PDA

View Full Version : High level historical benchmarks of Power Macs




rafacq
Aug 21, 2008, 11:02 PM
Is there a site where one could look at a high level comparision between each new model Power Mac as they have been coming out through the years? I mean, it would not have to have lots of details, but just enough information to help give an idea on how machines have improved in performance over the years, like what a Dual 1.0 Ghz Power Mac G4 compares with a Dual 2.0 Ghz G5, to a Dual 2.5Ghz G5, all the way to the new Intel Dual Core Macs?

I have a 2004 Dual Core 2.5 Ghz Power Mac, and would like to know how big of a performance improvement I would see if I considering one of the new iMacs or perhaps a new Intel Dual Core Power Macs?

I also have an earlier Dual 1.0 Ghz G4 tower which I use mostly as a music server connected to my stereo (and read emails). It works great but... Would I see a big improvement in performance by replacing it with a new Mac Mini, which would occupy a lot less space! Or should I continue to use it as the improvement would not be that drastic?

is here a site that could be helpful in doing this type of comparisons?

Thanks in advance for any help...



apfhex
Aug 22, 2008, 12:27 AM
I also have an earlier Dual 1.0 Ghz G4 tower which I use mostly as a music server connected to my stereo (and read emails). It works great but... Would I see a big improvement in performance by replacing it with a new Mac Mini, which would occupy a lot less space!
For those tasks, no. The Mini would take up far less space and probably power too. And be quieter. While the Mini would probably perform better, I doubt it'd be worth it for just the performance difference. Those other reasons, maybe.

I would be really interesting to see a standardized performance test on the various generations of Power Macs and Mac Pros, but something like that would take a lot to put together. You'd have to come up with a standard and reasonable way to compare all the systems, and have people with those systems to run the tests. Even if the results were not detailed, there are so many variables that can change the performance of system... well it would be tricky. ;)

jshbckr
Aug 22, 2008, 01:03 AM
This may be sort of what you are looking for:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/06/mac-performance-june-2008/

nanofrog
Aug 22, 2008, 03:06 AM
This may be sort of what you are looking for:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/06/mac-performance-june-2008/
Nice find! Thanks. :)

Roy
Aug 22, 2008, 05:12 AM
This may be sort of what you are looking for:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/06/mac-performance-june-2008/

WoW! Very good link. The comparisons go all the way back to PowerPC G3 349 MHz (1 core) at 206. Comparing my G4 467 to even a single 2.8 processor there is a 17.3 times improvement. Comparing the 467 to the 2.8 (8 core) the improvement is 25 times more. Comparing the 2.8 (8 core) versus the 2.8 (4 core) the improvement is 1.44.


Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2.8 GHz (8 cores) 7685

Mac Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Xeon E5462 2.8 GHz (4 cores) 5317

Power Mac G4 (Digital Audio)
PowerPC G4 467 MHz (1 core) 307

Setup

Results were collected from the Geekbench Result Browser (http://browse.geekbench.ca/) for Macs with standard processors (i.e., no processor upgrades, overclocked processors, or Hackintoshes) with at least 512MB of RAM.
As always, Iíve reported the average overall score for each model and processor combination. If youíre unfamiliar (http://getsatisfaction.com/primatelabs/topics/interpret_results) with Geekbench and how it measures performance, a score of 1000 is the score a Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz would receive. Higher scores are better.
Also, keep in mind that Geekbench 2 (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench) only measures processor and memory performance which is why, for example, MacBook and MacBook Pro scores are so similar, despite both having radically different graphics adapters.

rafacq
Aug 22, 2008, 08:23 AM
This is just what I was looking for... Thanks!