macgirl Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 For SSE3 Rosetta is not patched, waht is patched is the TPM check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripprasternode Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Here's a good comparison for you, my mac mini Mac Mini G4 1.4 512mb Results 40.37 I'm getting an i915 775 board next week. All the onboard gear seems OSx86 OK, I look forward to the results. http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/MotherBoard/Pro...-8I915ME-GL.htm macmini14.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foureight84 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Vaio V505EC Results 33.70 System Info Xbench Version 1.2 System Version 10.4.1 (8B1025) Physical RAM 512 MB Model ADP2,1 Drive Type TOSHIBA MK6021GAS CPU Test 19.67 GCD Loop 76.48 4.03 Mops/sec Floating Point Basic 33.74 801.56 Mflop/sec vecLib FFT 7.10 234.10 Mflop/sec Floating Point Library 50.70 8.83 Mops/sec Thread Test 55.40 Computation 42.51 861.22 Kops/sec, 4 threads Lock Contention 79.51 3.42 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads Memory Test 49.65 System 49.06 Allocate 118.38 434.73 Kalloc/sec Fill 47.01 2285.82 MB/sec Copy 31.82 657.26 MB/sec Stream 50.26 Copy 45.47 939.10 MB/sec Scale 45.87 947.70 MB/sec Add 56.10 1195.04 MB/sec Triad 55.63 1190.15 MB/sec Quartz Graphics Test 90.68 Line 74.64 4.97 Klines/sec [50% alpha] Rectangle 84.76 25.30 Krects/sec [50% alpha] Circle 99.69 8.13 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] Bezier 98.50 2.48 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha] Text 102.47 6.41 Kchars/sec OpenGL Graphics Test 25.36 Spinning Squares 25.36 32.18 frames/sec User Interface Test 64.33 Elements 64.33 295.25 refresh/sec Disk Test 25.84 Sequential 47.08 Uncached Write 38.76 23.80 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Write 40.43 22.88 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Read 79.25 23.19 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Read 45.84 23.04 MB/sec [256K blocks] Random 17.80 Uncached Write 6.20 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Write 36.32 11.63 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Read 50.00 0.35 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Read 63.29 11.74 MB/sec [256K blocks] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickDG Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Dell Optiplex GX280 <- Runs very nicely P4 (SSE3) 2.8 Ghz 512MB DDR SATA Hard drive Score: 39.16 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 ghz <- My workhorse 1.5 GB DDR SATA Hard drive Score: 84.55 Both attached. Dell_GX280.txt PowerMac_G5_Dual_2.0_ghz.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebush05 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 AMD 3000+ (winchester, SSE2) @ 2.31ghz 1GB 400DDR Soltek SL-K890pro-939 6600GT OSX installed on its own 7200rpm 20gb HD. Results 59.97 Loving it so far! EDIT: I got it going slightly faster....61.73 AMD3000_.txt Updated_score.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoZy Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Amd64 s939 Winchester 3200+ 2.0ghz @ 2.45ghz Msi K8n Neo2 Platinum M/board 1g pc4000 Ram Radeon 9600 pro WD Cavier 80Gb H/drive 75.44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnybluejeans Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 ghz <- My workhorse1.5 GB DDR SATA Hard drive Score: 84.55 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Further proof that Xbench is a completely useless metric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam0r Posted September 1, 2005 Author Share Posted September 1, 2005 I was at an apple store today, near where I live. I did an Xbench of the new mini mac's that were there. Check these results out. xbench_mac_mini_score.rtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selektor Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Just for a laugh: Specs PowerMac 7500 G3/500 Rage 128 Pro Onboard SCSI Mac OS X 10.3.9 Score: 5.62 I don't know about Xbench being a "useless metric" but I can say that this score truely reflects how much OS X sucks on this Old World Mac. PM7500_G3500.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebush05 Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Just for a laugh: Specs PowerMac 7500 G3/500 Rage 128 Pro Onboard SCSI Mac OS X 10.3.9 Score: 5.62 I don't know about Xbench being a "useless metric" but I can say that this score truely reflects how much OS X sucks on this Old World Mac. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL. My G3/500imac got a little over 9....ssllooww . But the funny thing is I used it more than my brand new PC running windows. The PC was a nintendo until osx86! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam0r Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 LOL. My G3/500imac got a little over 9....ssllooww . But the funny thing is I used it more than my brand new PC running windows. The PC was a nintendo until osx86! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At least you can play games on a nintendo I'll post a xbench of my 266mhz iMac oc'd to 300mhz later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickDG Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Further proof that Xbench is a completely useless metric. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. The G5 is quite faster than the Dell. The score should be well into the 100's. Just look at the CPU score for the G5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingen Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Athlon64 3200+ 1 GB PC3200 RAM 2.5-3-3-8 80 GB IDE U100 that's the relevant info, I guess. Untitled.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kresh Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Original Mac mini 1.25Ghz OverClocked to 1.5Ghz 1GB Ram - PC3200 Original 4200 rpm Drive (TOSHIBA MK4025GAS) ATI Radeon 9200 (249.75Mhz), overclocked to 276.75Mhz (Using ATIccelerator II) 32MB Vram (190.13Mhz), overclocked to 210.38Mhz (Using ATIccelerator II) 44.60 - Using ATIccelerator II - 5 test average 42.39 - No Video Acceleration - 5 test average edit: spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebush05 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 At least you can play games on a nintendo I'll post a xbench of my 266mhz iMac oc'd to 300mhz later <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, when I want to play game, or just to dabble around with spy/adware I just boot into Wintendows. Whats really sad is your screaming fast OC'd 266mhz is probably more useful than Windows on my new PC/Mac! Here's a question for everyone... my xbench scores beat a mac mini by around 25points. But, my cpu scores were lower than the mini because of this test -> vecLib FFT. The mac mini had a score of 82.90 (2.73 Gflop/sec), and my score was 13.77 (454.22 Mflop/sec). They are two very different chips, but what causes the difference in the numbers, whats that benchmarks relevance to speed, and if it is relevant.. is there something driver wise slowing it down? Edit: forgot.. my proc=AMD3000/2.31Ghz Vs. MacMini proc= G4/1.42Ghz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam0r Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 Yep, when I want to play game, or just to dabble around with spy/adware I just boot into Wintendows. Whats really sad is your screaming fast OC'd 266mhz is probably more useful than Windows on my new PC/Mac! Here's a question for everyone... my xbench scores beat a mac mini by around 25points. But, my cpu scores were lower than the mini because of this test -> vecLib FFT. The mac mini had a score of 82.90 (2.73 Gflop/sec), and my score was 13.77 (454.22 Mflop/sec). They are two very different chips, but what causes the difference in the numbers, whats that benchmarks relevance to speed, and if it is relevant.. is there something driver wise slowing it down? Edit: forgot.. my proc=AMD3000/2.31Ghz Vs. MacMini proc= G4/1.42Ghz. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could quite possibly be due to the lack of altivec and the SSE2 patch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobm Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 33.49 Intel P4 2.59GHz 512MB ram Generic Dell Dimension 8300mobo(875 "Canterwood" i believe) WD 80GB HD, not sure of exact model Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra Results.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 This one is on the rig on my sig. Results 43.46 Results3.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Hi, here are my results My configuration is: ASRock P4 Dual-915GL onboard Intel graphics (shared memory, QE & CI supported) 512 mb ram (2 x 256mb PC3200) Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz (HT, SSE3, 800MHz FSBus, 1MB L2 cache) 200 gb Maxtor 6Y200P0 (dual boot windows/macosx) The overall score was 39.93 myresults2.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpeters13 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Sony Vaio VGN-T350p Intel Pentium M 753 @ 1.2ghz 512mb ddr 2700 80gb hdd @ 4200 Intel 855GME Graphics I wonder where I rank. I always wonder how this compares to a system with functioning core graphics and quartz extreme. Personally, I'm clueless as to how its running any Quartz tests when profiler makes mention of the lacking of such. But that's another thread, and another topic. LOL. What a piece of {censored}. 16.28 was the average. Oy... OS X is crappy-hardware friendly then. It runs great. results.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam0r Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 I might make a php page to store all this info, and get rankings etc. I'll prolly do that tomorrow actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halo1982 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 An amazing 12.65! HP NX9010 2.8GHz P4, 512MBs PC2700, integraged broadcom wireless, 80GB HD. I think I'v narrowed my problems down to complete lack of support for any ATi motherboard chipsets. Using AppleGenericPCATA.kext. Slow slow slow, but this has talked me into buying a mac. I'm going to sell this laptop and get an iBook or something similar, results.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZX81 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 XBench results below Dell 9300 1.73MHz 2GB 5400rpm seagate momentus 30gb Tiger / 20gb XP / 30gb data Results 48.15 System Info Xbench Version 1.2 System Version 10.4.1 (8B1025) Physical RAM 2048 MB Model ADP2,1 Drive Type ST9808211A CPU Test 25.56 GCD Loop 224.68 11.84 Mops/sec Floating Point Basic 44.79 1.06 Gflop/sec vecLib FFT 8.87 292.66 Mflop/sec Floating Point Library 58.91 10.26 Mops/sec Thread Test 80.60 Computation 69.93 1.42 Mops/sec, 4 threads Lock Contention 95.12 4.09 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads Memory Test 76.54 System 79.71 Allocate 146.92 539.52 Kalloc/sec Fill 62.95 3060.96 MB/sec Copy 66.90 1381.88 MB/sec Stream 73.61 Copy 66.77 1379.19 MB/sec Scale 67.52 1394.93 MB/sec Add 81.73 1741.08 MB/sec Triad 81.18 1736.74 MB/sec Quartz Graphics Test 74.42 Line 62.79 4.18 Klines/sec [50% alpha] Rectangle 67.85 20.26 Krects/sec [50% alpha] Circle 76.00 6.19 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] Bezier 86.21 2.17 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha] Text 85.02 5.32 Kchars/sec OpenGL Graphics Test 33.36 Spinning Squares 33.36 42.32 frames/sec User Interface Test 95.79 Elements 95.79 439.63 refresh/sec Disk Test 37.12 Sequential 62.07 Uncached Write 47.15 28.95 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Write 66.47 37.61 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Read 67.88 19.87 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Read 74.29 37.34 MB/sec [256K blocks] Random 26.48 Uncached Write 8.91 0.94 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Write 70.03 22.42 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Read 70.05 0.50 MB/sec [4K blocks] Uncached Read 97.36 18.07 MB/sec [256K blocks] __________________ 9300 1.73 2GB Dual-Crucial WXGA+ Sammy SEC5857 Driver 77.7 380/780 3dmark5 4436K OC in XP Tiger OSx & XP How does this relate? and does the video situation impact it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technobob Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Results 30.87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selektor Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Now this is weird. I would've thought TPS would have the ideal kit for osx86. His score is 39.93. How does ZX81 get a 48.15 with almost half the cpu speed? I ran Xbench twice on a Mac Mini 1.4x at the Apple store last night and both times got 47.xx. Those Minis are perky little boxes and I would cobble together an x86 box if I thought it would be comparable. Maybe this question belongs in its own thread but are there advantages in 64-bit and/or Hyper-threading with osx86? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts