PDA

View Full Version : OpenMark results on PowerPC Macs




zen.state
Aug 22, 2011, 11:54 PM
I am very interested to see how different PowerPC Macs perform with OpenMark. It provides very accurate and consistent results and will help us all compare the GPU and overall graphics throughput of different Mac/GPU combos.

Download OpenMark here: http://mac.majorgeeks.com/download5008.html

Please explain what Mac, CPU and OS you have and also take a screen capture of the results window when done. The results window will say the GPU. I won't ask for a certain resolution as the mixed ones will also tell a story.

Once you launch it go to the OpenMark menu and select "Run Benchmark" to start the test.

I will start off:

PowerMac G4 Sawtooth
G4 1.8GHz 7448 running 10.5.8
Geforce 6200 256MB

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4293/unledhg.jpg



Nilscollection
Aug 23, 2011, 01:10 AM
20" iMac G5 iSight
PowerPC G5 @ 2.1 GHz

http://f.cl.ly/items/1f0Q3b370u22133t2t40/Afbeelding%201.png

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 01:14 AM
You didn't run the test as there is no score at the top.

Edit: I see you fixed it now. :)

Nameci
Aug 23, 2011, 11:48 AM
Mine PB 15" 1.67 GHz, ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 128MB...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Picture1-4.png

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 12:17 PM
Are you saying a Geforce 6200 is a "much better video card" than the Radeon 9700? It isn't. A 9700 would even be faster than a GeForce 6600. Even if it is the mobility GPU. The later PowerBook G4's had very good graphic capabilities and you can see in your test.

You are wrong. The Mobility edition of the Radeon 9700 is a little worse than the Radeon 9000 Pro , but does support coreimage, so it gives a little plus. So overall, both cards bench almost the same. Check out www.videocardbenchmark.net/ if you are interested, as I don't own the 9000 pro anymore.

A "real" Radeon 9700 would be a good card, but the mobility edition just sucks by 2005's standards. As I mentionned before, the powerbook g4 1.67 or 1.5 (not the latest model with faster RAM) feels just like a dual 1 ghz MDD with 1 GB RAM, and an ATI 9000 pro. Also, specs are VERY similar. The G4 MDD is the powerbook G4's closest relative when it comes to desktops. Other G4 MDD and powerbook G4s have mentionned this before, but trust me I've used both quite a lot to know what I'm talking about.

So yeah, your card is better, and still my laptop's benchmark running on battery comes close to your score.

Since the 9700 mobility benches like an 9000 pro desktop one (I know what I'm talking about, since I owned both), it means a stock G4 MDD would be as good GPU wise as your upgraded sawtooth. (edit: that part is related to the previous thread)


So after all... maybe 2X vs 4X AGP does make a difference...
...or else you are saying your card, one of the geforce 6 series, is worse than an ati 9000 pro? sounds weird to me...

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 12:32 PM
The Geforce 6200 actually has hardware rendering unlike the Radeon 9000/9200/8500 which are all based on the same basic GPU. So yes a 6200 is better than all those.

Before I had the 6200 in my Sawtooth I had a Radeon 7500 32MB with all the other hardware the same and it scored about 1200. The 6200 is more than 4x that score so it does help a lot.

Don't forget also that your PowerBook is running Tiger which has a faster GUI than Leopard on the same hardware so a Tiger system will score higher. It isn't a fair comparison at all with a different OS.

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 12:34 PM
The Geforce 6200 actually has hardware rendering unlike the Radeon 9000/9200/8500 which are all based on the same basic GPU. So yes a 6200 is better than all those.

Before I had the 6200 in my Sawtooth I had a Radeon 7500 32MB with all the other hardware the same and it scored about 1200. The 6200 is more than 4x that score so it does help a lot.

Don't forget also that your PowerBook is running Tiger which has a faster GUI than Leopard on the same hardware so a Tiger system will score higher. It isn't a fair comparison at all with a different OS.

I can run it again using 10.5.8, no problem. I don't expect much of a difference, since I was on battery for the benchmark.

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 12:55 PM
There you go ;)
http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/147/1050483595ff412399cee1cf188a5bb6/l.jpg

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 12:58 PM
Lets see it on the power adapter and see if there is a difference. Why run a benchmark on the battery?

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 01:11 PM
Lets see it on the power adapter and see if there is a difference. Why run a benchmark on the battery?

I ran it on the passenger's seat while driving in my car... lol Should not have that much of a difference under tiger since I was on "best performance" battery mode. Maybe just a little less power...

Last bench I posted is with the power adapter under 10.5.8. Result hasn't changed a lot, so what I was saying earlier still means something.

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 01:12 PM
I ran it on the passenger's seat while driving in my car... lol
Last bench I posted is with the power adapter under 10.5.8. Result hasn't changed a lot, so what I was saying earlier still means something.

Plug the adapter into the nearest tree. ;)

ViviUO
Aug 23, 2011, 01:30 PM
Dual 1.25 MDD / 9800 Pro 128MB

http://www.petrocksoftware.com/images/random/openmark.png

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 01:40 PM
Plug the adapter into the nearest tree. ;)

Same result with Tiger and adapter plugged-in. 5018. Feel too lazy to post screenshot, as it is the same score as the one in 10.5.8 (scroll up...).

Edit: Since I was suspicious about the bench giving the same number 3 times, I tried it with adapter unplugged and "save energy setting". Score sucked bad.... about 1200.

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 01:44 PM
Same result with Tiger and adapter plugged-in. 5018. Feel too lazy to post screenshot, as it is the same score as the one in 10.5.8 (scroll up...).

So at least for your PB vs. my G4 it looks like my slightly better GPU makes up for the 2x AGP vs. it's 4x. Your PB has more GPU bus throughput but my GPU has more power.

It's stuff like this I love. Comparing the little subtleties of different hardware in different situations. Love it!.

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 02:12 PM
So at least for your PB vs. my G4 it looks like my slightly better GPU makes up for the 2x AGP vs. it's 4x. Your PB has more GPU bus throughput but my GPU has more power.

It's stuff like this I love. Comparing the little subtleties of different hardware in different situations. Love it!.

Yep! Its cool. And we've proved that AGP bus speed does make a difference. So 4X is better than 2X, but as you said your card is good enough to compensate for the lower AGP bus throughput.
Your sawtooth surely beats any stock MDDs, even though its older technology.

But for high specs AGP cards such as my 7800 GS or the too-hard-to-find 7800 GT, better stay away from AGP 2X imo, because although by putting it into AGP 2X it *might* get close to a Radeon 9800 under AGP 4X, you could get so much more power.

I would be curious to see how AGP 8x from the G5's compare to AGP 4x.

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 02:24 PM
Yep! Its cool. And we've proved that AGP bus speed does make a difference. So 4X is better than 2X, but as you said your card is good enough to compensate for the lower AGP bus throughput.
Your sawtooth surely beats any stock MDDs, even though its older technology.

But for high specs AGP cards such as my 7800 GS or the too-hard-to-find 7800 GT, better stay away from AGP 2X imo, because although by putting it into AGP 2X it *might* get close to a Radeon 9800 under AGP 4X, you could get so much more power.

I would be curious to see how AGP 8x from the G5's compare to AGP 4x.

Look how close our scores are to Nilscollection's iMac G5 with x600. It would be AGP 8x. It's only about 20% higher than us (6308). Thats pretty good because an x600 would smoke both our GPU's and it's 8x.

MrJonnyJones
Aug 23, 2011, 02:55 PM
PowerMac G5 Quad. :) I know, I need bigger screens!

http://www.jonnyjones.co.uk/images/BENCHMARK.jpg

cocacolakid
Aug 23, 2011, 06:48 PM
I was curious what it would be on my GE 400mhz G4, but it OpenMark crashes everytime I try to run a benchmark.

400mhz G4 PowerMac
1gb RAM
GeForce 4 MX 64mb video

MAC MAN JW
Aug 23, 2011, 06:48 PM
PowerBook G4 12In 1.5GHz 768Mb Ram GeForce FX Go5200 VRAM 64 MB OS X 10.5.8 :)



300196

SuperJudge
Aug 23, 2011, 07:36 PM
Proof that buses are not necessarily the limiting factor:

PowerMac 11,2 (2.3GHz DC G5, PCIe), 4GB RAM, GeForce 6600 w/ 256MB VRAM

Nova77
Aug 23, 2011, 07:43 PM
My G4 dual 1.42 MDD, 2 GB RAM (mac os 10.5.8)

http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/114/23cc9f7612aa429fa7ace9085b07b36e/l.jpg

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 07:56 PM
Proof that buses are not necessarily the limiting factor:

PowerMac 11,2 (2.3GHz DC G5, PCIe), 4GB RAM, GeForce 6600 w/ 256MB VRAM

Yours clearly shows that this test is truly about GPU power. Very interesting. Right about the same as my G4 and the 2x 1.67GHz PB G4's. Yet look how much lower the PB 1.5GHz with Geforce 5200 is at only 1411. The 6600 in G5 towers was the 6600LE to be exact right?

Your Mac would certainly perform better than Nova's MDD yet his GPU score is almost 15000. Shows how powerful those 7800 really are and reinforces how GPU dependent this test really is.

Love the thread results so far!

SuperJudge
Aug 23, 2011, 08:02 PM
Yours clearly shows that this test is truly about GPU power. Very interesting. Right about the same as my G4 and the 2x 1.67GHz PB G4's. The 6600 in G5 towers was the 6600LE to be exact right?

Your Mac would certainly perform better than Nova's MDD yet his GPU score is almost 15000. Shows how powerful those 7800 really are and reinforces how GPU dependent this test really is.

Love the thread results so far!

It's the plain 6600 in the one that I've got. The 6600LE was in the 2.0GHz DC models. The really interesting thing to me about this test that it appears to be fairly resolution independent. I just ran it again at 1280x1024 and it performed a little worse, actually. (See attached.) Those 7800s are definitely pretty monstrous and now I kinda want get one for my G5 here.

But yeah, I think that talk of bus bandwidth is fairly irrelevant. It's all about the GPU and whether or not it can actually saturate said bus. I doubt most consumer cards even come close.

This is the most interesting thread in quite a while. Moar results, plz! :D

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 08:11 PM
It is a little sensitive to resolution it seems yes. My original here is at only 1280 so here it is at 1680 and 1920 also. I always run my 24" LCD at the optimal 1920 so I may as well show it for a more real world result.

@1680x1050
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2115/picture1n.jpg

@1920x1200
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9863/picture2eq.jpg

And even with an Intel C2D MacBook I can't beat my G4 GPU because the MB has the crappy integrated GMA 950.

MacBook C2D 2 GHz running 10.6.8
GMA 950 64MB
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6720/unledsvh.jpg

SuperJudge
Aug 23, 2011, 08:15 PM
And even with an Intel C2D MacBook I can't beat my G4 GPU because the MB has the crappy integrated GMA 950.

MacBook C2D 2 GHz running 10.6.8
GMA 950 64MB

Ouch. I have some pretty painful memories of attempting to game with the GMA 915 on my old ThinkPad R52. Does the GMA 950 even support Core Image?

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 08:22 PM
Does the GMA 950 even support Core Image?

Oh yeah. 100%. It screams at anything 2D. It supports every GPU feature of the OS. Snow Leopard's GUI screams and even Lion performs pretty well. Keep in mind this is a 3D test.

I only see it crippled when I try to play games which was twice and then I stopped. My G4 games far better performance-wise and I do all my gaming on it. The GMA has shared memory and no hardware rendering vs. the 6200 that has hw rendering and it's own dedicated 256MB DDR2.

Nameci
Aug 23, 2011, 08:49 PM
Proof that buses are not necessarily the limiting factor:

PowerMac 11,2 (2.3GHz DC G5, PCIe), 4GB RAM, GeForce 6600 w/ 256MB VRAM

Lol, my PB G4 15" DLSD scored higher than the Nvidia 6600?

If that is the score for 6600, I want that QFX 4500 soon...:D

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 08:54 PM
Lol, my PB G4 15" DLSD scored higher than the Nvidia 6600?

Even more interesting is the 12" 1.5GHz PB with a Geforce 5200 that only scored 1411.

SuperJudge
Aug 23, 2011, 08:56 PM
Oh yeah. 100%. It screams at anything 2D. It supports every GPU feature of the OS. Snow Leopard's GUI screams and even Lion performs pretty well. Keep in mind this is a 3D test.
Fair enough. I forget that OS X is sanely 2D on its desktop environment sometimes.

Lol, my PB G4 15" DLSD scored higher than the Nvidia 6600?
Yeah, man. The 6600 is a dog of a card for 3D. The only thing to really commend it is the fact that it can drive a single dual-link display which was no mean feat when it came out. Definitely not a gaming card, though.

Nameci
Aug 23, 2011, 09:01 PM
Then my ATI Radeon 9700 Mac Edition on my dualie 1.42 PM G4 would score higher than the 6600 I bet.

SuperJudge
Aug 23, 2011, 09:02 PM
Then my ATI Radeon 9700 Mac Edition on my dualie 1.42 PM G4 would score higher than the 6600 I bet.

Almost certainly.

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 09:05 PM
Fair enough. I forget that OS X is sanely 2D on its desktop environment sometimes.

Yes and 2D performance in my experience is a little more influenced by CPU than GPU. This is why my G4 with 6200 has better GUI scores in Xbench than many G4's with better GPU's and faster AGP. Because the G4 7448 is a screamer.

Nameci
Aug 23, 2011, 10:11 PM
Plugged or unplugged, it's the same score for ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 128mb on a PowerBook G4 15" 1.67GHz DLSD.

1440x960x32
Score: 5644

1280x800x32
Score: 5644

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 10:13 PM
Plugged or unplugged same score for ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 128mb on a PowerBook G4 15" 1.67GHz DLSD.

Score: 5644

Considering your 9700 is a mobility version vs. a 6600 desktop card your score being even just a little higher like it is is pretty respectable performance. It's the fastest Apple PowerPC laptop ever.

I found it very surprising my 6200 in AGP 2x equaled SJ's 6600 in AGP 8x. Or are the dual 2.3 G5's PCIe graphics?

Nameci
Aug 23, 2011, 10:21 PM
If SJ has the 256MB Nvidia GF 6600, then it's either the DC 2.3GHz or the Q2.5GHz. It's a PCIe card.

zen.state
Aug 23, 2011, 10:30 PM
If SJ has the 256MB Nvidia GF 6600, then it's either the DC 2.3GHz or the Q2.5GHz. It's a PCIe card.

I noticed he listed dual 2.3 but missed he did list it was PCIe. Thats amazing that my slower 6200 in a G4 on AGP equals that.

I have this (http://themacelite.wikidot.com/xfx-6200-agp) same one but with a black PCB as the page mentions: "This card's PCB can be blue or black".

SuperJudge
Aug 24, 2011, 06:35 AM
If SJ has the 256MB Nvidia GF 6600, then it's either the DC 2.3GHz or the Q2.5GHz. It's a PCIe card.

That is 100% correct.

It's amazing to me, too, that an AGP 2x card is equal in performance to a card on PCIe. Go figure, huh?

Nameci
Aug 24, 2011, 12:44 PM
It'probably a good justification to upgrade the GPU to a QFX 4500... :D

zen.state
Aug 24, 2011, 12:48 PM
It'probably a good justification to upgrade the GPU to a QFX 4500... :D

Did you see this post on the first page? Very good score!


PowerMac G5 Quad. :) I know, I need bigger screens!

http://www.jonnyjones.co.uk/images/BENCHMARK.jpg

Nameci
Aug 24, 2011, 01:04 PM
Yup, I have seen it, and I am salivating...:p

zen.state
Aug 24, 2011, 01:39 PM
Yup, I have seen it, and I am salivating...:p

So far thats the top score of the thread. I can't imagine any other PowerPC being able to beat that score since I imagine thats the fastest GPU you can get for the G5's.

Nameci
Aug 24, 2011, 01:42 PM
How about the GeForce 7800 GTX 512mb. Have anyone here have this card? Please post and we will see how it compares with the quadro FX 4500.

ThunderSnake
Aug 24, 2011, 07:25 PM
My G4 dual 1.42 MDD, 2 GB RAM (mac os 10.5.8)

http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/114/23cc9f7612aa429fa7ace9085b07b36e/l.jpg



Holy Cow!

Mine (MDD dual 1.42 @ 1.5 w/ Radeon 9800 & Leopard 10.5.8):

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/ThunderSnake/R9800.jpg

Wow! Is the GF 7800 GS really THAT much better than a Radeon 9800?

Nameci
Aug 24, 2011, 08:43 PM
I think so, there's the proof... :D

Nova77
Aug 24, 2011, 08:52 PM
Holy Cow!

Mine (MDD dual 1.42 @ 1.5 w/ Radeon 9800 & Leopard 10.5.8):

Image (http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/ThunderSnake/R9800.jpg)

Wow! Is the GF 7800 GS really THAT much better than a Radeon 9800?

Yes it is ;)
That bench just confirms others I've seen before buying the card.
Simply put, the 7800 GS is the 2nd best AGP card ever made. (the first one is the 7800 GT 512 MB).

"Holy Cow"... Can I borrow this one? funny as hell :)

zen.state
Aug 24, 2011, 11:04 PM
That is 100% correct.

It's amazing to me, too, that an AGP 2x card is equal in performance to a card on PCIe. Go figure, huh?

In Nova's world this isn't possible though. :rolleyes:

How can AGP 4x over 2x possibly make a difference when even PCIe with a faster 6600 matches my score exactly. The 6200 is actually a 6600 with half the pipelines disabled.

Nova77
Aug 24, 2011, 11:42 PM
In Nova's world this isn't possible though. :rolleyes:

How can AGP 4x over 2x possibly make a difference when even PCIe with a faster 6600 matches my score exactly. The 6200 is actually a 6600 with half the pipelines disabled.

1. Go see the techs that designed AGP 2X while searching for an improvement over PCI
Go see the techs that designed AGP 4X while searching for an improvement over AGP 2X
Go see the techs that designed AGP 8X while searching for an improvement over AGP 4X
Go see the techs that designed PCIe while searching for an improvement over AGP 8X

2. And just tell them all their efforts were useless because a card in AGP 2x = a card in PCIe in some benchmark.

3. See what happens.

SuperJudge
Aug 25, 2011, 06:43 AM
1. Go see the techs that designed AGP 2X while searching for an improvement over PCI
Go see the techs that designed AGP 4X while searching for an improvement over AGP 2X
Go see the techs that designed AGP 8X while searching for an improvement over AGP 4X
Go see the techs that designed PCIe while searching for an improvement over AGP 8X

2. And just tell them all their efforts were useless because a card in AGP 2x = a card in PCIe in some benchmark.

3. See what happens.

You have drawn the wrong conclusion. I would say that the take home message is that bus speed is not necessarily a limiting factor when discussing video card choices for a PowerPC Mac. The most important thing is to pick a card that doesn't suck.

zen.state
Aug 25, 2011, 07:17 AM
You have drawn the wrong conclusion. I would say that the take home message is that bus speed is not necessarily a limiting factor when discussing video card choices for a PowerPC Mac. The most important thing is to pick a card that doesn't suck.

Exactly. My argument from the beginning was that on PowerPC Macs the speed of that graphics slot or system bus are not anywhere near as limiting as a slow GPU and CPU. The overall PowerPC architecture is far more efficient even down to how it accesses the GPU.

In the PowerPC world specs often don't equate to real world performance.

Cox Orange
Aug 25, 2011, 10:40 AM
... Check out www.videocardbenchmark.net/ ...

interesting you link to passmark. I used this charts some time ago to get a vage feeling of how components compare to each other, but then there are cases where I wonder, if it says anything. What does it mean, when the highest score is (just example) 1000, and to others are 256 and 260. I mean you can't see from the scores, if it is just a small difference or if they are close as the number indicate. (though I got to say, last time I looked there, I was comparing HDDs and it did not satisfy me.)
Also at Passmark there are so many different PC-setups that all come together, not as easy as comparing allmost similar Macs, with just one part different.

So that this is not only Spam, I will post one of my Macs later. :)

PS: oh, and I forgot, maybe this is interesting to someone http://www.jcsenterprises.com/Japamacs_Page/Page%201%3A%20OpenGL%20.html and http://www.jcsenterprises.com/Japamacs_Page/Blog/8923D90A-7AD8-41F1-BD1A-FEA5E1780B95.html (last link lists cards which were tested in one same Mac and ranks them).

zen.state
Aug 25, 2011, 11:13 AM
interesting you link to passmark. I used this charts some time ago to get a vage feeling of how components compare to each other, but then there are cases where I wonder, if it says anything.

Those are all x86/windows based tests. Pretty much 100% irrelevant compared to how PowerPC systems perform and move information around.

Cox Orange
Aug 25, 2011, 12:54 PM
Having waited allmost 2h for the bench to complete I stopped OpenMark. One observation I want to share, though: I found that when the screen goes black and you then move the mouse you can shortly see a higher FPS (in my scenario like from 370 to 500). Could it be, that the test has to be done without energy-savings? Because, when the screen is black for 1h and the FPS is constantly higher during that time, the average value will be higher, too.

How long does the test actually take, btw?

zen.state
Aug 25, 2011, 12:59 PM
Having waited allmost 2h for the bench to complete I stopped OpenMark. One observation I want to share, though: I found that when the screen goes black and you then move the mouse you can shortly see a higher FPS (in my scenario like from 370 to 500). Could it be, that the test has to be done without energy-savings? Because, when the screen is black for 1h and the FPS is constantly higher during that time, the average value will be higher, too.

How long does the test actually take, btw?

On my G4 tower it takes maybe 3 min.

Badrottie
Aug 25, 2011, 07:09 PM
this openmark test is a joke!!!

300436

reddrag0n
Aug 25, 2011, 08:26 PM
I go to run the benchmark and openmark crashes. Can't get it to run right, and that's with the download link in the first post.

Dave H
Aug 25, 2011, 08:27 PM
PowerMac G4 Digital Audio
G4 1.33GHz 7455B running OS 10.5.8
Flashed ATI Radeon 9800XT 256MB. XT ROM, 412/365MHz.

adcx64
Aug 25, 2011, 10:32 PM
Gonna run this on my iBook and eMac tomorrow morning, curious to see the results.

Cox Orange
Aug 26, 2011, 04:59 AM
Now, I got it. It was quiet irritating for me, that you see a moving picture and a changing FPS, but that this does not mean, that the test is running. I clicked on run benchmark and then everything went fine.

Here is my ibook G4 12", 1,33GHz (late05), 320GB HDD, 1,5GB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 32MB (ATY, M12).

Note that OpenMark says it is a 9600 XT! Compare my result to the 1,5GHz Book posted above, though same graphic, it has double score (not only GPU-dependant?)

Nova77
Aug 26, 2011, 08:02 AM
Now, I got it. It was quiet irritating for me, that you see a moving picture and a changing FPS, but that this does not mean, that the test is running. I clicked on run benchmark and then everything went fine.

Here is my ibook G4 12", 1,33GHz (late05), 320GB HDD, 1,5GB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 32MB (ATY, M12).

Note that OpenMark says it is a 9600 XT! Compare my result to the 1,5GHz Book posted above, though same graphic, it has double score (not only GPU-dependant?)

With such different scores in similar situations.... and low scores for good spec computers.... its time to ask ourselves... "does this test suck?" Maybe the answer is simple "yes" and we should not try to make the weird results fit together.

zen.state
Aug 26, 2011, 08:23 AM
With such different scores in similar situations.... and low scores for good spec computers.... its time to ask ourselves... "does this test suck?" Maybe the answer is simple "yes" and we should not try to make the weird results fit together.

I see very consistent results. All of them reflect the GPU they have and nothing more.

If you are not happy with all these results then just don't participate in the thread I started. Your lack of understanding this doesn't speak for the rest of us. You don't get to make all the demands you do in all your own threads in one of mine.

For a 9550 his score represents that GPU perfectly.

----------

Now, I got it. It was quiet irritating for me, that you see a moving picture and a changing FPS, but that this does not mean, that the test is running. I clicked on run benchmark and then everything went fine.

Here is my ibook G4 12", 1,33GHz (late05), 320GB HDD, 1,5GB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 32MB (ATY, M12).

Note that OpenMark says it is a 9600 XT! Compare my result to the 1,5GHz Book posted above, though same graphic, it has double score (not only GPU-dependant?)

The score you mention above is actually a PowerBook 15" with a Radeon 9700 although it's listed as a 9600. A 9700 is of course going to beat a 9550.

MacVidCards
Aug 27, 2011, 09:14 PM
Hey guys,

As the original developer of both the 7800GTX 512 and the 7800GS, it is still fun to see people awed by the power we brought to PPC Mac GPUs. I gave the PPC Macs their fastest GPUs, but none of my family or friends will ever understand what that means or why anyone should care. Glad someone does.

The GTX 512 is something I am especially proud of, as the current version is the same one I wrote 5 or 6 years ago. A little known fact is that it is only truly fast in Tiger. In Leopard it loses some of it's power. Open mark will confirm this if you find someone with the card and both OSs.

The 7800GS is a sweet card. The rom out now is improved over my original.

Another little known fact, even the vaunted 7800GT only shows 256 Megs of RAM, despite having 512. We never got an AGP GPU to run with 512 Megs. My parents have my old G5 Dual 2.0 to surf the web and balance their checkbook. They don't know that the odd Gainward card with it's giant fan is a true rarity. I would estimate that fewer than 10 of these are in PPC Macs anywhere.

The 6200 cards were nice. I assisted Arti in developing them. We gave the Cube a Core Image card that ran 2x AGP and for that I am glad. Also a decent card for other G4s.

lots of fun at the time and neat to see that people are still benefiting from the hours I spent on the 7800 cards. The first time my 7800 GS booted into a grey screen and spinning Apple, I knew we had a new "fastest" card. Was really a lot of fun.

zen.state
Aug 27, 2011, 09:27 PM
MacVidCards:

You worked on developing the cards themselves or the drivers? Either way thats amazing! You hint at having some faith in OpenMark and it's results. Have you used it a lot?

I find it very accurate in reflection of each GPU shown here. To my eyes all the scores in this thread accurately depict the GPU in question.

I have a Geforce 6200 256MB and it plays many games from 1998-2005 quite well. ie. BF 1942, C&C Generals, Quake 4, Halo.

Great info! Thanks for all that!

ThunderSnake
Aug 27, 2011, 09:29 PM
Hey guys,

They don't know that the odd Gainward card with it's giant fan is a true rarity.

Dude, the Gainward Bliss shouldn't be balancing checkbooks. I have a perfectly good Rage 128 that I'd be willing to trade them (It's quite good at balancing checkbooks).

Seriously, I'm in awe. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your work.

Nameci
Aug 27, 2011, 09:29 PM
With these, we forever are thankful for your effort.

VanneDC
Aug 27, 2011, 10:47 PM
Macvidcards: this truly is humbling and if I was wearing a hat, id take that off for you in respect. It's a shame that the rom for the Mac modded gtx 7800 is nowhere to be found as I am certain that would be the card to have. Any chance of being able to post that rom? Just for concervation sake at least anyways as otherwise it may disappear into the void, and /that/ would be a shame.
Regards and hope you hang around a bit :)

Nameci
Aug 27, 2011, 11:08 PM
The 7800GTX is more powerful than the QFX 4500 ayt?

VanneDC
Aug 27, 2011, 11:29 PM
the GTX is, the 7800GTX512 is the fastest card for the PPC Pcie PM, but the rom is not available... thus the above post... :D
the 7800GTX512 has more pipelines than the fx4500, i thought they were the identical card, but Sheepy666 pointed me in the right direction. It also has faster capable ram modules.

VanneDC
Aug 27, 2011, 11:41 PM
nVidia
Series: Quadro FX
GPU: G70
Release Date: 2005-07-28
Interface: PCI-E x16
Core Clock: 450 MHz
Memory Clock: 525 MHz (1050 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 33.6 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 10800 MOperations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 7200 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 10800 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 900 MVertices/sec
Details
Noise Level: Loud
Framebuffer: 512 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 64x4 (256 bit)
DirectX Compliance: 9.0c
OpenGL Compliance: 2.0
PS/VS Version: 3.0/3.0
Process: 110 nm
Fragment Pipelines: 24
Vertex Pipelines: 8
Texture Units: 24
Raster Operators 16

and the 7800GTX512.....

nVidia
Series: GeForce 7
GPU: G70
Release Date: 2005-11-14
Interface: PCI-E x16
Core Clock: 550 MHz
Memory Clock: 850 MHz (1700 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 54.4 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 13200 MOperations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 8800 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 13200 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 1100 MVertices/sec
Details
Noise Level: Moderate
Framebuffer: 512 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 64x4 (256 bit)
DirectX Compliance: 9.0c
OpenGL Compliance: 2.0
PS/VS Version: 3.0/3.0
Process: 110 nm
Fragment Pipelines: 24
Vertex Pipelines: 8
Texture Units: 24
Raster Operators 16

hmmm. same pipes, same card, unless there are memory spec differences...

oh and i didnt make that crap up, comes from http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce-7800-GTX-512MB-PCI-E-card-357.htmlas does the other...

Cox Orange
Aug 28, 2011, 08:46 AM
... 7800GTX 512 .... I gave the PPC Macs their fastest GPUs, ... The GTX 512 is something I am especially proud of, as the current version is the same one I wrote 5 or 6 years ago. A little known fact is that it is only truly fast in Tiger. In Leopard it loses some of it's power. Open mark will confirm this if you find someone with the card and both OSs.MacVidCards:

You worked on developing the cards themselves or the drivers?
I would like to know that too. From your text, MacVidCards, I assume you are not affiliated to Nvidia, but are a free working person, like those on strangedogs were, right? So you took the Cards offered by Apple or NVidia and wrote a better ROM for us, that could be downloaded on the internet, but was not initially used by Apple's part suppliers. - Or how did it work?

BTW, I thought the GTX 512MB, was never an Nvidia/Apple offer for the market but only existing as flashed PC version, is that right? That would confimr my assumption, that you are one of those great ROM writers on the net and not a person working for a company (e.g. ASUS, Nvidia).

Sorry, for asking such stuff. I do not want to make you feel I doubt what you said, where I live, we are not just as common to celebrities. I know, that you can see Hollywood stars in Walmart or something, in the US, but please understand, that were I live rich/famous people shut themselves off from the public. So, understand, that I am not questioning your work, but just want to understand it a bit more. It is also common in our area, that people do not tell in internet forums, what they achieved in life. Especially, that people just sign up to a forum and one of their first posts is, that they have done something great.
But, why not? I could imagine, that you saw us talking about the cards, and were just happy, that someone appreciates your work, and you just wanted to share your happiness. (Understand me, its perhaps just a cultural difference and I do not want to blame you for pretending something.)

And about the Tiger compatibility thing. I hear often, that everything on PowerMacs work better with Tiger than with Leopard. It seems Apple just did not care of Leopard being efficient on PPCs, with Intels on the way.

Another little known fact, even the vaunted 7800GT only shows 256 Megs of RAM, despite having 512. We never got an AGP GPU to run with 512 Megs. My parents have my old G5 Dual 2.0 to surf the web and balance their checkbook. They don't know that the odd Gainward card with it's giant fan is a true rarity. I would estimate that fewer than 10 of these are in PPC Macs anywhere.
Ok, talking about the Gainward, I assume, that you are talking about a flashed one, right? Someone told me about the 7800GS, that the best to have for flashing would be the Gainward Bliss 7800GS Special Edition Dual DVI (not GS+ (Plus)). Which has 512MB, though only 256MB are shown PowerPC Macs.
I am confused is it the 7800GS, 512MB, AGP flashed, or the 7800GT OEM BTO version, you are talking about. Since I always thought the Apple OEM/BTO cards were manufactured by ASUS.

The 6200 cards were nice. I assisted Arti in developing them. We gave the Cube a Core Image card that ran 2x AGP and for that I am glad. Also a decent card for other G4s....
What/Who is arti, :) I guess you do not mean ATI, since you are talking about the "Nvidia 6200"?

Sorry, for asking like a stupid one. It is not disrespect, it is just missing of knowledge on my side and being raised in another cultural area.

Hrududu
Aug 28, 2011, 11:44 AM
Here's the score from my dual 2.0 G5 that I upgraded to a 128MB Radeon 9600 XT from its old GeForce 5200.

zen.state
Aug 28, 2011, 11:48 AM
Here's the score from my dual 2.0 G5 that I upgraded to a 128MB Radeon 9600 XT from its old GeForce 5200.

That helps me confirm what I have thought for a couple years now. That the 9600 and GF 6200 are very close in performance. When I had a dual 1.42 MDD I had a 9600 vs. my current Sawtooth/6200 config now I see very similar 2D/3D performance.

The 9600 does have a faster clocked GPU though at 400MHz vs. 300-350 for the 6200's.

adcx64
Aug 28, 2011, 12:30 PM
iBook G4 1.33GHz 10.5.8 with AC adaptor connected.

zen.state
Aug 28, 2011, 12:35 PM
iBook G4 1.33GHz 10.5.8 with AC adaptor connected.

Exactly the same score as the same iBook G4 Cox posted above. Radeon 9550 right?

adcx64
Aug 28, 2011, 01:44 PM
Radeon 9550 right?

yes

zen.state
Aug 28, 2011, 01:50 PM
yes

I just noticed that it actually says 9550. I never even looked as I assumed that like Cox it reported it as a 9600. Wonder what makes his report it wrong.

adcx64
Aug 28, 2011, 02:30 PM
possibly a bad kext on Cox's iBook?

adcx64
Aug 28, 2011, 04:36 PM
eMac 1GHz 10.5.8

Cox Orange
Aug 29, 2011, 05:32 AM
possibly a bad kext on Cox's iBook?

If it is a bad kext, I would like to know how I can repair it. DiskUtility does not report anything.

My explanation. I bought this Ibook G4 in October 2005 (build Sept.), but I replaced the logicboard this August. The new logicboard came from the same model ibook, but build in Jan. 2006. Maybe Apple ran out of parts and took a 9600 and "cut" it back to a 9550, but OpenMark still reports it as 9600 (My system-profil shows it as 9550, though).
If it is a bad kext, could it be, because I just copied my backup (with Super Duper) to the new drive and did not install a fresh OS?

yamu
Aug 29, 2011, 06:59 AM
I think it is not a bad kext. You would experience kernel panics or a message after the system starts up.

It is more likely that the 9550 is in the same family of radeon 9600 drivers, maybe another system version, where the drivers are packed together and because of that the app reports it as 9600. Or its because of the logicboard change.

666sheep
Aug 29, 2011, 02:19 PM
Cox: what OS you're running?

BTW, good explanation what 9550, 9600 and 9700M are:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9550.33761.0.html

Vanne: I'm a little confused about 4500 and 7800GTX because in some specs listings I've found were stated about pipes amount difference between these cards, but in others (like from your link) they're equal...
There's another weird info about FX4500: some cards DID is decoded as G70 chip and others as G70GL http://osx86.co/printthread.php?t=4385

And
Aug 30, 2011, 04:13 PM
my powermac set up

NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
G4 867 MHz Quicksilver

Score 1179

Why are all the low scores exactly 1179? Seems a little suspect to me.

Cox Orange
Aug 30, 2011, 05:56 PM
Cox: what OS you're running?

BTW, good explanation what 9550, 9600 and 9700M are:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9550.33761.0.html

about the OS: I am using Tiger, 10.4.11.
about the link: so, nearly as I imagined :)

666sheep
Aug 30, 2011, 06:08 PM
^^^ I thought so. Tiger is the reason why OpenMark lists your card as 9600.
In 10.4 9550 uses 9600 OGL engine and in 10.5 it has its own (I guess just slightly updated and renamed 9600 ;)).

Nameci
Sep 3, 2011, 01:33 PM
Finally home at last...

My PMG5 2.3DC Nvidia QuadroFX 4500

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Picture1-5.png

zen.state
Sep 3, 2011, 01:42 PM
Finally home at last...

My PMG5 2.3DC Nvidia QuadroFX 4500

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Picture1-5.png

Quite the beast of a card. Do you game much and if so which games?

Nameci
Sep 3, 2011, 01:57 PM
No I don't play games. But I do CAD work. The 6600 is slow to render, the machine right now is faster and more smooth. Although xBench score stays the same.

adcx64
Sep 3, 2011, 03:14 PM
ran the test on the iBook on battery and got the same score as on AC power, isn't the score supposed to drop while on battery?

Nameci
Sep 3, 2011, 03:25 PM
Probably not, I guess the cpu would but not the gpu. Openmark is a gpu test. But something strange, why do I have the same score as the other QFX 4500? Exactly the same?

zen.state
Sep 3, 2011, 03:30 PM
ran the test on the iBook on battery and got the same score as on AC power, isn't the score supposed to drop while on battery?

Not if you have energy preferences set to use full CPU power on the battery.

adcx64
Sep 3, 2011, 04:52 PM
hmmmm... i dont remember ever setting that. is that the stock option when leopard is installed?

my apologies for hijacking the thread....

Nameci: The reason why your result is same as the other QFX 4500 is because the rest measures solely on GPU power.

Nameci
Sep 3, 2011, 06:00 PM
Understood, at any rate I am fully satisfied now with what I have.

VanneDC
Sep 3, 2011, 11:11 PM
nah, cpu setting is indifferent in this test, its kina like it spits out a score based on what GPU you have, and i am not convinced its actually worth anything as ive rerun the test about 20 times and it always gives exactly the same result. Also in there i chucked the cpu on max and on lowest settings... its like .. if you system has X GPU, then spit out Y result....

reruning the test id imagine the result would vary slightly, also its exactly the same as someone elses 6600, so in my mind its not actually doing anything this test, just gives the same score based on GPU and not on variations of systems, ie ram , bus speeds, over clocks, etc...

pretty useless actually.. no offence to the OP :)

Nova77
Sep 3, 2011, 11:53 PM
nah, cpu setting is indifferent in this test, its kina like it spits out a score based on what GPU you have, and i am not convinced its actually worth anything as ive rerun the test about 20 times and it always gives exactly the same result. Also in there i chucked the cpu on max and on lowest settings... its like .. if you system has X GPU, then spit out Y result....

reruning the test id imagine the result would vary slightly, also its exactly the same as someone elses 6600, so in my mind its not actually doing anything this test, just gives the same score based on GPU and not on variations of systems, ie ram , bus speeds, over clocks, etc...

pretty useless actually.. no offence to the OP :)

Indeed.... Some1 got another test??

Nameci
Sep 4, 2011, 12:13 AM
Cinebench anyone?

VanneDC
Sep 4, 2011, 12:49 AM
cinebench is good, but from memory (ran it on my Quad and my Gen1 MP) it runs of cpu power x cores, not gpu...

zen.state
Sep 4, 2011, 10:36 AM
Cinebench does heavy GPU testing. It has a good balance between CPU, GPU and even the software based OpenGL. This is good for comparison between hw and sw based OpenGL functions.

As for OpenMark.. it has been used by many well respected mac sites and magazines. ie. MacWorld, Barefeats, Xlr8YourMac just to name a few. Ever think the results are so consistent because it's a truly consistent test? Consistency is a very good thing in benchmarks and you have spoken of that as a bad thing in this thread. Consistency is a very desirable thing in the benchmark world because it means you can truly rely on the numbers.

adcx64
Sep 4, 2011, 11:12 AM
It only makes sense that computers with the same GPU will get the same score with OpenMark, because the test relies solely on GPU power. If I have two iBooks with the same Radeon 9550, would it not be expected for both machines to get the same score in a GPU only benchmark? Anyone who believes that the test just spits out results based on just the GPU model doesn't understand the purpose of the benchmark. :o

VanneDC
Sep 4, 2011, 04:39 PM
I understand that, but I find it curious and strange that overclocking the gpu has no effect on the score and I find it strange that the scores are exactly the same. I would expect a slight variance...

zen.state
Sep 4, 2011, 04:57 PM
I understand that, but I find it curious and strange that overclocking the gpu has no effect on the score and I find it strange that the scores are exactly the same. I would expect a slight variance...

Misguided perception is not reality. Reality is reality.

VanneDC
Sep 4, 2011, 05:42 PM
Misguided perception is not reality. Reality is reality.

Who's to says that reality is reality, possibly my (iyo)misguided reality is reality.. this would lead to a drunken conversation about an I-beam being straight or curved...

zen.state
Sep 4, 2011, 06:13 PM
Who's to says that reality is reality, possibly my (iyo)misguided reality is reality.. this would lead to a drunken conversation about an I-beam being straight or curved...

Now you're just running in oxymoronic circles.

adcx64
Sep 5, 2011, 12:25 AM
Who's to says that reality is reality, possibly my (iyo)misguided reality is reality.. this would lead to a drunken conversation about an I-beam being straight or curved...

I don't understand your logic here.....

Cox Orange
Sep 13, 2011, 06:02 PM
btw, did someone somewhen compare the two 12" ibooks and powerbooks with the highest features?

12" ibook G4 1,33GHz, ATI 9550, 32MB, 1,5GB RAM
12" Powerbook G4 1,5GHz, GF5200, 64MB, 1,25GB RAM

The 5200 is always said to be poorer than the 9550, but on the otherhand it has the bigger graphics Ram.

MacSince1990
Sep 15, 2011, 11:59 AM
It keeps hanging for me after the 139K Triangles are finished....

All I can tell you is that I'm averaging about 1.1MTriangles/s, 1.2 when I overclock the 183 MHz core/mem, and 1.3 when I overclock to 200/200.

It gives me the same score of 165 no matter what the FPS rates are, though. This is only in the log... I never get to the screen with the score because it hangs before that.

Beige G3 w/1 GHz G4... and Original Radeon Mac Edition 32 MB DDR PCI. I've tried this with and without PCI Extreme enabled; crashes both ways in the same spot. Any thoughts?

I'll get around to benching the Quad G5 w/7800 GT sooner or later...

OpenMark started...
hardware detected:
cpu family: 0x10c
cpu type: 0x111
opengl vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
opengl renderer: ATI Radeon OpenGL Engine
opengl version: 1.3 ATI-1.4.18
test parms:
surface 1280x1024 32bpp
textures: on
lighting: on
keep in sync: off
test started
FPS 478.0 0 triangles
FPS 309.0 1152 triangles
FPS 181.0 4608 triangles
FPS 99.0 10368 triangles
FPS 54.0 18432 triangles
FPS 39.0 28800 triangles
FPS 28.0 41472 triangles
FPS 21.0 56448 triangles
FPS 16.0 73728 triangles
FPS 13.0 93312 triangles
FPS 11.0 115200 triangles
FPS 9.0 139392 triangles
final score: 165

So at least for your PB vs. my G4 it looks like my slightly better GPU makes up for the 2x AGP vs. it's 4x. Your PB has more GPU bus throughput but my GPU has more power.

It's stuff like this I love. Comparing the little subtleties of different hardware in different situations. Love it!.

AGP 2x vs. 4x actually doesn't matter with GPUs this old; they don't come close to saturating even the 1 GBps throughput of AGP 2x. There was a definite improvement in performance when Macs turned over from PCI to AGP 2x; the Radeon 32 MB DDR performed often 10-15% faster when unencumbered by the poor bandwidth that the PCI offered (as well as AGP's other features; caching, special writes, etc), but 2-4x made little difference until you got into higher-end GPUs. Very little saturated AGP 4x during its lifetime, and nothing saturated 8x. Today's GPUs would, but we're onto PCIe.


The 5200 is always said to be poorer than the 9550, but on the otherhand it has the bigger graphics Ram.

I can't speak to the Mobile versions of those, I only really ever followed the DT versions, and I know at that point ATI especially was playing rather fast and loose with its namings of Mobile chips (i.e. a 9550 =/= necessarily equal a 95xx DT version...); but I can tell you two things.. #1, VRAM, like regular RAM, doesn't matter unless you run out of it.. and #2, the GeForce5200 was a horrific chip... actually, the whole GF5 series was a joke. The 9500 on the ATI side would have blown holes the size of platters in a 5200, although I can't tell you how the mobile counterparts would perform. They were probably 4 pixel pipes... and very possibly 64-bit memory interfaces.

MacSince1990
Sep 15, 2011, 12:34 PM
Yep! Its cool. And we've proved that AGP bus speed does make a difference. So 4X is better than 2X, but as you said your card is good enough to compensate for the lower AGP bus throughput.

But for high specs AGP cards such as my 7800 GS or the too-hard-to-find 7800 GT, better stay away from AGP 2X imo, because although by putting it into AGP 2X it *might* get close to a Radeon 9800 under AGP 4X, you could get so much more power.

I would be curious to see how AGP 8x from the G5's compare to AGP 4x.

It doesn't quite work like this. If you run out of bandwidth on your interface, it doesn't matter what card you're running. You can have a Radeon 6990 HD tweaked and LN2 cooled to -50C overclocked to 8 GHz, but if you're running it on a bus interface that's too slow, you'll saturate the bus, and it won't make a lick of difference vs. any other card that saturates the interface.

Think of it this way... if you can only feed so much water through a tube per second, it doesn't matter how powerful the pump that feeds it is; that pipe can only sustain so much pressure. Superman could be doing the pumping and it wouldn't speed things up ;)

MacSince1990
Sep 25, 2011, 12:48 PM
Okay, so I got results for my G5 Quad w/7800 GT. It's in Energy Saver mode though, since if I run it at full speed it'll overheat and crash within seconds :/

Nameci
Sep 25, 2011, 06:06 PM
Still did not fix your LCS yet?

MacSince1990
Sep 26, 2011, 12:12 PM
Still did not fix your LCS yet?

Nope :( Been busy, and I still lack the tools *sigh*

Nameci
Sep 26, 2011, 07:42 PM
That 7800GT should scream once you get your processors running right.

thorns
Sep 27, 2011, 05:02 AM
OpenMark is useless for benchmarking since it seems to determine its score based on the description string of the graphics card.

Another note on 7800GT & X1900GT on Dual Core G5s: I benchmarked both gfx cards in my 2.0DC in Leopard (10.5.8) & Tiger (10.4.11). Both are flashed PC cards (the X1900GT being a former X1900XT). In UT2004, Botmatch scores only vary between max and min details and not between different resolutions. It's ~80fps at min details, regardless if res is 640x480 or 1600x1200. In Flyby, the 7800GT performs only marginally better than the X1900 (by about 5%). Fps vary more between high and low resolutions and detail levels, but not substantially. In ioquake3, the X1900 performs better, at 1600x1200x32 max details it scores 280fps. In 640x480x16 min details it's like 350fps.

So, it seems like the 970MP is too slow for those gfx cards (as seen by comparing cpu-intensive botmatch scores to graphics-intensive flyby scores). Knowing this, I can only recommend getting the X1900XT and flashing it to the X1900GT, since the only PCIe 7800GT with a factory 128K BIOS I know of is the one from Albatron. Any X1900XT will work with the 64K Mac ROM

Jethryn Freyman
Sep 27, 2011, 09:26 PM
I get an error saying "unable to choose right pixel format for device" when I try to run Openmark on my Digital Audio G4 with a Rage 128 Pro. Anybody know a way around this?

Cox Orange
Oct 3, 2011, 01:37 PM
Maybe it is too low in performance to be shown with a score in the ranking of OpenMark (e.g. the base score OpenMarks sets is a better card and all other a placed accordingly). My iMac G3 DV 400MHz does refuse it, too and it has an ATI Rage 128.

@ thorns
Thanks for your input, now we have real evidence. I thought that this would be the case, because, even if the cards were extremely well made (which zen.state argued as the reason for all scores being the same), one should see at least a difference of 1 tiny point, when running the test on the equal cards.

Now, has anyone found an alternative test and has made several tests?

on the albatron 7800GT, I never heard of a limitation for flashing (I think one should have read it here and there, since quiet a few people do flassh cards), I thought virtually all 7800GT could be flashed for Mac (or aren't they 128k and so one will get a different one, though flashing will work?).

thorns
Oct 4, 2011, 08:14 AM
No, virtually none of the PC 7800GT are flashable out-of-the-box, since they all carry 64K ROMs by default. Some Asus cards should also have a 128K ROM, but I managed to get my hands on one (the one with the green PCB) and it has a 64K ROM. You can replace the 64K ROM with a 128K ROM, but this is where it leaves the territory of hassle-free. The only cards which are guaranteed to be falshable are the quadro fx4500, the 7800gtx 512 and the radeon x1900xt.

zen.state
Oct 4, 2011, 10:20 AM
Funny how people come to conclusions based on nothing but their own delusion.

Cox Orange
Oct 4, 2011, 04:41 PM
Funny how people come to conclusions based on nothing but their own delusion.

Oh, come on! Why is that so bad for you! I like you and your experience and the information you give a lot; you are always there, when there is a specialized question on PPCs - but why can't you just for a moment question the open mark results.

"own delusion", what is my own delusion, when several people have done the test and there is another person that compares the power of the cards by testing them in games?

1. Tell me, where in the world is a piece of hardware made so identical, that all measurements will turn out the same? I know of two german manufacturers of microphones for music studios (Sennheiser and Beyerdynamics). They test the microphones and they have a range in which the results have to be. Beyerdynamics for example sorts out all pieces, that do not meet the tolerance range and sell them as a low cost series. They also do that to be able to sell matched pairs with nearly the same frequency diagram, but they won't be identical in the very meaning of the word, still! This was told to me by an engineer of Beyerdynamics.

2. If you run several graphics extensive tasks at the same time, while running OpenMark, should there not be a different result? or will it just block all other tasks?

And now, when you answer, please do not attempt to be mean to me, cause I am not to you and do not look down on me just because I do not have that much experience as you have. I am just questioning the results, because it is my nature to not finally exclude other possible answers.

zen.state
Oct 4, 2011, 04:58 PM
My comment wasn't directed at you at all, Cox. You are one of the top 3-5 people IMO on this forum.

I base my trust in this benchmark because highly respected Mac organizations that do a lot benchmarks (ie. MacWorld, BareFeats and others) as well as Mac video driver developers do also. People who constantly run benchmarks wouldn't waste their time if they came to the same conclusions as some here.

Consistency in benchmarks is a very good thing and some act like thats bad. Results that are always changing cannot be actuate and certainly not trusted.

Cinebench is more a CPU/GPU combo benchmark and it gives the same results for the same GPU's on different Macs. It's easily one of the highest if not the most respected benchmark in the Mac industry.

thorns
Oct 5, 2011, 03:42 AM
I do not disagree that consistency in benchmarks is a good thing. But I think that it's not very useful to benchmark a system's graphics performance with an application that only assesses the GPUs performance (btw, my X1900GT scored 16040 points in 1600x1200x32) when the 3D or gaming performance is a sum of all parts of the computer system (CPU speed, FSB speed, etc).

Cox Orange
Oct 5, 2011, 09:53 AM
@ zen.state:
ok, then everything is fine. Thanks and excuse me for imputing you.


I base my trust in this benchmark because highly respected Mac organizations that do a lot benchmarks (ie. MacWorld, BareFeats and others) as well as Mac video driver developers do also. People who constantly run benchmarks wouldn't waste their time if they came to the same conclusions as some here.

Consistency in benchmarks is a very good thing and some act like thats bad. Results that are always changing cannot be actuate and certainly not trusted.

Cinebench is more a CPU/GPU combo benchmark and it gives the same results for the same GPU's on different Macs. It's easily one of the highest if not the most respected benchmark in the Mac industry.

I saw that too, that many organisations (including japamacs, who's webpage about graphics card I like very much) use OpenMark a lot and I agree that would not, if the results were not reasonable or acurate to them.

I got try of an explanation, now: I do not know how GPU-benchmarks work and what they actually measure (other than FPS). If it measures FPS only, then the FPS should stay the same, if the graphical object displayed stays the same in every test, which is the case in this test. Maybe there we have the reason, why it gives the same scores over and over again.

If it measures throughput, I could imagine variability. If there is variability, the it would result in slightly different scores. (!) But wait! If the raw data of the test is being converted to a score number, then we could have the same results over and over again, as there may be the case, that a variability range of data gives 1 point. (Example: 1. time it gives a throughput of 100, next time it gives a throughput of 101. The score 1000 includes all results from 100-110, the score 1001 includes all results from 111-120. - no real world data taken for my example!)

VanneDC
Oct 5, 2011, 03:54 PM
:eek:

aliensporebomb
Oct 5, 2011, 05:45 PM
I'm super bummed my G5 2.5 died - been trying to resurrect it but the 7800GS I have in that box made for one zippy machine.

Some amazing scores in this thread!

ashio83
Feb 12, 2012, 04:09 AM
This is my OpenMark from my DC 2.0 PM G5. FX 4500.

SimonUK5
Feb 12, 2012, 07:06 AM
After seeing the necro and reading the thread, looked like fun so i ran it on both my PowerBook and my PowerMac MDD

MDD-
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg687/scaled.php?server=687&filename=openmarkpowermacmdd.png&res=medium

PowerBook -
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg708/scaled.php?server=708&filename=openmarkspowerbookg4.png&res=medium

Simon

INSURGENCYmusic
Feb 12, 2012, 08:28 PM
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5223/picture1ls.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/picture1ls.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Specs are in my sig below

Dane D.
Feb 14, 2012, 07:49 PM
Didn't see any G3 represented. My is a B/W G3/1.1GHz (PowerLogix), 1GB RAM, ATI Radeon9200 PCI. Don't know why no score shows, so I took a screenshot.
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9296/bwg311ghzati9200.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/bwg311ghzati9200.jpg/)

Jethryn Freyman
Feb 15, 2012, 01:16 AM
Didn't see any G3 represented. My is a B/W G3/1.1GHz (PowerLogix), 1GB RAM, ATI Radeon9200 PCI. Don't know why no score shows, so I took a screenshot.
[/URL][URL="http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9296/bwg311ghzati9200.th.jpg"]Image (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/bwg311ghzati9200.jpg/)
You've got to go to the OpenMark menu and select "Run Benchmark" (or hit Command + R)

Dane D.
Feb 15, 2012, 09:06 AM
You've got to go to the OpenMark menu and select "Run Benchmark" (or hit Command + R)
Thank you, I ran test. I guess for a G3 this is respectable.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2365/bwg311ghzati92002.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/bwg311ghzati92002.jpg/)

n8mac
Feb 19, 2012, 12:23 PM
I was going to run this on my G5 but it seems they took off openmark.

BTW I'm running a GeForce5200 and it sucks for Civ 4. Any tips on where to find any AGP X8 better than this card for cheap would much be appreciated. I was playing Civ 4 the other day and actually got a kernel panic while zooming. Machine runs great otherwise.

n8

SimonUK5
Feb 19, 2012, 12:35 PM
I was going to run this on my G5 but it seems they took off openmark.

BTW I'm running a GeForce5200 and it sucks for Civ 4. Any tips on where to find any AGP X8 better than this card for cheap would much be appreciated. I was playing Civ 4 the other day and actually got a kernel panic while zooming. Machine runs great otherwise.

n8

Have you tried to lower the detail down on the game to see if that will stop the kernel panics?

There are loads of good GFX cards around for the G5s, i personally don't know about them as i've never had a G5 and never needed a card, but there ill be someone who does :)

SuperJudge
Feb 19, 2012, 06:18 PM
Any tips on where to find any AGP X8 better than this card for cheap would much be appreciated.

eBay.

These folks (http://stores.ebay.com/Applemacanix) are great and this (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-G5-Edition-nVidia-GeForce-7800GS-256MB-AGP-DVI-VGA-Video-Graphics-Card-/250930096816?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item3a6c996ab0#ht_3534wt_1139) is one of the best cards you can get for an AGP PowerMac G5. I bought an AGP and a PCI card from them a while back. Decent prices.

However, if you're technically inclined, you can get a PC card for considerably cheaper and flash it with an appropriate ROM. I've done it and it's not that hard if you follow the directions carefully. Truthfully, I only bought from AppleMacanix because I don't have a PC with an AGP or PCI slots anymore.

n8mac
Feb 21, 2012, 12:32 PM
Have you tried to lower the detail down on the game to see if that will stop the kernel panics?

There are loads of good GFX cards around for the G5s, i personally don't know about them as i've never had a G5 and never needed a card, but there ill be someone who does :)

Yes, everything is minimum. Even went to 1024x768 and that didn't help. I have had only one kernel panic but it does have redraw errors where all these polygons flash on my screen. Very colorful lol.

And I wouldn't say loads. It seems they are getting more and more rare now by the prices. At least for the AGP ones.

n8mac
Feb 21, 2012, 01:44 PM
eBay.

These folks (http://stores.ebay.com/Applemacanix) are great and this (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Mac-G5-Edition-nVidia-GeForce-7800GS-256MB-AGP-DVI-VGA-Video-Graphics-Card-/250930096816?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item3a6c996ab0#ht_3534wt_1139) is one of the best cards you can get for an AGP PowerMac G5. I bought an AGP and a PCI card from them a while back. Decent prices.

However, if you're technically inclined, you can get a PC card for considerably cheaper and flash it with an appropriate ROM. I've done it and it's not that hard if you follow the directions carefully. Truthfully, I only bought from AppleMacanix because I don't have a PC with an AGP or PCI slots anymore.

Thanks for the link. I will keep an eye out if they get an AGP card thats better than the 5200 at a good price. I found a radeon 9600xt 128 for $75, still not worth it to me just to play Civ 4 better. Might as well put that towards in intel iMac.

I might finally take a look into flashing a PC card. Will have to read up on that.

skinniezinho
Feb 24, 2012, 03:19 PM
Leopard

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7840/leopardi.th.png (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/leopardi.png/)

Tiger
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9250/tigerij.th.png (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/tigerij.png/)

Specs on the sig

tayloralmond
Feb 28, 2012, 12:42 PM
I noticed nobody had posted results from a GeForce 7800GTX (512MB) so here you go.

GermanyChris
Feb 28, 2012, 01:36 PM
11063 on the PowerMac pushing two 1920x1080 24" displays

11751 on the 2011 13" MBP

I'd say the G5 isn't doing so bad

dmueller6
Mar 9, 2012, 09:24 AM
Heres my score:

G5 Mac Daddy
Mar 12, 2012, 09:43 PM
Anyone know where I can still get openmark?

SuperJudge
Mar 13, 2012, 07:42 AM
Anyone know where I can still get openmark?

There's a working link to it in the first post.

G5 Mac Daddy
Mar 13, 2012, 06:39 PM
ok heres mine

MacHappytjg
Mar 13, 2012, 07:04 PM
good i guess? iMac G5 1.8ghz, 2gb Ram, damn this video card is old, now that i think of it
http://i41.tinypic.com/2n7e4he.png

Nameci
Mar 13, 2012, 08:27 PM
I noticed nobody had posted results from a GeForce 7800GTX (512MB) so here you go.

Wow! Where did you get that card?

tayloralmond
Mar 13, 2012, 08:59 PM
Wow! Where did you get that card?

I got it from a retailer on eBay. For all the money I've spent upgrading my Quad, I could've just gotten an early Mac Pro...but I still think it's worth it. lol

Nameci
Mar 13, 2012, 09:10 PM
I got it from a retailer on eBay. For all the money I've spent upgrading my Quad, I could've just gotten an early Mac Pro...but I still think it's worth it. lol

That is the fastest and the most expensive card for the G5. I agree with you. The quads have the character that the Intel macs doesn't have.

I have the 2.3Ghz dual core. And it is purring like a kitten. I can throw almost anything at it. And it doesn't seem to choke with the load I am throwing at it.

Hrududu
Mar 13, 2012, 09:45 PM
Okay here is the Radeon X1900 256MB from my quad G5

tayloralmond
Mar 13, 2012, 11:47 PM
That is the fastest and the most expensive card for the G5. I agree with you. The quads have the character that the Intel macs doesn't have.

I have the 2.3Ghz dual core. And it is purring like a kitten. I can throw almost anything at it. And it doesn't seem to choke with the load I am throwing at it.

I agree completely, my Quad doesn't so much as show a hiccup with my daily activities. So long as I have iTunes and an updated browser accessible, I'm never upgrading.

zen.state
Mar 14, 2012, 07:51 AM
Leopard

Image (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/leopardi.png/)

Tiger
Image (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/tigerij.png/)

Specs on the sig

Odd that your 6200 scored about 1000 less than mine at 5326. You must have one with a Cube ROM in it which lowers the GPU and memory speed for lower heat and power draw.

archtopshop
Mar 14, 2012, 11:11 AM
Here are my results for a flashed 9800 Pro on a Dual 1.25 MHz FW800, and on an slightly overclocked Sawtooth 550MHz. Same card used for each, but attached to different monitors and resolutions. I got the results from the openmark folder after the test ended. It seems the test always runs down to 9 FPS before finishing.

archtopshop
Mar 14, 2012, 11:19 AM
Here's a 9000 PRO on the FW800, and just for kicks, the 128 Rage Pro which was the original video card on the Sawtooth.

archtopshop
Mar 14, 2012, 11:50 AM
And one more, a GeForce4 MX on a recently acquired 1 GHz FW800. It is the original card that shipped with the computer.

Jethryn Freyman
Apr 30, 2012, 09:57 PM
In search of e-penis/bragging rights, I present:
http://i.imgur.com/zCgG0.png

tayloralmond
Apr 30, 2012, 11:18 PM
In search of e-penis/bragging rights, I present:
Image (http://i.imgur.com/zCgG0.png)

Someone finally beat my 7800GTX!

Nameci
Apr 30, 2012, 11:48 PM
Yes, beat the hell out of my Quadro... :(

Jethryn Freyman
May 1, 2012, 12:48 AM
Oh yeah, broke 20K:

http://i.imgur.com/9Xy2G.png

VanneDC
May 1, 2012, 06:53 AM
Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...

Jethryn Freyman
May 1, 2012, 08:24 AM
Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...
I guess it's just that the higher clocks overpower them, ATI cards are very easy to overclock and mine, at least, can sustain a very high overclock, thanks god, it really inflates my e-penis <3

----------

Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...
Also, OpenMark is a *very* GPU based test, overclocking literally gave me a 25%+ performance increase over stock, and stable too, as long as memory isn't increased over 129% (or 159% on a Radeon 7500 on an eMac.)

Starfighter
May 1, 2012, 08:31 AM
http://s19.postimage.org/q8978vrtf/Bild_3.png
http://s19.postimage.org/v5mrtztsj/Bild_2.png

Jethryn Freyman
May 1, 2012, 08:48 AM
Image (http://s19.postimage.org/q8978vrtf/Bild_3.png)
Image (http://s19.postimage.org/v5mrtztsj/Bild_2.png)
*exactly* the same as my old 9600 XT in my G5, it's kinda weird really, that the same GPU scores exactly the same, but then again, overclocking does make a huge difference, so part of me says that this really must be a 99.9% GPU intensive test

----------

Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...
Also: if I've already addressed this, my apologies, but overclocked results are significantly higher than stock results, as expected, and with my FireGL GPU, still stable. As with the Radeon 7500 in my eMac, the memory clock is the main bandwidth restriction compared to the actual GPU clock

Jethryn Freyman
May 1, 2012, 09:08 AM
Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...
Also, it's a FireGL, not a Radeon..

Starfighter
May 1, 2012, 10:25 AM
*exactly* the same as my old 9600 XT in my G5, it's kinda weird really, that the same GPU scores exactly the same, but then again, overclocking does make a huge difference, so part of me says that this really must be a 99.9% GPU intensive test

Yeah, I noticed that we got the exact same results! :)

VanneDC
May 1, 2012, 12:34 PM
You don't think it's a little /strange/ you got exactly the same result???

zen.state
May 1, 2012, 12:54 PM
You don't think it's a little /strange/ you got exactly the same result???

You really don't understand benchmarks if you think the same result on the same GPU is odd. Your lack of understanding is promoting ignorance.

Jethryn Freyman
May 2, 2012, 06:01 AM
Lol !! X800 beating a 7800gtx.. What a joke. Also no one ever commented on why overclocking results are the same as stock results...
And actually I just re-read this, you're totally wrong, my overclocking results scale up the score pretty linearly.

wobegong
May 29, 2012, 09:37 AM
Dual Core 2.3, 7800GTX 512Mb

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7078/7305966198_cbe469d4e4_z_d.jpg

Nameci
May 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
Dual Core 2.3, 7800GTX 512Mb

Image (https://photos-1.dropbox.com/i/xl/MchCc7dXiHsF5CZFMx4Qk1mwTOoHNi5z90sNRZp3530/77806813/1338390000/3d3676b/OPENMARK.jpg)

No image attached.

wobegong
May 30, 2012, 04:51 AM
No image attached.

Sorry - Should be OK now...

Nameci
May 30, 2012, 07:13 AM
Sorry - Should be OK now...

Still can't see it.

Jethryn Freyman
May 30, 2012, 08:23 AM
Oh yeah, 22K and still winning ;) <3

zen.state
Jul 25, 2012, 09:55 PM
Finally got around to running this on my Radeon 9800 Pro.

Scored an 8719 vs 5171 on my Geforce 6200

Jethryn Freyman
Jul 26, 2012, 08:12 AM
Finally got around to running this on my Radeon 9800 Pro.

Scored an 8719 vs 5171 on my Geforce 6200
Good step up, you ever experimented with overclocking it a little with ATI Accelerator II?

chibiterasu
Jul 26, 2012, 11:36 AM
I just noticed that no one has posted a score for the fx 5200 ultra (iMac G4 1.25Ghz)

Anyway it came up with
NVIDIA NV34MAP OpenGL Engine
1440x900x32
Score 1752

So not but bad but not as good as most of you PowerMac people with your big graphic cards.

Jethryn Freyman
Aug 1, 2012, 07:15 AM
Anybody got any benchmarks with a 512MB NVIDIA 7800? Especially the "Gainward Bliss" version.

Curious about performance. I'm considering about searching for an upgrade for the sake of my own ego, though I'd hate to give up another PCI slot.

GermanyChris
Oct 15, 2012, 03:20 PM
Oh yeah, broke 20K:

Image (http://i.imgur.com/9Xy2G.png)

This is interesting, I just put a 560Ti in the MP so I decided to run OpenMark again..

22902 but 1152 triangles…

wobegong
Oct 16, 2012, 04:18 AM
Anybody got any benchmarks with a 512MB NVIDIA 7800? Especially the "Gainward Bliss" version.

Curious about performance. I'm considering about searching for an upgrade for the sake of my own ego, though I'd hate to give up another PCI slot.

Yep - Mines on this thread somewhere.....

Nameci
Oct 16, 2012, 06:34 AM
Yep - Mines on this thread somewhere.....

Post #162, score is 16866...

666sheep
Oct 16, 2012, 01:23 PM
Post #162, score is 16866...

I think that our "I-have-largest-epenis" :D friend meant 7800 AGP, that's why he used magical Gainward Bliss name.

So, because my Gainward Bliss finally turned out to be G71 one and I sold it back, here is the score of aquamac's one: http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/gainwardbliss780.html

Jethryn Freyman
Oct 18, 2012, 08:28 AM
I think that our "I-have-largest-epenis" :D friend meant 7800 AGP, that's why he used magical Gainward Bliss name.

So, because my Gainward Bliss finally turned out to be G71 one and I sold it back, here is the score of aquamac's one: http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/gainwardbliss780.html
I wouldn't mind getting my hand on one of them and seeing how much speed I can squeeze out of it...

GermanyChris
Oct 18, 2012, 05:05 PM
I think that our "I-have-largest-epenis" :D friend meant 7800 AGP, that's why he used magical Gainward Bliss name.

So, because my Gainward Bliss finally turned out to be G71 one and I sold it back, here is the score of aquamac's one: http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/gainwardbliss780.html

That G4 has a waterblock!! outstanding!

666sheep
Oct 19, 2012, 10:22 AM
I wouldn't mind getting my hand on one of them and seeing how much speed I can squeeze out of it...

It's really hard to find one, the right one. Only 100% certain way to differentiate G70 from G71 version of this card is removing heatsink and see what's printed on GPU. G70 ones were made in very small batch. Most of these you can find now are G71.

It could perform a bit better in G5 due to wider AGP bus.

That G4 has a waterblock!! outstanding!

First time on Aqua's site? :) See his other builds. Cleanest Hacks in Mac cases I've ever seen. I can't decide if I like his G4s or Hacks more. I wish I had his skills... I have 2 kits for WC-ing MDD and still didn't mount them.

orestes1984
Oct 19, 2012, 10:24 AM
That G4 has a waterblock!! outstanding!

Now he needs a cooling block on the memory controller.

GermanyChris
Oct 19, 2012, 03:08 PM
It's really hard to find one, the right one. Only 100% certain way to differentiate G70 from G71 version of this card is removing heatsink and see what's printed on GPU. G70 ones were made in very small batch. Most of these you can find now are G71.

It could perform a bit better in G5 due to wider AGP bus.



First time on Aqua's site? :) See his other builds. Cleanest Hacks in Mac cases I've ever seen. I can't decide if I like his G4s or Hacks more. I wish I had his skills... I have 2 kits for WC-ing MDD and still didn't mount them.

Yes, and he does have skills, in spades.

Now he needs a cooling block on the memory controller.

It'd most likely have to come from the same res though. I cant imagine there is enough space for the piping and the another res..maybe in the HDD bay area then move the drives under the optical enclosure??

Goftrey
Nov 24, 2012, 07:54 AM
With my newly installed 6800 Ultra DDL (256mb, 400mhz Core Clock)

http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc371/Niall_Boxhall/Picture1-11.png

It's absolutely flying by! It makes the FX5200 look like a toy & it's actually surprisingly quiet.

JadeGreenGirl
Nov 24, 2012, 12:04 PM
With my newly installed 6800 Ultra DDL (256mb, 400mhz Core Clock)

Image (http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc371/Niall_Boxhall/Picture1-11.png)

It's absolutely flying by! It makes the FX5200 look like a toy & it's actually surprisingly quiet.

Very nice score. Never owned a 6800 for my G5 but this makes me eager to get one.

GermanyChris
Nov 27, 2012, 02:55 PM
I thought this bench was a bit CPU dependent. I ran this bench on my Mac Pro with this card (560ti 448) and just beat you guys. I just ran this on the Hackintosh and scored 80,000