I'm going to go with that explanation.oingoboingo said:Either that, or Xbench is a notoriously unreliable piece of rubbish.
I've been saying that for months now, but people are still using it as a benchmark for Mac performance. Is there no other program that can accurately measure Mac performance?oingoboingo said:Either that, or Xbench is a notoriously unreliable piece of rubbish.
I wish there was. I've been thinking that perhaps an AppleScript of some sort which will load up a suite of apps, perform a set of operations, and then record the total time taken would be nice. However, that would require that the system being tested have all the same version of all the same apps installed, so in practice it would probably be impossible to implement.FuzzyBallz said:I've been saying that for months now, but people are still using it as a benchmark for Mac performance. Is there no other program that can accurately measure Mac performance?
Actually I was thinking of a app called XiBench or something similer....dunno about you but that sounds nifty to me. Anyways I wouldn't be writing it for a long time anyways, i am currently under heavy development of an other app.Abstract said:Maybe there should be a MacRumours benchmark, or NusuniAdmin benchmark written by NusuniAdmin. I'd happily use that instead of XBench. Every time someone uses XBench scores as irrefutable proof that one system is clearly faster than another, I just laugh.
how do you change the processor performance?Elan0204 said:I'm going to go with that explanation.
However, it does seem that setting processor performace to highest has a very noticable effect on performance, outside of just increasing the xbench score.
maybe they don't set it to maximum because of heat issues in that case? maybe if the processor is at the highest setting, the cooling system can't keep up and the processor will eventually overheat..CubaTBird said:you know whats sad though, the proc performance should have been automatically set to highest, its kinda weird that apple wants their desktop comps running slower than they actually can... it would make sense for a laptop to conserve energy but this isn't a laptop...
They ship the computers with the energy saving features turned on in order to save energy. In many parts of the world, that is a far more important consideration than xbench scores.neoserver said:maybe they don't set it to maximum because of heat issues in that case? maybe if the processor is at the highest setting, the cooling system can't keep up and the processor will eventually overheat..
It's only on laptops right? cause FuzzyBallz's post sounds like hes saying more ram should be added to the imac and increase the processor speed.Elan0204 said:The Processor Performance setting is under the Energy Saver preference pane in System Preferences. It is under the "Options" tab.
The feature was originally introduced with the Titanium PowerBook G4 DVI models (the 667MHz and 800MHz models), but is now in all modern Macs, including desktops. It extends battery life in laptops, and reduces energy use and heat generation in desktops. The G5 PowerMacs and iMacs both have this feature, and you can set the processor to highest, automatic, or reduced performace.PeterBonnar said:It's only on laptops right? cause FuzzyBallz's post sounds like hes saying more ram should be added to the imac and increase the processor speed.
maybe i'm just confused and read his post wrong
not totally true. I remember readin this from a developer doc or something in xcode that talks about the settings, all automatic does it if the machine gets too hot or whatever it will slow it down, or if not that much power is needed it will slow down. WHen you run benchmarks and such it will not affect the actual benchmark (at least it shouldn't).iJon said:I think we had this discussion back when the G5 first came out. Nothing was different from automatic and highest.
No disrespect to your ibook, but it most certainly cannot keep up with a 1.8 G5. I think everyone needs to throw Xbench out the window. Just wait until www.barefeats.com performs some real world tests. They will show it is about 95% of what a single Powermac G5 1.8 is. (my guess anyway)CubaTBird said:i restarted it and had a guy who worked there type in the admin password... it also had 512, which should be enough i mean seriously.. if my ibook can keep up with an imac g5, seriously something is wrong there... i went and benched a dual g5 and got a score of around 187.. which made more sense