractal goes up to ~10400 MFLOPS and Q3A breaks the 400FPS barrier with this config <a href="http://www.g-news.ch/files/q3config.cfg"; target="_blank">http://www.g-news.ch/files/q3config.cfg</A>; .

(400.6 FPS). haven't done any other meaningful benchmarks so far, but it's fast.



(Mac OS X 10.2.1, 1024MB RAM, Dual 1250MHz G4, Radeon 9000 Pro)



Post your results!



G-news



[ 10-06-2002: Message edited by: G-News ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    Wow. 400 FPS on the 9000 Pro. I wonder how the 9700 would perform....
  • Reply 2 of 48
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    the 9700 would probably just do the same speed at a higher resolution.
  • Reply 3 of 48
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    wow
  • Reply 4 of 48
    now these are my kind of benchmark's.....
  • Reply 5 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Using uglier and even speedier config files, it churns out 470FPS at 640x480 easily.

    I'll have to try boli's config yet.



    G-News
  • Reply 6 of 48
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Check out <a href="http://www.cpuscorecard.com"; target="_blank">www.cpuscorecard.com</a> - it rates the 1.25 GHz G4 as the third fastest CPU on the market.



    Now, i assume that they tested it as a dual, but they make it look like it's just one processor. They must have some very MP aware bechmarks.
  • Reply 7 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    nice, but its the 3rd fastest machine they list, not on the market. Their top machine is a P4 2.8 and the second one a Xeon 2.4...but there's also a P4 2.67, 2.6, 2.53, 2.4 etc. What DOES surprise me though, is that the Athlon XP 2600+ has a lower score On the other hand nobody realy knows what they're basing their score on, maybe they just take the well known theoretical rates, where the G4 of course excels...just that it doesn't have anything to do with real-world performance.



    G-News
  • Reply 8 of 48
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    They should base it on rc5 performance
  • Reply 9 of 48
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Well......if the most expensive box gets third in the ranking I say this is a miserable failure.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I dare say both the xeon and the P4 that rank above it would cost very similar amounts with the same equipment as the DP 1250. I even dare say teh Xeon would probably cost more.



    G-News
  • Reply 11 of 48
    a@rona@ron Posts: 201member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>I dare say both the xeon and the P4 that rank above it would cost very similar amounts with the same equipment as the DP 1250. I even dare say teh Xeon would probably cost more.



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I would tend to agree with you.
  • Reply 12 of 48
    Maybe the Xeon. The P4 2.8 I could put together a pimped out setup for a lot less than that 1.25 G4.
  • Reply 13 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I'm happy to see your proposal of how you'd want to accomplish this.

    A stock Dp1250 with 1GB RAM, please. And don't forget the SuperDrive and the gigabit Ethernet.



    G-News
  • Reply 14 of 48
    here are a few logic test results for the Dual 1.25 and how it compares to the Dual 867 and PB DVI 667.



    Dual 1.25 - 25 PlatinumVerbs or 98 FM-7 notes

    Dual 867 - 18 PlatinumVerbs or 64 FM-7 notes

    PB 667 - 14 PlatinumVerbs or 49 FM-7 notes





    of course, if multiprocessing was better implemented in Logic in either 9 or X, the performance would improve to:



    Dual 1.25 - 40 PlatinumVerbs AND 35 FM-7 notes or 162 FM-7 notes AND 8 PlatinumVerbs

    Dual 867 - 33 PlatinumVerbs AND 15 FM-7 notes or 128 FM-7 notes

    PB 667 - remains the same



    anyway, at least as it regards logic, the DUAL hardware isn't the problem - it is the software which needs to be written to use it.



    cheers



    edit: added DUAL



    [ 10-08-2002: Message edited by: peaceful billy ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 48
    123123 Posts: 278member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>I'm happy to see your proposal of how you'd want to accomplish this.

    A stock Dp1250 with 1GB RAM, please. And don't forget the SuperDrive and the gigabit Ethernet.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You can build such a system for less than $2000 (CHF 2900, 512MB Ram, same as the dp 1.25 base config for $3299).



    Edit: G-News, head over to steg.ch if you don't believe me.



    [ 10-08-2002: Message edited by: 123 ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    A similar system, with a crappy miditower that you'll spend hours installing things in, a P4 2.8GHz, 1GB of RAM, IBM 120GB HD, 3com Desktop gigabit NIC, ASUS mainboard with DDR-333 and FireWire and sound (I'm offering you the extra price for a decent soundcard with at least 24bit in/out), V.92 Modem (using a PCI slot), RADEON 9000 Pro, Pioneer DVR 104 (not available at steg), Win XP professional (not pirated), Mouse, Keyboard (both low quality products), SPDIF cable, Floppy drive (that you'll need) and a Power cable, without additional case fans, that will turn out to be necessary and without being Airport ready AND most notably, WITHOUT having the hardware preinstalled by a technician with a salary of 170CHF/h, I already get more than 3000CHF and that's without looking for software that matches the bundled iApps and other things that come with every Powermac. Make the software and the installation another 1000.- Then add 30.- recycling fee, shipping and handling another 30.- ...the price is in the detail.

    Also it's not even remotely fair to compare Apple to the cheapest reasonable mailorder in Switzerland, compare them to places like Data2000 or Nyce. Sure, you'll end up having a cheaper setup hardwarewise in the end, just that the hardware alone isn't worth a dime without the software to use it.

    Comparing Macs to PCs is comparing Apples to Oranges, which is why it was a retorical question to prove me wrong. You can't, unless you revive the clones.



    So to draw the bottom line, while Macs are expensive, and more expensive than PCs, they're far less overpriced than everyone thinks. You pay a little premium for the brand name, sure thing, but most of it ist justified.



    For a more Apples to Apples comparison, why don't you go configure a similar system over at <a href="http://www.dell.com"; target="_blank">www.dell.com</a>



    I just did, and without airport readiness and without gigabit Ethernet or FireWire, it costs

    $3,414.00 for a Dimension 8250 already.



    Now tell me Macs are overpriced.



    G-news
  • Reply 17 of 48
    Ok. Macs are overpriced.
  • Reply 18 of 48
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 1,034member
    If Macs were overpriced, they wouldn't be selling. They are priced to sell at a profit and they come with a suite of supported iapps.
  • Reply 19 of 48
    I dont think Macs are so overpriced, I just spec'd a Dell P4/2.8Ghz with same spec as Dual 1.25 PM (120GB,512Mb RAM,Superdrive,Radeon 9000, WinXP pro) and it came to $2800 including crappo 17" screen but NOT including; Firewire, Gigabit ethernet or Airport (WiFi) which would add a bit and use the PCI slots. Then you still dont have the iApps (or OSX ) so how is it better exactly.......? Perhaps as mac users we take too much for granted....and I dont think it would hurt Apple to lower prices a bit, but I'm not convinced that Macs are a rip-off. The only way PC's are much cheaper is if you build them yourself (and most people dont want to) <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 20 of 48
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    you can bto Dell's version of "iApps" too, do it and you'll end up getting the result I got.



    G-News
Sign In or Register to comment.