XBench Scores in Rosetta (Can someone post their 1.67 G4 PB Marks?)

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by SiliconAddict, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #1
    Above is from an ArsTechnica Thread of XBench scores in Rosetta. Can someone run X-Bench in a 1.67Ghz PPC PowerBook so we can get an idea of how crappy performance is going to be or won't be. Note that this is on a 1.83Ghz iMac not a MacBook so we aren't talking Apple's to Apple's (well we are but well you know what I'm talking about. :p
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #2
    http://db.xbench.com/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=12

    Just took one off their website...


    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=151969

    Results
    49.62

    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.2
    System Version 10.4.4 (8G32)
    Physical RAM 1024 MB Model
    PowerBook5,8 Processor
    PowerPC G4 @ 1.67 GHz L1 Cache
    32K (instruction), 32K (data) L2 Cache
    512K @ 1.67 GHz Bus Frequency
    167 MHz Video Card
    ATY,RV360M11 Drive Type
    ST9808211A

    CPU Test 63.97
    GCD Loop 154.37 8.14 Mops/sec
    Floating Point Basic 40.67 966.25 Mflop/sec
    vecLib FFT 81.02 2.67 Gflop/sec
    Floating Point Library 52.30 9.11 Mops/sec

    Thread Test 74.28
    Computation 70.38 1.43 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    Lock Contention 78.65 3.38 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads

    Memory Test 27.25
    System 31.48
    Allocate 127.53 468.31 Kalloc/sec
    Fill 36.46 1772.96 MB/sec
    Copy 16.65 343.98 MB/sec

    Stream 24.02
    Copy 24.60 508.15 MB/sec [altivec]
    Scale 23.85 492.76 MB/sec [altivec]
    Add 23.63 503.44 MB/sec [altivec]
    Triad 24.02 513.93 MB/sec [altivec]

    Quartz Graphics Test 86.75
    Line 128.05 8.53 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    Rectangle 75.01 22.39 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    Circle 103.13 8.41 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    Bezier 84.48 2.13 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    Text 66.84 4.18 Kchars/sec

    OpenGL Graphics Test 88.23
    Spinning Squares 88.23 111.92 frames/sec

    User Interface Test 53.03
    Elements 53.03 243.40 refresh/sec

    Disk Test 29.79
    Sequential 63.98
    Uncached Write62.44 38.34 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 55.14 31.20 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 83.95 24.57 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 60.75 30.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    Random 19.42
    Uncached Write 6.35 0.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 45.64 14.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 66.95 0.47 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 86.33 16.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  3. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    #4
    Why the ongoing obsession with Xbench?

    I'm actually surprised Ars Technica even used this benchmarking software. Mods here have already noted it's unreliability, as has barefeats, and XLR8yourmac. Take the benchmark, put it on your mac, then compare the score with an identically configured system--scores drift for no apparent reason. Even running the app on the same machine has given me quite different scores.

    Bottom line: real-world applications are the real-world benchmark tool. Xbench doesn't compare.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    #5
    Surely there must be a better tool to benchmark macs with?;) Give us the photoshop tests.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    #6
    macbook pro + rosetta emulation = ibook ppc power!

    or so Xbench would have us believe.

    My xbench scores drift less than 10 percent. So, its still a valid knock at early adopting pros... reality will show, emulation not a great way to start a creative app.

    $
     
  7. macrumors regular

    ericschmerick

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Location:
    China
    #7
    Did anyone actually expect Rosetta to be anywhere near as fast as native performance? It is, after all, emulation (or JIT translation, depending on semantics).

    I think you have to see Rosetta for what (I believe) it is: a stop-gap measure to make MacBooks basically viable for early adopters until key apps are ported to intel / universal. I had no expectation of good performance, just adequate performance for basic apps like Office. Frankly if it performs as well as [a 1ghz] ibook, that's better than I expected, and I think it very likely meets Apple's intent (as a stop-gap). Certainly a 1ghz ibook runs Office adequately. Frankly, when I played with it at the Apple store, office ran as faster _or faster_ than it does on my 1.25ghz pb.

    2006 will be the year of Rosetta, but I think by the second half of the year a very large number of applications will be universal or intel native. By 07 only a die-hard minority will still be talking about Rosetta (perhaps the same folks that are still clinging to Classic).

    There will be a great gold-rush to get apps universal, espcially when it becomes clear that apple is selling 50% more PCs by year end, including ~5-9m Intelmacs this year alone. Think about it - if you're early out of the gate with your universal app, you'll get on the "list of universal apps available now" that is sure to be all over these mac websites, and you're quite likely to see a huge number of initial sales. So I'm sure every developer is racing to get there. Even if you're a large developer, like adobe, the prospect of many millions of "crossgraders" waiting to insatiably try your app on their shiny new Intelmacs will be too great to resist.

    There will be laggards, sure, and it sounds like Office will be slow to come out as Universal, but that's ok if it runs that well.

    So, bottom line is that I can buy a MacBook now that runs _almost_ as fast as my current 1.25Ghz PC in Rosetta, and way faster for native. Apple pro native apps are just 30 days beyond my MacBook, and I'm sure hundreds of native/universal apps are just 30-90 days behind that. I think Apple hit exactly the mark they were trying to hit.
     

Share This Page