Benchmark

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by nepstar, May 17, 2006.

  1. nepstar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #1
    I was looking around in the support forums at apple.com and i fould this interesting little benchmark and it seems to be pretty accurate too. My 2.16 Ghz Macbook pro 17" took 36 seconds to complete the task...
    to run it go to terminal and copy and paste this code

    Test 1 : Single thread performance test

    t1=`date +%s`; openssl rand 123456789 -base64 | openssl enc -bf -k guess | openssl sha1; t2=`date +%s`; t3=$((t2-t1)); echo $t3

    Test 2: Multi thread performance test (more accurate)

    t1=`date +%s`; r=0; while [ $r -le 4 ]; do openssl rand 123456789 -base64 | openssl enc -bf -k guess | openssl sha1 & r=$((r+1)); done; wait; t2=`date +%s`; t3=$((t2-t1)); echo $t3

    Please post your results

    EDIT

    here is the link to the thread at apple support forum
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1839066&#1839066
     
  2. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #2

    Ummm........can you post the actual link from Apple's support forums? I don't know that I would just copy and paste some code, especially from a newbie (no offense). :D
     
  3. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #3
    Don't worry about the code, it just encrypts five random numbers.

    My Dell D810 (2.26GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, running in cygwin) took 94 seconds.
     
  4. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #4
    This is very interesting. I should try it at home on my G5. I've played with openssl a few timse but not like this.
     
  5. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    I don't get it, it doesnt work for me :confused:

    EDIT: I just get:

    [1] 2522
    [2] 2525
    [3] 2528
    [4] 2531
    [5] 2534
     
  6. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #6
    If you type "ps -ef" you'll see 15 openssl instances running in the background. These are doing the encryption. You just have to wait for them to finish.

    These are running simultaneously, so I'm guessing it will run much faster on dual cores. My Dell is single core and is 2.5x slower than the OP's MacBook at doing this.
     
  7. MacBookDJ macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Even though the code is harmless, you're right to be wary of running something if you're not sure what it is. We Mac users ar sometimes too quick to run a command, download an app, or click a link when we're not sure where it came from. :eek:
     
  8. jeremy.king macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #8
    DO NOT EXECUTE

    Like when we say...Hey everybody, I found a cool easter egg...Launch terminal and put in 'sudo rm -rf' !!!

    DO NOT EXECUTE

    Too true....
     
  9. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #9
    Yep, but this is pretty transparent to anyone who knows anything about Unix. I didn't run it until I studied every command and it's harmless. It'll just take up 100% CPU for a while, and even then it's lower priority than other apps so won't affect anything else you're doing.

    Anything damaging that might be posted here will be picked up pretty quickly by us Unix users and removed by the mods.

    Of course, you have to trust me to believe what I've just said.

    Edit: I say a good rule of thumb is don't run anything until the number of views goes > 100. That way, there's a good chance it'll have been viewed by someone who knows something about the subject and anything damaging will be removed.
     
  10. TexBiker macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    #10
    I just ran it 5 times and it took an average of 35.8sec on my 2.0Ghz Intel iMac.

    Not sure if this process is RAM dependent, but I have 2GB and have no other apps running.
     
  11. jeremy.king macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
  12. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
    Ha ha, so my almost top of the range Dell D810 is barely 50% faster than your base G4 mini ...
     
  13. jeremy.king macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #13
    Well...it DOES have 1GB of ram :D
     
  14. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
  15. mikehowett macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    38 Seconds on my iMac and 102 on my PowerBook.
     
  16. SeRgIo_42 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    #16
    Dual Powermac G5 2GHz, 1Gb :

    42 sec.

    Rejoice Intel iMacs !

    S.
     
  17. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
  18. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    LOL - I can't wait to see what the PowerMac replacements provide.
     
  19. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #19
    What's so funny?, the fact that some people with Intel Core Duos are getting 9 - 11 seconds? (according to the Apple forums)
     
  20. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    How sad that makes all of our machines look. 96 seconds on my single G4 compared to 18 on your Quad G5.
     
  21. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #21

    Well the ones on the Apple forums even made me cry. 9 to 11 seconds? :eek:
     
  22. smartalic34 macrumors 6502a

    smartalic34

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    44 seconds on my good old 800 MHz eMac G4 w/384MB RAM... not too shabby I'd say for such an old system! Can't wait for that MBP I'm ordering in 2 months though...
     
  23. nepstar thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #23

    44 seconds on a g4!!! :eek: thats crazy!!.. i get 36 seconds on my mbp 2.16.... there are 2 scriprs on the apple site.. the first one runs a single thread.. that one takes 9 secs to finish on my mbp.. the second one (the one posted above) is a multi thread test.,

    u've probably run the single thread test
     
  24. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    I don't see how thats possible. That means you're eMac G4 is on par with a Dual 2ghz G5 tower?

    Are you sure it doesnt say 144 seconds?
     
  25. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #25

    How did it only take your 800MHz eMac G4 44 seconds? It took my 2.3GHz DP Power Mac G5 45 seconds! :confused: :eek:
     

Share This Page