Super PI benchmark for powerbooks, G4 beats Centrino!?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by dodoei, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    #1
    notebookereview.com had this review that compared Super PI benchmarks among 15" PB and several intel machines. PB 15" was the fastest and faster than IBM T43 1.86G:

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2400

    This makes me feel that PB is still a great value and can last a couple more years at least. It also makes me want to switch now and I'm very interested in 12" PB for its portability. I'm wondering if anyone else in this board tried Super PI benchmark for their PBs (any model), could you post the results? SuperPI for Mac can be downloaded at:

    http://ocing3.free.fr/FTP/overclocking/super_pi/Kanada_lab/exec_Mac_OSX/

    cheers!
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #2
    Not to sound like I'm downplaying the speed of the superpi results but I'm not sure if such benchmarks really mean much. Would be a more realistic thing to test photoshop or cinebench or 3dmax or something that people actually use. I guess this is a valid test if you had to buy a machine to calculate pi :) I have a centrino laptop as well as a xeon machine and in superpi, the centrino is pretty close to the xeon in performance but it absolutely gets slaughtered in real world applications....
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #3
    Fun. What parameter do I use?

     
  4. macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #4
    I used 21, which gave me calculation of 2097152 decimal digits.

    1Ghz TiBook = 3 minutes 28 seconds.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    #5
    Used 21
    Rev B 20" iMac
    182.403 Sec (reduced power)
    108.541 Sec (high power)

    :mad: why is the time to long
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    nospleen

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Used 21
    Automatic= 101.255
    Highest= 100.796

    1.9 17" imac, 512 ram.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    #7
    Thought I'd throw in an AMD processor for some contrast.

    SuperPi from the given link for windows; 2M digits (2097152), there was no "21" option.
    AMD64 3000+ (1.8Ghz overclocked to 2.16Ghz, 512mb)

    1st run: 1m 37s (97s)
    2nd run: 1m 39s (99s)

    Very close to the 1.9Ghz iMac


    I just tried it on my roommate's 1.42Ghz mini, 512mb:

    1st run: 2m 57s (177.33s)

    There are a few programs running in the background, but I didn't want to close them, so his time might be faster. I'll have him try it when he wakes up.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #8
    1.33GHz 12" PB RevC

    Used 21

    269.481 seconds (Reduced)
    178.981 seconds (Automatic)
    177.874 seconds (Highest)

    Athlon 64 X2 4400+

    88 seconds

    When launching two instances of SuperPI

    #1 91 seconds
    #2 90 seconds

    Too bad it's not SMP aware :p


    It's just a silly benchmark anyway that shouldn't be taken seriously (unless you're creating a machine just for PI calculations..)
     
  9. macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #9
    wow im going to see what i get!

    3.314 Sec used 20

    iMac g5 1.8ghz 1GB ram
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #10
    1.67 G4 (17")

    162.813s (used 21)

    How did the reviewer get 99s with the same chip! :confused:
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    #11
    of course the g4 would beat out the x86 cpu's on eaclulating pi- poewrpc computers are well known for thie floating point processing power. Thats part of the reason why its so populat in the science/mathmatics subjects . in other tasks tho.. the g4 is seriosuly outdated :X
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    PCMacUser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #12
    Here's some others to add to the compilation:

    Dell D400 (old 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 256mb RAM) - 2m 20s
    Dell D410 (new 1.86Ghz Pentium M, 256mb RAM) - 1m 41s
    Dell SX280 (old 3.00Ghz Pentium 4, 1Gb RAM) - 1m 41s
     
  13. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #13
    Because this test is utterly pointless because of the type of task it's trying to do.

    Don't general usage feel and real world stats mean anything? Open up a program and lets watch even a "slow" Centrino SPANK a G4.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    #14
    Has anyone confirmed that the program is a direct port? If it's not, it won't be a paricularly good program to compare architectures with. That said, here are the times for the computers at home:

    ASUS W3N (Pentium-M Dothan 1.7GHz): 1m54s (114s)

    AMD Sempron @ 2.2GHz (256kB L2): 1m31s (91s)

    These CPUs seem rather close in terms of efficiency.
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #15
    You mean you don't use your CPU to calculate pi all day? Damn hippies. :D
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #16
    How much faster is a top-of-the-line centrino VS a 1.67 G4?

    I keep seeing people raving about the centrino and how it spanks a G4. Really? How badly? :confused:
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #17
    Yeah, I don't get that either. Centrino is and always has been a piece of shitaki. Pentium M is a different story.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18

    Isn't a centrino a Pentium M? :confused: :confused: :confused:

    Uh-oh :eek: ... Shows what I know about intel... So yeah, how badly does Pentium M (Best one) spank a G4?


    25% faster?
    30% ?
    50% ?

    What? I can't be _That_ bad. Right?
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #19
    Centrino is just a marketing name for some specific combination of Intel tech (wirless, chipset, cpu). Pentium M is one of the parts.

    So you're kind of right.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #20
    I think he may have been confusing Celeron with Centrino.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #21

    I know what a celeron is :)


    Its like the iBook of CPUs... Crippled :p
     
  22. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #22
    Ahh that's it! Damn Intel and their stupid names. :p
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #23
    I think the actually test is in question. The software itself wouldn't use all the power of thea archtecture anyways. it sort of pointless. Basically, a RISC arch will be faster in calculating Pi anyways. it isn't a surprise.
     
  24. macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #24
    Wow.. i never thought this day would come.

    But having used a 1.6Ghz Centrino before, it seems like the PB does fair somewhat better in Photoshop! Even with 1/2 the ram!
     
  25. macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #25
    I was referring to dferrara.
     

Share This Page