Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual 800 Benchmark Requests/Results
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
seti, etc
No way a 450 can do the current seti packets that fast... back in the days of 2.x yes, but not 3.x. Back then there was a huge benefit to large processor caches, which has been elliminated. If your G4 really can do 6 hours with the new client, its doing pretty well (but lagging the top PC's). My 700mhz 1mb xeon (linux) is somewhere around 8.5 hours per packet, per CPU. Higher clock speeds do make a difference too, so I wouldn't go bragging about the G4's times until you get some fast Athlons benched.
Also, its inexplicable that RC5 shows such a speed difference between OS's. Some I can see, but that much... in general, I would expect ALL raw computing to be a little slower in X than 9.
No way a 450 can do the current seti packets that fast... back in the days of 2.x yes, but not 3.x. Back then there was a huge benefit to large processor caches, which has been elliminated. If your G4 really can do 6 hours with the new client, its doing pretty well (but lagging the top PC's). My 700mhz 1mb xeon (linux) is somewhere around 8.5 hours per packet, per CPU. Higher clock speeds do make a difference too, so I wouldn't go bragging about the G4's times until you get some fast Athlons benched.
Also, its inexplicable that RC5 shows such a speed difference between OS's. Some I can see, but that much... in general, I would expect ALL raw computing to be a little slower in X than 9.
Some numbers....
From here: http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/303results.htm, we see that with a "standard packet" top PC's go as low as 3:22, for a 2gz P4. *One* 2gz P4, note not a dual Xeon or anything... so bringing in two G4's would be unfair and meaningless. So anyway, unless you get some really good numbers here, seti is one place that Macs are not gona lead.
If 6 hours hold true, that'll put you somewhere around 1gz in P3 and Athlon speed (going by the above URL).
But anyway, seti is just one benchmark.
From here: http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/303results.htm, we see that with a "standard packet" top PC's go as low as 3:22, for a 2gz P4. *One* 2gz P4, note not a dual Xeon or anything... so bringing in two G4's would be unfair and meaningless. So anyway, unless you get some really good numbers here, seti is one place that Macs are not gona lead.
If 6 hours hold true, that'll put you somewhere around 1gz in P3 and Athlon speed (going by the above URL).
But anyway, seti is just one benchmark.
Re: Seti
i do have to say that u r wrong. You have to read the OSX_Installation_FAQ it says it is Multiple Processor enabled. Oh Yeah, and one more thing i think that the actual time it takes it to complete a work unit is 3 hours
because the total time shown is for both processors.
i do have to say that u r wrong. You have to read the OSX_Installation_FAQ it says it is Multiple Processor enabled. Oh Yeah, and one more thing i think that the actual time it takes it to complete a work unit is 3 hours
because the total time shown is for both processors.
Re: Re: uhhh...
Why, did they change it? I haven't run it in a long time. That's an OS9 speed from about six months ago.
-Jake
Why, did they change it? I haven't run it in a long time. That's an OS9 speed from about six months ago.
-Jake
Re: Some numbers....
That fact that a DP G4 is readily available doesn't make in unfair and meaningless. You can get a DP PC system to use if you want to compete. They end up costing about the same...
I can't wait until the G5 comes out... should be six months or so. It is reportedly 2-3 times faster than the Itanium, per clock, and will hit higher clock rates than Itanium will anyway. Reportedly.
-Jake
That fact that a DP G4 is readily available doesn't make in unfair and meaningless. You can get a DP PC system to use if you want to compete. They end up costing about the same...
I can't wait until the G5 comes out... should be six months or so. It is reportedly 2-3 times faster than the Itanium, per clock, and will hit higher clock rates than Itanium will anyway. Reportedly.
-Jake
SETI Numbers
There seems to be a surprising amount of confusion about how SETI@home comes up with its numbers, and although I'm not an expert at all, here's what I noticed during some experimentation a few weeks ago (might be wrong now, of course):
The OS9 version of SETI gives you a number of hours taken to complete a work unit. This is true on single or dual processor machines. It does (apparently) take advantage of DP machines, however, and seemed to be able to finish a unit in around 5-6 hours on a DP 533... working out to around 10-12 hours on a single G4 533.
On X, it also uses both processors (without launching two instances of the app, at least for the GUI version), but the timer it shows is for processor time, not actual work time. That is, on DP machines the timer goes up by two minutes for every minute it's running, because each processor contributes one minute of work. At least for me, it seemed to be taking around the same amount of time (though a bit slower, probably due to overhead)--12-14 hours on the counter, which only took 6 or 7 hours of real time to complete. (And it was definitely using both processors--the CPU meter gague was maxed out on both.)
Basically, the Classic or X versions are about the same, but they count the time on the screen differently, making X look slower, or 9 faster.
As far as P4/Athlon comparisons, who knows. SETI@home isn't AltiVec optimized, though--it'd be interesting to see how fast an optimized version would run.
And by the way--the reason the work units take longer now is that they now include a lot more calculations, since (on average) computers are much faster than when the project started. More calculations equals more interesting results from data analysis.
There seems to be a surprising amount of confusion about how SETI@home comes up with its numbers, and although I'm not an expert at all, here's what I noticed during some experimentation a few weeks ago (might be wrong now, of course):
The OS9 version of SETI gives you a number of hours taken to complete a work unit. This is true on single or dual processor machines. It does (apparently) take advantage of DP machines, however, and seemed to be able to finish a unit in around 5-6 hours on a DP 533... working out to around 10-12 hours on a single G4 533.
On X, it also uses both processors (without launching two instances of the app, at least for the GUI version), but the timer it shows is for processor time, not actual work time. That is, on DP machines the timer goes up by two minutes for every minute it's running, because each processor contributes one minute of work. At least for me, it seemed to be taking around the same amount of time (though a bit slower, probably due to overhead)--12-14 hours on the counter, which only took 6 or 7 hours of real time to complete. (And it was definitely using both processors--the CPU meter gague was maxed out on both.)
Basically, the Classic or X versions are about the same, but they count the time on the screen differently, making X look slower, or 9 faster.
As far as P4/Athlon comparisons, who knows. SETI@home isn't AltiVec optimized, though--it'd be interesting to see how fast an optimized version would run.
And by the way--the reason the work units take longer now is that they now include a lot more calculations, since (on average) computers are much faster than when the project started. More calculations equals more interesting results from data analysis.
SETI@home performance
As a comparison to an older machine my iMac 350 MHz w/ 576 MB RAM under 9.1/9.2.1 takes about 20 hours per work unit. Also using SETI@home 3.03.
vsx1@mac.com
As a comparison to an older machine my iMac 350 MHz w/ 576 MB RAM under 9.1/9.2.1 takes about 20 hours per work unit. Also using SETI@home 3.03.
vsx1@mac.com
For comparision:
QS 867/384MB RAM, 60GB, NVidia 2MX, DVD-ROM/CD-RW
Cinebench:
Shading: 7,45 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 9,77 CB
Raytracing: 10,70 CB
GL-Factor: 1,31x
Throughput 1.5:
CPU: 213,4
FPU: 213,8
AltiVec: 221,0
CopyBits: 253,0
QS 867/384MB RAM, 60GB, NVidia 2MX, DVD-ROM/CD-RW
Cinebench:
Shading: 7,45 CB
Shading (OpenGL): 9,77 CB
Raytracing: 10,70 CB
GL-Factor: 1,31x
Throughput 1.5:
CPU: 213,4
FPU: 213,8
AltiVec: 221,0
CopyBits: 253,0
very true jake, i have a feeling it could be a top chip too.
Infact from what i know the dp800 G4 delivers nearly as much gigaflops as the itanium does.
Infact from what i know the dp800 G4 delivers nearly as much gigaflops as the itanium does.
re: seti
When you have completed a package in SETI it tells you the length of time it took..on a G3 400mhz it took me(if my memory serves me) approximately 13 hours to complete one package
SETI is a good Benchmark tester..i am curious too.:c)
When you have completed a package in SETI it tells you the length of time it took..on a G3 400mhz it took me(if my memory serves me) approximately 13 hours to complete one package
SETI is a good Benchmark tester..i am curious too.:c)
7450 G4
Everyone with a 7450 G4 (or 2) should download the 2.8016.470 client. There is about a 25% improvement in keys/sec.
Classic:
http://http.distributed.net/pub/dcti/current-client/dnetc-macos-ppc.sit
Mac OS X:
http://http.distributed.net/pub/dcti/current-client/dnetc-macosx-ppc.tar.gz
Everyone with a 7450 G4 (or 2) should download the 2.8016.470 client. There is about a 25% improvement in keys/sec.
Classic:
http://http.distributed.net/pub/dcti/current-client/dnetc-macos-ppc.sit
Mac OS X:
http://http.distributed.net/pub/dcti/current-client/dnetc-macosx-ppc.tar.gz