Dual GHz Benchmark Shootout
You want to see the performance of the new dual GHz g4? All you have to do is direct to any tests that I can run on this machine. I will gladly test anything, however please remember I'm on a 56k dial up connection. this means some results may not come instantly, but this weekend I am going to be getting programs and such so I will also get things to benchmark. This includes games to test out that GF4 MX card.just give me the links on where to get the tests and I will be sure to give a ful lseries of results. Coming later will be tests with the Radeon 8500 and GF4 Ti (probably the 4400). So stay tuned!
Comments
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/nibs/.Public/smpbench-mosx.tar.gz" target="_blank">SMPBench</a>
<a href="http://www.maxon.de/pub/benchmarks/cinebench_mac.sit" target="_blank">Cinebench</a>
<a href="http://http.distributed.net/pub/dcti/current-client/dnetc-macosx-ppc.tar.gz" target="_blank">RC5</a>
Machine: PowerMac
Processor: 2x1000 MHz G4
RAM: 512 MB
Video card: nVidia GeForce4 MX w/64 MB DDR
Shading (CINEMA 4D): 7.00 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 6.76 CB GL-Factor:0.97x
Raytracing (Single CPU): 10.35 CB
Raytracing (Multiple CPU): 20.40 CB MP-Factor: 1.97x
Umm is it me or do these results suck?
<strong>Ok here is Cinebench result:
Machine: PowerMac
Processor: 2x1000 MHz G4
RAM: 512 MB
Video card: nVidia GeForce4 MX w/64 MB DDR
Shading (CINEMA 4D): 7.00 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 6.76 CB GL-Factor:0.97x
Raytracing (Single CPU): 10.35 CB
Raytracing (Multiple CPU): 20.40 CB MP-Factor: 1.97x
Umm is it me or do these results suck?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's Cinebench that sucks. CineBench is circa mid-1999, the time of the Blue and White G3, aging 9600 dual 604e's, OS 8.6 and RAGE 128s.
As far as CineBench is concerned, there is no such thing as OS X or the G4 and all the benefits they carry. You must remember, OS 9 also lacks optimization for modern PPC745x systems as benchmarks hae shown. This and a probably large amount of legacy code hamper Cinebanch on modern hardware and deem it as an Useless Penis Benchmark?.
<strong>
No, it's Cinebench that sucks. CineBench is circa mid-1999, the time of the Blue and White G3, aging 9600 dual 604e's, OS 8.6 and RAGE 128s.
As far as CineBench is concerned, there is no such thing as OS X or the G4 and all the benefits they carry. You must remember, OS 9 also lacks optimization for modern PPC745x systems as benchmarks hae shown. This and a probably large amount of legacy code hamper Cinebanch on modern hardware and deem it as an Useless Penis Benchmark?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought Cinebench has a bit of altivec code.
And that still is not a good reason why the mac performs so much worse than the PC.
Also, what does OS 9's optimizations for the 745x have to do with anything? Isn't it whether the benchmark itself is optimized or not what matters? Unoptimized RC5 gets 3.5 m/keys sec on my Powerbook G4/667. Optimized version gets over 6m/keys sec. Nothing changed with the OS there
Even you have a real crappy video card as long as you have a 1.5Ghz+ cpu the OpenGL score usually is over 15 CB......
cbench 8.7, 10.6, 12.4, 21.8
thats Cinemashading/OGL/Single Raytrace/DP Raytrace.
Machine: PowerMac
Processor: 2x1000 MHz G4
RAM: 1gig MB
Video card: nVidia GeForce4 MX w/64 MB DDR
Shading (CINEMA 4D): 6.99 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 6.82 CB GL-Factor:0.98x
Raytracing (Single CPU): 11.9 CB
Raytracing (Multiple CPU): 19.33 CB MP-Factor: 1.62x
with everything closed-
Shading (CINEMA 4D): 7.05 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 6.85 CB GL-Factor:0.97x
Raytracing (Single CPU): 11.93 CB
Raytracing (Multiple CPU): 19.92 CB MP-Factor: 1.67x
[actually, I had open classic, ASM, FruitMenu, TinkerTool- do those make a difference?]
[ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
Open apps still *do things*/take up resources, even if you're not using them. Would you do a 0-60 test in your car with the handbrake half on?
BTW, if you're getting a lower score in Cinebench for OpenGL rendering, than Cinema rendeering, There IS something wrong with your machine/drivers. (Unless you're playing q3 Arena in the background-'but it is minimized! '
And don't run it in classic, boot up in OS9.
[ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>
Also, does anyone know how to get a FPS test in 4x4 Evo 2 (only game I have right now, unless you are interested in old skool Links and Sim City ).
My Altivec Fractal Carbon Test was like 7700 something Gflops.
iTunes convert to MP3 is getting 19.7x @192 Kbps.
[ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>Great, you're saying something is wrong with my machine......not another ****ing beige repeat or I think I'll go ballistic....</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't necessary the problem of your machine.
Cinebench result does vary all the time. Even on my Dual 500. All scores are always different. I can get 12.3 CB on Raytracing but if I run the test again I only get 11 CB.....
Also. Under OS 9, ALL openGL extensions have to be ON in order to get the 'accurate' mark....again it varies all the time
BTW TWoods. If you run CB through classic, you will get lower scores like the ones you posted. So I'd not worry too much, but try booting into 9 and then test.