OS 10.4 Cinebench Results

Discussion in 'macOS' started by creoguy, Apr 26, 2005.

  1. creoguy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    #1
    I just got done loading OS 10.4 on my iMac and thought I'd run Cinebench to see how it compared to my results from OS 10.3.9...

    OS 10.3.9 running 2gb of ram

    Processor: G5
    MHz: 1.8 ghz
    Number of CPUs: 1
    Operating System: 10.3.9

    Graphics Card: GeForce FX 5200
    Resolution: 1680 x 1050
    Color Depth: Millions

    ****************************************************

    Rendering (Single CPU): 245 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


    Shading (CINEMA 4D): 232 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 638 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 922 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 3.97

    ****************************************************


    OS 10.4.0 running 2gb of ram

    Processor: G5
    MHz: 1.8ghz
    Number of CPUs: 1
    Operating System: 10.4.0

    Graphics Card: GeForce FX 5200
    Resolution: 1680 x 1050
    Color Depth: Millions

    ****************************************************

    Rendering (Single CPU): 165 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


    Shading (CINEMA 4D): 192 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 563 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 865 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 4.51

    ****************************************************
     
  2. vouder17 macrumors 6502a

    vouder17

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Home
    #2
    Ok i know very little about Benchmarks..all i do know is that bigger usually means better...Is that the case here...cos then tiger didnt do to great.. :confused: :confused:
     
  3. toti macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    #3
    Did you remember to set the speed to highest and turn of HDD sleep after the upgrade ?
     
  4. Superhob macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    #4
    creoguy, are you sure your imac wasn't reset to "automatic" in the energy saver preferences pane after you installed tiger? It seems to me that tiger should NOT be worse than panther...
     
  5. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #5
    I thought those were better to be smaller? Where it says openGL speed up that is a bigger number. So i think he did get better results. As i recall those are times.
     
  6. creoguy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    #6
    Both in automatic

    Both tests were run with the automatic settings. I wanted to see what the day to day speeds would be because I run mine in automatic. I'll switch them over to highest and see what happens.

    Results to come.
     
  7. creoguy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    #7
    Updated Results

    Here are the updated results with the highest setting and put HD to sleep disabled...

    OS 10.3.9

    ****************************************************

    Rendering (Single CPU): 244 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


    Shading (CINEMA 4D): 231 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 644 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 932 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 4.02

    ****************************************************



    OS 10.4.0

    ****************************************************

    Rendering (Single CPU): 177 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


    Shading (CINEMA 4D): 193 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 526 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 816 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 4.23

    ****************************************************
     
  8. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
    #8
    I have almost the exact same system without Tiger (as of Tuesday) and am looking forward to speed gains. I do believe the bigger number at the end means better/faster.

    I think the above larger numbers are cycles and that more means slower.
     
  9. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #9
    clearly the "speed up" isn't enough to notice if the guy can't tell which one means "faster."
     
  10. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #10
    Those results CAN'T be right. How on Earth could Tiger slow down that much? :confused:
     
  11. Kerry Sanders macrumors regular

    Kerry Sanders

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Hayden, AL
    #11

    From this results grid, it appears that larger is better, not the other way around. :(

    Cinebench Results
     
  12. Superhob macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    #12
    This just doesn't make any sense. Something must be wrong with cinebench running in tiger. Can you try the same experiment using xbench on the 10.3.9 and the 10.4 and see if there is any similar speed loss?

    What a disappointment :(
     
  13. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
  14. Rocksaurus macrumors 6502a

    Rocksaurus

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #14
    His results were lower on "Highest" setting under tiger than they were on "Automatic". I don't really take these benchmarks seriously.
     
  15. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #15
    Is it possible Spotlight was still indexing the volumes on Tiger? That would account for the numbers, I think.
     
  16. Pismo macrumors 6502

    Pismo

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Location:
    NH
    #16
    I agree with daveL. I'm sure that would slow the machine down. You also might want to check what processes are running in the background to see what is running. If it's not system related, kill it.
     
  17. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #17
    It's clear that with either system, an occasional coffee break will be forced upon the user during complex rendering operations.
     
  18. jiggie2g macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #18
    Wow that Geforce FX 5200 Ultra in the iMac really sucks , those scores are horrible.


    My Athlon XP-M @2.3ghz
    ATI Radeon 9600 128MB DDR(non pro)
    1GB DDR3200 in Dual Channel

    Rendering (Single CPU): 263 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

    Shading (CINEMA 4D): 300 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 1321 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 2584 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 8.61

    This was done with me running iTunes , Firefox , Thunderbird , Zone Alarm , AVG-Antivirus , Weatherbug and Konfabulator with 2 widgets on screen.

    No trying to shoot down the iMac cuz my CPU is OC'd after all from 1.8ghz-2.3ghz , but that GPU needs to go. Apple should atleast put an intergrated 9600XT.
     

Share This Page