|
|
Cinebench 9.5 Universal Binary released: Benchmarks!
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
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)
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 18, 2006 at 02:30 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Status:
Offline
|
|
That score close to Pentium 840 EE in 64bit WinXP (606 in extremetech.com's test), faster then Dual 2Ghz Powermac G5. Very impressive!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, they're in the same ballpark but the Core Duo may have something like a 4-5% advantage on a per-clock basis over the G5.
BTW, my iBook G4 1.33 gets 138 (on both "Highest" and "Automatic").
In other words, A 1.33 GHz G4 has roughly the speed of a Yonah single-core 1.0 GHz. ie. On a clock-for-clock basis, the G5 and Intel Core are both roughly 30%+ faster as compared to the G4, and both the G5 and Intel Core are much higher clocked.
So, despite having "only" 3X the clock speed of the iBook, the Core Duo 2.0 MacBook Pro has 4 times the performance of the current iBook. It also has 3 times the performance of the fastest PowerBook. Impressive.
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
PowerBook G4 1.67: ~172 (estimated)
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 18, 2006 at 01:24 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Steve wasn't senile afterall. 3-4 times performance increase over the last gen PPC Powerbooks is about right for some apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
PowerBook G4 1.67: ~172 (estimated)
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
To put it another way:
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 161 s
PowerBook G4 1.67: ~130 s (estimated)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 84 s
Power Mac G5 2.0: ~42 s (estimated)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: ~40 s (estimated)
So, has anyone else here tried Cinebench 9.5 yet? The benchmark app is here. When you run the Single-processor or Multi-processor benches, it gives both a time and a score. Note that it seems the numbers are a bit different than the ones that came from Cinebench 2003, so you can't really directly compare those numbers from previous reviews, etc.
EDIT:
Holy crap!
Barefeats ran Cinebench, and got 605 on the iMac Core Duo:
I would estimate then that Cinebench completes in 37 seconds on the Core Duo 2.0.
P.S. The iMac 2.1 gets 294 in his tests, which is 9% faster than my iMac 2.0, despite having only a 5% clock-speed advantage. His Power Mac G5 2.0 scores aren't so impressive though.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 18, 2006 at 02:25 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, I don't know if it's OS or the processor or the Cinebench, since a 3.2Ghz HT 800Mhz FSB with 2X1MB L2 cache dual core PENTIUM 840 EE processor running Cinebench under WindowsXP(32bit/64bit ver) only hits 620 (highest score in benchmarks)! 840 EE have 160% advantage over Core Duo on clock speed, but only gain 2.4% in the test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ug.mac
Well, I don't know if it's OS or the processor or the Cinebench, since a 3.2Ghz HT 800Mhz FSB with 2X1MB L2 cache dual core PENTIUM 840 EE processor running Cinebench under WindowsXP(32bit/64bit ver) only hits 620 (highest score in benchmarks)! 840 EE have 160% advantage over Core Duo on clock speed, but only gain 2.4% in the test.
Where did you see the benchmarks?
Anyways, I'm not terribly surprised, The Pentium D 840 non-EE wasn't uber stellar with Cinebench 2003 either, while the Athlon64 X2 chips also got over 600 in Cinebench 2003 and are also much lower clocked (although faster clocked than Yonah).
EDIT:
BTW, an iBook G4 1.07 gets a score of 111 (191 seconds). So it seems:
The G4 gets about 104 points per GHz.
The G5 gets about 135-140 points per GHz. (Less for the Quad.)
Yonah gets about 151 points per GHz.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 18, 2006 at 06:20 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just tried this on my 17" Core Duo with 1.83 Ghz.
CPU benchmark
1 CPU: 283
2 CPU: 520
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84 x
Graphics Benchmark
C4D shading: 327
OpenGL SW-L: 893
OpenGL HW-L: 1566
OpenGL speedup: 4.79 x
|
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Eug your threads are always good, time to contribute. Heres my PB 15 1.67ghz 1.5gb ram 64mb 9700 on cinebench 9.5:
Rendering (Single CPU): 164 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 176 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 489 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 888 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.05
So if a dual core 2.0 Yonah gets 605, single core 308 (maybe BF gets higher?), the Yonah is doing 57% better clock for clock single core against a G4. Total cpu comparison, the 2.0ghz Yonah ends up 3.68x the speed of a single core 1.67 G4, impressive!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
DP 2.5GHz G5, 3GB RAM, X800XT:
Single CPU: 374
Dual CPU: 670
MP Speedup: 1.76x
C4D shading: 374
OpenGL SW: 1049
OpenGL HW: 1956
OpenGL Speedup: 5.23x
Not that much faster than a 2.0GHz CD-based Mac. Wonder how the 2.16GHz units will do...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sonnet 1.7 GHz G4 7447A with PC100 memory: 158 (144 seconds)
P4 1.6 GHz 32-bit Win2000 with PC133 memory: 145 (157 seconds)
IIRC, the G4 score was 150 for Cinebench 2003
Anyways, it seems for this app that the G4 is clock-for-clock is only slightly faster than a P4 of the sub 2 GHz era (ie. several years ago).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester :
Processor : Quad 2.5 G5
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.5
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800 Ultra
Resolution : 30" Cinema
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 386 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1157 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.00
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 386 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1297 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2858 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 7.40
************************************************** **
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
CatOne. How long did the multi-CPU test take? 19 seconds? (It's at the bottom left of the screen if you run it separately.) Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Pentium 4 2.8 HT:
Single CPU (HT off): 238 (93 seconds)
Multi CPU (HT on): 280 (79 seconds)
Originally Posted by ug.mac
Well, I don't know if it's OS or the processor or the Cinebench, since a 3.2Ghz HT 800Mhz FSB with 2X1MB L2 cache dual core PENTIUM 840 EE processor running Cinebench under WindowsXP(32bit/64bit ver) only hits 620 (highest score in benchmarks)! 840 EE have 160% advantage over Core Duo on clock speed, but only gain 2.4% in the test.
From the above results...
P4 2.8 HT ~ G5 2.1 ~ Core Solo 1.83
So your dual-core 3.2 GHz HT being comparable to Core Duo 2.0 sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
Just tried this on my 17" Core Duo with 1.83 Ghz.
CPU benchmark
1 CPU: 283
2 CPU: 520
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84 x
Graphics Benchmark
C4D shading: 327
OpenGL SW-L: 893
OpenGL HW-L: 1566
OpenGL speedup: 4.79 x
Originally Posted by Cadaver
DP 2.5GHz G5, 3GB RAM, X800XT:
Single CPU: 374
Dual CPU: 670
MP Speedup: 1.76x
C4D shading: 374
OpenGL SW: 1049
OpenGL HW: 1956
OpenGL Speedup: 5.23x
Not that much faster than a 2.0GHz CD-based Mac. Wonder how the 2.16GHz units will do...
I actually find it more interesting that the Core Duo appears to have a better speedup than the G5. Makes you wonder where the additional overhead on the G5 system is coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
Just tried this on my 17" Core Duo with 1.83 Ghz.
CPU benchmark
1 CPU: 283
2 CPU: 520
And the MacBook Pro owners are reporting 563 for the Core Duo 2.0 GHz MBP. In fact, that's almost exactly the same as the score for the iMac Core Duo 2.0 too.
Furthermore, that's almost exactly what one would expect extrapolating from that 520 on your Core Duo 1.83. Thus, I don't understand how Bare Feats got their 605 score for the iMac Core Duo 2.0.
BTW, the dual 2.0 G5 Power Mac gets 552.
Scores so far:
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
MacBook Pro 2.16: 608 (329)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
Added the 608 score for the MBP Core Duo 2.16. It seems like nobody can reproduce that 605 score that Bare Feats got for the Core Duo 2.0.
Still, it's an astounding improvement in performance after just one model update of the Mac laptops. I really hope the 13" gets a widescreen Core Duo 1.83 or 1.67. I'm still not ruling out single-core for the 13" though.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 22, 2006 at 11:32 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
The render took 1:28
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : jamil5454
Processor : Athlon64 2800+, 1GB PC3200
MHz : 1.8
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP SP2
Graphics Card : Radeon 9600 Pro (128MB)
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32bit
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 259 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 279 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1172 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2708 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 9.70
************************************************** **
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
These results from my Sony Core Duo 1.83GHz laptop
Pretty laptop cool in that it has both an Nvidia Geforce 7400 Go GPU and the Intel GMA950 integrated video... below are results from both video cards.
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : Ed
Processor : Sony VAIO SZ120P
MHz : 1833
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia Geforce 7400 Go
Resolution : 1280x800
Color Depth : 32-bit
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 271 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 498 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 319 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1261 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2942 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 9.22
************************************************** **
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : Ed
Processor : Sony VAIO SZ120P
MHz : 1833
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : GMA950
Resolution : 1280x800
Color Depth : 32-bit
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 270 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 496 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.83
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 319 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 959 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1156 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 3.62
************************************************** **
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
Does Cinebench do anything that would benefit from having a 64 bit chip? Otherwise, it doesn't really have too much to offer over the new Intel chips, judging from the benchmarks.
|
We need less Democrats and Republicans, and more people that think for themselves.
infinite expanse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ehchan
These results from my Sony Core Duo 1.83GHz laptop
Pretty laptop cool in that it has both an Nvidia Geforce 7400 Go GPU and the Intel GMA950 integrated video... below are results from both video cards.
Interesting test.
The GeForce 7400 Go is approximately 2.5X as fast as Intel GMA 950. This should be of interest to the Mac mini owners, which has been just benched. A Core Solo 1.5 Mac mini gets 213, which is about 30% faster than a G4 1.67 PowerBook, and 40% faster than a G4 1.5 Mac mini.
Also, it's interesting to see that the iMac Core Duo 1.83 is slightly faster than the Sony laptop with the same CPU. Probably some of this has to do with memory bandwidth, but it suggests that the Mac version is well-optimized. BTW, my iMac G5 2.0 is the same speed as an Athlon64 2800+ 1.8 GHz, as expected.
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
MacBook Pro 2.16: 608 (329)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 518 (283) (xlr8yourmac)
Sony Core Duo 1.83: 498 (271)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
Athlon64 2800+ 1.8: 269
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5: 213
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Mac mini G4 1.5: 152
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
Clock for clock, it seems that Intel Core is slightly faster than the G5, but they're close. However, Intel Core is lower power, and the G5 is faster clocked. And the G4? Well, it's just slow. Clock for clock, Intel Core is about 40% faster than the G4, and Intel Core is faster clocked.
Originally Posted by york28
Does Cinebench do anything that would benefit from having a 64 bit chip? Otherwise, it doesn't really have too much to offer over the new Intel chips, judging from the benchmarks.
Not sure what you're getting at, but 64-bit Cinema 4D on Windows is much faster than the 32-bit version. There is no 64-bit version for Mac OS X, but that's because of the 64-bit limitations in 10.4. There will most likely be a 64-bit version for Mac OS X after it hits 10.5, since 10.5 will likely get full 64-bit support.
---
P.S. The OpenGL hardware lighting scores for the Mac minis are interesting:
Mac mini G4 1.5 GHz:
Rendering (1 CPU): 152
C4D: 159
OpenGL SW-L: 414
OpenGL HW-L: 506
OpenGL Speedup: 3.18
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5 GHz:
Rendering (1 CPU): 213
C4D: 259
OpenGL SW-L: 885
OpenGL HW-L: 441
OpenGL Speedup: 3.41
The GMA 950 truly is unimpressive. In fact, for the Intel Mac mini, the OpenGL software lighting score is twice as high as the hardware score. This is unusual, and suggests the possibility that there is poor optimization for GMA 950 graphics (at least on OS X), but nonetheless the score as it stands now is quite poor.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Mar 2, 2006 at 11:28 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, excellent Cinebench roundup, Eug (or is that Mr. Wanker?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just posted by ururk in the "Core Solo Oddities" thread:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : John (ururk)
Processor : Mac mini 1.66ghz Core duo
MHz : 1.66
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.5
Graphics Card :
Resolution : 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz
Color Depth : Millions
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 256 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 471 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 301 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1079 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 547 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 3.59
************************************************** **
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
MacBook Pro 2.16: 608 (329)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 518 (283) (xlr8yourmac)
Sony Core Duo 1.83: 498 (271)
Mac mini Core Duo 1.66: 471 (256)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
Athlon64 2800+ 1.8: 269
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5: 213
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Mac mini G4 1.5: 152
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
Also, Mac mini Core Duo 1.66 - Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 547 CB-GFX <-- Ouch
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Mar 2, 2006 at 04:02 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
C4D: 259
OpenGL SW-L: 885
OpenGL HW-L: 441
OpenGL Speedup: 3.41
The GMA 950 truly is unimpressive. In fact, for the Intel Mac mini, the OpenGL software lighting score is twice as high as the hardware score. This is unusual, and suggests the possibility that there is poor optimization for GMA 950 graphics (at least on OS X), but nonetheless the score as it stands now is quite poor.
I think Mac OS's driver for the 950 is really unoptimized... my Sony's GMA950 score was more than double the HW test. So, hopefully, they will optimize those drivers, then it will be faster than the 9200
One other note-- notice how using the on-board video doesn't really affect the CPU scores. In other testing, it doesn't affect memory bandwidth either. Probably due to the dual-channel memory controller in the 945G chipset. I verified this by removing one DIMM from my laptop, and running more memory bandwidth tests. With 1 DIMM installed, the GMA950 took about 15% of my bandwidth, and it varies with resolution, so the higher res, the more it steals. With 2 DIMMs, no losses at all. The lesson to be learned? Make sure you install RAM in pairs in your Core Duo computers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
One other note-- notice how using the on-board video doesn't really affect the CPU scores.
Err... The GPU is completely irrelevant for the CPU scores.
I think Mac OS's driver for the 950 is really unoptimized... my Sony's GMA950 score was more than double the HW test. So, hopefully, they will optimize those drivers, then it will be faster than the 9200
True, but then again, using GMA 950 on Windows nets you only 1.2X the speed compared to using just the CPU:
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 959 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1156 CB-GFX
Contrast that to the results with your 7400 Go:
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1261 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2942 CB-GFX
That's 2.3X the speed vs software OpenGL.
I will also point out that a single-core P4 3.0 with Radeon X300 gets 1842 with the lowly Radeon X300, a 60% advantage over your Sony Core Duo's GMA 950, despite the fact that P4 machine only gets 252 in the CPU bench, which is slower than one core of your Sony Core Duo.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Mar 2, 2006 at 09:08 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
True, but then again, using GMA 950 on Windows nets you only 1.2X the speed compared to using just the CPU:
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 959 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1156 CB-GFX
Hardware(accelerated) transform and lighting, introduce in the original GeForce 256 in 2000, has been the biggest thing to hit 3D video cards. Nearly every single video card manufactured from Nvidia and ATI since 2000 has it. The GMA950 lacks this.
Not arguing with you, just pointing out that if the GMA9650 had hardware T&L then it wouldn't suck so much. Hence the little to no (or on the Mac side a decline in performace due to the additional overhead of running through unoptimized drivers) improvement over the Software score. Both tests basically rely on the CPU for the grunt of the work.
It's a lazy graphics chip.
From Intel's site:
Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Vertex Shader 3.0 and Transform and Lighting supported in software through highly optimized Processor Specific Geometry Pipeline (PSGP)
(
Last edited by jamil5454; Mar 2, 2006 at 09:10 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Basically, the Core Duo mini is over 3x the G4 1.5 mini in raw CPU score, but only 8% better in hardware OpenGL shading. I'm wondering how much better that score would be if they'd just thrown the 9200 in the Intel mini? I know the 9200 was nothing to write home about, but it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't be better than the GMA950.
Ah, what might have been........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by rnb2
Basically, the Core Duo mini is over 3x the G4 1.5 mini in raw CPU score, but only 8% better in hardware OpenGL shading. I'm wondering how much better that score would be if they'd just thrown the 9200 in the Intel mini? I know the 9200 was nothing to write home about, but it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't be better than the GMA950.
Ah, what might have been........
Indeed, but in truth, I actually prefer the GMA 950 over the Radeon 9200 for other reasons. The Radeon 9200 does not support the hardware requirements for full CoreImage functionality. I want that Dashboard ripple effect dammit!
However, they both suck.
Originally Posted by jamil5454
Hardware(accelerated) transform and lighting, introduce in the original GeForce 256 in 2000, has been the biggest thing to hit 3D video cards. Nearly every single video card manufactured from Nvidia and ATI since 2000 has it. The GMA950 lacks this.
Not arguing with you, just pointing out that if the GMA9650 had hardware T&L then it wouldn't suck so much. Hence the little to no (or on the Mac side a decline in performace due to the additional overhead of running through unoptimized drivers) improvement over the Software score. Both tests basically rely on the CPU for the grunt of the work.
It's a lazy graphics chip.
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I would guess the nVidia and ATI integrated chipsets also include hardware T&L then, as they both also outperform GMA 950 in most tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Err... The GPU is completely irrelevant for the CPU scores.
It's usually irrelevent, but the older generation integrated graphics had quite an effect on CPU and memory scores in intel machines... Moreso for memory, since the systems were starved with single channel DDR333 RAM before the 945 chipset. My point is that the Intel 945GM chipset has a MUCH better overall design than the older 855GM intel architecture. Simply due to the much higher memory bandwidth (dual channel DDR667, the integrated graphics don't hamper the cpu/memory performance of the machine like the older intel chipsets did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nice to compare... I am hesitating between a mini + 20" or an Imac 17" BTW ...
Current (don't laugh):
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : fhoubi
Processor : iBook G3
MHz : 700
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : MacOS X 10.4.3
Graphics Card :
Resolution : 1024 * 768
Color Depth : millions
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 71 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 78 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 187 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 127 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 2.40
************************************************** **
|
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
MacBook Pro 2.16: 608 (329)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 518 (283) (xlr8yourmac)
Sony Core Duo 1.83: 498 (271)
Mac mini Core Duo 1.66: 471 (256)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
Athlon64 2800+ 1.8: 269
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5: 213
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Mac mini G4 1.5: 152
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
Also, Mac mini Core Duo 1.66 - Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 547 CB-GFX <-- Ouch
Being new to Cinebench, the higher the numbers the better right? I want to run this on my 20" intel imac, but alas, it is in the shop... the display won't power on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by fhoubi
Current (don't laugh):
Processor : iBook G3
MHz : 700
Rendering (Single CPU): 71 CB-CPU
Heh. I got something like 49 on the older version of this bench with my G4 450 Cube.
Originally Posted by toed
Being new to Cinebench, the higher the numbers the better right?
Yes. The number in brackets is the single-core speed on multiprocessor systems.
I want to run this on my 20" intel imac, but alas, it is in the shop... the display won't power on.
Hmmm... So is mine. Mine powers on, but the power shuts off randomly. One of the local repair guys seems less than impressed with the repair record of the G5 iMacs. Mind you, I talked to him a few months after the exploding capacitors fiasco came to light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Got my 20" imac back and here are my Cinebench results:
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : TJ
Processor : Imac Core Duo 20"
MHz : 2.0
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS 10.4.5
Graphics Card : Radeon X1600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 308 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 568 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 359 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 977 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1694 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 4.72
************************************************** **
|
13.3" White MacBook 2.0 Ghz
User added 120 GB WD HD and 2 GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1187 (383)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1179 (385)
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 1157 (386)
Dual G5 2.5 GHz: 670 (374)
Pentium D 3.2 840 EE: 620
MacBook Pro 2.16: 608 (329)
MacBook Pro 2.16: 607 (324) (Hardmac)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 605 (Bare Feats)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 568 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 566 (308)
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 563 (308)
MacBook Pro 2.0: 563 (305)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 552 (304)
Power Mac G5 2.0: 543
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 520 (283)
iMac Core Duo 1.83: 518 (283) (xlr8yourmac)
Sony Core Duo 1.83: 498 (271)
Mac mini Core Duo 1.66: 471 (256)
Pentium 4 2.8 HT: 280 (238)
iMac G5 970FX 2.0: 269
iMac G5 970FX 1.8: 244 (Ars)
Athlon64 2800+ 1.8: 269
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5: 217 (Ars)
Mac mini Core Solo 1.5: 213
PowerBook G4 1.67: 171 (Ars)
PowerBook G4 1.67: 164
Sonnet G4 1.7 7447A: 158
Mac mini G4 1.5: 152
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz: 145
iBook G4 1.33 GHz: 138
Mac mini G4 1.25 GHz: 129 (Ars)
iBook G4 1.07 GHz: 111
iBook G3 700 MHz: 71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Not that I know how well an octo is supposed to perform, but given that the Quad G5 gets over 1100, I'm a little disappointed with the 1458 score for the octo.
We also don't know if it's 32-bit or 64-bit Cinebench. All the benches in this thread so far have been 32-bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status:
Offline
|
|
This (german only) is interesting, Mini Core Solo running OS X AND Windows:
Rendering (Single CPU):
Mac OS X: 220 CB-CPU
Windows: 225 CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D):
Mac OS X: 268 CB-GFX
Windows: 263 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting):
Mac OS X: 912 CB-GFX
Windows: 796 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting):
Mac OS X: 458 CB-GFX
Windows: 967 CB-GFX[/]
|
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by fhoubi
This (german only) is interesting, Mini Core Solo running OS X AND Windows:
Rendering (Single CPU):
Mac OS X: 220 CB-CPU
Windows: 225 CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D):
Mac OS X: 268 CB-GFX
Windows: 263 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting):
Mac OS X: 912 CB-GFX
Windows: 796 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting):
Mac OS X: 458 CB-GFX
Windows: 967 CB-GFX[/]
Gulp, the wrong windows Graphics drivers are faster than the correct Mac ones.
It shows there is a lot of room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Palmy North, New Zealand
Status:
Offline
|
|
Heres mine
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : Oni
Processor : Powermac G5
MHz : 1800x2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.5
Graphics Card : Radeon9600XT
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : Millions
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 490 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 275 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 797 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1556 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.67
************************************************** **
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by moonmonkey
Gulp, the wrong windows Graphics drivers are faster than the correct Mac ones.
It shows there is a lot of room for improvement.
Actually iirc they got the drivers working right for XP on minis. Still, there's definitely a lot of room for improvement >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man
Actually iirc they got the drivers working right for XP on minis. Still, there's definitely a lot of room for improvement >.<
I thought they got them working by using the driver for another card, could be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thought I would add mine, as there was only 1 other DP 2.5 G5 Result, I fell a little short for some reason. (All other apps closed, ran it 4 times to about same results)
(Dual 2.5 G5, 3.5 GBS RAM, 6800 GT)
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 362 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 639 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.76
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 346 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1019 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1853 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.36
************************************************** **
|
yep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I know this thread is getting kind of old, and I have already submitted my results, but I dcided to re-run the software on my iMac, and I got almost double the result on the OpenGL speedup!
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester :
Processor : iMac Core Duo
MHz : 1.83 Ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.6
Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 283 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 534 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 330 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1324 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2688 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 8.13
************************************************** **
I also have XP installed via bootcamp, and I am just about to try the marking on that
Edit: Scores from XP
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester :
Processor : iMac Core Duo
MHz : 1.83 ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP SP2
Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 269 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 492 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.83
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 320 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1296 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2595 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 8.10
************************************************** **
The CPU scores under XP seem slightly slower, but apart from that, they seem pretty good.
(
Last edited by harrisjamieh; Apr 7, 2006 at 06:59 AM.
)
|
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
I know this thread is getting kind of old, and I have already submitted my results, but I dcided to re-run the software on my iMac, and I got almost double the result on the OpenGL speedup!
Any idea how you got the OpenGL scores so much higher?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zany-ninja
Any idea how you got the OpenGL scores so much higher?
10.4.6, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Results from my PC - Athlon64 X2 4200+, Geforce 6800GT, 2GB RAM:
Rendering (Single CPU): 327 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 613 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 351 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1452 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3680 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 10.49
Can't even get it to run on my G5 - have version 9.5 of Cinebench and I'm running 10.4.6 on the G5 - "Splash Screen not found"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man
10.4.6, perhaps?
Possibly, could it also be te firmware upgrade for the iMac that I installed 2 days ago?
|
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
I thought for comparison's sake, I would try out my old 12" Alubook, 1 GHz, 768 RAM, 10.4.6
Here are its results,
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : Tenacious Dyl
Processor : G4
MHz : 1000
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.6
Graphics Card : GeForce FX Go5200 32MB
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32-bit Color (Millions)
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 104 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 112 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 316 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 594 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.31
************************************************** **
|
yep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man
10.4.6, perhaps?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|