Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

4850 Benchmarks Thread

i've got a 2.93 with 4850 and cod4 installed. how do i do a benchmark test that can be used on barefeats?

also command & conquer 3 if relevant, (which it chews on ultra high settings)
 
sgtbilko28 said:
i've got a 2.93 with 4850 and cod4 installed. how do i do a benchmark test that can be used on barefeats?

also command & conquer 3 if relevant, (which it chews on ultra high settings)
Click to expand...

When you get your readings please post the results so we can see them, Okay?
 
sgtbilko28 said:
i've got a 2.93 with 4850 and cod4 installed. how do i do a benchmark test that can be used on barefeats?

also command & conquer 3 if relevant, (which it chews on ultra high settings)
Click to expand...

You need to send Barefeats a private message, per his quote below and he'll share the files/instructions necessary for you to run the benchmark tests.

barefeats said:
If any of you want to run more gaming benchmarks on either an iMac with Radeon 4850 or any other iMac model that might be compared to it, we'd love to share our test procedures and test files with you.

If you have any of the following Mac games and are want to run benchmarks on your iMac, send me a private message:
Call of Duty 4
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Halo
Prey
Quake 4
Doom 3
Unreal Tournament 2004
World of Warcraft
Click to expand...
 
d510r9 said:
YouTube finally updated my Crysis video with the HD version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9PIR6VGIYo

It's pretty badly shot but it gives some idea of how it runs on the 4850. 🙂

One guy commented I should fix the resolution and run in at 720p - anybody else agree?
Click to expand...

Looks very good! Yes, the other guy is correct about the resolution due to aspect ratio. Actually the 1440X900 resolution works out to be fewer pixels to push than the resolution you have been running at, so you might squeeze another couple of FPS out of it that way too.
 
I'd like to see how the 4850 scores on After Effects CS4 - TotalBenchmark. Looking more at the 2.93GHz model but 3.06GHz would be fine too.
 
AE CS4 results

MrENGLISH said:
I'd like to see how the 4850 scores on After Effects CS4 - TotalBenchmark. Looking more at the 2.93GHz model but 3.06GHz would be fine too.
Click to expand...

AE CS4 is more CPU bound than GPU bound when it comes to rendering a project. We posted Total Benchmark results here for the iMac 3.06 with GeForce 130GT compared to the previous model with 8800 GS and a few Mac Pros:

http://www.barefeats.com/im09b.html

Regardless, we will repeat the AE test on the 3.06 with Radeon 4850 as soon as ours arrives. (!)
 
I just tried Left4dead yesterday evening on 2.93 ATI 4850.

All options set to max except antialiasing and full screen 1920*1200. I will try out antialiasing set to max another time.

Welle the result was bloody awesome !😱

It runs so smooth, almost too fast ! This mac is just trully amazing. I'm enjoying every penny i gave for it ! 😎
 
Gredin said:
I just tried Left4dead yesterday evening on 2.93 ATI 4850.

All options set to max except antialiasing and full screen 1920*1200. I will try out antialiasing set to max another time.

Welle the result was bloody awesome !😱

It runs so smooth, almost too fast ! This mac is just trully amazing. I'm enjoying every penny i gave for it ! 😎
Click to expand...

Thanks!

It would be even more helpful if you could post frame rates, since "smooth and fast" is subjective. 30fps will seem smooth and fast to one person and intolerably jerky to another one.
 
Gredin said:
I just tried Left4dead yesterday evening on 2.93 ATI 4850.

All options set to max except antialiasing and full screen 1920*1200. I will try out antialiasing set to max another time.

Welle the result was bloody awesome !😱

It runs so smooth, almost too fast ! This mac is just trully amazing. I'm enjoying every penny i gave for it ! 😎
Click to expand...

Nice to see comments like this....With all of the negative comments I've seen I'm close to switching to the GT130 model or just plain cancelling my order....
 
CoD4 results for 4850

CoD4 results at 1920x1200 High:
2.93 iMac with 4850 = 61 fps (sgtbilko28)
3.06 iMac with 130GT = 38 fps (barefeats)

That's a 60% advantage - - similar to what we saw with X-Plane.
And nipping at the heels of the Mac Pro 2.93 with 4870 (64 fps).
 
Like Gredin, I tried L4D on full res and found the results very smooth (no FPS though, I'm afraid). I've also tried Team Fortress 2 on full res, with most things turned to high, and it was even smoother.
 
barefeats said:
CoD4 results at 1920x1200 High:
2.93 iMac with 4850 = 61 fps (sgtbilko28)
3.06 iMac with 130GT = 38 fps (barefeats)

That's a 60% advantage - - similar to what we saw with X-Plane.
And nipping at the heels of the Mac Pro 2.93 with 4870 (64 fps).
Click to expand...

AWESOME!

Thanks Barefeats, looking forward to your article!
 
barefeats said:
CoD4 results at 1920x1200 High:
2.93 iMac with 4850 = 61 fps (sgtbilko28)
3.06 iMac with 130GT = 38 fps (barefeats)

That's a 60% advantage - - similar to what we saw with X-Plane.
And nipping at the heels of the Mac Pro 2.93 with 4870 (64 fps).
Click to expand...

Those results are very promising!! Thanks for sharing them with us.
 
barefeats said:
AE CS4 is more CPU bound than GPU bound when it comes to rendering a project. We posted Total Benchmark results here for the iMac 3.06 with GeForce 130GT compared to the previous model with 8800 GS and a few Mac Pros:

http://www.barefeats.com/im09b.html

Regardless, we will repeat the AE test on the 3.06 with Radeon 4850 as soon as ours arrives. (!)
Click to expand...

Yeah I was actually surprised to see that the iMac 8800GS performed better than the iMac 130GT being that the iMac 130GT should have had a slight advantage with the faster DDR3 system ram. Could the GPU have played a role in this?

Also, isn't Snow Leopard supposed to help programs like AE take more advantage of the GPU?
 
barefeats said:
CoD4 results at 1920x1200 High:
2.93 iMac with 4850 = 61 fps (sgtbilko28)
3.06 iMac with 130GT = 38 fps (barefeats)

That's a 60% advantage - - similar to what we saw with X-Plane.
And nipping at the heels of the Mac Pro 2.93 with 4870 (64 fps).
Click to expand...



They must be the most well spended 50$ in the history ..😀

Happy for you guys .🙂:apple:
 
L4d

You guys should use the console command to enable framerate in the corner for your Left4Dead testing. I have confirmed it works. Enable the developer console in the advanced keyboard settings and go back to the game. While in game, press ~ and the console will come up. From here, enter cl_showfps 1 and press Enter. This will make the frame rate counter popup in the corner. It will change color based on the framerate. Green is 60+ I believe. Orange and red obviously are worse.
 
hoonu said:
You guys should use the console command to enable framerate in the corner for your Left4Dead testing.... Green is 60+ I believe. Orange and red obviously are worse.
Click to expand...

I use Titan Performance plugin for WoW. It captures min, max, and average frame rates. And it uses the same "green is good, red is bad" color coding.

One baseline test we often do is to enter Narache Village in FireTree realm. We take a Warrior and have him run from the Totem pole at the entrance to the village to the large tree at the top of the hill to the East. Then run back to the totem pole. We've found it's a good baseline test of graphics processor speed.

For example, at 1920x1200, 4x Multisampling, all other parameters at max, we average 59 fps on the iMac with GeForce 130 GT. The Mac Pro 2.93 with Radeon 4870 averages 84 fps in the same scenario. The Mac Pro with 120 GT averages 33 fps.

Of course if you were observing or participating in a raid with lots of spells being cast, the frame rate would drop but, again, we're going for repeatable baseline.
 
For more perspective on CoD4.....

64 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 4870
61 fps = 2.93 iMac with 4850
45 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 8800 GT (beta 10.5.7 drivers)
38 fps = 3.06 iMac with 130 GT
23 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 120 GT
 
barefeats said:
For more perspective on CoD4.....

64 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 4870
61 fps = 2.93 iMac with 4850
45 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 8800 GT (beta 10.5.7 drivers)
38 fps = 3.06 iMac with 130 GT
23 fps = 2.93 Mac Pro (4-core and 8-core) with 120 GT
Click to expand...

Wow! On my to-do list today, was "consider switching the iMac order to a GT130." After seeing your results today, I considered it -- then discarded it. The 4850 looks like it's a great card.
 
barefeats said:
I use Titan Performance plugin for WoW. It captures min, max, and average frame rates. And it uses the same "green is good, red is bad" color coding.

One baseline test we often do is to enter Narache Village in FireTree realm. We take a Warrior and have him run from the Totem pole at the entrance to the village to the large tree at the top of the hill to the East. Then run back to the totem pole. We've found it's a good baseline test of graphics processor speed.

For example, at 1920x1200, 4x Multisampling, all other parameters at max, we average 59 fps on the iMac with GeForce 130 GT. The Mac Pro 2.93 with Radeon 4870 averages 84 fps in the same scenario. The Mac Pro with 120 GT averages 33 fps.

Of course if you were observing or participating in a raid with lots of spells being cast, the frame rate would drop but, again, we're going for repeatable baseline.
Click to expand...

So, if I'm summarizing correctly here, with the limited testing we've seen to date, the 4850 Radeon iMac is;

60% faster in X-Plane
60% faster in COD4
42% faster in WoW

Glad I waited for 4850 card equipped machine for the measley $50. I almost suspect that this would have been the standard high end card on the iMac refresh if it had been ready sooner and had been more stable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back