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 > Benchmarks for new models? Please post.

Benchmarks for new models? Please post.
Thread Tools
michaelb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2003, 08:44 PM
 
(Apologies if this has been raised but I scanned the current topics and couldn't see one.)

A few people have begun getting new machines today. I wonder if you could post some benchmarks...

Although as a rule I hate benchmarks, the machines are similar enough here that it should be a fairly straightforward comparison.

Then with comparisons for the same benchmarks run on existing models we should be able to tell what difference the 7457 / 512K L2 cache / no L3 cache makes.
     
pdub99
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2003, 10:47 PM
 
bump

I'd like to know this as well.
     
StiZeven
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2003, 10:59 PM
 
Not sure how much RAM was in each machine or how or what they are benching against, but according to this graph the new 1.25GHz G4 is a very nice improvement over the previous PowerBook models.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Centrino killed them all and ironically, the Centrino will have the longest battery life (and they used a 1.3GHz Centrino, imagine if they used the now available 1.7GHz?!)


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

...any bench guru's care to elaborate for the rest of us?
     
michaelb  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 12:38 AM
 
Originally posted by StiZeven:
Unfortunately, it looks like the Centrino killed them

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

Yeah, but most of us know that Cinema4D is far less than ideal for rendering on a G4.

Far better to *model* a scene on a G4 and farm it off to a dual Athlon for *rendering* - Cinema4D screams on Athlons (and hopefully the G5 too once Maxon optimises it).

Still, comparing the times within the Mac family, it looks as though the 1 GHz to 1.25 GHz increase is purely linear with the new models: 73 secs off 300 is almost exactly the 25% you'd expect.

This means, at least for this calculation, that the lack of L3 cache is compensated by the boost to L2 cache, with the caveat that CineBench doesn't represent typical sorts of use.
     
PeterKG
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 12:41 AM
 
Results 105.00
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.1
System Version 10.2.7 (6R55)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerBook5,2
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.25 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV350M10
Drive Type FUJITSU MHT2080AT
CPU Test 149.23
GCD Loop 144.78 5.65 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 149.42 540.36 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 149.73 4.35 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 152.38 2.37 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 150.06 6.01 Mops/sec
Thread Test 79.90
Computation 78.30 626.88 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 81.56 1.02 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 124.22
System 117.19
Allocate 149.50 100.81 Kalloc/sec
Fill 143.53 1142.54 MB/sec
Copy 83.73 418.63 MB/sec
Stream 132.15
Copy 137.27 1003.41 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 139.41 1028.84 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 130.64 836.09 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 122.62 749.18 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 137.88
Line 134.99 3.44 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 125.56 8.83 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 149.17 3.44 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 138.73 1.51 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 143.29 2.34 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 99.92
Spinning Squares 99.92 69.93 frames/sec
User Interface Test 126.42
Elements 126.42 40.66 refresh/sec
Disk Test 70.28
Sequential 77.77
Uncached Write 74.58 29.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 68.96 26.92 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 111.08 17.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 68.88 27.83 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 64.11
Uncached Write 79.11 1.13 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 57.32 12.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 59.07 0.39 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.02 13.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
arekkusu
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 03:52 AM
 
For everyone complaining about the missing L3 cache, there's your answer in the Xbench results.

Old 15" = 256k L2 @ 667 MHz, and 1 meg L3 @ 167 MHz, with a 133 MHz bus.

New 15" = 512k L2 @ 1.25 GHz, with a 167 MHz bus. L3 is irrelevant now.
     
MusicalTone
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 06:21 AM
 
I wonder what the scores for the new 15" 1Ghz model are compared to the old in percentage terms.
     
schk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 12:18 PM
 
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 12:56 PM
 
L3 is irrelevant? Please, the #1 reason to cut L3 is always cost. Then in a few months they put in the L3 and claims a performance boost (which is true). Case in point: the introduction of P4 "Extreme Edition" that quadruples the L3 to 2MB. I will bet G5 rev B will have L3 cache.

But back to benchmarking, this barefeat benchmark is great. It is showing Centrino (the correct label for this should be Pentium-M since Centrino is just Pentium-M + 802.11b) beats Mac on graphic stuff and Mac beating PC on gaming!

This reminds me of the joke that the now in America, the most popular golfer is black and the most popular rapper is white!

I am glad to see that the iBook is not that far behind though. Trying hard not to break out the wallet for an upgrade.
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 01:18 PM
 
Originally posted by arekkusu:
For everyone complaining about the missing L3 cache, there's your answer in the Xbench results.

Old 15" = 256k L2 @ 667 MHz, and 1 meg L3 @ 167 MHz, with a 133 MHz bus.

New 15" = 512k L2 @ 1.25 GHz, with a 167 MHz bus. L3 is irrelevant now.
Old 15" 256 KB L2 @ 1 GHz, and 1 MB L3 @ 200 MHz I think.

L3 is NOT irrelevant now. If the new PowerBook had L3 it'd be even faster, but Apple wants to cut cost (which is reasonable). Hell, the new gaming PCs are coming with 2 MB L3 now, even with their 800 MHz bus.

Anyways, judging by the few benches we have, it seems the new machines are about 5% faster on a MHz by MHz comparison basis.

The best comparison of the cache business would be to compare a 1 GHz 15" AluBook vs. a 1 GHz 17" AluBook.

As for gaming on the Centrino, I trust it's using a low end chipset, vs. the Radeon 9600 on the AluBooks. Not exactly a fair comparison.
( Last edited by Eug; Sep 17, 2003 at 01:24 PM. )
     
toddbuchanan
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 01:28 PM
 
I had an early AM photo shoot out near the CDW store (at their warehouse in suburban Chicago) and to my amazement (and the sales staffs too!) they had the new 15 inch Al books IN STOCK! (I heard them later say that they had 50 of them in the warehouse) so I snatched one up....I had originally ordered from the Apple store at 4:50 AM on Tuesday after the Paris Expo announcement, but my Apple order was still waiting to be shipped as of Wed AM...I'm getting tired of waiting with Apple (I'm waiting for my Dualie too! also I have no interest or stock in CDW...just passing along the info)

A few observations (that are reflected in the photos):

Here is a link to some photos:

http://www.toddbuchanan.com/albook/

Nice Solid build and feel like the 12 inch and 17 inch!

The lid seems to have a little more space between the screen and the keyboard than on my old TiBook (see photos) and I thought it was interesting to see the lock for the battery...you use a coin to get the battery out...not sure I like this feature when changing battery quickly on the fly on tight deadlines, etc..

Slots all along the back hinge and on the sides for cooling...see photos

A nice little touch, on the latch there is a small light that tells you the Pbook is powered, but asleep (like the light on the back hinge of the old Tibook)...

I am not familiar with how to load RAM on this yet, otherwise I can update my photos with some shots of the guts after I find out how to get inside...

I included screen shots of the APS for both main APS page and devices...

Best
Todd Buchanan in Chicago
http://www.toddbuchanan.com
     
Anand
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Between heaven and hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 01:39 PM
 
Speaking of L3 cache here is a note about the new P4 with 2 MB of L3 cache:

"Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000. "

This is from Zdnet news.com

Look at that price!
Yes, I know I could buy a PC, but why?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 01:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Anand:
Speaking of L3 cache here is a note about the new P4 with 2 MB of L3 cache:

"Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000. "

This is from Zdnet news.com

Look at that price!
This is bull, and poor journalism. There is no way they'd sell a gaming chip for that amount of money. The Xeon MP 2.8 with 2 MB cache is in a completely different market. Much smaller, and much higher end, and thus higher prices are expected.
     
acadian
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 02:30 PM
 
Judging by the new benchmarks HERE it seems that the new books do fair quite well without an L3 cache. One must wonder though if this is really a marketing ploy on Apple's part. Seriously though, on one hand Apple may be in a position here waiting to throw a G5 in the PB but knowing full well that it's still a ways off. In the meantime they are stuck with Moto knowing full well that they will most likely not be able to deliver a reasonable proc upgrade between now and the G5 powerbook's introduction. So what do they do? They incorporate L3 into a third (and hopefully final) revision of the Alu. G4 powerbook so as to have something to market between now and the G5's announcement.
people ruin everything....
     
lewdvig
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 02:36 PM
 
Barefeats (bareface) lies

Well maybe not lie, but their benchmarks are very misleading.

The Centrino they tested has an integrated Intel AGP that is nowhere near the performance of even the lowly RADEON 7500. I love my Macs but they just are not faster than my PCs in gaming. So why imply that they are.

My P4 1.6 laptop with 32 meg ATI Mobility 7500 gets 155fps in Quake 3 with details maxed out. A centrino would be faster.

I would much rather have the 15" PB, but not because it is faster.
PowerMac MDD 1.25, 1.25GB RAM, 280 gb HDs, Superdrive+ Combo, RADEON 9000, Panther
P4 2.4C @ 3.36GHz, MSI 875P Neo, 1GB PC3200, ATI RADEON 9800 Pro, WD 160GB 8MBcache
     
lewdvig
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
This is bull, and poor journalism. There is no way they'd sell a gaming chip for that amount of money. The Xeon MP 2.8 with 2 MB cache is in a completely different market. Much smaller, and much higher end, and thus higher prices are expected.
$700-800 max and they will be worth every penny.
PowerMac MDD 1.25, 1.25GB RAM, 280 gb HDs, Superdrive+ Combo, RADEON 9000, Panther
P4 2.4C @ 3.36GHz, MSI 875P Neo, 1GB PC3200, ATI RADEON 9800 Pro, WD 160GB 8MBcache
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 03:33 PM
 
Originally posted by lewdvig:
$700-800 max and they will be worth every penny.
Yep, that sounds about right for that chip. zdnet is out to lunch on this one if they truly claimed it would cost over $3000 for this new P4.
     
schk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 03:44 PM
 
Originally posted by lewdvig:
Barefeats (bareface) lies

Well maybe not lie, but their benchmarks are very misleading.

The Centrino they tested has an integrated Intel AGP that is nowhere near the performance of even the lowly RADEON 7500. I love my Macs but they just are not faster than my PCs in gaming. So why imply that they are.

My P4 1.6 laptop with 32 meg ATI Mobility 7500 gets 155fps in Quake 3 with details maxed out. A centrino would be faster.

I would much rather have the 15" PB, but not because it is faster.
I agree, they don't even mention the specs of their Centrino laptop which is terrible. If you are going to throw a PC laptop into the mix at least match the other components somewhat to the PB. Anyways, benchmarks for the most part are pointless. I just want to see how the 12" rev B compares to the rev A out of curiousity.
     
Anand
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Between heaven and hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 04:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Yep, that sounds about right for that chip. zdnet is out to lunch on this one if they truly claimed it would cost over $3000 for this new P4.
Here is the link:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5077654.html

I agree, there is no way the price is $3000. But it is funny.
Yes, I know I could buy a PC, but why?
     
bauhaus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 05:56 PM
 
P4 3.2 Extreme HT is $740 (prices have since been announced)
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 08:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
Yep, that sounds about right for that chip. zdnet is out to lunch on this one if they truly claimed it would cost over $3000 for this new P4.
Uh, maybe you guys are not reading it right. (DUH.) CPUs are usually quoted in a price of 1000 CPUs. This is an industry standard. ZDNet is not saying that one chip is $3000.

Here are weekly (Intel) CPU prices for the most recent week: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/...705_3075851__2
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
bauhaus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2003, 10:12 PM
 
Well, then $3000/1000 chips isn't reasonable either (extremely low), so your theory on zdnet's reporting is wrong too.

Prices in excess of $1K/chip in the server market would not be unheard of (and can actually be common place)

In the consumer market, over $1K _is_ unheard of.

I believe everyone was reading it in the right "light" and zdnet was being unreasonable in its forecasting.
     
   
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 10:23 PM.
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.,