User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

Xbench: Intel vs Mac scores


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Xbench: Intel vs Mac scores
Thread Tools
usurp
High Monarch of MacDebate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuwait
 
2005-09-23, 13:37

My friend just put together a new Intel system and installed Tiger on it. I made him run Xbench and compared it to mine, here are the results:

My Friend
Intel Computer
CPU Speed: Pentium 4 3Ghz
32bit
L2 Cache: 2MB
Bus Speed: 800Mhz
1GB RAM
Score: 47.63

Me
Digital Audio PowerMac
Dual G4 1.6ghz (GigaDesigns)
64 bit
L2 Cache: 512KB
Bus Speed: 133Mhz
1.25GB RAM
Score: 44.86

I was expecting a larger difference, like a score that would compare to G5s instead there was only a 3 point difference.

portable: MacBook 2.4Ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD | personal: PowerMac G5 dual 2.3ghz, 6GB RAM, 6TB HD | work: MacBook Pro 2.5ghz, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD | car: Alpine iDA-W407 with black iPod 80GB | pocket: iPhone 3GS with Ultimate Ears Super.fi 5 Pro's
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-09-23, 14:18

Is Xbench a universal binary?

If not, then those scores for the Intel box are actually skewed too low.

edit: never mind... I see it is.
Quote:
Built as a Universal Binary to run on both PowerPC and x86 Macs
Well, that *does* make this interesting!

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Kickaha
Likes his boobies blue.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hell
 
2005-09-23, 14:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by usurp
My friend just put together a new Intel system and installed Tiger on it.
First Dev release, I take it?
  quote
usurp
High Monarch of MacDebate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuwait
 
2005-09-23, 16:15

kickaha i dont know, i just know its pirated.
  quote
Kickaha
Likes his boobies blue.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hell
 
2005-09-23, 16:17

thatz bcuz teh g4 is 64BIT u loozers
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2005-09-23, 16:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by usurp
Dual G4 1.6ghz (GigaDesigns)
64 bit
Um. What? I presume that "G4 1.6 GHz" is a CPU upgrade or something. But even then, the G4 never supported 64-bit and never will.
  quote
mrkamputee
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
 
2005-09-23, 17:40

I don't see this as entirely suprising. I didn't think the intel move was anything to do with performance as opposed to a response to issues from Apple's existing chipset suppliers, with the possibility that coming to the x86 world using Intel is more likely to propell Apple firmly into the mainstream. It seems quite feasible, to me, that Apple is sacrificing a performance edge in favour of becoming easily comparable to other brands, at least for your average consumer (who doesn't comprehend a difference in processor architecture and thinks purely of the hertz).

On the other hand, these pirated copies of OS X, are they running smoothly? Are the hacks required in getting them onto non Apple systems causing the performance issues?

Of course I might be talking absolute balls
  quote
michael
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via AIM to michael  
2005-09-23, 17:42

It might have something to do with why I just bought (upgraded) to a new mac while I still had the chance ;-D
  quote
usurp
High Monarch of MacDebate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuwait
 
2005-09-24, 01:29

wait so my mac isn't 64bit? My friend told me it was and thats why its nearly as fast as his.

update: so i checked apple-history.com and it says this under my mac spces:
CPU: PowerPC 7450
CPU Speed: 466/533/667/733
FPU: integrated
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Data Path: 64 bit

The data path is 64bit, doesnt that mean my mac is 64bit?

portable: MacBook 2.4Ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD | personal: PowerMac G5 dual 2.3ghz, 6GB RAM, 6TB HD | work: MacBook Pro 2.5ghz, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD | car: Alpine iDA-W407 with black iPod 80GB | pocket: iPhone 3GS with Ultimate Ears Super.fi 5 Pro's

Last edited by usurp : 2005-09-24 at 01:31.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-09-24, 01:34

No. The G5 is the only 64-bit processor that Apple uses. G4s, G3s, 60Xs, and older are 32-bit processors.

That "64-bit data path" is not what you think it is. That defines the number of bits that can be transferred between separate components of the computer, like from the processor to main memory.

A "64-bit processor" in very basic terms is one that treats memory and calculations as 64-bit-long values instead of 32-bit-long values. That means it can calculate much larger numbers without breaking them into smaller chunks and it means it can address a whole lot more memory.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
usurp
High Monarch of MacDebate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuwait
 
2005-09-24, 01:47

ok, then that makes the score between the mac and intel a lot more interesting if both of us are 32bit.
  quote
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2005-09-24, 03:55

Hmm, I thought both those scores were pathetic until I visited the xbench site and realised that they'd been recalibrated to a (presumably dual) G5 2Ghz.

Still, both of them did a lot worse than one would expect I suppose xbench is supposed to test the entire subsystem, which probably didn't help either box.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-09-24, 04:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by staph
I suppose xbench is supposed to test the entire subsystem, which probably didn't help either box.
Correct. It's imposible to draw any conclusions without seeing a more detailed breakdown of the scores. Either could be greatly affected by non-CPU factors such as drive speed, memory, and the GPU.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
usurp
High Monarch of MacDebate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuwait
 
2005-09-24, 06:53

yeah true, i will try to find my friends xbench result online and post it here. supposingly he scored only a 17 in the CPU test but faired better in the RAM and HD department then me.

portable: MacBook 2.4Ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD | personal: PowerMac G5 dual 2.3ghz, 6GB RAM, 6TB HD | work: MacBook Pro 2.5ghz, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD | car: Alpine iDA-W407 with black iPod 80GB | pocket: iPhone 3GS with Ultimate Ears Super.fi 5 Pro's
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2005-09-24, 07:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by usurp
yeah true, i will try to find my friends xbench result online and post it here. supposingly he scored only a 17 in the CPU test but faired better in the RAM and HD department then me.
More L2 cache and faster FSB will account for superior HD and RAM performance, let alone DDR2 etc.
  quote
JLL
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
 
2005-09-26, 07:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by usurp
My friend just put together a new Intel system and installed Tiger on it. I made him run Xbench and compared it to mine, here are the results:

My Friend
Intel Computer
CPU Speed: Pentium 4 3Ghz
32bit
L2 Cache: 2MB
Bus Speed: 800Mhz
1GB RAM
Score: 47.63

Me
Digital Audio PowerMac
Dual G4 1.6ghz (GigaDesigns)
64 bit
L2 Cache: 512KB
Bus Speed: 133Mhz
1.25GB RAM
Score: 44.86

I was expecting a larger difference, like a score that would compare to G5s instead there was only a 3 point difference.
The DTK with 10.4.2: Score 72.78 (the vecLib FFT is killing the average score with a 6.64 score)
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2005-09-26, 07:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by usurp
ok, then that makes the score between the mac and intel a lot more interesting if both of us are 32bit.
Not really. There's nothing special about 64bit CPUs that make them inherently faster than 32bit CPUs. It just means that the CPU can access more memory and that it uses 64 bits for an integer instead of 32 bits. That's about it. Nothing really goes faster.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2005-09-26, 14:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Not really. There's nothing special about 64bit CPUs that make them inherently faster than 32bit CPUs. It just means that the CPU can access more memory and that it uses 64 bits for an integer instead of 32 bits. That's about it. Nothing really goes faster.
So that would mean if you are crunching larger values that the 64bit could handle them better and therefor faster also though, right? With a larger allocation of memory available then that would only add to it's computing abilities, right? (Yes, questions out of ignorance.)

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2005-09-26, 15:23

For things like military-grade cryptography, or perhaps environmental modeling of weather on planetary scales, or cosmological and astronomical simulations of the entire galaxy, 64 bits would help.

For most 'regular human' tasks, it isn't as significant as it sounds, or as necessary (yet). The number of tasks that require 64-bit computing is still relatively small, or have up until now been kludged with lesser power applied more inventively.

Even protein modeling (Folding@Home) can be handled by distributed clustering of millions of humble 32-bit 'joe average' home computers. Not to say somebody might not write a 64 bit version to test more complex structures...

The only real 'speed' benefit is that 64 bit systems can do extremely large numbers in one chunk... 32-bit systems may require two computations to simulate the same values...

Last edited by curiousuburb : 2005-09-26 at 15:27. Reason: grammar and punctuation
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2005-09-26, 21:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousuburb
Even protein modeling (Folding@Home) can be handled by distributed clustering of millions of humble 32-bit 'joe average' home computers. Not to say somebody might not write a 64 bit version to test more complex structures...
Thanks for the info. It makes better sense to me now. As if you couldn't guess I really don't over tax my 64bit system. It is however one of my faster folding computer. I wouldn't mine a 64bit version of Folding @ Home.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My fickle love/hate of the Mac mini Wraven Apple Products 46 2005-06-28 18:15
WSJ: Apple has held talks with Intel acrockett149 Speculation and Rumors 82 2005-05-26 16:35
go get your security update thegelding Apple Products 8 2004-10-05 08:49
Apple releases updated Power Mac G5s staph Apple Products 43 2004-06-09 13:20


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova