benchmark
Latest
Core 2 Duo Mac mini gets tested
Apple's new Mac mini may not have gotten quite the overhaul that the iMac got last week, but PC World thinks there's still quite a bit to get excited about, largely due to the system's new Core 2 Duo processor. In its tests, PC World found that to give the mini a significant boost across the board including, for example, a 24-percent jump in Photoshop performance over the old 1.83GHz Mac mini (the new 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo mini showed a 19-percent increase). In other tests, the new top-end Mac mini managed to pump out 13-percent more frames per second in Unreal Tournament 2004 than the old top-end model, and it proved to be about even with the new 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac in tests like Compressor and Cinema 4D, although the mini's slower 5,400 rpm hard drive caused it to drag in tasks like importing files into iPhoto. If you're itching for even more benchmarks, you can get your fix at the link below.
TabletKiosk's Sahara i440D Slate PC reviewed, benchmarked
Just over a fortnight after the TabletKiosk's Sahara i440D Slate PC began shipping out to interested buyers, the niche machine has now been reviewed and benchmarked for those still mulling a purchase. The folks over at TabletPCReview noted that this machine was a breeze to tote around, had a solid feel, sported a satisfactory (though not awe-inspiring) display, and performed sufficiently enough for those not looking to actually replace their (likely more robust) laptop. Additionally, the pen functionality was highly praised as was the respectable array of ports, but the amount of noise and heat that this bad boy emitted was a slight turn-off. Still, the Sahara i440D benchmarked well against similar alternatives, and while we wouldn't recommend 3D gaming or motion picture rendering on it, it seems like a solid choice for those in the market. Check out a videoed extension of the review after the jump.
Apple's 2.4GHz 24-inch aluminum iMac gets benchmarked
Although we certainly noticed that Apple's latest iMac felt snappy enough, the folks over at Primate Labs have cranked out a few numbers for the data freaks in the crowd to chew on. Granted, these benchmarks do not include the Core 2 Extreme iMac nor are they the most complete set of tests we've ever seen, but they do seem to give those on the fence a decent look at what level of performance increases they'll be dealing with. Put simply, the new 2.4GHz 24-inch iMac posted "modest gains" across the board compared to the previous iterations that clocked in at 2.33GHz / 2.16GHz, and while the results don't seem earth-shattering, those who rely on "memory-intensive applications (like Aperture or Photoshop)" would likely benefit most from the improved "integer, floating point. and memory / stream performance." As you'd expect, the full skinny on the test results await you in the read link.[Via AppleInsider]
Intel's Wolfdale processor gets benchmarked
Calm down, you haven't overslept by a couple of months or anything, as the Wolfdale we're talking about here is in fact simply a 2.33GHz engineering sample of the forthcoming dual-core processor. Nevertheless, HKPEC labs was able to pit it against the 2.33GHz E6550, and the results weren't too shabby. In a slew of tests including PC Mark, CineBench, Science Mark, SiSoft Sandra, and individual application trials, the Wolfdale managed to best the E6550 in every single facet. Of course, it didn't exactly blow the current Core 2 Duo out of the water, but increasing performance by nearly 11-percent in Doom 3 and Far Cry, 5.53-percent in PC Mark, and around 8-percent in Office applications isn't anything to sneeze at. Still, we've got quite a ride ahead before seeing a finalized Wolfdale, but feel free to humor yourself with the preliminary benchmarks below.[Via The Inquirer]
SSD shootout: pricey HDD replacements do battle
Considering that solid state discs -- although still noticeably more expensive that traditional HDDs -- are quickly plummeting in price, it's about time a brief roundup was executed in order to pinpoint which SSD was best for you. Granted, CustomPC's evaluation only included a handful of options, but the in-depth testing process found a few glaring losers and even fewer runaway winners. As expected, reviewers used a number of read / write testing applications to judge the speed differences and real-world performance increases on seven SSDs ranging from 8GB to 32GB in size. Coming out on top was Samsung's 32GB drive, which proved both "quick and silent" in their testing; however, the 18GB STEC Zeus-IOPS proved the hands-down winner in terms of sheer speed. 'Course, we highly doubt many of you will be snagging the latter after witnessing its £7,050 ($14,461) pricetag, but a number of slightly slower performers including PQI's Turbo Plus 2.5 could very well provide the boost you desire without (totally) breaking the bank.
Lenovo's 3000 N200 inspected, benchmarked
Those looking to snag a new lappie while not breaking the bank may not be inclined to look Lenovo's way, but the budget-minded 3000 N200 just may provide the rigidity and oomph you need for just over a grand. Making sure your hard-earned dollars don't go to waste is TrustedReviews, who has taken the time to break down this newfangled machine and even post benchmarks for your analyzing pleasure. Initial impressions seemed to harp on the relatively modest innards, a keyboard that was deemed just "sufficient," and the trackpad buttons that were actually compared to "putting your fingers in jelly." Nevertheless, the N200's display was dubbed the best they'd seen on a lappie of this caliber, and it was said to be a satisfactory choice for those needing a basic business-oriented machine on the (somewhat) cheap. For those still hangin' in there, be sure to visit the final page of the writeup for the benchmarking results.
MacBook performance boost
At first glance, last week's MacBook update did not appear to be anything to write home about. However, some benchmarks are starting to come out that show a non-negligible performance boost on the new 'Books. Macworld has found that the new top end 2.16GHz black MacBook bests previous top end white 2.0GHz white MacBook by an overall 12% (strangely, the different colors somehow tested differently). In fact, the new MacBooks are even giving the top end 2.33GHz MacBook Pro a run for its money in non-graphics intensive applications. MacLife also found an appreciable performance gain. So while it's not Santa Rosa, it is a nice little performance gain.Update: It's only the low end MacBooks that saw an increase in L2 cache.
Linux test shows PS3 beat by a Power Mac G5
General-purpose code seems to slow down the Cell performance a bit, as it would appear on a recent Geekbench test. Primate Labs ran a few benchmarks under Linux and the results show the PS3 being beat by a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz in all tests except memory performance. We have to keep in mind, the tests only prove the Cell is not a wonderful "general-purpose" CPU. And lest anyone forget, the purpose of the PS3 is to play games! Cell-specific optimizations are going to be implemented in a future Geekbench test, so once round 2 comes along, we'll get a taste of what's really cooking underneath the hood of our favorite console. Fire when ready! [Via digg]
IBM kicks out energy-efficient 4.7GHz POWER6 processor
Nah, it's no BlueGene L supercomputer, but IBM's latest dual-core microprocessor runs at a cool 4.7GHz while sporting 8MB of total cache per chip. The device reportedly runs "twice as fast" and packs four times the cache as the POWER5, and boasts a processor bandwidth of 300Gbps. Interestingly, the massive power increase doesn't seem to come with a boost in energy requirements, as IBM claims that the 65-nanometer POWER6 somehow ups its game while "using nearly the same amount of electricity" as its predecessor. The company plans on shoving the new darling into the System p570 server, and preliminary testing showed that all four of the "most widely used performance benchmarks for Unix servers" were shattered by its CPU. Unfortunately, there's no word on pricing nor availability just yet, but we're anticipating a bit of sticker shock when it does finally land.[Via LinuxDevices]
Apple's $1099 2GHz MacBook gets benchmarked
If you'd been pinching your pennies waiting for Apple to unleash an update to the MacBook side of things, your wait was ended last week, but if you've been wondering just how much difference the increase from 2MB to 4MB of L2 cache (and the 0.17GHz bump, too) made, here's your sign. MacLife was able to get its hands around a $1,099 base unit, and rather than carefully coaxing into the world, it broke out the whipping stick and put this bad boy to work. The new machine was pit against the old base MacBook (at 1.83GHz) and the previous 2GHz BlackBook, and while increases in efficiency weren't exactly considerable, reviewers found them at least noticeable. The latest machine shaved seconds off here and there from iMovie exporting and Photoshopping, and while most tests showed just single digit improvements, the iPhoto test did display a 22-percent gain compared to the previous 1.83GHz MacBook. Of course, these preliminary tests aren't anything out of the ordinary, but keep an eye on the read link for more fleshed out testing (including the refreshed BlackBook) in the coming days.[Via MacSlash]
ATI's Radeon HD 2900 XT benchmarked, trumps NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTS
Although preliminary testing proved that ATI's R600 architecture wasn't messing around, DailyTech added another layer of proof to the pudding as it benchmarked a bonafide Radeon HD 2900 XT against NVIDIA's 640MB GeForce 8800 GTS. The DirectX 10-capable card is a notch above the HD 2600 XT that was snapped in the wild, and the tested unit featured 320 stream processors, 512MB of GDDR3 RAM, a dual-slot "blower-type heat sink," dual dual-link DVI ports, and a serious desire to crank out impressive FPS numbers. While the marks weren't the end-all answer to the ATI vs. NVIDIA question, the Radeon managed to best its opponent in every single trial, including Call of Duty 2, Company of Heroes, F.E.A.R., Oblivion, 3DMark06, Maya 02, Cadalyst C2006, and a few more for good measure. Of course, we're sure NVIDIA will be hitting back with something of its own, but feel free to hit the read link if you take pleasure in graphical beat downs with ATI escaping victorious.[Thanks, Mathieu]
Penryn CPUs benchmarked, don't slouch
So, 45nm sounds hip-cool and all, but what does that mean for performance? Intel's coming forward with some Penryn numbers -- with the help of Reg Hardware looking over its shoulder to make sure the tests are legit -- and it seems we're in for a decent speed bump, but not necessarily a revolution. Dual core and quad core 3.33GHz Penryns, each with a 1333MHz frontside bus, were pitted against the current desktop-leading 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6800 on a 1066MHz bus. Tests were run on top of a well decked test system, running Vista Ultimate. Naturally, the quad core Penryn took the top spot in all the tests, with varying margins depending upon which app was used -- no surprises there. The dual-core Penryn took third behind the spendy QX6800 for the most part, other than the single-threaded Half-Life 2 and the SSE 4-capable DivX test, which capitalized upon the media-friendly instructions Intel is adding to its new processors. Looks like we'll be seeing much more from these processors as more SSE 4 apps hit the market, but for now you shouldn't be feeling too bad about buying a QX6800 -- it's not obsolete by a long shot.
Apple TV benchmarked, not a supercomputer in disguise
So it's true after all, Apple has no magical wand for squeezing unrealistic performance out of off-the-shelf components, but they have managed to put together a halfway decent "Mac" for the price. Tipster Matt wiped his Apple TV's drive and ran a clean install of 10.4.9, just to throw it to the Xbench dogs. It came out surprisingly well, with a 55.75 score, about half that of a medium-range Intel Mac mini. In most operations it actually managed to score fairly close to its taller cousin, just falling behind significantly in certain operations, specifically 3D graphics. Of course, Xbench scores are user submitted and not all that scientific, but it should at least give you a general idea of how this $299 Mac in disguise stacks up.[Thanks, Matt]
ATI R600 graphics card benchmarked, cruises by NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTX
If one of your New Year's resolutions involved spending a massive chunk of change to kick out as many frames per second as technologically possible, you may want to put the brakes on that impending NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX purchase. Lvl505 got their palms on a pre-release ATI R600 graphics card and put it up against the best NVIDIA currently has to offer, and the results thus far show ATI's device as "the clear winner." Of course, these benchmarks have to be taken with a certain grain of salt, as the drivers used were "a modified version of a 32-bit Vista pre-build version," which should have yielded less-than-optimal results; interestingly, the R600 still ran all over the optimized NVIDIA setup. Testing the cards on an Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700-powered machine with 2GB of RAM, the single R600 card bested the solo 8800 GTX in basically every benchmark they tried, with common applications seeing minimal gains, but games saw between ten-percent (Half-Life 2: Lost Coast) and 42-percent (1701 A.D.) hikes. Apparently, the R600 was exceedingly impressive, as reviewers actually suggested that you "return your NVIDIA" card as soon as humanly possible while patiently waiting for January 22nd, when you can gleefully drop your $630 or so to pick up your very own R600. Oh, and you might end up paying somewhat of a monthly surcharge to use this bad boy too, as the 230-watts (which beats the estimations, actually) it'll require to operate could kick your power bill up a notch or two. Nevertheless, it's not exactly shocking to see a newer graphics card outgun one that's been on the shelf a moment or so, but we're still holding out for a finalized unit before making any final judgments on the combatants.[Via Inquirer]
Core 2 Duo-based iMacs benchmarked
It's been barely a few days since Apple released the new Core 2 Duo iMacs, but already the benchmarks are coming out. As usual, Macworld is among the first to spar with the new hardware. The lab concluded that compared to the previous iMac Core Duo models, the new models hit a 10 percent improvement over previous models in Macworld Lab's comprehensive Speedmark Test over the previous models. As he explains, part of the advantage is also likely to come via the doubling of the iMacs' L2 Cache to 4MB, which is, of course, contained within the new processor. We feel for the thousands of people who've already bought their Core Duo iMacs -- only to have been surpassed by a 10 percent increase. Really.
Final Core 2 Duo Mobile benchmarked; eh, it's ok
So, now that you're totally and completely freaking sick of hearing about the Core 2 Duo mobile (aka Merom) laptops that were launched today, perhaps it'll interest you to find out exactly how well these machines perform compared to their original Core Duo counterparts? Well, without taking away too much of the reason to hit the PC Perspective benchmark bonanza that pitted the Core 2 Duo T7600 against the Core Duo T6700 -- both today's and yesterday's 2.33GHz Intel Core chips -- we can tell you that the performance was in all cases better, though not typically much more than marginally so. Under heavy load Core 2 Duo was only 2 to 6 degrees cooler (and even in some cases hotter) than the Core Duo, though in one test it did score an entire half hour more battery life. So what have we learned? Well, you can walk -- don't run -- to pick up your Merom laptop, if at all. Us? We'll be fine with our Core Duo (even our Pentium M) machines a while longer yet, thanks; somehow we don't think that 2 or 3 degrees of heat shaved off the top is really going to finally help us conceive.[Thanks, Mark W.]
Mac Pro benchmark roundup
Other sites are already getting their hands on Mac Pros and putting them through the benchmark ringer, and since we aren't done checking the couch for change yet, I figured a benchmark roundup would be the best way to let you sink your teeth into some cold, hard numbers. If you've been waiting to see how well these things perform in real world tests, your wait just might be over: Macworld pits a 2.66 Quad Core Ghz Mac Pro against 2.5 Quad and Dual 2.7 G5 Power Macs - G5s run crying to mama in everything but Adobe Photoshop tests (hint: that will be a benchmark theme across the board) MacInTouch posts some initial impressions as well as a wide variety of benchmarks, including some real low-level geek stuff like "multi-threaded scalar." Until now, I thought a 'scalar' was just a monster in Unreal Bare Feats posts their own set of tests, including the only After Effects test I've found so far (AE still isn't a UB either; I guess Adobe misunderstood the phrase 'fashionably late to the party') Geek Patrol, as you might glean from the name, also posts some extensive low-level tests in categories such as memory performance, floating point, integer and more Apple's product page also seem to think pretty highly of their own new Mac Pros That's it for now. Just don't blame us for the credit card interest if this pushes you over the edge to buy one.
Hacker installs Core 2 Duo chip in Mac mini, hangs on for the ride
Macenstein has blogged a Mac mini CPU swap, as a poster in a Taiwanese forum has switched out the Core Duo chip for a Core 2 Duo chip, a next-generation CPU from Intel. The brain upgrade has resulted not only in the Mac mini stomping a PowerMac G5 dual 2.5 GHz in an iTunes MP3-AAC conversion test (remember: Mac minis have slower laptop hard drives than desktop PowerMacs), but it also runs cooler, due to the new architecture of these Core 2 Duo (code name: Merom) Intel chips.Given reports like this of these new chips, we might as well talk about the elephant in the room: if these reports of cooler running and even more powerful chips so soon from Intel are true, I foresee a lot of criticism of Apple jumping the gun on cramming Intel chips into their present lineup, in light of all these complaints about heat.[via MacNN]
MacBook Final Cut Studio benchmarks
While some of us are content taking Apple's word that the MacBook isn't so good for Final Cut Pro, the people at Creative Mac decided to do some testing. They pitted a MacBook, a MacBook Pro, and a dual G5 PowerMac (2.0 Ghz), all with 2 gigs of RAM, in a Final Cut Studio showdown.The results? Both MacBooks pretty much spank (yes, that's the technical term) the G5. It looks like the MacBook is a pretty good video editing machine (even though it isn't supported).
Someone finally tests Adobe apps on Rosetta vs. PPC
Bare Feats has been busy with their Mac OS X vs XP tests earlier today and now this. From what I can tell, they are probably the first site to post some benchmarks of non-Intel native Adobe apps, specifically Photoshop CS2 and After Effects 7.0. Check out the machines they used, and note the equality of RAM: MacBook Pro CD/2.0 -- Apple Intel MacBook Pro with 2.0GHz Core Duo and 2GB of memory PowerMac G5/2.0 -- Apple Dual Single-Core G5/2.0GHz Power Mac with 2GB of memory PowerBook G4/1.67 -- Apple PowerBook G4/1.67GHz with 2GB of memory Not surprisingly, the PowerMac swept the floor with the MacBook Pro, but to my delight: the PowerBook didn't perform that much better. In fact, in the After Effects render test, the MacBook actually beat out the PowerBook.The SP (Single Processor) Actions test is where you can really see the performance void of Rosetta apps on the MacBook Pro, as the PowerMac and PowerBook clearly are going home with the prom queen.Still, I'm glad to see that the MacBook Pro will perform more or less like my PowerBook G4 when running these pro apps, especially since I'm living in After Effects these days. Unfortunately, I now must curse Bare Feats for ever performing these tests, as they got my 'hmm, maybe I could upgrade' gears grinding again. Thanks guys.
