Yosemite benchmarks thread

Asclepio

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 11, 2011
716
271
So i made a quick comparison today on my rat lab iMac : ML vs YM (DP6) with Cinebench
the results are awesome as you can see!
mlvsyo.jpg

if you have any other benchmark tools comaprison please post here.(with the same machine obviously)
No "it's a beta" comments are allowed!
 

jovi.jia

macrumors newbie
Mar 16, 2014
23
3
As long as you can report a problem with Assistant, it means Yosemite keeps an eye on the whole system, which would reduce some performance. I think so, it is a PUBLIC beta.
 

smokesletsgo

macrumors regular
Oct 23, 2013
138
120
As long as you can report a problem with Assistant, it means Yosemite keeps an eye on the whole system, which would reduce some performance. I think so, it is a PUBLIC beta.
What do you mean by that? Something is running in the background and logging all data?
 

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,963
4,550
I do not take Cinebench seriously, nor do I recommend anyone doing so. Benchmarking I did shows that the performance on my 650M has increased around 15% across the board from ML and Mavericks.

As long as you can report a problem with Assistant, it means Yosemite keeps an eye on the whole system, which would reduce some performance. I think so, it is a PUBLIC beta.
I do not believe this is accurate.

What do you mean by that? Something is running in the background and logging all data?
OS X is always logging, no matter whether its beta or not.
 

dyn

macrumors 68030
Aug 8, 2009
2,708
383
.nl
The only difference is that a beta version will do a lot more logging and other forms which allow debugging. This won't be in the final release so that one should have a bit better performance.

@OP: try benching the machine with 10.9 since it comes with performance and graphics improvements. The difference should be smaller.
 

nikicampos

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2011
816
258
So i made a quick comparison today on my rat lab iMac : ML vs YM (DP6) with Cinebench
the results are awesome as you can see!
View attachment 487068

if you have any other benchmark tools comaprison please post here.(with the same machine obviously)
No "it's a beta" comments are allowed!
Yes it's a beta.

Also, why didn't you compare it to Panther or Tiger... LOL

The obvious comparison should've been Mavericks.
 

joedec

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2014
405
25
Cupertino
The only difference is that a beta version will do a lot more logging and other forms which allow debugging. This won't be in the final release so that one should have a bit better performance.

@OP: try benching the machine with 10.9 since it comes with performance and graphics improvements. The difference should be smaller.
I also noticed Memory Compression was turned off until PB2.
 

michelg1970

macrumors regular
Jul 26, 2011
192
42
Gouda - The Netherlands
rMBP Late 2013 - 2.6GHz, 8 GB, 256 GB:

Benchmark Scores:

1,0 Mavericks
1,5 Yosemite PB 2



Edit: OK seriously - this was a bit lame of me. Anyway, I tried the first Beta and it didn't run smooth at all. Since PB 1 I am on Yosemite and I have to admit - some flaws withstanding - that it runs very smooth. No major issues, great look, etc. Can't wait for the official version 10.10.2 (with all initial issues patched again).
 
Last edited:

x3n0n1c

macrumors regular
Jul 9, 2014
170
2
in cinebebench?
Yes, forgot to state that.

----------

In my opinion, it is a waste of time to focus on the benchmark of a Beta or DP release OS, especially when said benchmark is being compared to a finished OS.
This is true to a point, but benchmarking these OS's is a great way to gauge not only the current state of the OS, but potential driver optimizations (or lack thereof) that have taken place.
 

Asclepio

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 11, 2011
716
271
before today's update i was able to get 24 fps with transparency disabled and 19 fps enabled
now i got 18 fps with transparency on and off
thank you federighi.
 

infoseeker

macrumors newbie
Aug 15, 2013
15
0
Planned obsolescence strategy at it's best !!
Just make it work well on the machine you say you support . That's a much better strategy, just think how people would honor your machines, people would speak highly of them and call them the best investment ever. This won't stop people from upgrading, I don't understand why there is a need to subtly nudge and control its users like some illuminating cult.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
12,768
5,579
Hong Kong
IMO, it's better to use GeekBench for CPU.

Luxmark for OpenCL, and Furmark for OpenGL.

Of course, Unigine is also a good way to let you "feel" the real world performance. However Unigine is still CPU related, it's not very accurate to benchmark the GPU. It's more like the overall graphic performance.

And CineBench is very inaccurate to benchmark the GPU, it's very CPU single core performance related. You can try to load up your CPU (e.g. by handbrake), and then you will have very poor result in CineBench.
 

jeanlain

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2009
1,310
286
I'll concur, I ran Geekbench, the free version, and performance is about the same.
Don't confuse tests that are designed to test the hardware (Geekbench) with those that are designed to test the performance of the OS (XBench).
XBench is the only test that can teach us on OS optimisation in respect to quartz and the UI (forget it for openGL, it just spawns some spinning squares).
Clearly, the quartz code, which powers all the 2D UI, is much slower now. :confused: