that photoshop test took 2:34.9 seconds or 154.9secs making the Quad 7 times faster than this PowerBook... hmmmmm
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.
Power Mac G5 Quad Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
magor said:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 10.72
****************************************************
God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast
Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.
I got a 41.09 on my PowerBook G4. This is odd, though... when I first got my PowerBook and ran Xbench, I got 124.49. I had 1 GB of RAM before, but I doubt that would cuase such a big difference in scores. Either I have some maintenance to do on my Mac or the last version of Xbench runs the test differently than the newer one does. I just downloaded the newest version tonight, so do you think that could have caused the difference in scores? I'm upgrading to 1.5 GB of RAM soon, so that will definitely help.
It's such a huge difference, though...
It's such a huge difference, though...
nick007 said:
My iBook in my siggy w/Photoshop CS 2 did it in 2:40 - tried again and it did it in 2:32 - min:sec
p0intblank said:I got a 41.09 on my PowerBook G4. This is odd, though... when I first got my PowerBook and ran Xbench, I got 124.49. I had 1 GB of RAM before, but I doubt that would cuase such a big difference in scores. Either I have some maintenance to do on my Mac or the last version of Xbench runs the test differently than the newer one does. I just downloaded the newest version tonight, so do you think that could have caused the difference in scores? I'm upgrading to 1.5 GB of RAM soon, so that will definitely help.
It's such a huge difference, though...
if you have a look back through the thread i think they are saying that the newer xbench makes a Dual 2Ghz G5 as 100 where as the older xbench used a Dual 800mhz G4. Thus the huge difference
jiggie2g said:CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 10.72
****************************************************
God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast
Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.
Hopefully you have Norton
Photoshop spin test 29.6 seconds with stopwatch but 30.3 with photoshop timing tool
Cinebench 32 bit - 265 / 575
Cinebench 64 bit -304 / 646
The 64 bit numbers are from memory since I ran the test 3 days ago but I'm nearly certain thats what it came out to. I'll run it again and post the actual results. The gains from the 64 bit version were significant though.
My Box:
Dual Xeon 3.0 (nocona core) with hyperthreading on
Asus NCCH-DL motherboard
2 Gig DDR 400
ATI X800XT PE
dual channel U160 controller
3x 15k 36gig Fujitsu drives
Cinebench 32 bit - 265 / 575
Cinebench 64 bit -304 / 646
The 64 bit numbers are from memory since I ran the test 3 days ago but I'm nearly certain thats what it came out to. I'll run it again and post the actual results. The gains from the 64 bit version were significant though.
My Box:
Dual Xeon 3.0 (nocona core) with hyperthreading on
Asus NCCH-DL motherboard
2 Gig DDR 400
ATI X800XT PE
dual channel U160 controller
3x 15k 36gig Fujitsu drives
JRM PowerPod said:
Alright, that's cool. That makes me feel much better.
On a related note, how many points do you think I would gain after I upgrade to 1.5 GB of RAM?
JRM PowerPod said:
Memory Hog norton hell no ..AVG Antivirus all the way , it's lite and clean.
Sounds like sour grapes on ur part...Enjoy your New Nuclear Powered Intel PowerMac Geeeee whatever..lol
jiggie2g said:Memory Hog norton hell no ..AVG Antivirus all the way , it's lite and clean.
Sounds like sour grapes on ur part...Enjoy your New Nuclear Powered Intel PowerMac Geeeee whatever..lol
Thanks mate.... not sour grapes, just know how to get a (nuclear) reaction, i think though when my Quad arrives with its 4GB and its 7800 that my sarcasm will be replaced with an indestructable ego... That wont be until the 29/12, so i have a while yet. Enjoy ur Athlon, it is undoubtedly an impressive chip, but as i've said many times b4.... Windows=Pain in the arse... for me atleast... somehow 90% of the population survive
Increasing RAM will have little effect on xBench scores. Your real-world performance will improve dramatically, but benchmark scores probably won't move much at all.p0intblank said:Alright, that's cool. That makes me feel much better.
On a related note, how many points do you think I would gain after I upgrade to 1.5 GB of RAM?
Let me see if I've got this right - you're bragging because your machine barely edges out the equivalent of the mid-range Power Mac (with a substantially inferior graphics card) in rendering? If you think your machine is superior, compare it with the top of the line...jiggie2g said:CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 10.72
****************************************************
God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast
Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.
Can somone with a Quad run the Driver Heaven tests?
Hi,
Would someone with a Quad be so kind as to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop tests?
http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/
Don't click the "download here"... scroll down a bit more or just search for "mac", there's a link to a Zip file instead of a rar file. Just follow the instructions on the web page. It's pretty easy. The download includes an image to use as well as an action that prompts you for each test.
If you want to submit your results to their database you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/submit.php
And if you want to see other results you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php
The fastest Mac on there at the moment is a dual 2.7 GHz dual proc PM of course at a total of 201.7 seconds. Currently the time to beat is 128.9 seconds. My PC clocks in around 225 seconds (3.2 GHz P4). My PowerBook... can't remember what it does but it's not the fastest (were it not for one filter (can't remember the specific filter but I do remember that it's completely useless to a photogrpaher) my 15" 1.67 GHz G4 actually doesn't do all that bad keeping pace with a 1.7 GHz Pentium M based Dell).
Anyone wanna guess? My guess is 116.3 seconds for the Quad. LOL
Cheers, Joe
Hi,
Would someone with a Quad be so kind as to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop tests?
http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/
Don't click the "download here"... scroll down a bit more or just search for "mac", there's a link to a Zip file instead of a rar file. Just follow the instructions on the web page. It's pretty easy. The download includes an image to use as well as an action that prompts you for each test.
If you want to submit your results to their database you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/submit.php
And if you want to see other results you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php
The fastest Mac on there at the moment is a dual 2.7 GHz dual proc PM of course at a total of 201.7 seconds. Currently the time to beat is 128.9 seconds. My PC clocks in around 225 seconds (3.2 GHz P4). My PowerBook... can't remember what it does but it's not the fastest (were it not for one filter (can't remember the specific filter but I do remember that it's completely useless to a photogrpaher) my 15" 1.67 GHz G4 actually doesn't do all that bad keeping pace with a 1.7 GHz Pentium M based Dell).
Anyone wanna guess? My guess is 116.3 seconds for the Quad. LOL
Cheers, Joe
I think he meant the video card, which does seem to perform better than the Quad's.MacinDoc said:
Heb1228 said:
I remember reading that more RAM in xbench effected the end result in a positive way.
As long as you have plenty of memory free when you run the test, it shouldn't have any effect.rickvanr said:
When I upgraded my memory from 1GB to 2GB, I actually got a slightly worse xBench score because I bought cheaper RAM. (I checked and the RAM was the culprit for the lower scores.) After that, I sent back the cheap stuff and bought a stick of Samsung RAM to bring my machine up to 1.5GB. It gets the same scores as it did with 1GB.
JRM PowerPod said:
I agree Windows can be a pain for most , but people like myself who understand PC software can run it as stable as any mac. Congrats on the Quad i'm sure it will be a monster machine , honestly it's too much machine 4 me. I have my athlon and it's so damn fast I don't know what to do with it. I mostly just encode video and play games...and this thing is fast to the point of being rediculious i can just imagine the quad.
This time next year i'll be running a OSX on my PC.
I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub
MacinDoc said:
I wouldn't exactly call a Dual 2.7ghz G5 a mid end machine that was clocked 200mhz faster per CPU then my X2 and has 2 faster frontside buses and I still managed to spank it.
I'm not going to go up against a Quad (which by the way is not even shipping yet) Unless I have a Quad Opteron then we start The Armageddon.
Maybe I should dust off the old Athlon XP-M 2400+ @2.3ghz in my closet and give your PM G3 / iMac G5 a good trashing.
BTW: Here are some of my older CPU Cinebench 2003 scores
Athlon XP-M 2400+(Barton)@2.3ghz scored 263 CB-CPU
Athlon 64 3000+(Venice) @1.8ghz scored 293 CB-CPU , @2.6ghz / 356 CB-CPU
Opteron cost
It might not cost much more. But the performance might be worth it for longer jobs.
By the way, I am a Mac person. We have 5 working PM's in the house now, and I'll be getting a Quad in January.
Just like to be fair.
BOOMBA said:and what would that cost?
It might not cost much more. But the performance might be worth it for longer jobs.
By the way, I am a Mac person. We have 5 working PM's in the house now, and I'll be getting a Quad in January.
Just like to be fair.
BakedBeans said:
Your point , Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.
Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).