Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > question about xbench and my machine

question about xbench and my machine
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: fredericksburg va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2003, 07:30 AM
 
I have a dual 1.42 120 gig, 1 gig ram, radeon 9000

I xbenched it for the first time last night, never having used the program before.

When I posted my stats, it compared me to a baseline system, a dual 800, while I smoked that system, the disk scores were same or lower on most of them. I then looked up some of the other machines avaliable, some dual 1.25's and 1.42's and some of them were 20 points higher, all due to the hard disk scores.

I think I ended up with a 143.. is that normal or ? I did run it twice once normal, then used cocktail and cleaned everything up (caches, swap file, ect..)

any insight here?


here is my machine

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc2=25831
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2003, 12:36 PM
 
I'd have to check with the detail scores on my 1.42 (remember, the one I was trying to sell you? ), but I think I'm at about 148, so comparable to what you scored.

I just looked at my results last night, too, as I was comparing them to the 1.6Ghz G5 results posted elsewhere. I hope the G5s are faster than their XBench scores. I hope the author of XBench updates the software for G5s because I think XBench is a neat program.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2003, 01:06 PM
 
Disk scores may be limited by the actual drive in use. Do you have more than one drive on your ATA cable? If you have a slower 120GB drive than someone with a dual 800 and a faster drive may have better results. Even though the older dual 800 has ATA66 as standard and your new dual 1.42 has ATA 100, the drive itself is the limiting factor. ATA 66 is not even saturated by the fastest drives available today. Drive transfer speed is one aspect of todays computers that has lagged most.

Even if everything is up to spec I would not expect to have a huge difference between my dual 800 and my dual 2.0 G5 on order. The biggest advantage the new G5's have is that with SATA you are only allowed 1 drive per channel (each has 150 MB/s) whereas 2 drives on an older ATA66/100/133 share the same bandwidth and can cause slowdowns. Another SATA advantage is they require less CPU overhead (similar to the advantage Firewire has over USB).


-Jerry C.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2011 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.7 © 2000-2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2