iMac 7600 GT vs MP x1900 xt

evp

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 29, 2006
31
0
The Apple benchmarks show 75 vs 70 and 106 vs 100 lead for Mac Pro in Quake 4 and Doom 3 respectively. I must admit I'm shocked. I mean...with the 7300's Mac Pro loses to lower memory version of the same card on an iMac.

2.33 GHz vs 3.0 GHz....much slower FSB. What gives?

Shouldn't Mac Pro blow iMac out of the water? Given x1900 should pretty much obliterate 7600?
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,223
0
evp said:
The Apple benchmarks show 75 vs 70 and 106 vs 100 lead for Mac Pro in Quake 4 and Doom 3 respectively. I must admit I'm shocked. I mean...with the 7300's Mac Pro loses to lower memory version of the same card on an iMac.

2.33 GHz vs 3.0 GHz....much slower FSB. What gives?

Shouldn't Mac Pro blow iMac out of the water? Given x1900 should pretty much obliterate 7600?
You shouldn't trust separate values from separate benchmarks (especially if they are Apple).

I've discovered Apple benchmarks are not to trust, I don't what half assed thing they do but the results always end up messed up, the X1900XT is considerably faster than the 7600GT and has been benchmarked to death, Apple won't convince me otherwise, I KNOW the real difference between a 2.33 Merom and a 3.0 Woodcrest and a 7600GT and X1900XT.

Same thing happened with the Quadro FX 4500, I don't know how it ever beat the X1900XT in Doom3... well according to Apple that is
 

stapler

macrumors member
Sep 3, 2006
73
0
Probably used a different level of detail. Either that or the Mac Pro's RAM latency is catching up to it.
 

Archmagination

macrumors regular
Dec 15, 2004
159
0
Isn't the main reason why the iMac is keeping up with the MacPro is that none of those games are able to take advantage of the 4 cores.. they do well at leveraging 2 cores, but just don't have the code yet to take advantage of the other 2.
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
evp said:
The Apple benchmarks show 75 vs 70 and 106 vs 100 lead for Mac Pro in Quake 4 and Doom 3 respectively. I must admit I'm shocked. I mean...with the 7300's Mac Pro loses to lower memory version of the same card on an iMac.

2.33 GHz vs 3.0 GHz....much slower FSB. What gives?

Shouldn't Mac Pro blow iMac out of the water? Given x1900 should pretty much obliterate 7600?
Newsflash: FSB and large numbers are overrated.
 

Spanky Deluxe

macrumors 601
Mar 17, 2005
4,856
387
London, UK
The Apple benchmarks don't state the resolution that the iMac benchmarks are run at:

Apple said:
Testing conducted by Apple in August 2006 using preproduction 24-inch iMac units with 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors and 20-inch iMac units with 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors. All systems were configured with 1 gigabyte of RAM. The NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT card had 256MB SDRAM, the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT card had 128MB SDRAM, and the ATI Radeon X1600 card had 128MB SDRAM.
Where as the Mac Pro specifically states the resolution:

Apple said:
Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction 3GHz Mac Pro units and graphics cards. Tested using Doom 3 v1.3.1303 TimeDemo 1, high video quality, at 1280 by 1024.
and

Apple said:
Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction 3GHz Mac Pro units and graphics cards. Tested using Quake 4 v1.2.0.2386, netTimeDemo: demo001, high video quality, at 1280 by 1024.
The iMac benchmarks have probably been run at either 800x600 or 1024x768. A quad Mac Pro will give you faster clocks than a dual iMac with a similar specced graphics card. Period.