domino Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
inferno10 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I'll bite. Ran 3DMark '03 on a 1.67GHz Core Duo Mac Mini w/ 1.25GB RAM. Got a score of 1149. An earlier test, before adding Flyakite, resulted in a score of 1320 (I think). I haven't installed the other versions, but I'll try them later. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-79264 Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-79940 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwinian Dude Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-82662 Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 1101 3DMarks SM2.0 Score - 286 HDR/SM3.0 Score - 497 CPU Score - 1523 Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89614 Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitch Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89639 Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 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 Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89646 Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89652 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBits Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 here you go just for comparison with a mid-low range pc... 1) you definateli need a driver, just like we do for osx 2) onboard graphics was never made for gaming just office n stuff other than that... keep osx and leave f***n no good winblows Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89657 Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinityplusone Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I just want to know how well it can run Half Life 2... At what resolutions and settings do you have to run it at to get a MBP to run it smoothly. I pretty much only play Day of Defeat Source Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89659 Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 (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 April 5, 2006 by domino Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89668 Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinityplusone Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This is awesome. I am giddy with excitement. I can see a MBP purchase in my near future. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89674 Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGOvoruhk Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 You should really be using the 05 version http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark05.shtml Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89686 Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 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 Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89749 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Stock Macbook Pro: 1.83GHz 512mb ram 128mb ari radeon x1600 ***Running XP from Boot Camp*** EDIT: Fixed a typo. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89779 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsubakiSama Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 DaxTsurugi can you try the Quake 4 Demo? This is the download link for it http://gamefiles.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyond...quake4-demo.exe Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89787 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Sure, let me download it, etc. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89795 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89859 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightstar Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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." Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89875 Share on other sites More sharing options...
antic Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-89979 Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtherealRemnant Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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 Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-90014 Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthosx86 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-90081 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baltazar Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-90092 Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-90122 Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl@zura Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 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!!! Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/12286-req-3dmark-benches/#findComment-90168 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts