Jump to content

[REQ] 3DMark benches?

domino

By domino,
in Apple Computers and Hardware

 Share
35 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

domino
domino
Posted
Posted

To the guys/gals that have Windows On Mac running, I hope you fill my request by providing some benchmark results. I have posted links to the site where to download and use the application for free. Please download all of them, or the ones you think best suites your graphics processor. If you think benchmarking the current install is impossible due to the lack of drivers, please do think about it in the future. These benchmark will ultimately decide whether or not we will run Windows on Mac.

 

3DMark®2001 SE Free Version (Build 3.3.0)

 

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark2001.shtml

 

 

3DMark®03 Free Version (Build 3.6.0)

 

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

 

3DMark®06 Basic Edition (Build 1.0.2)

 

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark06.shtml

 

Thank you

Link to comment
https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/
Share on other sites
domino
domino
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the feedback. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer for some drivers to come along. No matter though, I won't be getting a MacIntel until the end of the year. Try reserching on an ATI softmod drivers. Maybe my change you can get a better working graphics engine.

Darwinian Dude
Darwinian Dude
Posted
Posted

mac mini 3d works it seems, but on board intel graphics. not that bad, but yes, not a full gaming performance machine. suprising how well it does work though.

 

ati is only for imac/macbook pro. should work quicker, and will.... when video drivers for XP come along.

  • 2 weeks later...
kitch
kitch
Posted
Posted
1101 3DMarks

 

SM2.0 Score - 286

 

HDR/SM3.0 Score - 497

 

CPU Score - 1523

 

What 3DMark version was this with?

 

I REALLY want to see some benchmarking of an iMac with 256meg x1600 in it. My old PC desktop is rotting and decent gaming performance from the iMac would sell me in an instant. :)

John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted
What 3DMark version was this with?

 

I REALLY want to see some benchmarking of an iMac with 256meg x1600 in it. My old PC desktop is rotting and decent gaming performance from the iMac would sell me in an instant. :)

 

6, I'll try 5 here soon

domino
domino
Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's no point in comparing the Mac in the PC gaming arena at this point. I think you will only be disappointed. Lets lever the playing field. Lets run UT and/or Quake 3 for Linux and maybe one of you would be gracious enough to also run a demo benchmark on your Mac.

 

PS. It also looks like inferno10 got the same score last month.

domino
domino
Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here's a fast mirror for UT2003 demo: http://ausgamers.com/files/browsegame/html/1/358

 

Here is the Windows version of UT2003 Benchmark. It should be easier to read the results compared to Linux.

 

http://download.guru3d.com/q3bench/

 

========================================================

 

UT2003 Benchmarking in Linux: Flyby Benchmark

 

Source: http://www.amdpower.com/sections.php4?op=v...rticle&artid=94

 

There are several files you can look at with the most important being lowframerate.log. This log will contain the description of the benchmark test that was run and what the scores and FPS was. Here is a exerpt from one....

 

dm-antalus: 8.035609 / 11.522112 / 30.955606 fps

Score = 11.527470

 

dm-asbestos: 4.333949 / 19.523832 / 76.099930 fps

Score = 19.533615

 

ctf-citadel: 8.888351 / 17.856878 / 51.519123 fps

Score = 17.870277

 

 

Now what does this mean?

 

flyby scene name: mimium framerate / average framerate / Maximum framerate

Score = overall average score

 

Of course the way the script runs the benchmarks is reflected in the lowframerate.log file. Since the script starts at "1600x"1200", the first three scores are for running at "1600x"1200" at the selected quality setting. And then the next series of scores is running at "1280x1024" and so on.

========================================================

 

I'll edit this when I find Q3 Demo and bench scripts.

Edited by domino
domino
domino
Posted
  • Author
Posted
You should really be using the 05 version

 

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark05.shtml

 

Unless those drivers support PixelShader 2.0, it's hardly worth it. I think those drivers are very early generation, so unless someone proves me wrong, an earlier version of 3DMark or older graphics benchmark utility will suffice. We all just need to get a feeling of how the current hardware and drivers compare to other platforms with crippled drivers.

 

Here are my results for UT2003 under Ubuntu. I set my processor and memory to normal speed and I have been running the computer for the past 10 or so hours to give it a real world test score. The tests are based on the ATI 9800Pro (OEM). Please see the definition of the numbers on my earlier post which I edited if you hadn't noticed.

 

dm-antalus:	8.547777 / 70.494812 / 456.494720 fps
Score = 66.504974

dm-asbestos:	30.733810 / 118.523643 / 380.069458 fps
Score = 79.274071

ctf-citadel:	31.758142 / 80.680275 / 413.822723 fps
Score = 70.538231

dm-antalus:	40.494625 / 84.229012 / 634.409302 fps
Score = 71.075584

dm-asbestos:	45.800816 / 147.419662 / 400.919098 fps
Score = 79.823929

ctf-citadel: 34.215591 / 91.114990 / 415.472687 fps
Score = 72.494499

dm-antalus:	40.781136 / 89.074646 / 659.185669 fps
Score = 72.543465

dm-asbestos:	69.620758 / 168.638565 / 531.431213 fps
Score = 80.017471

ctf-citadel:	36.298355 / 97.122475 / 419.321533 fps
Score = 73.942123

Korrupted
Korrupted
Posted
Posted

I played it on High Quality with 800x600 resolution and it was pretty choppy(it had to load stuff a lot, so it was pretty choppy peformancewise). Trying now on 800x600 with Medium, then low. Will report back in a few mins.

 

EDIT: Medium was a little better than high quality. Low quality seems to be the way to go, almost NO load time between the mini-areas.

Brightstar
Brightstar
Posted
Posted

I can only imagine the scores we're gonna get when Apple brings out the Power Mactels.

 

Anyway I wouldn't reccomend a full benchmark program for now since we really aren't sure about the drivers bringing out the full potential. I'd suggest instead using the fraps free demo version. www.fraps.com

 

Fraps gives you a real time FPS counter in the corner of your screen while you're playing a game, along with video capture feature. This woud be better for the time being so we can just say "I got xFPS on Quake4 at resolution x" or "WoW is xFPS on WinXP compared to xFPS on OSX."

antic
antic
Posted
Posted

Here are the 3Dmark03 and 3Dmark05 scores for my mac mini. Nothing impressive, but then I didn't expect anything else

 

3Dmark03 = 1811

 

3Dmark05 = 609

 

The one thing that did suprise me was that I had 256 meg of video ram available while running Windows XP.

 

I think this goes to show that Apple could increase the amount available in OSX if they wanted to.

EtherealRemnant
EtherealRemnant
Posted
Posted

609... hmm... not bad for onboard...

 

I got like 690 with an nVidia 6100 onboard chip.

 

The ATI scores are definitely low so far though.

 

According to: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...mobility_9.html

 

The ATI x1600 Mobility chip should get about 6k

darthosx86
darthosx86
Posted
Posted

Quake 3 (win version) running at 270 fps. Ok Quake 3 is old and doesn't require a lot but 270 fps isn't bad.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/markus2000/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

Somebody from this forum tested Battlefield 2, Half Life 2 and F.E.A.R. (settings and sepcifications (RAM) are not mentioned):

 

http://www.mediamac.dk/index.php/forum/show/tid=65697

 

Everything should be running smooth

 

P.S.: They will post a video soon.

domino
domino
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Finally something important, yeah, yeah so windows runs it's amazing but it totaly meningless unless the games you wanna play dosen't run. looking forward to see how well BF2 works on the intel machines.

What is even more meaningless is the ability to want something that is not made for the job. Apple didn't dual boot to windows in order for it's consumers play games. Games are meaningless to more than a three quarter of it's the MacIntel users. Most are professionals that actually make money.

gl@zura
gl@zura
Posted
Posted
What is even more meaningless is the ability to want something that is not made for the job. Apple didn't dual boot to windows in order for it's consumers play games. Games are meaningless to more than a three quarter of it's the MacIntel users. Most are professionals that actually make money.

 

Baaaahhhh... common man - you are totally wrong with this one!!!

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...