86 replies to this topic

[DiaboliK]

Alright kids,

i hate xbench's opengl and other graphics tests, cause it dependent on the monitor's resolution and refresh rate, change that and your results change!

so some people here at : GioFX , created OpenMark : OpenGl benchmarking for Mac OS X

with that said and done lets post some results.

heres my ATi x1300Pro 256 pci-e with NatitX1300(R1) and 1049 ATi kexts:
(you need to convert the .tga to something uploadable to attach here)

    X1300Pro.R1.OpenMark.result.jpg   80.43K   158 downloads
 X1300Pro.R1.OpenMark.result.txt   2.54K   126 downloads

i will post my other cards when im done actually using them, to pull a few benches off them.
-DiaboliK

(if this program crahses your system or locks it up, you have a problem with your OpenGL )

[DiaboliK]

couple more of my cards:

XFX 7600GS fanless 256mb pci-e: natit dual v02, unedited nvidia 1049 kexts

 Diabolik.7600GS.Fanless.OpenMarkresult.jpg   86.47K   75 downloads
 Diabolik.7600GS.Fanless.OpenMarkresult.txt   2.83K   47 downloads

Sapphire X1600Pro 512mb pci-e: NatitX1600 (R1v3), edited atiradeonx1000.kext and 10.4.5 atindrv.kext , all other ati kexts are 1049

 Diabolik.X1600Pro.512.OpenMarkresult.jpg   80.21K   45 downloads
 Diabolik.X1600Pro.512.OpenMarkresult.txt   2.82K   34 downloads

Ive got a couple more cards but they are agp and i cant use agpgart so ill post anyway but i have to get that machine updated:P

lets see some more benches so we can have a nice comparison!
-DiaboliK

[alicheusz]

GF 6600 TC on 10.4.9 kernel 8.9.1, I am curious how this benchmark is depended on CPU I have celeron 2.53GHz

Attached Files

•  OpenMark_result.jpg   19.96K   37 downloads

[DiaboliK]

alicheusz, on Mar 22 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

GF 6600 TC on 10.4.9 kernel 8.9.1, I am curious how this benchmark is depended on CPU I have celeron 2.53GHz

this doesnt bech your cpu just your gpu and opengl.

[linuxkid]

Hackintosh specs:
AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200
1GB Corsair Ram
Gigabyte K8N Pro SLi
(1) XFX Geforce 7900GT Overclocked

OSX 10.4.8
Semethex 8.8.1 kernel
Natit Universal Installer


 OpenMark.png   51.27K   84 downloads

[alc0h0lic]

GMA950 @ 1600x1200x32 = 609 Points... yeah it suxx bigtime

[ritalin]

GMA950 @ 1024x768x32 = 720
Nvidia 6200 PCI @ 1280x1024x32 = 5807

Both on a Asrock conroe 945G-DVI with a C2D 1.87GHz E6300 and 1Gb Ram.

[Zulu.Walker]

Can't run the bench at any other resolutions other than 1152x870x32 (crashes when switching to fullscreen), my desktop is at 1280x1024x32. Everything works fine otherwise, the app scared me. Natit Dual v.02 with 10.4.9 kexts, more at sig.

Palit Geforce 7600GT 256MB PCIe
Openmark Score: 16040  OpenMark_result.txt   3.71K   36 downloads

 OpenMark_result.jpg   31.8K   18 downloads

[Korrupted]

Pentium 4 3Ghz HTT
2GB DDR
200GB HDD
10.4.8[8.8.1]
1680x1050x32 res
7900GS stock

Attached Files

•  Picture_1.png   41.06K   23 downloads

[consolation]

I'm surprised to see 7600GTs scoring higher then 7900GS' and very close to 7900GTs, I suspect something is very unwell with kext's responsible for 7900s.


All benchies below were run at stock speeds.... Good old 9800, still pulling it's weight, damn that was a good card.

Attached Files

•  7600gtom.jpg   92.38K   10 downloads
•  7600gsom.jpg   95.39K   4 downloads
•  x1600om.jpg   128.6K   6 downloads
•  9800proom.jpg   73.63K   16 downloads

[redcell]

Sapphire Ati Radeon x1600xt 256MB DDR3

[kle500]

Although i couldn't run the bench on my EIZO CRT, i changed monitors and on my Mitsubishi CRT i got the following results
Graphics = Gainward 7600GS passive Stock speed

Attached Files

•  OpenMark_result.png   23.08K   7 downloads

[iRed]

ATI MSI x1950xtx stock
SCORE : 16040

[SA22C]

Well this makes me feel a bit better about my 7900 GTO.  xBench had it running at around 160, which is quite a bit slower than my buddy's x1600 in his Macbook Pro.  I'll be interested to see what his card gets in OpenMark.  My result was a 23,557.

 OpenMark_Result.jpg   123.61K   23 downloads

[Korrupted]

consolation, on Mar 29 2007, 06:09 AM, said:

I'm surprised to see 7600GTs scoring higher then 7900GS' and very close to 7900GTs, I suspect something is very unwell with kext's responsible for 7900s.

I was running the benchmark in 1680x1050 resolution. The 7600GT was running in 1100x700 or something like that.

[postaldave]

i really don't understand these numbers.

in consolation's post there is a                 7600GT with a score of 16,040
and a                                                  7600GS with a score of 10,396

but the GT was at                                                                    9 FPS
and theGS was                                                                     363 FPS


here is the part i don't understand, how does the GT get higher score
running 9FPS?              that just doesn't make sense.

[SA22C]

The FPS probably dropped when the screenshot was taken...

[DiaboliK]

postaldave, on Apr 2 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

i really don't understand these numbers.

in consolation's post there is a                 7600GT with a score of 16,040
and a                                                  7600GS with a score of 10,396

but the GT was at                                                                    9 FPS
and theGS was                                                                     363 FPS


here is the part i don't understand, how does the GT get higher score
running 9FPS?              that just doesn't make sense.

the bottom fps is just the fps thats currently going. if you used the tga that it output it would usally be 9fps.
screenshots will vary

[ritalin]

So could we normalize the results somehow?
Normalized Result = (Width x Height x Depth x Score)/1000000000
Using that formula would give the following:
  
DaxTsurugi 7900GS
(1680 x 1050 x 32 x 15769)/1000000000
= 890

consolation 7600GT
(1440 x 900 x 32 x 16040)/1000000000
= 665

My Nvidia 6200 PCI
(1280 x 1024 x 32 x 5807)/1000000000
= 243

SA22C 7900 GTO
(1280 x 1024 x 32 x 23557)/1000000000
= 988

Does this make sense or am I talking crap?

[SA22C]

That seems reasonable...