Post Your Cinebench Results

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 61
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    i cant find official word from Maxon, but it seems to me looking over Cinebench data that the CB result for a single processor is normalised to an Intel Core 2 Duo. This was certainly the case in previous versions of Cinebench, which in its last iteration was normalised to a P4.



    http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php

    http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/stuff.htm



    For example, a Core 2 running at 2ghz (2000mhz) scores 2000 in the benchmark when running on windows XP 32 bit. I would then concur that it is the differences in operating systems and architectural differences in the motherboard, ram, etc that then vary the result within about 10% of the baseline.



    Therefore, Macs are scoring slightly better than the baseline in general than PC's, and that the open Gl subsystem and drivers on macs is better than on windows, with a slight favour to Ati cards over the current generation of nvidia cards.



    Therefore the poster who showed 18000+ for the 8 core thread benchmark has the processing equivalent of a single theoretical 18ghz core 2, and that the 1ghz G4 scoring 444 has the processing power of a 0.44ghz core 2
  • Reply 22 of 61
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    Therefore the poster who showed 18000+ for the 8 core thread benchmark has the processing equivalent of a single theoretical 18ghz core 2, and that the 1ghz G4 scoring 444 has the processing power of a 0.44ghz core 2







    Well, it's nice to know what the baseline is anyway.



    (starts saving up for a C2D Mac)



  • Reply 23 of 61
    Well, this is what I got from my all new iMac:



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : marian



    Processor : Interl Core Duo 2

    MHz : 2.8 GHz (the 'extreme' version)

    Number of CPUs : 2 (cores, of course)

    Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.9



    Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO OpenGL Engine (256MB)

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 3032 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5683 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5622 CB-GFX





    Hmmm..... first impression - not too bad at all

    BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...

    hmmmm.... TBC later



    Also, before I bought this Mac I wasn't able to find any info about it (2.8 GHz version)



    If you are in the situation I was in, let me know and I'll post the reply.





    Regards

    marian



    ************************************************** **



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester :



    Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz

    MHz :

    Number of CPUs : 4

    Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600



    Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 2445 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8404 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3557 CB-GFX





    ************************************************** **



    AND.....I just upgraded to Cinema v10 Studio. Happy times



    I can overclock this to 3ghz, which I might do soon - I think i'll hit just a touch over 10000, however yesterday I just blew a PSU and motherboard by doing that - with a GFX overclock aswell, and that cost me quite a bit of wedge - not to mention an 'emergency' day out today to source new bits, so im going to play safe for a while now its up and running again.



  • Reply 24 of 61
    buddhabuddha Posts: 386member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marian View Post


    BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...

    hmmmm.... TBC later



    not even close.
  • Reply 25 of 61
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    here is the score when I overclock to 3ghz on a 1333mhz bus - equivalent to an intel q6850 extreme. *



    what are the negative aspects of overclocking, if any?
  • Reply 26 of 61
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    what are the negative aspects of overclocking, if any?



    If you want to overclock a core 2, its pretty simple and easy.



    First look around the net to see what kinds of overclock people are getting so you know what you can expect. Try to find someone with the same motherboard, chip and what kind of cooling they are using.



    For example Im using an Asus p5n-e sli with a Q6600, looking around you will see that the q6600 can go up to around 3.4 Ghz relatively easily, but that it doesn't OC as easily as a dual core which can go to about 3.8.



    Also Motherboards vary in the amound of stable FSB they can push out, and you might have a chip that can go to 4ghz, but your motherboard might not be able to handle the FSB speed of 500mhz in order to set an x8 multiplier.



    Multiplyers are set on the chip (except for extreme editions) and cannot be changed, so in order to OC it is the FSB that needs to be raised, which is why a good quality MB is important.



    Also there are FSB holes, you might be unlucky to find that your motherboard won't run if you set a FSB of 425-440 but will run ok at 420 or 450!!! In my case I went for a bigger overclock of 1600 FSB and my computer wouldn't POST - that might be bad news, but I got over the problem by removing the CMOS battery and that reset the Bios back to factory defaults of 1066.



    I'd play it safe, you'd be unlucky to find a q6600 that wont run at 3ghz 1333FSB, so thats a good first step to try for.



    Hopefully on your motherboard, you can unlock the FSB to RAM. I have DDR2 667, but overclocking the FSB to raise the chip speed would also raise the Ram speed and I didn't want to do that, because I didn't hold up much hope of my ram running at 800+



    Fortunately the MB i Have allows me to unlock the FSB:Ram ratio, so I left the ram at 667 - Incidently which is half of 1333, so the ram still runs at 1:1 ratio (FSB's are quad clocked, Ram double clocked, so the real speed is 333mhz for ram and FSB)



    The negative. You can destroy your computer if you get silly or are unlucky!



    The Power Supply Unit must be up to it. I cant stress that enough! Overclocked compoinents pull more power than ususal, this can burn out the PSU.



    I knew that and was OK about it because I knew I had to upgrade the PSU anyway. What I wasn't expecting was that when the PSU died it would spike the MB and take that out aswell. Bugger - that cost me a new Motherboard too.



    If you dont cool your chip enough that will overheat and possibly die if it doesn't sense the overheat and back off. Incidently the Intel HSF was up to the job of cooling at 3ghz - afterall, you can get Intel chips that run at 3ghz with the same fan, but you might want to invest in a better tower heatpipe cooler to keep things in check.



    Case ventilaton might require a bit of an upgrade. Get a couple of silent 120mm fans.



    Basically if you are sensible and prepared to spend a little bit of money, with the Intel core 2 chips there are few negatives to having a sensible overclock.
  • Reply 27 of 61
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marian View Post


    BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...

    hmmmm.... TBC later



    unfortunately, while I put alot of weight in the CPU benchmark of cinebench, the OGL test serves one specific task only, and that is to advise people on what card will run Cinema 4d the best if you are going to build a computer to run cinema 4d.



    The OGL scores are completely bunk for testing graphics cards, because the scene it uses is pretty lightweight and uses a miniscule fraction of the capabilities of modern GFX cards. It exists only to advise builders of PCs what card to buy to run cinema 4d.



    Cinebench is the only benchmark in the world that would have a 2600 pro besting a 8800 series card.



    Incidently, that is not all though, because I have a sneaking suspicion that in actual use, when models get complicated on the screen when running Cinema 4d, a card like an 8800 gts will provide a much better fluid user experience than the 2600 pro.
  • Reply 28 of 61
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    ...I knew that and was OK about it because I knew I had to upgrade the PSU anyway. What I wasn't expecting was that when the PSU died it would spike the MB and take that out aswell. Bugger - that cost me a new Motherboard too....



    Tsk tsk. ...You need some solid capacitor mobo like the Gigabyte Intel chipset ones, those are very very good I believe. For 3ghz OC Intel Quad with nvidia8800 OC, you should be looking at Zalman/ Enermax or better to run at least clear of 800W. (1000W rating with 80% efficiency) ...??? Or something like that? I am only experience nonetheless in teh overclocking AMD64 Venice and nVidia 6600GT, nVidia 8500GT. Kingston DDR400 RAM - tighter timings, PCIExpress bus upped a bit. Me overclocking used to be in my signatures over the past few years but as you can see my PC is in deep hibernation now. Core 2 Quad ... boy that sounds good though. Get a decent motherboard!!! \
  • Reply 29 of 61
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Seriously though I love Asus, I have an Asus A8N-Sli [normal] for Socket939 AMD64. For my company for CCTV use (24 hours writing to RAID1 250gig drives) I ordered a custom build pair of boxes which use Gigabyte DS-4 P35 chipset. I feel Gigabyte has the edge on Asus at the moment. Also in the GPU department. Just my preference at this stage.
  • Reply 30 of 61
    Hmmmm thought so



    IS there any detailed and comprehensive test that would measure CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, LAN etc for Mac?

    It would be nice to compare the results with PC but maybe even more importantly I would like to see the differences between my new IMac and MacBook that I also happen to have?



    Cheers





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    unfortunately, while I put alot of weight in the CPU benchmark of cinebench, the OGL test serves one specific task only, and that is to advise people on what card will run Cinema 4d the best if you are going to build a computer to run cinema 4d.



    The OGL scores are completely bunk for testing graphics cards, because the scene it uses is pretty lightweight and uses a miniscule fraction of the capabilities of modern GFX cards. It exists only to advise builders of PCs what card to buy to run cinema 4d.



    Cinebench is the only benchmark in the world that would have a 2600 pro besting a 8800 series card.



    Incidently, that is not all though, because I have a sneaking suspicion that in actual use, when models get complicated on the screen when running Cinema 4d, a card like an 8800 gts will provide a much better fluid user experience than the 2600 pro.



  • Reply 31 of 61
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marian View Post


    Hmmmm thought so



    IS there any detailed and comprehensive test that would measure CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, LAN etc for Mac?

    It would be nice to compare the results with PC but maybe even more importantly I would like to see the differences between my new IMac and MacBook that I also happen to have?



    Cheers



    http://www.xbench.com/
  • Reply 32 of 61
    Thanks



    Not sure how accurate this test is (especially on GFX side - MacBook faster that ATI Radeon 2600 Pro...) but at least you can compare CPU speeds (although not sure whether this app uses Core 2 Duo - last update mid/late 2006...



    Anyway, cheers



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    http://www.xbench.com/



  • Reply 33 of 61
    8-core Mac Pro, 5GB Ram, Raid Stripe Startup disk, X1900 ATI 512MB VRAM



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : Koen Delbroek



    Processor : Intel Xeon

    MHz : 3000

    Number of CPUs : 8

    Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10



    Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1900 OpenGL Engine

    Resolution : <1920x1200t>

    Color Depth : <Millions>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 3200 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18789 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.87



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 4872 CB-GFX





    ************************************************** **
  • Reply 34 of 61
    My Mac isn't a Pro Machine, but I was impressed after seeing the results. With my Dell AMD Tk-53 and 1150 HyperMemory (integrated 256MB) graphics card as well as Casper integrated GFX computer we both got around 170 CB-GFX in Cinebench R10, but my MacBook with X3100 got 1651.

    The results were:



    Open GL : 1651 CB-GFX

    Single Core: 2101

    Dual Core : 4013

    Factor : 1.91.



    More than good enough for me
  • Reply 35 of 61
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    I have a 2.8 GHz 4 GB ram iMac 24" and recieved almost identical scores as you with 10.5.1. I was a touch slower but I did perform the test while doing some small stuff like emptying the trash and using the finder. My multiplier was identical.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marian View Post


    Well, this is what I got from my all new iMac:



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : marian



    Processor : Interl Core Duo 2

    MHz : 2.8 GHz (the 'extreme' version)

    Number of CPUs : 2 (cores, of course)

    Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.9



    Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO OpenGL Engine (256MB)

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 3032 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 5683 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5622 CB-GFX





    Hmmm..... first impression - not too bad at all

    BTW. It looks like ATI 2600HD Pro is faster (?) that NVidia 8800GTS...

    hmmmm.... TBC later



    Also, before I bought this Mac I wasn't able to find any info about it (2.8 GHz version)



    If you are in the situation I was in, let me know and I'll post the reply.





    Regards

    marian



    ************************************************** **



  • Reply 36 of 61
    This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : Superclock



    Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz

    MHz : 4700

    Number of CPUs : 2

    Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600



    Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX





    ************************************************** **
  • Reply 37 of 61
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carlitofraaa View Post


    This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : Superclock



    Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz

    MHz : 4700

    Number of CPUs : 2

    Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600



    Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX





    ************************************************** **



    I wish such a computer was a mac.
  • Reply 38 of 61
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carlitofraaa View Post


    This is not a Mac though it shows what computers these days can do!



    CINEBENCH R10

    ************************************************** **



    Tester : Superclock



    Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz

    MHz : 4700

    Number of CPUs : 2

    Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600



    Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTS/PCI/SSE2

    Resolution : <fill this out>

    Color Depth : <fill this out>



    ************************************************** **



    Rendering (Single CPU): 12715 CB-CPU

    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 22534 CB-CPU



    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77



    Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5996 CB-GFX





    ************************************************** **



    These results don't make sense. Buddas Octo core MP didn't score as high on the multiple cpu render.
  • Reply 39 of 61
    buddhabuddha Posts: 386member
    He's lying. No way a dual 3GHz could get anywhere near that.. or even half of that. I would think his shading score would be higher with his 8800 also.
  • Reply 40 of 61
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buddha View Post


    He's lying. No way a dual 3GHz could get anywhere near that.. or even half of that. I would think his shading score would be higher with his 8800 also.



    Yeah I think you're right.
Sign In or Register to comment.