05-10-2008, 05:16 AM
|
#1 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
Mac Pro... my un-official benchmarks
I took delivery of my new Mac yesterday... a Mac pro 2.8ghz 8 core..
I have been making do with a sick iMac G5 for a number of months now... far from ideal! I thought I would render a scene using Cinema4D... as its a good way of illustrating the grunt of various machines... the scene has 489740 Triangles and has a resolution of 1400 x 1200 iMacG5 Single 1.9ghz - 1.5gb RAM...................... Render time - 211min - 02sec iMacIntel Dualcore 2.0ghz - 2gb RAM.................... Render time - 78min 12sec MacPro Dual Quadcore 2.8ghz - 2gb RAM............... Render time - 13min 20sec quite a difference eh! |
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 05:13 PM
|
#2 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,418
|
Wow, ~3.5 hrs compared to ~.25hrs is a big difference.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2010), 2.4 GHz Core i5, 10.6.5, 4GB RAM PowerMac G4 "Quicksilver", 733 MHz, 10.4.11, 1.5GB RAM iPod Touch 5G, 32GB, iOS 6.1.3 |
|
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 05:34 PM
|
#3 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
yeh... its crazy... but its complete overkill for normal computer use! I am ripping a DVD at the mo... just to see how fast it can do it... its currently ripping at 146fps..! I would be lucky to see 20fps on the old iMac..... |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 10:15 PM
|
#4 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Posts: 3,110
|
My sister tried to rip a DVD with an old iMac G5 with only 512mb of RAM recently. It got it done eventually, but it took about 3 hours...
__________________
~ Long ago I was called Zalister, keep that in mind when reading responses to my old posts. |
|
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 06:11 AM
|
#5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
that DVD I ripped last night took 22mins on a double pass rip... I am literally astonished at how quick this thing is... and it's almost the base Mac Pro model! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 02:51 PM
|
#6 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,418
|
Care to run Xbench on the Macs, to compare?
http://www.xbench.com/ Here's my G4. http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=289828
__________________
15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2010), 2.4 GHz Core i5, 10.6.5, 4GB RAM PowerMac G4 "Quicksilver", 733 MHz, 10.4.11, 1.5GB RAM iPod Touch 5G, 32GB, iOS 6.1.3 Last edited by ThreeDee; 05-11-2008 at 03:38 PM. |
|
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 03:23 PM
|
#7 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc...setCookie=true
156.7 sounds quite good... I might have another go after a restart 
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2008, 02:43 AM
|
#8 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Posts: 3,110
|
For some reason neither of your pages will come up at all... I clocked 109.54 on a MBP 15" w/2gb of RAM and an X1600. I really want to run this on my sisters computer that took all the time to get the video done...
Edit: Link : My MBP. Oh, and I can see your two computers now as well. If I can get my sisters on here...I will.
__________________
~ Long ago I was called Zalister, keep that in mind when reading responses to my old posts. Last edited by Jay Carr; 05-12-2008 at 03:54 AM. |
|
|
|
|
07-18-2008, 04:58 PM
|
#9 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
okay... been having a bit of play with the Mac Pro... and got my score up quite a bit...
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc...setCookie=true 283.47
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2008, 07:10 PM
|
#10 |
|
MVP
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 2,300
|
That score is going to be even better when Snow Leopard is released.
When you did your rendering, did you use Activity Monitor to see how much of your 8 CPUs you were using? When I tried using an older version of Final Cut, I was using only 50% of each of the eight cores on my Mac Pro. So really, I was running at about the speed of a Quad at 100%. I sent the unit back for several reasons. I am waiting and hoping for the long overdue Mac Pro upgrade.
__________________
Tour Israel and Jordan via CD-ROM |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 06:39 AM
|
#11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
I would like to see the new Mac Pro's having SSD's as an option... I think Apple may release some new looking Macs soon too... the MB and MBP will be revised... but the MP is essentially the same as the G5 PowerMac... and the Mac Mini could do with a make over... I will be first in line for Snow Leopard... speed improvements AND Exchange support... thats all I need! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 08:41 AM
|
#12 |
|
MVP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,906
|
and i'll be first in line to borrow your copy. Why didnt anyone tell me there would be an update, this soon, i cant shell up another £70, unless they offer some sort of rebate or something
__________________
27" imac 3.4ghz i7 16gb Ram 1TB HD GTX680 Mx imac core duo 1.83ghz: OS X 10.6.8, 2gb ram, 1Tb internal |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 08:46 AM
|
#13 |
|
MVP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,906
|
eek i just ran the test on my imac and alls i got was 92
Photek how did you get your score up?
__________________
27" imac 3.4ghz i7 16gb Ram 1TB HD GTX680 Mx imac core duo 1.83ghz: OS X 10.6.8, 2gb ram, 1Tb internal |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 09:24 AM
|
#14 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
I cheated I made a RAM disk, dropped the app inside it and then Ran the app with the RAM disk as my chosen drive.... Because data can be accessed much faster in RAM (as opposed to a traditional spinning disk HD) the score was much faster and much higher! the hint on how to do it is on the front page of MacOSXHints, its the one about improving the speed of PhotoshopCS3.... I am now gonna give the same thing a whirl with my processors clocked up a bit...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 09:27 AM
|
#15 |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
okay....
289.44 with the processors at 3.080ghz 297.76 with the processors at 3.199ghz |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 04:07 PM
|
#16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MVP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,906
|
im sure you could clock it to 3.4ghz, and overclock the graphics card as well
__________________
27" imac 3.4ghz i7 16gb Ram 1TB HD GTX680 Mx imac core duo 1.83ghz: OS X 10.6.8, 2gb ram, 1Tb internal |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 04:29 PM
|
#17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 4,835
|
I did.... and that was meant to be the next line in my post.... but I got the black screen of death!... and decided not to thrash my Mac
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
07-21-2008, 10:43 AM
|
#18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MVP
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 2,300
|
I see that in the future. I think Apple knows better than anyone how their great multiprocessors are being hamstrung by the slow drives.
According to MacRumor stats. That is a fairly high probability. They better do something soon. You can only keep Hackintoshes at bay for only so long!
Finder needs some major work! Not kidding, it improves in one area, then breaks in another. Putting it on a diet will help--and hopefully will be vector based as well. But really, it is still as clunky and inconsistent as ever. Better than Explorer? Definitely. But I find Explorer to be at least consistent and configurable--whereas Finder is "love it or lump it".
__________________
Tour Israel and Jordan via CD-ROM |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
