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 Notebooks > Lets get some benchmarks!!!

Lets get some benchmarks!!!
Thread Tools
claughery
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 03:03 PM
 
Hey...
I know that all of you are starting to get your new powerbooks by now...
Me, I am glad that I decided to wait on the superdrive :-)
Anyways... I know that there are some pretty good benchmark apps out there... I would like to see some of you go get "xbench" at www.versiontracker.com...
Post your results if you could!!! We will be the first to have the 1ghz and 867mhz Titanium benches!!! HOW COOL!!!
Dual 1.8 G5, 23" cinema oldschool, PB 1.5 ghz 12" SD, iBook 1.07 Ghz, mac mini 1.42, iPod mini, iPod photo 40gb, SE K700i
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 03:42 PM
 
Results 106.32
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.2
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [1000 MHz]
CPU Test 118.00
GCD Recursion 106.31 4.15 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 138.60 119.94 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 113.38 585.76 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 113.69 5.11 Mops/sec
Thread Test 86.14
Computation 64.66 520.93 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 126.21 399.21 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 67.54 847.82 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 114.83
System 123.67
Allocate 124.26 65.36 Kalloc/sec
Fill 184.48 1057.90 MB/sec
Copy 62.27 373.63 MB/sec
Stream 105.99
Copy 105.08 420.32 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 105.38 421.51 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 109.40 437.62 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 104.09 416.38 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 100.55
Line 126.47 3.22 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 68.87 4.84 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 95.10 2.19 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 113.34 1.23 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 98.97 1.67 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 105.79
Elements 105.79 33.85 refresh/sec
Disk Test 52.68
Sequential 50.64
Uncached Sequential Write 49.12 21.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 52.15 22.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 54.73
Uncached Random Write 51.67 12.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 57.78 11.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:04 PM
 
Uncached Random Write 51.67 12.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 57.78 11.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Uncached Sequential Write 49.12 21.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 52.15 22.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Hmmm... IF these numbers are accurate, then that's not too shabby. Ie. Above average and maybe even comparable to the IBM 60GH 5400 rpm drive. It's still nowhere near as fast as the well-known IBM 40GNX 5400 rpm drive though. OTOH, the Fujitsu should use less power than both these IBM drives, IF the Fujitsu specs are to be trusted.

IF these number hold up, then Apple made a good decision to go with them.

A lot of IFs I know.

Here are some benches of laptop drives from Barefeats. They used QuickBench, and the drives were in a Firewire case though.
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:07 PM
 
The HD really isn't that bad in normal use so far, at all. I can obviously tell a difference between my other computer that has one of those 7200 RPM 8mb cache drives in it, but still...

I don't have journalling turned on yet. I can do that later and put the results here too.

Christina
Originally posted by Eug:

Hmmm... IF these numbers are accurate, then that's not too shabby. Ie. Above average and maybe even comparable to the IBM 60GH 5400 rpm drive. It's still nowhere near as fast as the well-known IBM 40GNX 5400 rpm drive though. OTOH, the Fujitsu should use less power than both these IBM drives, IF the Fujitsu specs are to be trusted.

IF these number hold up, then Apple made a good decision to go with them.

A lot of IFs I know.

Here are some benches of laptop drives from Barefeats. They used QuickBench, and the drives were in a Firewire case though.
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Christina:
Results 106.32
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.2
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [1000 MHz]
CPU Test 118.00
GCD Recursion 106.31 4.15 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 138.60 119.94 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 113.38 585.76 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 113.69 5.11 Mops/sec
Thread Test 86.14
Computation 64.66 520.93 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 126.21 399.21 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 67.54 847.82 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 114.83
System 123.67
Allocate 124.26 65.36 Kalloc/sec
Fill 184.48 1057.90 MB/sec
Copy 62.27 373.63 MB/sec
Stream 105.99
Copy 105.08 420.32 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 105.38 421.51 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 109.40 437.62 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 104.09 416.38 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 100.55
Line 126.47 3.22 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 68.87 4.84 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 95.10 2.19 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 113.34 1.23 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 98.97 1.67 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 105.79
Elements 105.79 33.85 refresh/sec
Disk Test 52.68
Sequential 50.64
Uncached Sequential Write 49.12 21.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 52.15 22.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 54.73
Uncached Random Write 51.67 12.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 57.78 11.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
anyone got xbench results from the 800 for a side by side comparison??
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Christina:
The HD really isn't that bad in normal use so far, at all. I can obviously tell a difference between my other computer that has one of those 7200 RPM 8mb cache drives in it, but still...

I don't have journalling turned on yet. I can do that later and put the results here too.

Christina
If you turn that on, it is going to decrease the performance of your drive.. just thought you might want to know that..
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:38 PM
 
it's not exactly a huge hit, check out www.macslash.org.

Anyway, it's a simple command switch to turn it back off if you don't like it. :-)

(yes, I'm a geek)
Originally posted by jhunt5247:


If you turn that on, it is going to decrease the performance of your drive.. just thought you might want to know that..
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 04:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Christina:
it's not exactly a huge hit, check out www.macslash.org.

Anyway, it's a simple command switch to turn it back off if you don't like it. :-)

(yes, I'm a geek)
As a geek you should know that any performance decrease is HUGE.
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 05:05 PM
 
LOL, ok. Anyway, I'll post some benches w/that at some point, and turn off again later if I wish.

Originally posted by jhunt5247:


As a geek you should know that any performance decrease is HUGE.
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
arekkusu
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 05:14 PM
 
Originally posted by jhunt5247:


anyone got xbench results from the 800 for a side by side comparison??
Here's my Ti800 for comparison. I was running PTHCPUMonitor, Net Monitor, and an idle Terminal. The original poster doesn't mention what processes he had running, keep in mind these scores all change +- a few percent across sequential runs.

My machine has the 5400 60gig drive, BTW.


Results 83.52
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.1
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [800 MHz]
CPU Test 105.29
GCD Recursion 84.21 3.29 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 120.10 103.92 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 132.27 682.77 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 84.59 3.80 Mops/sec
Thread Test 73.31
Computation 51.12 411.82 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 113.32 358.43 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 55.51 696.74 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 107.56
System 101.62
Allocate 93.71 49.30 Kalloc/sec
Fill 151.31 867.65 MB/sec
Copy 59.83 358.99 MB/sec
Stream 113.50
Copy 110.22 440.89 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 110.89 443.56 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 120.45 481.80 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 112.46 449.82 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 88.58
Line 109.28 2.78 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 67.88 4.78 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 89.48 2.06 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 95.26 1.04 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 80.99 1.36 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 89.15
Elements 89.15 28.53 refresh/sec
Disk Test 37.20
Sequential 31.22
Uncached Sequential Write 30.66 13.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 31.77 13.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 43.18
Uncached Random Write 37.97 8.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 48.38 9.72 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 05:32 PM
 
Uncached Sequential Write 30.66 13.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 31.77 13.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Uncached Random Write 37.97 8.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 48.38 9.72 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Hmmmm... Assuming that's the IBM 60GH, one would expect much better performance. I wonder how much of this is because of potential unreliability of the program.

Overall the numbers seem to jive though, if one includes all the benches. The Ti 1 GHz scores 106, and the Ti 800 scores 84.

The original poster doesn't mention what processes he had running
The original poster is a she.
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 05:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Hmmmm... Assuming that's the IBM 60GH, one would expect much better performance. I wonder how much of this is because of potential unreliability of the program.

Overall the numbers seem to jive though, if one includes all the benches. The Ti 1 GHz scores 106, and the Ti 800 scores 84.

The original poster is a she.
I will be sure to run that benchmark with the stock drive in, and then again with the 40GNX -- that should be interesting..
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 06:08 PM
 
First, I'm a girl. Not met a guy called Christina, yet, either.

As for processes. I just have whatever is running out of the box. I didn't have any background apps going. OH, but I did have SSH and FTP turned on.

Other than that, I've copied, moved, and deleted probably 20gb of files today, so maybe some fragmentation even though it's a new install.

Christina
Originally posted by arekkusu:


Here's my Ti800 for comparison. I was running PTHCPUMonitor, Net Monitor, and an idle Terminal. The original poster doesn't mention what processes he had running, keep in mind these scores all change +- a few percent across sequential runs.

My machine has the 5400 60gig drive, BTW.


Results 83.52
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.1
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [800 MHz]
CPU Test 105.29
GCD Recursion 84.21 3.29 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 120.10 103.92 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 132.27 682.77 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 84.59 3.80 Mops/sec
Thread Test 73.31
Computation 51.12 411.82 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 113.32 358.43 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 55.51 696.74 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 107.56
System 101.62
Allocate 93.71 49.30 Kalloc/sec
Fill 151.31 867.65 MB/sec
Copy 59.83 358.99 MB/sec
Stream 113.50
Copy 110.22 440.89 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 110.89 443.56 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 120.45 481.80 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 112.46 449.82 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 88.58
Line 109.28 2.78 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 67.88 4.78 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 89.48 2.06 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 95.26 1.04 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 80.99 1.36 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 89.15
Elements 89.15 28.53 refresh/sec
Disk Test 37.20
Sequential 31.22
Uncached Sequential Write 30.66 13.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 31.77 13.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 43.18
Uncached Random Write 37.97 8.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 48.38 9.72 MB/sec [256K blocks]
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 06:35 PM
 
Here is a bench I found of a B/W G3 400 PowerMac (not PowerBook).

     
pbarton
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 08:08 PM
 
Here are the Xbench results for a Ti 867 with filesharing and Airport turned on:

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

Results 89.10
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.2
Physical RAM 768 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [867 MHz]
CPU Test 114.79
GCD Recursion 92.73 3.62 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 128.25 110.98 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 134.54 694.47 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 103.62 4.65 Mops/sec
Thread Test 81.43
Computation 56.35 454.00 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 128.21 405.53 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 59.73 749.71 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 112.95
System 124.15
Allocate 107.23 56.41 Kalloc/sec
Fill 206.79 1185.79 MB/sec
Copy 58.43 350.60 MB/sec
Stream 101.76
Copy 100.96 403.84 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 102.12 408.48 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 103.97 415.89 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 99.98 399.93 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 87.78
Line 93.42 2.38 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 67.87 4.77 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 88.69 2.04 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 100.50 1.09 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 88.41 1.49 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 92.44
Elements 92.44 29.58 refresh/sec
Disk Test 45.22
Sequential 41.69
Uncached Sequential Write 41.03 18.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 42.35 18.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 48.74
Uncached Random Write 45.61 10.72 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 51.87 10.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]

******************
Just installed a boatload of software, so I'm sure the HDD is severely fragmented. That said, the "user experience" of the 4200rpm drive is amazing. There does not appear to be a slowdown, and I use Photoshop 7 on this puppy all day long.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 08:42 PM
 
So here is the XBench standard configuration (normalized to 100):
Code:
Model: PowerMac G4 (version 2.1) Machine speed: 800 MHz DP G4 (QuickSilver) Bus speed: 133 MHz L2 cache: 256k (times 2) L3 cache: 2MB (times 2) Boot ROM: 4.2.5f1 Memory: 1.12 GB Operating System: 10.2 Disk Tested: Western Digital Caviar 120GB (WD1200JB - Special Edition) running on on-board ATA-100 Graphics Card: GeForce2 MX
For what it's worth, here are my results on an iBook 600 with 640 RAM, Airport on, Rage Mobility 128 8 MB, Toshiba MK2016 GAP 20 GB hard drive:

Code:
Results 47.18 System Info Xbench Version 1.0b2 System Version 10.2.2 Physical RAM 640 MB Processor PowerPC,750@0 [600 MHz] CPU Test 70.74 GCD Recursion 52.50 2.05 Mops/sec Floating Point Basic 71.81 62.14 Mflop/sec Floating Point Library 87.92 3.95 Mops/sec Thread Test 42.98 Computation 37.17 299.44 Kops/sec, 4 threads Memory Contention 33.42 105.70 MB/sec, 2 threads Lock Contention 58.35 732.45 Klocks/sec, 4 threads Memory Test 42.14 System 45.83 Allocate 101.91 53.61 Kalloc/sec Fill 23.35 133.92 MB/sec Copy 12.22 73.30 MB/sec Stream 38.46 Copy 38.29 153.16 MB/sec Scale 38.22 152.87 MB/sec Add 38.79 155.17 MB/sec Triad 38.54 154.17 MB/sec Quartz Graphics Test 51.74 Line 50.78 1.29 Klines/sec [50% alpha] Rectangle 58.44 4.11 Krects/sec [50% alpha] Circle 59.51 1.37 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] Bezier 58.05 630.75 beziers/sec [50% alpha] Text 31.95 538.02 chars/sec User Interface Test 43.25 Elements 43.25 13.84 refresh/sec Disk Test 32.21 Sequential 28.33 Uncached Sequential Write 27.94 12.38 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Read 28.72 12.40 MB/sec [256K blocks] Random 36.09 Uncached Random Write 33.17 7.80 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Random Read 39.01 7.84 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Repeating the test gives similar results whether or not I set the resolution lower. Note the relatively poor hard disk performance. Note also that my Toshiba scores about 30 vs the standard setup. Christina's Fujitsu scores about 50.

I'm starting to think there might be something to this Fujitsu drive. Hmmm...
     
jmp998
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 09:33 PM
 
I posted this to the "Quick review of new powerbook" thread yesterday (end of first page) but that thread seems to have fallen by the wayside. Summary: The Fujitsu MHS 4200 has a (max) transfer rate of 38.1 MB/s vs 32.75MB/s for the IBM travelstar 60GH. I don't know much about hard drives, but based on that it sounds pretty fast to me (probably not as fast as the 8 and 16MB cache models though). So unless there's something funny going on I would expect this Fujitsu drive to benchmark pretty well.

"An earlier post indicated that the drive in the new powerbooks is a fujitsu. According to this article linked below, the maximum transfer rate for the Fujitsu MHS 4200 is 38.1 MB per second (media density is very high at 53.2 gigabits per square inch):

http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/ya...,102947,00.asp
Spec sheet (doesn't list transfer rate): http://www.fcpa.fujitsu.com/download...-datasheet.pdf


According to the spec sheet listed below, the IBM 60GH (the 60GB model available build-to-order in the previous Ti) has a maximum transfer rate of 262 Mbits/sec and areal density of 28 gigabits per square inch (I think this means 262/8=32.75MB/sec):

T60gh40gn_ds.PDF (downloadable from IBM's site)

So if I understand this correctly, the max transfer rate of the new standard 60GB drive on the new powerbooks is actually ~5MB/sec faster than the old, build-to-order-and-pay-a-couple-hundred-bucks-extra drive available in the 667/800 Ti. This is due to the fact that although the drive spins slower, the areal density is much higher so for the same amount of disk spin the heads pass over many more blocks."

Edit: Fixed broken URL's
( Last edited by jmp998; Nov 13, 2002 at 09:40 PM. )
     
gg1234
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 09:49 PM
 
Latency would be a little higher on the lower RPM drive (~5mS vs ~7mS) but the Fujitsu has better shock and vibration resistance (in addition to lower power consumption) when compared to the 40GNX. I think I'll stick with the 60Gig Fujitsu for the time being.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 09:52 PM
 
Originally posted by jmp998:
I posted this to the "Quick review of new powerbook" thread yesterday (end of first page) but that thread seems to have fallen by the wayside. Summary: The Fujitsu MHS 4200 has a (max) transfer rate of 38.1 MB/s vs 32.75MB/s for the IBM travelstar 60GH. I don't know much about hard drives, but based on that it sounds pretty fast to me (probably not as fast as the 8 and 16MB cache models though). So unless there's something funny going on I would expect this Fujitsu drive to benchmark pretty well.
Yeah, I remember your post. However, the article was essentially a rehashed Fujitsu press release, and thus I had my doubts.

However, it's looking like you may be right. Of course, Fujitsu's 38 MB/s number is very optimistic, but it does seem their design works well.
     
UnixMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 33-37-22.350N / 111-54-37.920W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 10:59 PM
 
Here are the results of my duel 500 for reference. Why doesn't someone post their duel 1.25Gig for fun too....

Results 73.73
System Info
Xbench Version 1.0b2
System Version 10.2.2
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Processor PowerPC,G4@0 [500 MHz]
Processor PowerPC,G4@1 [500 MHz]
CPU Test 89.05
GCD Recursion 54.56 2.13 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 73.78 63.84 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 132.94 686.30 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 94.94 4.26 Mops/sec
Thread Test 67.16
Computation 63.54 511.92 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Memory Contention 52.36 165.60 MB/sec, 2 threads
Lock Contention 85.57 1.07 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 82.34
System 82.12
Allocate 96.40 50.71 Kalloc/sec
Fill 109.65 628.77 MB/sec
Copy 40.32 241.89 MB/sec
Stream 82.56
Copy 81.07 324.29 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 80.78 323.10 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 84.95 339.79 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 83.44 333.77 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 69.16
Line 68.81 1.75 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 68.96 4.85 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 66.59 1.53 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 70.99 771.34 beziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 70.46 1.19 Kchars/sec
User Interface Test 71.29
Elements 71.29 22.81 refresh/sec
Disk Test 63.41
Sequential 55.43
Uncached Sequential Write 50.82 22.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 60.04 25.94 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 71.38
Uncached Random Write 64.93 15.26 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 77.84 15.64 MB/sec [256K blocks]

sorry for the mess....
Mac Pro 3.0, ATI 5770 1GB VRAM, 10GB, 2xVelociraptor boot RAID, 4.5TB RAID0 storage, 30" & 20" Apple displays.
2 x Macbook Pro's 17" 3.06 4 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State drives
iMac 17" Core Duo 1GB RAM, & 2 iPhones 8GB, and a Nano in a pear tree!
Apple user since 1981
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:17 PM
 
UnixMac, which 40 GB IBM Desktar(s) do you use?

By the way everyone, the "code" vB Code might make it a little bit easier to read.
     
UnixMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 33-37-22.350N / 111-54-37.920W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:27 PM
 
2 X Deskstar 40GV...(I'm pretty sure, 5400RPM)

BTW, How do you (anyone) explain how my system scored 109% on the memory fill (628 Mb/Sec) AND 133% (or 686 Mflop/sec) in the AltiVec Basic.... Should a Duel 800 with 2MB L3 smoke me in all events?

Does anyone know the validity of this Xbench?
Mac Pro 3.0, ATI 5770 1GB VRAM, 10GB, 2xVelociraptor boot RAID, 4.5TB RAID0 storage, 30" & 20" Apple displays.
2 x Macbook Pro's 17" 3.06 4 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State drives
iMac 17" Core Duo 1GB RAM, & 2 iPhones 8GB, and a Nano in a pear tree!
Apple user since 1981
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
[I'm starting to think there might be something to this Fujitsu drive. Hmmm... [/B]
Well it looks like I might be getting my powerbook tomorrow. As I stated, I will run the test first with the stock drive, then with the 40GNX. You can bet your ass though, if the Fujitsu is faster (no way that is going to be possible) I would stick it right back in.

This is NOT going to be the case though. I predict a BIG blow out, anyone want to take bets on this?
     
UnixMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 33-37-22.350N / 111-54-37.920W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:51 PM
 
lets say the IBM is 10% faster, will that be a reason to deal with more heat and 20Gig less storage though? What would you do then?
Mac Pro 3.0, ATI 5770 1GB VRAM, 10GB, 2xVelociraptor boot RAID, 4.5TB RAID0 storage, 30" & 20" Apple displays.
2 x Macbook Pro's 17" 3.06 4 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State drives
iMac 17" Core Duo 1GB RAM, & 2 iPhones 8GB, and a Nano in a pear tree!
Apple user since 1981
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:54 PM
 
Originally posted by UnixMac:
lets say the IBM is 10% faster, will that be a reason to deal with more heat and 20Gig less storage though? What would you do then?
I have compared the specs on the two drives. I don't believe it is going to cause that much more heat. Loss of 20gigs? My previous desktop was 40, and I had 12 gigs still free. I will take the speed now, and then in a couple of months upgrade to a 60+ that runs just as fast. That is what I would do.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2002, 11:56 PM
 
Originally posted by UnixMac:
2 X Deskstar 40GV...(I'm pretty sure, 5400RPM)

BTW, How do you (anyone) explain how my system scored 109% on the memory fill (628 Mb/Sec) AND 133% (or 686 Mflop/sec) in the AltiVec Basic.... Should a Duel 800 with 2MB L3 smoke me in all events?

Does anyone know the validity of this Xbench?
Well, it looks like your results make sense when compared to the 1 GHz TiBooks. The 800 Dually Standard doesn't seem accurate. Let's just ignore that.

Specs of IBM Deskstar 40 GV:
Buffer: 512 KB
RPM: 5400
Sustained Read: 32 MB/s

Your results do make sense:
Uncached Sequential Write 50.82 22.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 60.04 25.94 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Uncached Random Write 64.93 15.26 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 77.84 15.64 MB/sec [256K blocks]

jhunt5247, I predict the 40 GNX will be about 15% faster. A nice boost, but not enough for me to upgrade (and lose 20 GB in my case).
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:

jhunt5247
, I predict the 40 GNX will be about 15% faster. A nice boost, but not enough for me to upgrade (and lose 20 GB in my case). [/B]
Time will tell You are going to most likely be correct with your prediction. I do feel bad though about losing the 20GB, but I can live with that for now. By the time I consume the 40GB drive, a faster drive will be out.

Either way, I am more excited just to see what it really is. I know you are too.
     
UnixMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 33-37-22.350N / 111-54-37.920W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:17 AM
 
Christina, did your machine come with X.2.2 on it? or did you do the software update?
Mac Pro 3.0, ATI 5770 1GB VRAM, 10GB, 2xVelociraptor boot RAID, 4.5TB RAID0 storage, 30" & 20" Apple displays.
2 x Macbook Pro's 17" 3.06 4 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State drives
iMac 17" Core Duo 1GB RAM, & 2 iPhones 8GB, and a Nano in a pear tree!
Apple user since 1981
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:55 AM
 
OK, for kicks I decided to Xbench my Firewire DVD-RAM/-R burner.

Panasonic LF-D311 specs:
DVD-RAM write: 1X DVD = 1385 KB/s (including verification)
DVD-RAM read: 2X DVD = 2770 KB/s
Average seek: 75 ms
Buffer: 1 MB

Code:
Disk Test 4.39 Sequential 4.27 Uncached Sequential Write 2.55 1.13 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Read 6.00 2.59 MB/sec [256K blocks] Random 4.50 Uncached Random Write 2.57 0.60 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Random Read 6.44 1.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
The DVD-RAM discs were blank, and were formatted to HFS+. As you can see, Xbench was basically right on for both sequential read and write. The low random read/write times are not unexpected, considering this is an optical drive, even if the seek time of 75 ms is better than average.

(By the way, it's great having these double-sided 9.4 GB DVD-RAM discs. Full zip-disk-like drag-n-drop access, but with FAT32 or HFS+ file systems and 4.7 GB per side. And the discs come preformatted when you buy them so Disk Utility only takes about 15 seconds to "format" them.)
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 01:23 AM
 
10.2.1. First thing it did (like always happens), is run software update. I had to get Quicktime 6.02 and 10.2.2.

Christina
Originally posted by UnixMac:
Christina, did your machine come with X.2.2 on it? or did you do the software update?
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
workerbee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 07:11 AM
 
Originally posted by jhunt5247:


I will be sure to run that benchmark with the stock drive in, and then again with the 40GNX -- that should be interesting..
TiBook 800 with 1 week old IBM Travelstar 40 GNX:

Disk Test 53.50
Sequential 45.89
Uncached Sequential Write 46.90 20.78 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 44.89 19.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 61.10
Uncached Random Write 62.49 14.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 59.71 12.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
MBP 15" 2.33GHz C2D 3GB 2*23" ACD
     
domymel
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 08:22 AM
 
To the people that already own one of the new books:
How is the heat? In another poste someone was saying that on the 1 Gig machines the fans are constantly running. If this is so, are they loud compared to the DVI�s?
I remember that one could downscale the processor on the last 800 DVI�s. Is that still possible with the new ones?
I know that these questions don�t really fit in that categora but I didn�t wanna open a hole new threat.
Thanks in advance
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 08:41 AM
 
Originally posted by workerbee:

TiBook 800 with 1 week old IBM Travelstar 40 GNX:
Interesting. Comparable sequential transfers (using an average of Christina's and pbarton's scores), but faster random transfers than the Fujitsu based on these admittedly limited data.

The latter is fully expected because of the lower latency, but I would have thought that the sequential transfers would still have been a bit faster with the GNX. Mind you, the random speeds are much more important for every day use. But even then, the Fujitsu is nothing to sneeze at.

Sequential write: GNX is 4% faster (but one bench has the Fujitsu faster)
Sequential read: GNX is 5% SLOWER
Average sequential read/write: GNX = Fujitsu

Random write: GNX is 28%
Random reads: GNX is 6%
Average random read/write: GNX is about 17% faster than the Fujitsu.

This is proving VERY interesting. This is especially true, because the Fujitsu is being compared to what is supposed to be the fastest laptop drive on the planet I believe. (Note that these are all uncached speeds though. The GNX has an 8 MB cache, whereas the Fujitsu has a 2 MB cache. Thus, in real world testing the GNX may have an additional edge.)
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 10:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:


This is proving VERY interesting. This is especially true, because the Fujitsu is being compared to what is supposed to be the fastest laptop drive on the planet I believe. (Note that these are all uncached speeds though. The GNX has an 8 MB cache, whereas the Fujitsu has a 2 MB cache. Thus, in real world testing the GNX may have an additional edge.)
One thing to keep in mind though, is that GNX benchmark was from a 800 machine. It will be faster in he 1ghz machine. Hell maybe someone already out there has put a GNX in a 1ghz already?

However, yes the Fujitsu is holding her own.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 10:17 AM
 
Originally posted by jhunt5247:


One thing to keep in mind though, is that GNX benchmark was from a 800 machine. It will be faster in he 1ghz machine. Hell maybe someone already out there has put a GNX in a 1ghz already?

However, yes the Fujitsu is holding her own.
The CPU speed *should* not make a significant difference. The drive itself is the limiting factor. Mind you, pbarton's 867 did score lower than Christina's 1 GHz, so I guess we'll have to wait for some more numbers.

The other thing I forgot to mention earlier is that if these numbers hold up, the Fujitsu is the fastest shipping 60 GB notebook drive today, despite being only 4200 rpm.
     
ciwib
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 11:17 AM
 
Originally posted by domymel:
To the people that already own one of the new books:
How is the heat? In another poste someone was saying that on the 1 Gig machines the fans are constantly running. If this is so, are they loud compared to the DVI�s?
I remember that one could downscale the processor on the last 800 DVI�s. Is that still possible with the new ones?
I know that these questions don�t really fit in that categora but I didn�t wanna open a hole new threat.
Thanks in advance
I don't have a DVI PB, but I have my Non-DVI PB 667 and my new 1Ghz PB is much cooler. Normally fan is off but when it does kick in it is much quieter. Last night I played Medal of Honor and it got fairly warm. My PB 667 would get much hotter when game playing.
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 11:18 AM
 
My 1GHz's fan is not always running, although it's pretty easy to get it to turn on. I don't find the sound loud enough to bother me at all.

As for heat. Well, it never gets too hot for bare legs so far. Dunno about downscaling the CPU...

Christina
Originally posted by domymel:
To the people that already own one of the new books:
How is the heat? In another poste someone was saying that on the 1 Gig machines the fans are constantly running. If this is so, are they loud compared to the DVI�s?
I remember that one could downscale the processor on the last 800 DVI�s. Is that still possible with the new ones?
I know that these questions don�t really fit in that categora but I didn�t wanna open a hole new threat.
Thanks in advance
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
crispinwilliams
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: geneva, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 11:34 AM
 
There is a article
http://www.macsonly.com/index.html#pb867
which concludes that the new 867 MHz mac is slower that the previous 800 MHz model .. can anyone confirm/deny such measurements?
     
Christina
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:08 PM
 
Sounds shady. Anyone post an 867 xbench here yet?

One -dumb- difference is the 867 has 256mb of ram, and the 800 has 768. How is that valid, especially under OS X? It's definitely not professional benchmarking to do such a comparison...

Christina
Originally posted by crispinwilliams:
There is a article
http://www.macsonly.com/index.html#pb867
which concludes that the new 867 MHz mac is slower that the previous 800 MHz model .. can anyone confirm/deny such measurements?
TiBook - 1GHz, 1GBB, 60GB HD, Combo Drive
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:24 PM
 
Originally posted by crispinwilliams:
There is a article
http://www.macsonly.com/index.html#pb867
which concludes that the new 867 MHz mac is slower that the previous 800 MHz model .. can anyone confirm/deny such measurements?
This benchmark is a farce. Different build's of OS/X.
     
workerbee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:

This is proving VERY interesting. This is especially true, because the Fujitsu is being compared to what is supposed to be the fastest laptop drive on the planet I believe. (Note that these are all uncached speeds though. The GNX has an 8 MB cache, whereas the Fujitsu has a 2 MB cache. Thus, in real world testing the GNX may have an additional edge.)
Maybe you'd be interested in this as well: the german mag Macwelt had a test of 2.5" drives recently, where the IBM GNX was the fastest drive in real-world applications (Finder I believe). However the Toshiba GAX drive (16MB cache, 5400 RPM) was faster in simple throughput. Also the Toshibas performance degraded much less when the disk was getting full, whereas the IBM got really slow. I think I have the graphs somewhere if you want 'em.

Well, seeing that the difference are really quite minuscule anyway, any just having read the latest Mac vs. PC test in digital video editing , I think all of these numbers really do not amount to that much.

I certainly felt no difference whatsoever going from the old 4200 RPM IBM GN to the IBM GNX.
MBP 15" 2.33GHz C2D 3GB 2*23" ACD
     
flatcatch
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Silicon Valley
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:49 PM
 
By request of Eug, tests of my new iBook 800 with 30GB 'Toshiba MK3018GAS':

Code:
Disk Test 48.82 Sequential 47.63 Uncached Sequential Write 46.40 20.56 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Read 48.86 21.11 MB/sec [256K blocks] Random 50.01 Uncached Random Write 45.97 10.81 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Random Read 54.06 10.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Keep the rubber side down!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 12:50 PM
 
Thanks, flatcatch. It seems it does well with sequentials, but not quite as well with the randoms.
Originally posted by workerbee:

Maybe you'd be interested in this as well: the german mag Macwelt had a test of 2.5" drives recently, where the IBM GNX was the fastest drive in real-world applications (Finder I believe). However the Toshiba GAX drive (16MB cache, 5400 RPM) was faster in simple throughput. Also the Toshibas performance degraded much less when the disk was getting full, whereas the IBM got really slow. I think I have the graphs somewhere if you want 'em.

Well, seeing that the difference are really quite minuscule anyway, any just having read the latest Mac vs. PC test in digital video editing , I think all of these numbers really do not amount to that much.

I certainly felt no difference whatsoever going from the old 4200 RPM IBM GN to the IBM GNX.
Well, I can tell you that my Toshiba MK2016GAP drive feels slow, and I've tried other laptops which have noticeably faster disk access.

For basic app launching on a not-too-fragmented disc, my Toshiba is fine, but for random read/writes type stuff it definitely feels sluggish. I can't directly compare to a GAS Toshiba or a GAX Toshiba though, nor can I compare against the Fujitsu. We shall see I guess when I get my TiBook.

----

As for the DV benchmarks, I think it does provide useful information. If you're gonna be doing one type of number crunching with one specific app a lot, it may make sense to get the PC which flies at that task, for less moolah. However, it may not apply to overall usability. Plus I dunno how much Adobe apps make use of SMP. My understanding is not much in general.
( Last edited by Eug; Nov 14, 2002 at 12:56 PM. )
     
workerbee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 01:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
As for the DV benchmarks, I think it does provide useful information. If you're gonna be doing one type of number crunching with one specific app a lot, it may make sense to get the PC which flies at that task, for less moolah. However, it may not apply to overall usability. Plus I dunno how much Adobe apps make use of SMP. My understanding is not much in general.
:: Off-topic ::

What bothers me most about those tests is not the sheer speed of the Dell -- that was to be expected, with the architecture of the latest Intels so much more advanced that what Powermacs have, and with Quartz-less XP.
What I really don't like hearing is that the Dells are whisper-quiet! I once bought a PowerMac 867 and sold it again after one week, it was so loud. The current models supposedly are even worse. And here comes Dell, generally ridiculed on this board for its build quality, and shows real attention to detail, and customer-centric thinking!
MBP 15" 2.33GHz C2D 3GB 2*23" ACD
     
KidRed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 01:46 PM
 
Originally posted by domymel:
To the people that already own one of the new books:
How is the heat? In another poste someone was saying that on the 1 Gig machines the fans are constantly running. If this is so, are they loud compared to the DVI�s?
I remember that one could downscale the processor on the last 800 DVI�s. Is that still possible with the new ones?
I know that these questions don�t really fit in that categora but I didn�t wanna open a hole new threat.
Thanks in advance
I haven't used it for 5 hours straight while on my lap, but so far, I'd say it's 'warm'. As for sound, what sound? I'd have to be locked up in an airtight room to hear this puppy.
All Your Signature Are Belong To Us!
     
claughery  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 01:50 PM
 
does anybody else have a ti 1ghz that they are gonna use xbench on???
Dual 1.8 G5, 23" cinema oldschool, PB 1.5 ghz 12" SD, iBook 1.07 Ghz, mac mini 1.42, iPod mini, iPod photo 40gb, SE K700i
     
dajay
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: berlin
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 02:09 PM
 
what drive is in the 867 mhz ti? also a fujitsu?

hmm, seems like i'm the only one getting the 867
     
JayTi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: You don't care.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 03:38 PM
 
I think somebody wanted me to post the bench of mine with 60GB 5400 HD, so here are just those results

Uncached Random Write 53.91 13.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 61.46 12.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Uncached Sequential Write 55.12 25.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 60.15 29.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Am I still here?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by JayTi:
I think somebody wanted me to post the bench of mine with 60GB 5400 HD, so here are just those results

Uncached Random Write 53.91 13.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Random Read 61.46 12.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Uncached Sequential Write 55.12 25.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Sequential Read 60.15 29.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Thanks JayTi. I assume it's the IBM 60GH?

Those are some pretty impressive sequential read/write numbers. The random is pretty good too. These are VERY different from arekkusu's numbers from (apparently) the same drive.
Code:
Uncached Random Write 37.97 8.93 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Random Read 48.38 9.72 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Write 30.66 13.59 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Read 31.77 13.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
I think what I'll do is when I get my TiBook I'll bench the thing (with the Fujitsu) right away before the drive gets too fragmented.

And of jhunt said he'll do the test with both the IBM GNX and the Fujitsu.
( Last edited by Eug; Nov 14, 2002 at 03:56 PM. )
     
jhunt5247
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: north america
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2002, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:

Thanks JayTi. I assume it's the IBM 60GH?

Those are some pretty impressive sequential read/write numbers. The random is pretty good too. These are VERY different from arekkusu's numbers from (apparently) the same drive.
Code:
Uncached Random Write 37.97 8.93 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Random Read 48.38 9.72 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Write 30.66 13.59 MB/sec [256K blocks] Uncached Sequential Read 31.77 13.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
I think what I'll do is when I get my TiBook I'll bench the thing (with the Fujitsu) right away before the drive gets too fragmented.

And of jhunt said he'll do the test with both the IBM GNX and the Fujitsu.
Yep, this is a little confusing. My Plan is to boot it up, and install 10.2.2 update, download xbench and run the benchmark. Install 40GNX, use recovery disk, do 10.2.2 and run xbench on the GNX.

Hopefully I will be able to do this tonight. Doesn't seem like this is going to be the case though. However, I have taken a PTO day for tomorrow so I don't miss my package
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,