Weird Quake 3 Benchmarks
I just got a Powerbook 667mhz DVI and I ran some Quake 3 timedemo tests in the same configurations as those seen on xlr8yourmac.com and barefeats.com and my scores were even better than the 800mhz powerbook tested at xlr8yourmac and only a few fps off the 800mhz at barefeats. Any thoughts? Did Apple energize the latest batch of 667's?
Comments
For example, on my G4 466 with GeForce 2 MX i get 117 fps on average using the standard four.dm_67 demo and my utterly tweaked config. A PC-using mate gets 105 fps with Dual PentiumIII 1000 and GeForce 3Ti500. The difference is the config.
wouldn't that be cool!
<strong>I checked the config file and they are exactly the same as the ones recorded on (untweaked config files.) I ran tests again this morning and I got the same results. This morning I got 4 fps more than the recorded 800mhz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you post this config here? (in a linked .txt file please)
And, did you run the same version of Q3 as the 800? This IS weird.
Quake3 1.31b5 tests in OS X
High quality
32 bit mode
No tweaked config file
1024x768
Xlr8yourmacs' 800mhz powerbook: 69.3 fps
My 667 DVI mhz: 74.6 fps (just ran today again)
Same as above but with 640 x 480
Xlr8yourmacs' 800mhz: 72.5 fps
My 667 DVI: 78.7 fps (just ran today again)
Someone on xl8yourmac.com wrote in on the bottom of the page comparing an Imac to the 667mhz. I tried his settings too.
"I compared my new PowerBook 667 to my 700 Mhz Flat panel iMac in Quake 3:
I used the following settings:"
Texture quality: 32bit
max Texture detail
Color Depth: 32bit
Lightmap
Trinilinear Texture filter
Geometric Detail: High
1024x768:
PB: 53.2 FPS
iMac: 39 FPS
My 667mhz: 58.2
800x600:
PB: 57.3 FPS
iMac: 48.5 FPS
My 667mhz: 62.5 FPS
640x480:
PB: 58.7 FPS
iMac: 50.2 FPS
My 667mhz: 62.7 FPS
I guess a few frames per second is nothing much but its nice to know that benchmarks can be different from computer to computer. I'll take whatever I can get.
You did use the standard four.dm_67, didnt't your?
I must add that the new version has the radeon 7500 and the old one just the normal radeon chip mobility.
So new powerbook G4 667 : L3 cache and new video card. If XLR8MAC was benchmarking the old version ; it's normal.
So the only advantage is processor clock speed, which goes in the loser-of-the-bench's favor.
<strong>powerdoc, what he is saying is that his new 667 performs better than the new 800 in Q3 supposedly with the same config (which I doubt even I'm aware of the above statements).
So the only advantage is processor clock speed, which goes in the loser-of-the-bench's favor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if it is the case, there is no explanation possible ...except bad benchmarking
I'm not trying to say that I have some amazing powerbook. I just wanted to see if anyone had answers as to why I am getting these scores?
and, for more benchmarks visit<a href="http://www.barefeats.com" target="_blank">Barefeats</a>!
wouldn't that be cool! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<hr></blockquote>
Back a few years ago, I sprung and bought a Powerbook G3/300. It was the bad ass, top of the line 12gig, first machine with DVD (god I would sit in the airport, and NOBODY had ever seen DVD on a laptop)... Anyway, Just the machine, and an extra battery was $5500, I shit you not!
I got the machine, and all is well, about 2 weeks later, I get an e-mail from Apple saying, "we have shipped your mac, you will have it in a couple of days"
Ok, I'm thinking, they made a mistake...whatever.
2 days later at work, UPS guy comes in, AND BRINGS ME ANOTHER ONE!!!! THE SCREWED UP AND SENT ME 2! So, you see, the moral of the story is, sometimes, just sometimes, dreams do come true. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>
Do you still have that extra PB? Need someone to take it off your hands? (Please?)
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: cyko95 ]</p>
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>