Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 28, 2006, 12:01 PM   #51
CTYankee
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Its also important to include system specs beyone the usual. For photoshop the number of history states, Memory USED (not just system memory, but memory assigned to PS), scratch disk (size, location, speed). The test bakedbeans has is very HD and RAM dependant (much more so if you have ~20+ history states) as it writes to the scratch disk. I still maintain its TOO HD dependant because the file size is just what most deal with in PS. So times will be different if you use a scratch disk on your system disk vs a seperate fast (eg Raptor) drive.

Reporting this as well as settings should remain as consistent as possible. Maybe even telling the user to use xx History states and assigning 2GB or RAM. That is about what most people have and yet still allows CS2 to run well...yes newer systems can use more but this allows for the speed of the systems RAM to be the variable, not speed and quantity since most won't be packing it out with 4+GB. Its fairly obvious that more RAM is better, so elimiate RAM volume as much as possible.

It is critical that each test be done with settings as consistent as possible and as few variables as possible. It may require different versions of tests (one that isolates the CPU as well as one that uses the other components....like a PS test that doesn't hit the scratch drive).

Last edited by CTYankee; Aug 28, 2006 at 12:10 PM.
CTYankee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 09:23 AM   #52
adamfilip
macrumors 6502a
 
adamfilip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burlington, Ontario canada
I think doing some Automator script would work best
two sets of tests..
one with applications that come with a new mac (Finder, Ilife etc)
and the other with pro applications.

I think it needs to heavily focus on multitasking.
and multithreaded apps
__________________
Hackintosh i7 New Ipad 3 , Ipad Shuffle 1GB, Ipod Touch, Apple TV3, Canon 40D DSLR,Epson 1660 scan,
adamfilip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2006, 01:06 PM   #53
junkster
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamfilip View Post
I think doing some Automator script would work best
two sets of tests..
one with applications that come with a new mac (Finder, Ilife etc)
and the other with pro applications.

I think it needs to heavily focus on multitasking.
and multithreaded apps
You'll get some high-level numbers from benchmarks like those, but they may not really show what's faster. If you have a benchmark that spends 50% of the time reading files, then CPU performance boosts are marginalized. Even if the CPU speed difference between Macs is 500%, you won't see it in this benchmark.

I agree about multithreading. Lots of benchmarks make it look like the MacBook is only modestly faster than a PowerBook, but the benchmark is just running on a single core.
junkster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2006, 11:08 PM   #54
arn
Thread Starter
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
hate to repeat efforts made...

but we may have to start this benchmark thing over...

I know the "retouchartists" one seems to have gotten a fair amount of use... but the site's down and the person that posted it seems to have been since banned.

I thought I could host the files myself, but they are specifically prohibited from being redistributed. I find this frustrating as it defeats the whole purpose of this standardized benchmark.

Since we just have the photoshop benchmark, how hard would it to be just to recreate this in more of an open method that could be redistributed more easily? MacRumors can permanently host it as well.

Someone just needs to donate an high rez image that can be used and create the sequence.

I say we create a version number for it, zip it, and allow redistribution with a text file with a link to the most recent version which will be hosted here at MacRumors. MacRumors isn't going away anytime soon.

The long term goal of this when I posted back when was to have some more standardized benches.... besides photoshop, but of course, that's of interest now since the CS3 just came out.

arn
arn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 11:56 PM   #55
Watermonkey
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NE Washington State
Boing Manager

Howdy all. I'm new here and not at all familiar with this new Mac, but I just thought I'd contribute if it's relevant by saying I noticed, looking around at the software that downloads with the SETI project, Boing Manager, there's a little sub program in there that does a little benchmark. Handy? I don't know unless I have something to compare to. Here's what it says about my new MBP 17 C2D: 1878 Floating Point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
4975 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

Is this test relevant at all?
Watermonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 09:33 AM   #56
SilentPanda
Moderator emeritus
 
SilentPanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Bamboo Forest
We could potentially get some audio and video files from Archive.org for encoding purposes.
__________________
My 24 hour web cam!
SilentPanda is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 12:15 AM   #57
dpaanlka
macrumors 601
 
dpaanlka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Illinois
Send a message via AIM to dpaanlka
What I'd like to see, at least as far as photoshop routines, is a set of routines that Photoshop has had for many versions, back to possibly 4 or 5 (who had recordable routines first? I know 5 has them) so we can compare a huge array of systems and Photoshop versions dating back 10 years or more.

Think of the comparison we could have... Power Macintosh 8100/100 vs. Mac Pro (when CS3 comes out).

That's what I'd like to see but I'm sure nobody cares what my opinion is
__________________
Long-time Mac user and evangelist, creator of ArraySync and curator of Info-Mac and System 7 Today.
dpaanlka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2007, 10:25 PM   #58
BiikeMike
macrumors 65816
 
BiikeMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
I'm willing to donate some RAW photo files, write some actions, and let it be freely distributed, but I'm not sure what kind of actions would be best for benchmarking. Also, my camera RAW files are approx. 7.5MB .cr2 files from a Canon 30D. Are those "big" enough? I could make them into .TIFFs of virtually any size, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem.

So if anyone could suggest some actions, I'm up for writing them.
__________________
Our House: Mac Pro 2.66, x1900, 5GB RAM; 30" ACD; MBP CD 2.16, 2GB RAM; MB CD 1GB RAM; PowerMac G3, 704MB RAM; (2) iPhone 4; (2) 64gig iPad 3g; 16GB iPod Touch; 8,2GB nano
BiikeMike is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 02:25 AM   #59
finiteyoda
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Out of curiosity, since this is posted in the Mac Pro section, have you guys thought about stressing out the *real* capabilities of these machines? Apps like Photoshop are 32-bit, and so features like the x64 architecture of the Xeon chips isn't utilized (they're just running in legacy mode), and the user address space is 4gb, meaning 8GB and 16GB RAM machines won't see any benefit in your benchmarks. I also kinda doubt Photoshop will be able to scale to 8-cores effectively.

This is fine if you mainly use Photoshop, and just care about the perf improvement today. But when OSX becomes fully 64-bit with Leopard, and an x64 version of Photoshop is released, I think the true power of the mac pro's will finally be revealed.
finiteyoda is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2007, 12:46 PM   #60
2pac
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
so... how to recorde quick-time? anybody?
2pac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 07:38 AM   #61
tribe3
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vienna, VA - USA
Hi folks,

I have a question about Xbench; Testing a 2.66Quad with 6GB RAM gives a score of about 165 . Now I tested a 3GHz Quad with 7GB RAM and it gives 153.

Both machines have the X1900 Ati Card and both tests were done after rebooting.

Any insight?

Thanks
tribe3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2007, 12:10 PM   #62
gholmes1936
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Send a message via AIM to gholmes1936
Establishing Standard Benchmarks & Xbench

It seems that most of you are against using Xbench. I am not involved with Xbench other than as a user. Let me say that as long as you are comparing your computer against others like it on Xbench what difference does it make. The same algorithms are used for your machine, and yours and oh, also yours. I dam not a geekhead, but just let me post the latest "read Me" from the Xbench web site below here:

Version History

1.3 [2006-08-13]
  • Corrected a mistake that caused the altivec test to be turned off on PowerPC machines
  • Turned off coalesced graphics updates for all platforms on Mac OS 10.4.4 and higher
  • Switched compiler to GCC 4.0 on PowerPC. This provides some boost to floating point and AltiVec scores, and these have been recalibrated accordingly. This also raises Xbench's system requirements to 10.3.9 or higher.
  • Revised machine database to include the MacBook, Intel iMac and several other models
  • Added code to dynamically load machine database on launch from the Xbench website
  • Added support for temporarily turning off beam sync on Tiger while running graphics tests
  • Fixed an issue that causes Xbench to fail to launch on Leopard
  • Built with Xcode 2.4

What's wrong with that. Please enlighten me.

thanx,
gholmes
gholmes1936 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 07:08 AM   #63
Infrared
macrumors 65816
 
Infrared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by finiteyoda View Post
Out of curiosity, since this is posted in the Mac Pro section, have you guys thought about stressing out the *real* capabilities of these machines? Apps like Photoshop are 32-bit, and so features like the x64 architecture of the Xeon chips isn't utilized (they're just running in legacy mode), and the user address space is 4gb, meaning 8GB and 16GB RAM machines won't see any benefit in your benchmarks. I also kinda doubt Photoshop will be able to scale to 8-cores effectively.

This is fine if you mainly use Photoshop, and just care about the perf improvement today. But when OSX becomes fully 64-bit with Leopard, and an x64 version of Photoshop is released, I think the true power of the mac pro's will finally be revealed.
Make that an _SSE4_ 64-bit version
Infrared is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2008, 01:32 PM   #64
dukebound85
macrumors P6
 
dukebound85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 5045 feet above sea level
just curious is there anything yet?
dukebound85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2008, 09:19 PM   #65
pprior
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
I just cannot believe there isn't a decent standard benchmark program for Macs. I mean come on!
pprior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 03:45 AM   #66
dukebound85
macrumors P6
 
dukebound85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 5045 feet above sea level
no kidding, there is geekbench thoough which i guess is somewhat decent
dukebound85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2008, 03:43 PM   #67
Name101
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Blender is a free 3D modeling program
Which stresses the system CPU completely not so much the RAM or the hard drive speeds.

for more information go to: www.blender.org

Here are is a "unofficial" Benchmark that we can all use
or can be Macrumors "Official" Benchmark, lol.

http://www.eofw.org/bench/


My MBP Early 08
2.5Ghz dual core.
4GB RAM
8600M 512 VRAM
250Gig HD

with ONE thread in use: 2:16.48
with TWO threads in use: 1:15.39

There you are a Great "Realworld" benchmark that does not cost money like Photoshop and is a small download
~16MB all up including the "Test" file.


What Software I used
-Blender 2.48 which is compatible with both windows and all UNIX systems
-test.blend (the test file )


Here is what the screen looks like

~Regards
Name101
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	screen-capture.jpg
Views:	114
Size:	362.4 KB
ID:	140489  
Name101 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 06:35 PM   #68
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Using 8 threads I can get 00:27:24s. With 4 threads I get 00:29:62s. This is in OSX 10.5.5. I'm going to check and see if there's any difference between platforms. OSX vs Vista.

Edit: I just ran the test in Vista x64. With 4 threads I get 00:27:35s. With 8 threads I get 00:25:21s. Slightly faster. Perhaps the 64bit blender exe is taking more advantage of the 64bit capabilities of the CPU in Windows than in OSX. I don't really know. Also, it could be due to the fact that the Vista tests were run on a freshly booted up machine. If there's a difference after booting back into OSX I'll make a note of it.

It's worth noting that after glancing over the results browser of this little test my scores in both Windows and OSX are right where they should be. All the 8 core systems are getting around 12-13 seconds. My system has 4 cores and as such should the render should take twice as long as it does on the 8 core systems; which it does. 3D renders make good tests in at least the respect that performance scales very linearly with the number of cores.
__________________
Late 2011 17" MBP - 2.4GHz i7 | 128GB SSD | 1TB HDD | 16GB RAM

Last edited by sneezymarble; Oct 20, 2008 at 06:55 PM.
sneezymarble is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 07:22 PM   #69
Name101
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Ok
That's Interesting.
I have only played with two cores. but going from 4 to 8 is a lot less than I thought.. Maybe some of that time goes to "prepping the Scene"

I don't know. Maybe I should try and get my hands on a more complex "*.blend" file.

I do have a file.. But I am unsure if I'm allowed to redistribute. I did download the file off a forum and the user was offering the file for free.
I have Messaged Him about the use of the file.

But with 2 Cores running it did take my computer 23:56.13 To render.
I think this will allow for the 4 extra cores on your desktop to really show an advantage.

~Regards
Name101



EDIT: He just replied to the PM. He said We (macrumors) can do what we want with it.

Here is the File and a small screen shot on what the image is.
Attached Images
 
Attached Files
File Type: zip Benchmark.blend.zip (45.2 KB, 57 views)
__________________
MBP 2.5Ghz, 4GB RAM, 8600M 512VRAM and 250GB HD.
iPhone 8GB
Want Scalable CPU Benchmarking?
Look Here

Last edited by Name101; Oct 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM. Reason: In the EDIT.
Name101 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2008, 12:59 AM   #70
Exman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Blender Test. Not much of a difference between the platforms. I used a 64bit kernel with OS X, so the results seems pretty close to Vista 64bit.

OS X 16.78s
Vista 64 16.34

8-threads, xparts =8, yparts=8.
__________________
Hackintosh. Geekbench2 @ 9,712
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
Exman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2008, 07:10 AM   #71
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exman View Post
Blender Test. Not much of a difference between the platforms. I used a 64bit kernel with OS X, so the results seems pretty close to Vista 64bit.

OS X 16.78s
Vista 64 16.34

8-threads, xparts =8, yparts=8.
Good grief man. Your 4 core Hackintosh is performing nearly the same as the high end 8 core Mac Pros in this test and in Geekbench. Overclocking FTW!
__________________
Late 2011 17" MBP - 2.4GHz i7 | 128GB SSD | 1TB HDD | 16GB RAM
sneezymarble is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2008, 07:15 PM   #72
Exman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneezymarble View Post
Good grief man. Your 4 core Hackintosh is performing nearly the same as the high end 8 core Mac Pros in this test and in Geekbench. Overclocking FTW!
Not bad for a $1,000 setup eh
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...3&postcount=76

The next upgrade for me is Nehalem. When I saw an early overclocking screenshot of one @ 4Ghz, 20% faster at the same clock speed. I just want one

Cheers,
__________________
Hackintosh. Geekbench2 @ 9,712
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
Exman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2008, 09:38 PM   #73
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exman View Post
Not bad for a $1,000 setup eh
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...3&postcount=76

The next upgrade for me is Nehalem. When I saw an early overclocking screenshot of one @ 4Ghz, 20% faster at the same clock speed. I just want one

Cheers,
Now that it's fall and the temperatures are coming down I'm going to clean my case out, organize my airflow a bit better, and push for 4GHz. I'd like to break the 9000 Geekbench barrier with my $1000 4 core setup too.

I just can't help but smirk when I walk into an Apple store and see the price tags on those fancy looking 8 core Mac Pros in the back. It's especially satisfying running benchmarks on those machines and seeing that the score of my Hack get pretty dang close to a machine with 4 additional cores. If only they made dual socket 775 motherboards. One can dream.
__________________
Late 2011 17" MBP - 2.4GHz i7 | 128GB SSD | 1TB HDD | 16GB RAM
sneezymarble is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2008, 10:49 PM   #74
Exman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
I think you can hit 9,000 Geekbench score if you can get that Q6600 to 4GHz and maybe tighten the timings to 4,4,4,8 3, 30 or there about

Penryns have 12MB L2 cache and SSE 4 so Geekbench likes it better at the same speed. There is one distinct advantage desktops have over Mac Pros - that is the RAM performance (latency and bandwidth); hence it isn't surprising to see 4-core Hackintosh's outpacing 8-core Mac Pros in the Photoshop tests
__________________
Hackintosh. Geekbench2 @ 9,712
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
Exman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 03:33 AM   #75
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exman View Post
I think you can hit 9,000 Geekbench score if you can get that Q6600 to 4GHz and maybe tighten the timings to 4,4,4,8 3, 30 or there about

Penryns have 12MB L2 cache and SSE 4 so Geekbench likes it better at the same speed. There is one distinct advantage desktops have over Mac Pros - that is the RAM performance (latency and bandwidth); hence it isn't surprising to see 4-core Hackintosh's outpacing 8-core Mac Pros in the Photoshop tests
I've having a tough time getting my system to boot into OSX at anything higher than 3.71GHz. It's not temp related because my temps don't get any higher than the mid 40s and my cooling setup is pretty good. My guess is my ran is holding me back. It could also be my motherboard as it's a 1st gen GA-P35-DS3L and I've never even bothered to update the BIOS.

I've got another Hack running with a 3.1GHz Core 2 Duo in a newer GA-EP35-DS3L. I might switch the motherboards around and see if I have better luck. The EP35 also supports higher frequency RAM and that might help out. Unless, of course, my RAM is the limiting factor.

Sometimes I'm tempted to sell my quad core system and use the money to start piecing together an 8 core Hack Pro with a Skulltrail motherboard. The idea of being able to overclock a pair of quad core Xeons sounds very sexy. With that sort of setup it seems like one could absolutely destroy the 8 core Mac Pro performance in OSX.
__________________
Late 2011 17" MBP - 2.4GHz i7 | 128GB SSD | 1TB HDD | 16GB RAM
sneezymarble is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crestron XPanel app crashes before establishing the connection futech.apple OS X 0 Feb 14, 2014 12:43 PM
2.3 v 2.6 benchmarks? Mac.User MacBook Pro 3 Oct 28, 2013 12:18 PM
660m Benchmarks anyone? Nclee iMac 2 Dec 22, 2012 03:07 PM
Let's see some benchmarks! ncvikingx97 iOS 5 and earlier 15 Sep 6, 2012 07:05 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC