Benchmark

nepstar

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 13, 2005
11
0
I was looking around in the support forums at apple.com and i fould this interesting little benchmark and it seems to be pretty accurate too. My 2.16 Ghz Macbook pro 17" took 36 seconds to complete the task...
to run it go to terminal and copy and paste this code

Test 1 : Single thread performance test

t1=`date +%s`; openssl rand 123456789 -base64 | openssl enc -bf -k guess | openssl sha1; t2=`date +%s`; t3=$((t2-t1)); echo $t3

Test 2: Multi thread performance test (more accurate)

t1=`date +%s`; r=0; while [ $r -le 4 ]; do openssl rand 123456789 -base64 | openssl enc -bf -k guess | openssl sha1 & r=$((r+1)); done; wait; t2=`date +%s`; t3=$((t2-t1)); echo $t3

Please post your results

EDIT

here is the link to the thread at apple support forum
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1839066&#1839066
 

4God

macrumors 68020
Apr 5, 2005
2,121
243
My Mac
nepstar said:
I was looking around in the support forums at apple.com and i fould this interesting little benchmark and it seems to be pretty accurate too. My 2.16 Ghz Macbook pro 17" took 36 seconds to complete the task...
to run it go to terminal and copy and paste this code

t1=`date +%s`; r=0; while [ $r -le 4 ]; do openssl rand 123456789 -base64 | openssl enc -bf -k guess | openssl sha1 & r=$((r+1)); done; wait; t2=`date +%s`; t3=$((t2-t1)); echo $t3

Ummm........can you post the actual link from Apple's support forums? I don't know that I would just copy and paste some code, especially from a newbie (no offense). :D
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,968
3
Don't worry about the code, it just encrypts five random numbers.

My Dell D810 (2.26GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, running in cygwin) took 94 seconds.
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,968
3
If you type "ps -ef" you'll see 15 openssl instances running in the background. These are doing the encryption. You just have to wait for them to finish.

These are running simultaneously, so I'm guessing it will run much faster on dual cores. My Dell is single core and is 2.5x slower than the OP's MacBook at doing this.
 

MacBookDJ

macrumors newbie
May 6, 2006
29
0
San Francisco
4God said:
Ummm........can you post the actual link from Apple's support forums? I don't know that I would just copy and paste some code, especially from a newbie (no offense). :D
Even though the code is harmless, you're right to be wary of running something if you're not sure what it is. We Mac users ar sometimes too quick to run a command, download an app, or click a link when we're not sure where it came from. :eek:
 

jeremy.king

macrumors 603
Jul 23, 2002
5,479
1
Fuquay Varina, NC
MacBookDJ said:
Even though the code is harmless, you're right to be wary of running something if you're not sure what it is. We Mac users ar sometimes too quick to run a command, download an app, or click a link when we're not sure where it came from. :eek:
DO NOT EXECUTE

Like when we say...Hey everybody, I found a cool easter egg...Launch terminal and put in 'sudo rm -rf' !!!

DO NOT EXECUTE

Too true....
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,968
3
Yep, but this is pretty transparent to anyone who knows anything about Unix. I didn't run it until I studied every command and it's harmless. It'll just take up 100% CPU for a while, and even then it's lower priority than other apps so won't affect anything else you're doing.

Anything damaging that might be posted here will be picked up pretty quickly by us Unix users and removed by the mods.

Of course, you have to trust me to believe what I've just said.

Edit: I say a good rule of thumb is don't run anything until the number of views goes > 100. That way, there's a good chance it'll have been viewed by someone who knows something about the subject and anything damaging will be removed.
 

TexBiker

macrumors newbie
Apr 28, 2006
27
0
I just ran it 5 times and it took an average of 35.8sec on my 2.0Ghz Intel iMac.

Not sure if this process is RAM dependent, but I have 2GB and have no other apps running.
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,968
3
kingjr3 said:
156 seconds on my mini (base g4 model)...
Ha ha, so my almost top of the range Dell D810 is barely 50% faster than your base G4 mini ...
 

4God

macrumors 68020
Apr 5, 2005
2,121
243
My Mac
dpaanlka said:
How sad that makes all of our machines look. 96 seconds on my single G4 compared to 18 on your Quad G5.

Well the ones on the Apple forums even made me cry. 9 to 11 seconds? :eek:
 

smartalic34

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
947
7
USA
44 seconds on my good old 800 MHz eMac G4 w/384MB RAM... not too shabby I'd say for such an old system! Can't wait for that MBP I'm ordering in 2 months though...
 

nepstar

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 13, 2005
11
0
smartalic34 said:
44 seconds on my good old 800 MHz eMac G4 w/384MB RAM... not too shabby I'd say for such an old system! Can't wait for that MBP I'm ordering in 2 months though...

44 seconds on a g4!!! :eek: thats crazy!!.. i get 36 seconds on my mbp 2.16.... there are 2 scriprs on the apple site.. the first one runs a single thread.. that one takes 9 secs to finish on my mbp.. the second one (the one posted above) is a multi thread test.,

u've probably run the single thread test
 

dpaanlka

macrumors 601
Nov 16, 2004
4,868
6
Illinois
smartalic34 said:
44 seconds on my good old 800 MHz eMac G4 w/384MB RAM... not too shabby I'd say for such an old system! Can't wait for that MBP I'm ordering in 2 months though...
I don't see how thats possible. That means you're eMac G4 is on par with a Dual 2ghz G5 tower?

Are you sure it doesnt say 144 seconds?
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
smartalic34 said:
44 seconds on my good old 800 MHz eMac G4 w/384MB RAM... not too shabby I'd say for such an old system! Can't wait for that MBP I'm ordering in 2 months though...

How did it only take your 800MHz eMac G4 44 seconds? It took my 2.3GHz DP Power Mac G5 45 seconds! :confused: :eek:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.