PDA

View Full Version : Quake 3 Universal Binary, Intel Benchmarks


MacBytes
Feb 12, 2006, 03:38 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Games
Link: Quake 3 Universal Binary, Intel Benchmarks (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060212043812)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by arn

Woutje
Feb 12, 2006, 05:10 AM
I will try this out tomorrow

Little Endian
Feb 12, 2006, 07:19 AM
http://barefeats.com/imcd2.html

Barefeats tests the Core Duo imac against PowerMac G5.

I was hoping for better from the Core Duo imacs in regards to gaming performance. The intel imacs are ok in comparison to the old imac G5 but they are not spectacular when considering they have Double the Cores and Quadruple cache compared to imac G5. Core Duo also has much better video card X1600 that should alone be able to push out 30-100% more FPS in comparison to imac G5s X700 depending on resolution and settings.

I have a Quad Core 2.5 with 7800GT and get almost 600FPS in Quake 3 timedemo 597.3 to be exact. This is at 1680x1050 High Quality at the same setting a 2Ghz Core Duo imac gets 154FPS.

In Doom 3 I get 52.1 FPS at 1680x1050 High Quality everything on at this setting a 2Ghz Core Duo Machine gets 21FPS. I can even go to Ultra Quality at 1680x1050 everthing on at highest and still get 50.3 FPS in the time demo.

Meh.... maybe I'm just spoiled but I was hoping for better from the intel imacs in regards to Mac Gaming performance. It's now quite obvious that it's not the PowerPC that necessarily held back Mac gaming performance but the biggest culprit is OSX itself and how it handles Open GL. I am pretty sure a Windows based laptop with a 2Ghz Core Duo and X1600 would still blow away an intel imac or Mac book Pro.

Longey Nowze
Feb 12, 2006, 08:24 AM
don't the new intel macs use Yonah? and isn't the yonah a low voltage processor aimed for the portable market? so this comparison to a quad G5 is really a bit a unfair... maybe a dual G5 would be better comparison...



MaT

Little Endian
Feb 12, 2006, 10:48 AM
don't the new intel macs use Yonah? and isn't the yonah a low voltage processor aimed for the portable market? so this comparison to a quad G5 is really a bit a unfair... maybe a dual G5 would be better comparison...



MaT

The link I posted is comparing a Core Duo to a Dual G5, I just happen to have a Quad. The Core Duo is still loosing to a Dual G5 at high quality and resolution settings. Anyhow none of that matters much sense only Quake 3 is SMP aware. I can turn off two cores in my machine and I'll still get roughly the same performance with Four cores active in most games.

Nermal
Feb 12, 2006, 12:17 PM
There are bound to be little tips and tricks for optimising code. As more get discovered, games will get faster and faster. I suspect that OS 10.4.5 will include faster OpenGL drivers, providing a boost for all games :)

joelc
Feb 12, 2006, 02:25 PM
Most games don't get much boost from a second processor or core. Some stuff, like audio processing, has been made to run on a second core, but the graphics don't run very well in parallel. So I wouldn't expect a dual- or quad- core setup to run Doom 3 better than a single proc per se. The pentium M derivatives are supposed to be fairly powerful on their own, so the Core Duo should be decent in most situations, but I guess we've seen that the new iMacs can't match up with a Powermac. I suspect that a lot of this is due to the graphics cards used. The Intel Macs have what I think most people would probably consider decent graphics cards, but they're not top-of-the-line.

Rocksaurus
Feb 12, 2006, 08:19 PM
We have to bear in mind that Quake 3 is probably the most optimized game ever for PPC. It's the only game I can think of, for instance, that makes pretty heavy use of Altivec. Also, Quake 3 is very GPU dependent. So why is the X1600 not kicking butt? Considering how new the whole Intel OS X thing is and EFI and whatnot, my guess would be that the X1600 drivers have a long way to go. Barefeats' own words would tend to agree with this...

"One would expect with dual cores that the Intel iMac would do better. Turns out that it was very sensitve to resolution and high detail -- possibly revealing some weakness in the Radeon X1600. (Notice how the Radeon 9800 Pro pulled down the speed of the Power Mac.) If we backed down to 1024x768 High Quality with Geometric and Texture Detail set to "Medium," it jumped to 316 fps."

The pattern of FPS displayed in Quake 3 by the Core Duo system shows that it is not CPU bottlenecked, but GPU bottlenecked at this point. Is the Core Duo going to beat a dual G5? Probably not, it IS a mobile processor. But is it better than these numbers reveal? Certainly.

JordanNZ
Feb 13, 2006, 03:30 PM
Quote


"There are some known issues this build. In particular it is not SMP-aware (aware of multiple processor cores)."

Did anyone miss that?

ernestc
Apr 16, 2006, 03:45 AM
Apple have dramatically underclocked the x1600 on both the intel iMac and the MacBook Pro. Standard clock for the X1600 is 470/470, the MacBooks have the clock speed set to 300/300! When tested running windows on the intel macs and using ATiTool to clock back to 470/470 it makes a HUGE difference. So far as far as I am aware nobody have been able to get the cards to overclock (Or stndard clock :P) on the mac OS yet as there is no tool to do so. But whatever the case, MAC OS X does not respect the clocking changes made in windows XP for the gpu. Would be good for somebody to port the ATI Tool to Mac OS X.