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 Desktops > Cinebench 2003 for G5: "Final!"

Cinebench 2003 for G5: "Final!"
Thread Tools
blackwind
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2005, 11:45 AM
 
This is just a heads up that for those who are interested that the G5 beta of Cinebench is no longer a beta.

For those who have time, it would be great if any G5 user could run the new version of Cinebench with all networking off (such as the Internet, Airport, Ethernet, etc.).

Also, there is a new x86-64 version of Cinebench 2003 available, so those who also have an Athlon 64 and Windows XP 64-bit might want to run it as well.

Most likely, the new x86-64 version of Cinebench 2003 will give the Athlon 64 (and Opterons and other AMD64 brethren) a sizable lead over the G5. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong, but we need results first...

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Cinebench can be found at http://www.cinebench.com

EDIT 2: From http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbsingle.php , there is a result for a single-core 2.4-GHz Athlon 64 (overclocked from 2.2 GHz with 1 MB of L2): a whopping 444! Comparatively, a 2.5-GHz G5's single-CPU render score was 359 with the G5 beta.
( Last edited by blackwind; May 18, 2005 at 02:50 PM. )
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:30 AM
 
3 test with Cinebench 2003 G5 : Seems a little strange but the first one got the best results...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : D.Fine

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : Dual 2.0 RevB
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : 9600XT 128
Resolution : <1680x1050>
Color Depth : <Millionst>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 287 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 509 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 272 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 802 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1543 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.67

************************************************** **
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : D.Fine

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : Dual 2.0 RevB
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : 9600XT 128
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 476 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.65

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 275 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 793 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1535 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.58

************************************************** **
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : D.Fine

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : Dual 2.0 RevB
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : 9600XT 128
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 475 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.65

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 275 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 792 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1536 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.57

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

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
oni
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Palmy North, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 06:28 AM
 
here is mine

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : Oni

Processor : G5 1.8x2 rev b
MHz : 1800x2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.0

Graphics Card : Radeon9600XT
Resolution : <fill this out>is this the actual monitor depth if so (1600x1200)
Color Depth : <fill this out> ditto (millions)

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 258 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 430 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.67

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 249 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 725 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1451 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.83

************************************************** **
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 08:17 AM
 
Just for comparison...




CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : jamil5454

Processor : Athlon64 2800+
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WindowsXP SP2

Graphics Card : Radeon 9600pro
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32bit

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 253 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 296 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1372 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2789 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.44

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


*************************
     
frido:mac
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 12:05 PM
 
I just tested the 2.3 Dual G5 here:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : Frido

Processor : Power Mac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.3 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : Radeon 9600 XT
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 330 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 560 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.70

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 313 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 890 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1574 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.03

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

Bye, Frido
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 12:42 PM
 
Taken from c't magazine.

Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz): 358
Pentium EE 844 (dual core 3.2 GHz): 604
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:33 PM
 
Thanks for the results!

Rendering scores so far:

3.2-GHz Pentium XE 840 (dual-core): 604
Dual 2.3-GHz G5: 560
Dual 2.0-GHz G5: 509
2.4-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 444
Dual 1.8-GHz G5: 430
3.4-GHz Pentium 4 550: 358
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 300
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (32-bit): 253

Fastest G5 beta scores:

Dual 2.7-GHz G5: 661
Dual 2.5-GHz G5: 654
Dual 2.0-GHz G5: 524
1.8-GHz G5: 249

Fastest 32-bit x86 scores:

Dual 2.2-GHz Opteron 875 (4 cores total): 1029
Dual 2.6-GHz Opteron 252: 689
Dual 3.2-GHz Xeon (533-MHz bus, 2-MB L3): 689
Dual 3.6-GHz Xeon (EM64T): 686

Extrapolating, a dual 2.2-GHz Opteron 875 would probably score over 1300 in the multiple-CPU render if used with the 64-bit Cinebench.

EDIT: Added a render score for a 1.8-GHz Athlon 64 in the 64-bit Cinebench from Ars Technica.
( Last edited by blackwind; May 19, 2005 at 04:42 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:46 PM
 
looks like the Mac can keep up ...
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
funkysmurf
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: sydney, australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 07:41 AM
 
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : Endre

Processor : G5
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : Radeon 9600XT
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 357 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 583 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.63

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 336 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 976 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1735 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.17

************************************************** **
if at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not
for you
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
looks like the Mac can keep up ...
The Mac can still keep up to some degree. One G5 cycle seems to be about equal to 0.8 AMD64 cycles (ie. a 2.5-GHz G5 is about the same as a 2-GHz Athlon 64 or Opteron). It is a little disappointing that a single-core 2.4-GHz Athlon 64 using the 64-bit Cinebench can match a dual 1.8-GHz G5 in the render score.

The oddest thing that I have noticed is that many render score using this new G5 version of Cinebench seems to be slower than the old G5 beta.

For example, the dual 2.5-GHz G5 score above is 583. In the past, the a dual 2.5-GHz G5 could score well into the 600+ range, with a peak recorded score of 654.

The only person's machine here that has yielded an expected G5 score is d.fine's first run on his dual 2-GHz G5 with a score of 509.
     
misnomer
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
looks like the Mac can keep up ...
... in Rendering (Multiple CPU), if you compare only to the 32-bit version of Cinebench and you exclude Dual Core processors.

I added those qualifications because once the 64-bit version comes into play, it's no longer really that close and with dual core processors the gap becomes huge... and, of course, the qualification that excludes the various shading OpenGL scores since, for whatever reason, they're half of what the other side gets.
( Last edited by misnomer; May 20, 2005 at 02:59 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 03:32 PM
 
Dual Core CPUs are two things right now: pretty much impossible to get (unless your name is Dell) and very expensive ($1000+ per CPU for the Pentium Extreme Edition). Pentium Ds are no good for smp, so effectively their dual core results correspond to the smp single core results of other cpus.

The dual core Opterons are prohibitively expensive right now, the slowest one sets you back $1500 per CPU, the most expensive one (the 875 mentioned here) is around $2650 per CPU. They are clearly a lot faster than the G5, but also a lot more expensive.

Obviously there are a few cpus faster than the current top-of-the-line G5, but they are not worlds apart (say one generation or so) which I think is a good sign.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 20, 2005 at 04:48 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ViviMaster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
just for comparision purposes
all from my sawtooth g4
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : adam

Processor : Giga designs
MHz : 2ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4

Graphics Card : radeon 9000 pro
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 170 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 167 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 417 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 423 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.54

************************************************** **
     
adios
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2005, 09:42 AM
 
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : ADehus

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2500 x 2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : 9600XT
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 622 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.76

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 338 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 963 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1661 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.91

************************************************** **
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2005, 09:49 AM
 
My Mac...
Dual 2.5 GHz G5, 2.5GB RAM, Radeon X800XT, 30" display, 10.4.1:
1xCPU = 356
2xCPU = 615
C4D shading = 340
OpenGL Software = 1001
OpenGL Hardware = 1865

My PC...
Athlon XP 3200+ Barton (2.2GHz), 1GB RAM, GeForce 6800GT (overclocked), 2x20" Dell 2001FPs, WinXPsp2:
1xCPU = 267
C4D shading = 308
OpenGL Software = 1295
OpenGL Hardware = 2594

WTF? Does MacOS X's OpenGL implementation really suck that much???
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2005, 12:17 PM
 
What resolutions were you running at on each for the OpenGL? Or doesn't that matter? (I don't remember much about this test.)
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2005, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by MindFad
What resolutions were you running at on each for the OpenGL? Or doesn't that matter? (I don't remember much about this test.)
The Mac's screen was at 2560x1600 (30"). The PC was at 1600x1200(x2). However, the image size in Cinebench is fixed, regardless of monitor resolution. None the less, I will repeat the test tomorrow with the Mac set to 1600x1200.
     
ug.mac
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2005, 02:49 AM
 
It's mine, tested on 1.8G iMac rev.b:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : S.G.D

Processor : iMac G5
MHz : 1800Mhz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Mac OSX 10.4.1

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

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 248 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 234 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 654 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1192 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.10

************************************************** **
     
Praedicator
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2005, 01:30 AM
 
This PowerMac is hands-down the best I've ever owned... There's really not much more I could want, except more time to work on design projects

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2 x 2.7GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : GeForce 6800 Ultra
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 384 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 669 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.74

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 363 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1067 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1714 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.72

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

EDIT: Re-running the benchmark gave slightly better CPU results, thought it'd be good to add them for reference...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2 x 2.7GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : GeForce 6800 Ultra
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 386 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 673 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.74

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 360 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1050 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1618 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.49

************************************************** **
( Last edited by Praedicator; May 24, 2005 at 02:02 AM. )
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2005, 07:46 AM
 
Again, thanks for all of your results!

Thanks for the results!

Rendering scores so far (including repeats):

Dual 2.7-GHz G5: 673
Dual 2.5-GHz G5: 622
3.2-GHz Pentium XE 840 (dual-core): 604
Dual 2.5-GHz G5: 583
Dual 2.3-GHz G5: 560
Dual 2.0-GHz G5: 509
2.4-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 444
Dual 1.8-GHz G5: 430
2.0-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 367
3.4-GHz Pentium 4 550: 358
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 300
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (32-bit): 253
1.8-GHz G5 (iMac): 248
2.0-GHz G4 (upgrade): 170

Fastest G5 beta scores:

Dual 2.7-GHz G5: 661
Dual 2.5-GHz G5: 654
Dual 2.0-GHz G5: 524
1.8-GHz G5: 249

Fastest 32-bit x86 scores:

Dual 2.2-GHz Opteron 875 (4 cores total): 1029
Dual 2.6-GHz Opteron 252: 689
Dual 3.2-GHz Xeon (533-MHz bus, 2-MB L3): 689
Dual 3.6-GHz Xeon (EM64T): 686
2.4-GHz Athlon 64 X2 (dual-core): 636

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason why Cinebench 2003's OpenGL scores for the Mac are so low is because there is a particular feature in the PC implementation of OpenGL that Apple did not have in 2003. (I am not sure whether Apple has it now or not...) Maxon used this particular feature to significantly boost the OpenGL speed on PC's, but Macs were left behind.

Additionally, it should be noted now that according to a Maxon programmer on the CGTalk forums, most of the boost in the 64-bit x86 Cinebench is not due to the 64-bitness but rather the dropping of support for a multitude of old CPU's (that happen to be 32-bit).

(Some natural speed-up is expected on AMD64 CPU's, though, due to the fact that AMD64 CPU's all have more 64-bit registers than 32-bit registers; however, the boost would not be as large as shown in Cinebench now...)

The good news is that when Maxon drops support for the G3 and G4, the G5 will see a similar boost in performance in a 64-bit Mac Cinebench. The bad news is that it will probably happen only when Apple releases a true 64-bit OS (probably in late 2006 or early 2007). Currently, Maxon compiles Cinema 4D (and, hence, Cinebench) in CodeWarrior, so Maxon cannot use the 32-bit GUI linked to a 64-bit command-line process trick.

EDIT: Added a 2.0-GHz Athlon 64 3200+ score.
( Last edited by blackwind; May 26, 2005 at 08:35 AM. )
     
osxman
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2005, 10:39 PM
 
G5 2.5GHz, three runs:

1. 648
2. 650
3. 647
     
Praedicator
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2005, 02:20 AM
 
The results this benchmark yields vary somewhat significantly on my workstation. By running the all-in-one benchmark the Multiple CPU benchmark is consistently in the 655 to 675 range. However if I keep re-running only the Multiple CPU benchmark the result can be as high as 699!

Nonetheless I'm super-happy with my new workstation. I'm a Maya guy, but it's good to know that the Cinebench results are good for this machine
     
osxman
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
699 on a G5 2.7GHz is 7.5% faster than what I get from my G5 2.5 GHz (650).
The processor difference between the G5 2.7 GHz and the G5 2.5 GHz is 8%.
So your score is as expected.
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2005, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Praedicator
The results this benchmark yields vary somewhat significantly on my workstation. By running the all-in-one benchmark the Multiple CPU benchmark is consistently in the 655 to 675 range. However if I keep re-running only the Multiple CPU benchmark the result can be as high as 699!

Nonetheless I'm super-happy with my new workstation. I'm a Maya guy, but it's good to know that the Cinebench results are good for this machine
Congrats! You have, by far, the best Mac Cinebench rendering score of all!

Again, thanks for all of your results!

Rendering scores so far (no longer with repeats...):

Dual 2.7-GHz G5: 699
Dual 2.5-GHz G5: 650
3.2-GHz Pentium XE 840 (dual-core): 604
Dual 2.3-GHz G5: 560
Dual 2.0-GHz G5: 509
2.6-GHz Athlon 64 FX (64-bit): 480
2.4-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 444
Dual 1.8-GHz G5: 430
2.0-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 367
3.4-GHz Pentium 4 550: 358
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 300
1.8-GHz Athlon 64 (32-bit): 253
1.8-GHz G5 (iMac): 248
2.0-GHz G4 (upgrade): 170

Fastest 32-bit x86 scores:

Dual 2.2-GHz Opteron 875 (4 cores total): 1029
Dual 2.6-GHz Opteron 252: 689
Dual 3.2-GHz Xeon (533-MHz bus, 2-MB L3): 689
Dual 3.6-GHz Xeon (EM64T): 686
2.4-GHz Athlon 64 X2 (dual-core): 636
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2005, 10:14 AM
 
I was bored this morning...

     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2005, 09:36 PM
 
iMac 2.0 - 275
Cube 1.7 - 149

Great big list:

2x3600 Xeon (HT) 686
2x3200 Xeon (HT) 681
2x3600 Xeon (HT) 672
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; May 29, 2005 at 09:43 PM. )
     
ViviMaster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2005, 11:51 PM
 
i find it kinda strange that the imac scored so much higher than my 2ghz g4. comparing me and my bros imac 1.8 mine seems to play games quite a bit faster at higher resolution and graphics...
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2005, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ViviMaster
i find it kinda strange that the imac scored so much higher than my 2ghz g4. comparing me and my bros imac 1.8 mine seems to play games quite a bit faster at higher resolution and graphics...
The G5 does particularly well in floating-point operations, which is why a 2-GHz G4 is crushed in Cinebench. In other aspects, a 2-GHz G4 is usually about as fast as a 2-GHz G5 (with the G4 sometimes being faster in certain integer and Altivec operations). Also, one must remember that the first-generation iMac G5 models had extremely crappy graphics chipsets (Geforce FX 5200).

Of all the major CPU's still being released in computers, the G4 is probably the wimpiest in double-precision operations. Just looking at Cinebench:

2-GHz G4: 170
2-GHz G5: 288
2-GHz Athlon 64 (32-bit): 288
2-GHz Athlon 64 (64-bit): 367
2-GHz Pentium M: 267

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, EM64T-capable Intel processors also see a boost in Cinebench scores now...

3.2-GHz Pentium XE 840 (dual-core, 32-bit): 611
3.2-GHz Pentium XE 840 (dual-core, 64-bit): 715
     
ViviMaster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2005, 03:53 AM
 
not saying cienbench is wrong but from what it seems, my computer seems faster in almost all aspecs he even thinks mine is faster. higher fps in gaming and just regular computing seems a bit quicker.....
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2005, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ViviMaster
not saying cienbench is wrong but from what it seems, my computer seems faster in almost all aspecs he even thinks mine is faster. higher fps in gaming and just regular computing seems a bit quicker.....
This is why most single benchmarks are misleading. Often very misleading, and usually a poor way to evaluate a computer's performance.

The only thing this proves is that your brother's iMac is faster at running Cinebench. It proves nothing else. Benchmarks often (dare I say usually) have little to do with real-world speeds.

And, just an FYI, iMac G5's - at least the original models with the nvidia GF5200 chips - aren't good for 3D gaming at all. Almost any recent G4 with a decent graphics card will out perform them.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2005, 05:24 PM
 
I can't wait for Cinebench for Cell Processor.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
NY152
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2005, 07:25 PM
 
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : NY152

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : dual 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.1

Graphics Card : ATI X800 XT
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 386 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 676 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.75

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 359 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1050 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1779 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.96

************************************************** **
<over-large signature edited by management>
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 09:38 AM
 
PC World gets 386 and 692 for the Power Mac 2.7.
     
vodka
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 07:53 AM
 
CPU Athlon64 X2 4400+ @2.6GHz
MOBO ASUS A8V Del. Bios 1013
RAM Noname PC3200 2.5/3/3/6

CINEBENCH2003 (not 64bit) 688 CB

this machine did cost me under 1000$
think about it macaddict lol

http://www.samples.ch
     
blackwind  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by vodka
CPU Athlon64 X2 4400+ @2.6GHz
MOBO ASUS A8V Del. Bios 1013
RAM Noname PC3200 2.5/3/3/6

CINEBENCH2003 (not 64bit) 688 CB

this machine did cost me under 1000$
think about it macaddict lol

http://www.samples.ch
An Athlon 64 X2 4400+ does not natively run at 2.6 GHz, though.

Still, if you can get it running stably, I agree that it is a screaming machine (for a very low price to boot)!
     
OogaBooga
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by vodka
CPU Athlon64 X2 4400+ @2.6GHz
MOBO ASUS A8V Del. Bios 1013
RAM Noname PC3200 2.5/3/3/6

CINEBENCH2003 (not 64bit) 688 CB

this machine did cost me under 1000$
think about it macaddict lol

http://www.samples.ch
But does it run OS X and all related Apple Software?











Didn't think so.
     
vodka
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OogaBooga
But does it run OS X and all related Apple Software?

Didn't think so.
i was using apple computers for years, but now i think that it was a waste of money.
why should i spend 3000$ for something that is old in 1 Year.
i rather take some nice hollydays for 2000 bucks
and sorry there is much more good soft on the win os.

and yes blackwind i did a little O.C. and machine is runnin smooth like a weasel

btw a unmoded Athlon X2 4800+ on winxp64bit does a scoore of 833 CB in cinebench64bit version...
( Last edited by vodka; Jul 21, 2005 at 10:26 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by vodka
i was using apple computers for years, but now i think that it was a waste of money.
why should i spend 3000$ for something that is old in 1 Year.
i rather take some nice hollydays for 2000 bucks
and sorry there is much more good soft on the win os.

and yes blackwind i did a little O.C. but machine is runnin smooth like a weasel

btw a unmoded Athlon X2 4800+ runnin on winxp 64 bin does a scoore of 833 CB in cinebench 64bit version
A commercial Athlon X2 system is more expensive than a grand.

Just out of curiosity, could you post the specs of that system?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
vodka
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
A commercial Athlon X2 system is more expensive than a grand.

Just out of curiosity, could you post the specs of that system?

the specs of my system, or what?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by vodka
the specs of my system, or what?
Yes, the specs of your system.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
vodka
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 11:02 AM
 
CPU Athlon64 X2 4400+ @2.6GHz
MOBO ASUS A8V Del. Bios 1013
RAM 2x512 Noname PC3200 2.5/3/3/6
CASE GH-418
HD 160GB Maxtor @166
DVD-RW Noname 16x
GRAPHICARD ASUS V9570 (FX 5700)

and of course some parts i could take from my previous machine.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 12:53 PM
 
Just from own experience, I wouldn't take no-name RAM, ditto for the power supply, causes problems when you least expect them. But Asus is definitely the way to go, my media center also has an Asus mobo, ditto for some smaller clusters at school here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Todd Madson
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 04:44 PM
 
Now I have to try this. Nice graphics of the speed charts above too.
     
OogaBooga
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
Sorry vodka. I wouldn't trade my PM G5 in for any PC, even if it had quad processors with a cinebench score of 2000. Final Cut Studio and Logic mean too much to me.

I see it as an investment. If I have a Mac, I can work faster and better.
     
bradleykavin
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: santa clarita/beverly hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 03:39 PM
 
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor : dual 1.8 rev b
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : Nvidia 6800 GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 259 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 463 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 250 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 758 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1391 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.57
Powermac G5, Dual 1.8 8x superdrive, 250 gig startup drive 80 gig seconday drive, nvidia 6800 gt, logitech z-5500
     
Todd Madson
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 04:59 PM
 
For fun I ran it on the little IBM T42 laptop my workplace gave me and it produced:

Processor: Pentium M
Mhz: 1700
CPUs: 1
OS: XP Pro SP 2

Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon 7500
Resolution: 1024x768

Rendering (Single CPU only) : 219 CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D): 254
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting): 849 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting): 1088 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.29

Comments: not a bad little machine. Tonight: the G5 2.5 dual.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 01:25 AM
 
So, a 1.7GHz Pentium M laptop processor is about the same speed as a single 1.8GHz G5? Impressive.
     
Todd Madson
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 01:30 AM
 
My guess is the laptop would have done a bit better had the video card actually been
better than a Radeon Mobility 7500. Again, with laptops you expect less specs but
surprisingly credible performance in this case.

In fact, I'd say with desktop machines using the same machine and same test but
different video cards could produce eye opening results. I plan on testing this on
some of my other machines soon.

Here is the 2.5 dual. I will try and increase this thru some testing but here's the initial specs:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester: Me
Processor : PowerPC 970 FX (3.0)
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4

Graphics Card : Radeon 9600 XT
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : Millions

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 360 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 657 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.83

Shading (CINEMA 4D): 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 970 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1619 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.75
( Last edited by Todd Madson; Jul 24, 2005 at 01:31 AM. Reason: grammar)
     
svtcontour
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 08:22 PM
 
This is what I ended up getting...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : svtcontour

Processor : Xeon Nocona
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : X800XT
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 266 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 573 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.16

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 339 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1375 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3015 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.90

************************************************** **
     
Todd Madson
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 05:27 PM
 
Set up a new Dell today at work that looked an awful lot like they were trying to
emulate the G5 style case complete with squirrel cage wire openings for air in
the front.

Here's the info:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Box: Dell Dimension 5100

Tester :

Processor : Pentium IV
MHz : 3200
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Unknown - didn't get a chance to crack the case and find out
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 278 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 335 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.20

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 355 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1431 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2710 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.64

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

Weird performance, eh? The thing had 1 GB of ram but it was fresh out of
the box and acting a little odd.
     
 
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 10:09 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.,