Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

someone · Sep 13, 2006, 06:00 AM

Hi guys,

My Mac Pro arrived today too, as I join the illustrious ranks of UnixMac, phantomdragonz, macgeek2005, etc...

Reading UnixMac's picture thread, I noticed that a number of people wanted him to run benchmarks on the machine -- so I thought I'd spin it off into a new thread.

If you had a Mac Pro right now, what you do with it? Benchmarks/fun suggestions --and questions, too -- are welcome.

Eug · Sep 13, 2006, 06:49 AM

CINEBENCH - Benchmarking for the Real World

Jimmy2gig · Sep 13, 2006, 09:57 AM

Hi Guys!

Got my MP a few days ago and boy does this baby fly.
Ran Cinebench and got these results.

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : Jimmy2gig

Processor : MacPro
MHz : 3Ghz
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.7

Graphics Card : X9100 XT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <1920 x 1200>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 494 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1549 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.13

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 590 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2208 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4407 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.47

************************************************** **

brokenjago · Sep 13, 2006, 07:12 PM

Those benchmarks are completely useless to me without some kind of comparison... anyone know where to get one?

Eug · Sep 13, 2006, 07:25 PM

CPU Test: Multiprocessor (Single processor)

Mac Pro 3 GHz Quad: 1549 (494) <==

iMac 2.17 Core 2 Duo: 673 (?)
MacBook 2.0 Core Duo: 578 (307)
iMac G5 2.0 GHz 970FX: 262
Cube G4 1.7 GHz 7447A: 149

ie. In this bench, your Mac Pro 3.0 is over 10X as fast as my G4 1.7.

brokenjago · Sep 13, 2006, 07:52 PM

Wow. Nice!

mkerr64 · Sep 13, 2006, 09:09 PM

what other tests are there for the Mac Pro??

tvbi · Sep 14, 2006, 12:02 AM

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : tvbi

Processor : Mac Pro
MHz : 2.6
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.7

Graphics Card : 7300GT
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 440 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1429 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.24

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 525 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2095 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4393 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.37

************************************************** **

Simon · Sep 14, 2006, 02:26 AM

Umm, I'm confused. Why does the 2.66 GHz MP with a 7300GT get a higher OpenGL speedup than the 3 GHz MP with a 1900XT?

tvbi · Sep 14, 2006, 09:34 AM

I think the speedup number is comparing the Shading (CINEMA 4D) number to the OpenGL Hardware Lightning, 8.37 times faster with OpenGL.

someone · Sep 14, 2006, 06:56 PM

this is unreal....

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : someone

Processor : Mac Pro
MHz : 3 GHz x 2
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.7, 8K1124

Graphics Card : ATI X1900XT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 492 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1600 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.25

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 582 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2192 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4240 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.29

************************************************** **

Eug Wanker · Sep 14, 2006, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by someone

this is unreal....

Yes, indeed it is... Updated:

CPU Test: Multiprocessor (Single processor)

Mac Pro 3 GHz Quad: 1600 (492) <==

iMac 2.17 Core 2 Duo: 673 (?)
MacBook 2.0 Core Duo: 578 (307)
iMac G5 2.0 GHz 970FX: 262
Cube G4 1.7 GHz 7447A: 149

surfratt · Sep 14, 2006, 10:17 PM

GAMES!! Lets see some game benchmarks

FPS, resolution...

hookem2oo7 · Sep 14, 2006, 11:23 PM

CPU Test: Single Processor

PowerMac G4 533: 60

brokenjago · Sep 14, 2006, 11:49 PM

Yes, games! Specifically some of the newer more intense ones.

Prey, for instance.

And none of this "1024x768" crap. Let's see something at Max Res with everything Maxed out!!! Who cares if I get 230 FPS at 1024x768? I'm not going to buy this to run my games at a crap resolution with medium settings

Eug Wanker · Sep 15, 2006, 12:34 AM

Here are the Macworld benches I posted in the iMac forum:

Note however that the Mac Pro 2.0 tested has the 7300 GT, whereas the iMac 2.33 has the 7600 GT.

Hydra · Sep 15, 2006, 12:43 AM

The Mac Pro tested was only 2.0 GHz BUT they tested it with only 2x512MB RAM. Hence only two of the four RAM channels were being used. The iMac is an excellent machine but the results are not really surprising when you consider most of the Macs in the Macworld tests had faster clockspeeds, a far better video card in one case and a non-hobbled memory set-up.

-Jerry C.

macgeek2005 · Sep 15, 2006, 12:50 AM

I like the opening sentence of this thread. "The illustrious ranks of UnixMac, phantomdragonz, macgeek2005, etc..."

However as some of you may know, my Mac Pro was DOA. My new one is shipping tommorow, arriving Tuesday.... So, I'm not really in the "Illustrious" ranks.

idyll · Sep 15, 2006, 01:08 AM

anybody got a Quad G5 for comparison?

someone · Sep 15, 2006, 04:33 AM

halo timedemo: 3ghz, 1gig, x1900

Date / Time: 9/15/06 2:28:4 (0ms)
3000MHz, 1024MB
C

Applications\Halo.app psn_0_7995393 Frames=4700
Total Time=140.45s
Average frame rate=33.46fps
Below 5fps= 5% (time) 0% (frames) (8.350s spent in 11 frames)
Below 10fps= 24% (time) 4% (frames)
Below 15fps= 26% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 20fps= 34% (time) 9% (frames)
Below 25fps= 43% (time) 15% (frames)
Below 30fps= 58% (time) 27% (frames)
Below 40fps= 73% (time) 42% (frames)
Below 50fps= 78% (time) 49% (frames)
Below 60fps= 87% (time) 63% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= High
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= High
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1680 x 1050
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High

Eug Wanker · Sep 15, 2006, 10:02 PM

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : Eug

Processor : iMac Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2333
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.7

Graphics Card : 7600 GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 385 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 727 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 470 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1866 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4399 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.35

************************************************** **

CPU Test: Multiprocessor (Single processor)

Mac Pro 3 GHz Quad: 1600 (492)
iMac 2.33 Core 2 Duo: 727 (385)
iMac 2.17 Core 2 Duo: 673 (?)
MacBook 2.0 Core Duo: 578 (307)
iMac G5 2.0 GHz 970FX: 262
Cube G4 1.7 GHz 7447A: 149

macgeek2005 · Sep 15, 2006, 10:23 PM

As soon as my Mac Pro gets here on tuesday, I can run benchmarks of Quake 4, Doom 3, KOTOR, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty, Call of Duty: UO, Return of the King and UT2004.

Most of these games I don't know how to run a benchmark, but if you tell me how, i'll do it.

derekn · Sep 16, 2006, 12:02 AM

Here are some benchmarks of a few games that barefeats ran, well me too. LOL They weren't sure when their card was going to arrive (date had slipped to September 25th) so they called for volunteers to run some benchmarks, then the card arrived. They still wanted some 2.66Ghz macPRo benchmarks though.

http://www.barefeats.com/quad10.html

I couldn't believe how fast Doom 3 ran, even at 1680x1050. I got 85 on the first run and 88 on the second.

Chuckit · Sep 16, 2006, 12:28 AM

Just turn everything up and record the FPS. That's a test if ever there was one.