Test your systems performance with piX

[mgargan1]

100k 6.990 secs
250k 48.530 secs

1.8GHz iMac G5 2.0GB RAM

 

[mgargan1]

100,000 6.210 sec
250,000 39.890 sec

1.66GHz CD Mac Mini 1.0 GB RAM

 

[Schnebar]

iMac core duo 2gb ram

250,000 = 33.220

100,000 = 5.180

 

[leekohler]

PowerMac G5 Dual-core 2Ghz

100,000- 6.190 seconds
250,000- 38.910 seconds

 

[highres]

PowerMac Dual 2.7 GHz

100,000 = 4.59 seconds
250,000 = 29.52 seconds

 

[mgargan1]

100,000 4.370 sec
250,000 27.900 sec

2.0GHz C2D iMac 2GB RAM

 

[Alex Urchin]

This thread is titled wrongly. It says "test your system performance" when it doesn't really test your system, just the processor number crunching performance.

For example the dual 2.7 about did it slower than my 2.16 core 2 duo iMac, but that doesn't take into account things like RAM, HD speed, FSB etc etc. IT is also pretty crap as it is single processor/core only.

Anyway, for the record:

100,000 = 4.070
250,000 = 26.00

 

[zflauaus]

iBook G4 1.33GHz, 1.5GB RAM

100,000 = 9.690 seconds
250,000 = 66.110 seconds

 

[StarbucksSam]

Rev. E PowerBook G4 12" with 1.25 gigs of RAM

100k in 08.400 seconds
250k is 56.940 seconds

 

[150hp]

100,000: 31.450
250,000: 239.590

600mhz iMac g3
1gb ram

 

[dllavaneras]

eMac, 700 Mhz, 384 RAM
100.000: 19.050 seconds
250.000: 139.08 seconds

 

[MacNut]

Does it mater how much memory you have if its just testing the cpu.

 

[Zwhaler]

It only tests the CPU? Hmm. Oh well post your RAM specs anyway

 

[mgargan1]

Does it mater how much memory you have if its just testing the cpu.

probably not, as long as you're not paging...

 

[philbeeney]

PowerBook G4, 1.5 Ghz, 1GB DDR SDRAM, OS X 10.3.9

100.000: 8.820 seconds
250.000: 61.370 seconds

"Not too shabby, is it?" © Jonny Ives 2007

 

[After G]

100,000 6.210 sec
250,000 39.890 sec

1.66GHz CD Mac Mini 1.0 GB RAM

Same system, 2 GB RAM

100k - 6.200
250k - 39.83

That extra 1GB doesn't really help.

 

[Zwhaler]

Same system, 2 GB RAM

100k - 6.200
250k - 39.83

That extra 1GB doesn't really help.

Yeah, according to what other people have said the application doesn't take advantage of lots of RAM. It only uses the processor to crunch the numbers. So don't feel bad about your RAM

 

[MacNut]

Same system, 2 GB RAM

100k - 6.200
250k - 39.83

That extra 1GB doesn't really help.

It's not going to help because memory wont make a CPU clock speed faster. You can have 50 terabytes or memory but if your CPU is only 1 GHZ its not going to be any improvement and just a waste of memory.

 

[lamina]

17" PB in sig: 7.68 seconds to 100,000 places

 

[scem0]

1.67Ghz Powerbook G4:

7.670 to 100000

51.490 to 250000

e

 

[Alex Urchin]

It's not going to help because memory wont make a CPU clock speed faster. You can have 50 terabytes or memory but if your CPU is only 1 GHZ its not going to be any improvement and just a waste of memory.

Only in this case is it a waste of memory. Because this test is a bag of crap for testing your system speed. It just tests one of your processors.

A dual processor 2ghz g5 would score about the same as a single g5 (or single iMac g5 would score the same as a dual powermac of the same clock speed)

 

[Ish]

1.67Ghz Powerbook G4:

100,000 = 7.660
250,000 = 50.800

 

[EstorilM]

Just got this thing a little while ago, couldn't be happier so far.

MacBook Pro 2.16 Core 2 Duo:
100k: 4.09
250k: 26.04

 

[Snide]

400 Mhz Pismo running Tiger - 512 MB RAM:

100,000: 45.78

250,000: 302.65

Hmmm - A new Macbook 2 Ghz C2D is gonna be sweet!

 

[jamdr]

This test doesn't really mean that much considering its sole purpose is to test CPU performance yet it doesn't even take advantage of multiple processors.

My 1.42GHz eMac:
100,000: 8.900 sec
250,000: 58.970 sec

Not bad I say. This computer will definitely last me a few more years.