Yosemite benchmarks thread

Discussion in 'OS X Yosemite (10.10)' started by Asclepio, Aug 24, 2014.

  1. Asclepio macrumors 6502a

    Asclepio

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    #1
    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!
     
  2. mrapplegate macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #2
    You know people telling me not to post it's a beta get the following:

    "It's a beta" :D

    In all seriousness it is a beta.
     
  3. jovi.jia macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    #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.
     
  4. smokesletsgo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    #4
    What do you mean by that? Something is running in the background and logging all data?
     
  5. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #5
    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.

    I do not believe this is accurate.

    OS X is always logging, no matter whether its beta or not.
     
  6. dyn macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Location:
    .nl
    #6
    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.
     
  7. nikicampos macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #7
    Yes it's a beta.

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

    The obvious comparison should've been Mavericks.
     
  8. joedec macrumors 6502

    joedec

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Location:
    Cupertino
    #8
    I also noticed Memory Compression was turned off until PB2.
     
  9. michelg1970, Aug 26, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014

    michelg1970 macrumors regular

    michelg1970

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Location:
    Gouda - The Netherlands
    #9
    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).
     
  10. Asclepio thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Asclepio

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
  11. x3n0n1c macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    #11
    On my rMBP Yosemite brought my OpenGL benchmark up from 52 to 60 fps.

    750m.
     
  12. Asclepio thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Asclepio

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    #12
    in cinebebench?
     
  13. BasicGreatGuy Contributor

    BasicGreatGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Location:
    In the middle of several books.
    #13
    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.
     
  14. x3n0n1c macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    #14
    Yes, forgot to state that.

    ----------

    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.
     
  15. mmomega, Sep 3, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2014

    mmomega macrumors 68030

    mmomega

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #15
    Just ran this one.
    -------------------------
    Re-ran it within 5 minutes and my FPS went up to 91.09 and cb dropped to 693
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Asclepio thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Asclepio

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #17
    This is a graphics driver issue. Has nothing to do with the OS core.
     
  18. sanke1 macrumors 65816

    sanke1

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    #18
    Planned obsolescence strategy at it's best !!
     
  19. infoseeker macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    #19
    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.
     
  20. robertosh macrumors 6502a

    robertosh

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Location:
    Spain
    #20
    I've noticed that Diablo 3 runs much better on Yosemite than in Mavericks.
     
  21. Asclepio thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Asclepio

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
  22. aliensporebomb macrumors 68000

    aliensporebomb

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA, Urth
    #22
    Ah

    I wouldn't base your performance with xbench - that thing hasn't been in development for years.

    I'd try geekbench and/or cinebench.
     
  23. joedec macrumors 6502

    joedec

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Location:
    Cupertino
    #23
    I'll concur, I ran Geekbench, the free version, and performance is about the same.
     
  24. h9826790 macrumors G3

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #24
    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.
     
  25. jeanlain macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #25
    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:
     

Share This Page