Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · Apr 11, 2006, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

People are quick to blame Apple but apparently Maxon was responsible for this problem. The consequence however is that older computers will see lower OpenGL scores since Cinebench has removed deprecate code.

Which cards does that apply to?

Big Mac · Apr 12, 2006, 09:16 PM

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

Tester: Big Mac

Processor: Power Mac G5 DP
MHz: 2000
Number of CPUs: 2
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card : ATI 9800XT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 311 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 557 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D): 304 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 874 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 1643 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.41

lolo1 · Apr 12, 2006, 10:11 PM

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

Tester : x-mac

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2.5 GHz dual
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS 10.4.6

Graphics Card : GeForce 6800 Ultra
Resolution : 1920X1200
Color Depth : millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 381 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 687 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.80

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 378 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1236 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2830 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.48

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

rjayf98 · Apr 14, 2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

People are quick to blame Apple but apparently Maxon was responsible for this problem. The consequence however is that older computers will see lower OpenGL scores since Cinebench has removed deprecate code.

But with harrisjamieh's tests, the version of Cinebench was the same, and the OSX version was different. The only variable was the OSX update, so I'd say that the "problem" was with OSX.

olePigeon · Apr 14, 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by jamil5454

If Apple really wanted to improve their marketshare, they'd spend more time on getting better video card performace (especially on the Intel Macs). My OpenGL hardware score almost matches CatOne's 7800 GT, which has twice the memory, 5x the pixel pipelines, double the system bandwidth, and roughly 6x the memory speed! With Apple now on Intel Macs, there's no excuse why we shouldn't have much better graphics performance. Come on ATI and Nvidia.

Maybe, but Apple really needs to polish up their OpenGL drivers. "Windows" and "Gaming" has been synonymous for years with competing companies offering better drivers than the other.

Apple hasn't had any competition or real reason since gaming was never really all there on the Mac platform. After installing Windows on a MacBook Pro, World of Warcraft ran twice as fast as the OS X version.

Now, that could be a number of different things, but I would imagine Apple's video drivers just aren't up to snuff.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 14, 2006, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by zany-ninja

But with harrisjamieh's tests, the version of Cinebench was the same, and the OSX version was different. The only variable was the OSX update, so I'd say that the "problem" was with OSX.

The version number for Cinebench hasn't changed (I don't know who's bright idea that was)...people commonly refer to the new version as "Cinebench 9.5 (April 7th release)".

Horsepoo!!! · 10:29 PM

dblpst

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 14, 2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Maybe, but Apple really needs to polish up their OpenGL drivers. "Windows" and "Gaming" has been synonymous for years with competing companies offering better drivers than the other.

Apple hasn't had any competition or real reason since gaming was never really all there on the Mac platform. After installing Windows on a MacBook Pro, World of Warcraft ran twice as fast as the OS X version.

Now, that could be a number of different things, but I would imagine Apple's video drivers just aren't up to snuff.

Negative. Apple's drivers are top notch. Cinebench confirms this as OpenGL tests under OS X outperform the OpenGL tests under Windows on the exact same hardware (using Boot Camp).

It's entirely possible that game developers are using the same code paths used under Windows which may adversly affect performance on OS X. There are also a number of other factors other than drivers or suboptimal code paths that may adversly affect graphics performance.

UT2k4 for Mac is about on par with UT2k4 for Windows. But as you've mentionned WoW and even Doom 3 have a disadvantage under OS X. But don't be so quick to blame Apple and its drivers...in some cases you may be right but in many cases you'd be wrong.

hookem2oo7 · Apr 14, 2006, 11:06 PM

CINEBENCH 9.5 ************************************************** **
Tester : hookem2oo7

Processor : iBook G4
MHz : 1.33Ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.6

Graphics Card : 9550 32MB
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32bit
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 133 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 140 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 430 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 903 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.43 ************************************************** ****************

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

Tester : hookem2oo7

Processor : Athlon 64 x2 (dual-core)
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win XP 32-bit

Graphics Card : Radeon x700 256mb
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32bit

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 366 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 678 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 401 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1684 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3995 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.97

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

rjayf98 · Apr 20, 2006, 05:38 PM

Maxon (guys behind cinebench) have announced they are releasing an update to Cinema4D in May - will be release R9.6 :

"Mac users will enjoy dramatic speed improvements immediately due to OpenGL optimizations. You willl be able to navigate your real-world projects 50%, or in some cases even 150% faster"

Click here for full press release.

Hope they release an updated cinebench soon as well! Then we'll see some real meaty OpenGL figures!

Eug Wanker · Apr 22, 2006, 02:00 AM

According to Maxon, the April 7 update serves to "bring OGL on Apple to about the same level as OGL on Windows," because it was "adapted to the latest Mac OSX OpenGL implementation".

MindFad · Apr 25, 2006, 01:33 PM

My stock MacBook Pro:

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

Tester: MindFad

Processor: Intel Core Duo
MHz: 2.0GHz
Number of CPUs: 2
Operating System: Mac OS X Tiger (10.4.6)

Graphics Card: ATI Radeon X1600 Mobile
Resolution: 1680x1050
Color Depth: Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 304 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 576 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 343 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1272 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2329 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.79

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

Eug Wanker · 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Cinebench UB is now out.

I don't have an Intel Mac, but for reference, an iMac G5 2.0 gets:

269: "Highest" Energy Saver setting
265: "Automatic" Energy Saver setting

The iMac Core Duo 2.0 should get over 500.

EDIT:

Intel Core Duo iMac 2.0: 566 (or 308 for a single core)

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

According to Maxon, the April 7 update serves to "bring OGL on Apple to about the same level as OGL on Windows," because it was "adapted to the latest Mac OSX OpenGL implementation".

Here's my brand spankin' new 13" MacBook, with the latest Cinebench 9.5.

Code:
CINEBENCH 9.5
****************************************************

Tester           : Eug

Processor        : Intel Core Duo
MHz              : 2.0 GHz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6

Graphics Card    : Intel GMA 950
Resolution       : 1280x800
Color Depth      : Millions

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

Rendering (Single   CPU): 307 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 578 CB-CPU 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88

Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 347 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1187 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1088 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 3.42

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

It looks like the April 7 update and/or OS X updates made a huge difference to GMA 950 OpenGL performance. Its "hardware" score is still a decrease compared to the software score, but it's roughly twice as fast as it was before for the "hardware" score of a Mac mini Core Duo 1.66. Nice to see. BTW, the scores are in the same ballpark as the previously posted Sony scores with Core Duo 1.83 and GMA 950, running Cinebench on Windows.

For comparison, here is my 20" iMac G5 2.0:

Code:
CINEBENCH 9.5
****************************************************

Tester           : Eug

Processor        : G5 970FX
MHz              : 2.0 GHz
Number of CPUs   : 1
Operating System : Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6

Graphics Card    : ATI Radeon 9600
Resolution       : 1680x1050
Color Depth      : Millions

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

Rendering (Single   CPU): 262 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU 


Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 275 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 859 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1825 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 6.64

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

andreas_g4 · May 25, 2006, 08:49 AM

I'll add my 1.83 GHz MacBook to Eug's 2.0 GHz results:

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

Tester : andreas_g4

Processor : Mac Book
MHz : 1830
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card : Intel GMA 950
Resolution : <1280x900>
Color Depth : <24bit>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 273 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 516 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 320 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1087 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1019 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.40

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

I'd never imagined to have such a fast laptop at that price point from Apple. Since I play near to zero, the machine is perfect for me!

Eug Wanker · 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

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

Tester : andreas_g4

Processor : Mac Book
MHz : 1830
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card : Intel GMA 950
Resolution : <1280x900>
Color Depth : <24bit>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 273 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 516 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 320 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1087 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1019 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.40

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

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7

CINEBENCH 9.5 ************************************************** **
Tester : hookem2oo7

Processor : iBook G4
MHz : 1.33Ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.6

Graphics Card : 9550 32MB
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32bit
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 133 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 140 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 430 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 903 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.43 ************************************************** ****************

It's interesting to see that a MacBook 1.83 with GMA 950 gets a better hardware OpenGL score than the iBook 1.33 with Radeon 9550 (especially since the GMA 950's hardware score is actually lower than its software score). (I'm assuming that both are using the latest Cinebench, from early April.)

So basically, because the MacBook's CPU is so fast that it can emulate hardware T&L faster than the iBook can use true hardware T&L, presumably because the iBook's G4 is just too damn slow to support that Radeon 9550 properly.

Time to change your name, andreas_g4?

andreas_g4 · May 25, 2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Time to change your name, andreas_g4?

Meh, I actually considered changing it at 2000 posts, but that seemed a bit pathetic to me. So I'll just remember the days when I was ahead of the curve with my 500 MHz Titanium…

Catfish_Man · May 25, 2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

So basically, because the MacBook's CPU is so fast that it can emulate hardware T&L faster than the iBook can use true hardware T&L, presumably because the iBook's G4 is just too damn slow to support that Radeon 9550 properly.

Do we know that Cinebench stresses vertex/T&L much?

Horsepoo!!! · May 25, 2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Do we know that Cinebench stresses vertex/T&L much?

I personally don't know for sure if Cinebench stresses vertex/T&L etc. but I know that games that do make heavy use of vertex and T&L score high on the MacBook than on the iBook much to the contrary of popular beliefs.

Eug Wanker · 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Do we know that Cinebench stresses vertex/T&L much?

I'm no coder, so I dunno how much it stresses it, but FWIW that is their OpenGL T&L test.

My comments were specifically referring to Cinebench's sub-bench of software OpenGL lighting vs. hardware OpenGL lighting. Anyways, this is what Maxon has to say about it:

OpenGL SW-L

This test-runs both scenes with the help of OpenGL. The lighting is handled by the CINEMA 4D's highly-optimized software algorithms. Shading and transformation is carried out by the graphics card.

OpenGL HW-L

These tests run entirely with the help of the graphics card's OpenGL accelerator. CINEMA 4D merely transfers the position of the light sources and geometry. Modern graphics cards will run this test much faster than the software-based algorithms.

So the difference here is hardware lighting.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I personally don't know for sure if Cinebench stresses vertex/T&L etc. but I know that games that do make heavy use of vertex and T&L score high on the MacBook than on the iBook much to the contrary of popular beliefs.

What games? And what do you mean by "score high"? The modern game benches I've seen have them as very slow on both the iBook and the MacBook. Even if say 13 fps is nearly a 20% improvement over say 11 fps, in both situations the game is still unplayable.

The iBook suffers from the poor CPU, and the MacBook suffers from the poor GPU.

dustinw · May 25, 2006, 10:02 PM

Results from my Macbook with 2 gigs of ram....

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

Tester : D. Wilson

Processor : Macbook (White)
MHz : 2.0 ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.6

Graphics Card : GMA 950
Resolution : 1280 x 800
Color Depth : millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 307 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 579 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 351 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1244 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1258 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.58

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

Eug Wanker · May 25, 2006, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by dustinw

Results from my Macbook with 2 gigs of ram....

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 351 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1244 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1258 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.58

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

Hmmm... Nicer software score, and your hardware score is actually very slightly higher.

Meanwhile, iBook 1 GHz = Ouch

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

Tester : Eug

Processor : iBook G4
MHz : 1.07 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card : Radeon 9200
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 109 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 117 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 352 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 457 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.91

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

thag-simmons · Jun 4, 2006, 01:26 AM

Radeon X800XT overclocked to 540 core, 540 memory:

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

Tester : thag

Processor : G5 dual 2.7
MHz : 2700
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X800XT 540/540
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 410 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 734 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 402 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1308 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3029 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.54

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

Colonel Panic · Jun 12, 2006, 10:26 PM

I ran the Cinebench 9.5 CPU tests on a MacBook, 2Ghz Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 80GB X partition, 20GB XP partition, default resolution

OS X 10.4.6: 306, 585
OS X 10.4.6: under Rosetta, 91, 169
Win XP, SP2: 285, 503

eddiecatflap · Jul 2, 2006, 03:05 PM

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

Tester : flappo

Processor : imac 20" dual core 2ghz
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.7

Graphics Card : radeon x1600 256
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 291 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 382 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.31

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 342 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1304 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2440 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.13

************************************************** **
is that any good ?

???

Cadaver · Jul 2, 2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

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

Tester : flappo

Processor : imac 20" dual core 2ghz
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.7

Graphics Card : radeon x1600 256
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 291 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 382 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.31

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 342 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1304 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2440 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.13

************************************************** **
is that any good ?

???

No, actually, something is wrong with your multiprocessor render score.
I have a 2.16GHz MacBook Pro, and my render scores are 332/single, 627/dual. Multiprocessor speed up is 1.89 for me.

All your other scores (OpenGL) seem to be reasonably appropriate.

eddiecatflap · Jul 2, 2006, 04:41 PM

maybe i should quit all other programs while running it ?

i'll have another go and report back !

eddiecatflap · Jul 2, 2006, 04:47 PM

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

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System :

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

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 308 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 577 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 356 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1359 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2543 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.14

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

owzat ?

eddiecatflap · Jul 2, 2006, 04:48 PM

has it been optimized for tiger / intel / 10.4.7 ?

we had some serious ( supposedly ) opengl upgrades in our last os u/grade

i was expecting more..?