high load xbench interface test

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Megaquad, Feb 7, 2003.

  1. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #1
    It will be interesting to see how much impact does running few cpu intensive things has on aqua interface speed. Especialy 1 cpu macs vs duals..
    this is what i ask you to do:
    -run two mpeg 1 files at the same time like in my screenshot (they are .mpg or .mpeg extension)
    -play itunes like in screenshot
    -now run xbench but only 'user interface test' and post results here
    make sure everything is playing and dont touch anything while test is running :)

    these are iMac 350 mhz results... 1.57 fps :( :D
    Results 4.62
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.0
    System Version 10.2.3
    Physical RAM 320 MB
    Model PowerMac2,1
    Processor PowerPC 750 @ 350 MHz
    L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    L2 Cache 512K @ 140 MHz
    Bus Frequency 100 MHz
    Video Card ATY,Rage128VR
    Drive Type Maxtor 4G120J6
    User Interface Test 4.62
    Elements 4.62 1.57 refresh/sec
    edit: make cpu test too along with interface test if you want
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Wes macrumors 68020

    Wes

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Results 89.95
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.0b3
    System Version 10.2.3
    Physical RAM 768 MB
    Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [1000 MHz]
    L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    Bus Frequency 167 MHz
    Processor PowerPC,G4@1 [1000 MHz]
    L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    Bus Frequency 167 MHz
    CPU Test 98.32
    GCD Recursion 105.94 4.14 Mops/sec
    Floating Point Basic 81.01 273.04 Mflop/sec
    AltiVec Basic 94.52 5.13 Gflop/sec
    Floating Point Library 111.80 5.02 Mops/sec
    User Interface Test 81.59
    Elements 81.59 26.11 refresh/sec
     
  3. Stike macrumors 65816

    Stike

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Germany
    #3
    My results

    YUCK! I want a DP! But at least, the above submitter used beta3, there might be some difference.
    Here is mine:

    Results 25.42
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.0
    System Version 10.2.3
    Physical RAM 512 MB
    Model PowerMac3,5
    Processor PowerPC G4 @ 934 MHz
    Version 7455 (Apollo) v2.1
    L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    L2 Cache 256K @ 934 MHz
    L3 Cache 2048K @ 234 MHz
    Bus Frequency 133 MHz
    Video Card GeForce4 MX
    Drive Type Maxtor 98196H8
    CPU Test 28.66
    GCD Recursion 29.92 1.17 Mops/sec
    Floating Point Basic 26.51 89.34 Mflop/sec
    AltiVec Basic 28.52 1.55 Gflop/sec
    Floating Point Library 29.97 1.35 Mops/sec
    User Interface Test 22.83
    Elements 22.83 7.77 refresh/sec
     
  4. Megaquad thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #4
    I think there is some conspiracy going on..
    How is it possible that dual is so much faster? hmmhmm
     
  5. chibianh macrumors 6502a

    chibianh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    I got a score of 31.55 on a Powerbook 800mhz w/ 768MB Ram.
     
  6. benixau macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #6
    no, beta 3 from memory had lower specs at a score of 100 - thats all.
     
  7. Megaquad thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #7
    Yes but fps (frames per second in interface test) result is independent to score and it hasn't been changed between versions. I think test is valid.
     

Share This Page