Which benchmarks would I run on an Intel Mac?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jsw, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #1
    If I decide to open this little box of mini goodness™ in front of me, where would I find suitable benchmarks to run? Assume I have nothing installed except for the default apps - no 3rd party games, apps, etc.

    Any suggestions? At the very least, I'll run them on my 17" Intellimac to ensure they run and get some baselines, then I'll decide about opening the box.
     
  2. badmofo9000 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Shores of Lake Michigan
  3. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #3
    XBench is also the lamest excuse for a benchmark ever seen.

    Try this: Download Handbrake. Take a DVD and convert it to H.264, using two pass conversion for optimum quality. That is a real benchmark: It measures the time for something that people actually do, and they care if it runs faster.

    Or import two hours of digital video into iMovie, then convert it to a single sided DVD. That's something that takes hours and hours and people have to wait for it.

    Just make sure that you can reproduce exactly what you are doing; H.264 encoding for example depends extremely on what exactly you do; converting digital video to DVD depends on the amount that you convert, above one hour iDVD has to work really hard to fit things on a DVD.
     
  4. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    Windows Vista!!

    {s******s} - Edit: Woah, that wasn't a swear word! Ok {snickers} then!

    But no, seriously, gnasher's on to something with Handbrake.
     
  5. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #5
    This looks like a good one to me. I noticed this used both cores (up to about 150%) on my iMac. (By the way, iMovie and iDVD are excellent consumer apps - the newer themes aren't too cute and can look quite professional. I used "reflection - white" for my Christmas 2005 DVD.)
     
  6. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #6
    Would the 512MB in the stock mini "invalidate" the test, or is Handbrake less memory-intensive?
     
  7. godbout macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #7
    This is not all that fair though because Handbrake is using the GPU to a VERY large extent and GPUs with h.264 decoding built in (X1600) will dominate without showing you how fast (all around) your comupter is. You should do mutliple benchmarks if you want to be fair like an xcode build or something... I guess the important thing is that if you are seeing how fast the intel mac is in optimal conditions or under normal use... if you are seeking the latter than maybe a THE photoshop test or iTunes encoding as well... just some suggestions...
     
  8. tjwett macrumors 68000

    tjwett

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    #8
    it is indeed but just a heads-up on this...

    i recently ran XBench on the Core Duo iMacs at the Apple store (all had 128MB graphics and 2GB RAM) and they all scored around 50. that's about half what my dual G5 1.8 w/1.25 GB RAM and lame 64MB video consistently scored. so i don't know how much i trust the overall XBench with the Intels. they felt twice as snappy as my G5 but scored half in XBench. perhaps it's just one portion of the test that is way off and can be disabled?
     
  9. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #9
    Odd. Results from my 17"/128MB/2gb Intel iMac:
    Code:
    Results	[b]92.64[/b]	
    	System Info		
    		Xbench Version		1.2
    		System Version		10.4.5 (8G1454)
    		Physical RAM		2048 MB
    		Model		iMac4,1
    		Drive Type		Maxtor 6L160M0
    	CPU Test	70.91	
    		GCD Loop	238.28	12.56 Mops/sec
    		Floating Point Basic	83.35	1.98 Gflop/sec
    		vecLib FFT	41.42	1.37 Gflop/sec
    		Floating Point Library	62.24	10.84 Mops/sec
    	Thread Test	174.45	
    		Computation	152.11	3.08 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    		Lock Contention	204.49	8.80 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
    	Memory Test	99.53	
    		System	96.80	
    			Allocate	92.77	340.67 Kalloc/sec
    			Fill	97.45	4738.22 MB/sec
    			Copy	100.49	2075.55 MB/sec
    		Stream	102.43	
    			Copy	84.63	1747.97 MB/sec
    			Scale	89.64	1851.94 MB/sec
    			Add	125.81	2680.07 MB/sec
    			Triad	122.97	2630.69 MB/sec
    	Quartz Graphics Test	68.13	
    		Line	63.74	4.24 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    		Rectangle	57.85	17.27 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    		Circle	58.05	4.73 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    		Bezier	82.50	2.08 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    		Text	90.39	5.65 Kchars/sec
    	OpenGL Graphics Test	124.16	
    		Spinning Squares	124.16	157.50 frames/sec
    	Disk Test	82.26	
    		Sequential	94.25	
    			Uncached Write	106.45	65.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	94.76	53.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	117.48	34.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	71.53	35.95 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    		Random	72.97	
    			Uncached Write	40.53	4.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	94.91	30.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	90.86	0.64 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	116.31	21.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    
     
  10. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #10
    See my thread about this here. This describes how to improve your Intel Mac XBench results with a simple tweak to the Quartz settings.

    XBench is almost certainly badly written if I can improve my performance from 55 to 90 by changing one configuration.
     
  11. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #11
    Interesting... I didn't change anything, and got the score above.

    Gotta love pseudo-random benchmarking apps.
     
  12. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
    Do you have "beam synchronization" turned off?

    Edit: ok, you don't - did you download XBench today? I wonder if they updated it. Although it appears to be the same version.
     
  13. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #13
    No (see above), but I can try it.

    Or maybe I should say "no, as far as I know." I play with the dev tools at times, so maybe I do... but I don't think so.

    Edit: yes, I just got it today, but it does seem to be the same version.
     
  14. tjwett macrumors 68000

    tjwett

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    #14
    good to know.
     
  15. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #15
    You also get Random Uncached Write 5x my result. All my results were in line with every other XBench result I've seen for the Intel iMac.
     
  16. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #16
    Maybe they did change something recently. Dunno.

    Result using "Disable Beam Synchronization" (apparently, it had been set at "automatic" before):
    Code:
    Results	[b]110.72[/b]	
    	System Info		
    		Xbench Version		1.2
    		System Version		10.4.5 (8G1454)
    		Physical RAM		2048 MB
    		Model		iMac4,1
    		Drive Type		Maxtor 6L160M0
    	CPU Test	70.91	
    		GCD Loop	238.49	12.57 Mops/sec
    		Floating Point Basic	83.34	1.98 Gflop/sec
    		vecLib FFT	41.39	1.37 Gflop/sec
    		Floating Point Library	62.28	10.85 Mops/sec
    	Thread Test	174.72	
    		Computation	155.99	3.16 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    		Lock Contention	198.57	8.54 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
    	Memory Test	97.20	
    		System	92.16	
    			Allocate	89.75	329.59 Kalloc/sec
    			Fill	97.29	4730.50 MB/sec
    			Copy	89.85	1855.80 MB/sec
    		Stream	102.81	
    			Copy	84.16	1738.28 MB/sec
    			Scale	89.13	1841.30 MB/sec
    			Add	127.90	2724.64 MB/sec
    			Triad	125.22	2678.71 MB/sec
    	Quartz Graphics Test	114.31	
    		Line	102.57	6.83 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    		Rectangle	113.48	33.88 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    		Circle	112.50	9.17 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    		Bezier	110.88	2.80 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    		Text	137.55	8.60 Kchars/sec
    	OpenGL Graphics Test	122.68	
    		Spinning Squares	122.68	155.63 frames/sec
    	User Interface Test	239.28	
    		Elements	239.28	1.10 Krefresh/sec
    	Disk Test	83.12	
    		Sequential	96.81	
    			Uncached Write	107.11	65.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	94.78	53.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	119.71	35.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	76.47	38.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    		Random	72.82	
    			Uncached Write	40.65	4.30 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	95.38	30.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	90.04	0.64 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	114.44	21.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    
     
  17. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #17
    Ok, I compared your results to my 2 week old results, yours don't have the User Interface Test. All the other tests except for the Disk tests are the same as mine. I'm guessing they've done a silent update to XBench by removing the UI test rather than fixing any code.

    I'm at work so can't test this on my own iMac. That'll have to wait till to get home in 4 or 5 hours. What's your hard drive? I'll check that too when I get home.
     
  18. jsw thread starter Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #18
    Stock 160GB model:
    Code:
    Maxtor 6L160M0:
    
      Capacity:	152.67 GB
      Model:	Maxtor 6L160M0
      Revision:	BACE1GE0
    
     
  19. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #19
    Ok, this is confusing. UI test shows up now. So they've modified the code to do the UI test if beam synchronization is off? And possibly modified the disk tests. Agghh, why do I have to work?

    Edit: shows how much you can trust xbench ...
     
  20. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #20
    So, I removed xbench from my iMac, and downloaded it again from the website, but got the same results as before.

    Ostensibly, you and I have the same iMac (17", 1.83 GHz, 160 GB HD, 2 GB RAM), but your hard disk is a Maxtor. Mine's a Seagate, ST360023AS.

    Anyway, I've wasted enough time with xbench. It's obviously not worth using, if modifying a single config item increases the score on my iMac from 55 to 90.
     
  21. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #21
    Play a 1080p H.264 video via QuickTime and tell us if it drops any frames since Apple are saying these are home theatre boxes.
     
  22. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #22
    Is HandBrake GPU intensive at all? I can't find documentation on it's GPU requirements. :confused: I know you need a G4 for the stable official releases.

    I'd test iSquint, Handbrake, iMovie/Quicktime encoding on it. Then I'd follow up with 1080p trailers for fun.
     

Share This Page