benchmarks
Latest
AMD's fancy new Quad FX chips smeared by single Intel CPU
With as much AMD fanfare as there was leading up to this release, you'd think they would've managed to drum up a bit better showing. After running up against a battery of benchmark tests, AMD's Quad FX dual CPU platform has been throughly trounced by Intel's QX6700 2.66GHz processor. While things looks great on paper for AMD, with exciting amounts of bandwidth between the two processors, and dedicated memory for each chip, in practice the Quad FX platform is an utter power hog (double that of the QX6700), and only squeezed by Intel in a handful of tests, while for the most part racking up loss after loss, trailing from 10 to 40 percent behind the Intel's 65nm quad-core chip. Price is also a concern, since even though AMD is pricing the actual chips aggressively, you'll still have to spring around $480 for the only motherboard that can handle 'em, and those 1000W power supplies don't really come cheap. Of course, AMD does have 65nm chips on the way, which should do better against Intel on a clock-to-clock basis, and Windows Vista will include lots of mult-thread enhancements to "even the playing field," but there's still no denying that AMD got spanked in this round, and we don't suppose Intel will just be sitting around while AMD plays catch up.[Via ZDNet]Read - FiringSquadRead - [H] EnthusiastRead - TomsHardwareRead - Hot Hardware
ExtremeTech's Ultimate Gaming Machine shoot-out
ExtremeTech and Games for Windows magazine have combined their forces to take on a few of the ultimate gaming machines that are tearing up the scene these days. Over the last week, they rocked six, that's right, six full-on reviews of these rapacious rigs: the Dell XPS 710, Gateway FX530XT Gaming PC, CyberPower Gamer Infinity SLI KO, Alienware Area-51 ALX, Falcon Northwest Mach V, and VoodooPC Omen (pictured). First up is the Dell XPS 710, which really didn't get high marks at all -- they dubbed it a "very average system." What made it deserve such a panning? Basically, the site found that it's overpriced ($5,314) for the performance you get (2.66GHz Core 2 Extreme Quad QX6700) -- Dell seems to have spent the extra money on case design and not the actual components. When stacked up against a very close rival, the Gateway FX530XT, ExtremeTech found that the 530 edged out the Dell system, earning points for a faster chip (3.24GHz QX6700 quad-core), smaller case, lower price ($4,030), and quieter fan. Keep reading to check out the rest of the hardcore action...
New Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros only see 10 percent speed bump
We're not really sure how exactly Apple measured the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros in order to get a purported 39 percent speed increase from the previous models, but then again, that's what we depend upon the free and independent press for. Macworld has taken the new MBPs for a test flight and, guess what, Apple's been pulling our legs. Yep, Macworld could only get a 10 percent bump on the new 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MBP (just like those Core 2 Duo iMacs) when compared to the original 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo MBP running the Speedmark benchmark. The top of the line 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MBP with 2GB of RAM, as expected, was the leader of the pack, coming in with a Speedmark score of 226 ("19 percent faster than the older model"), and bested its companions in every category ranging from running Unreal Tournament 2004 to video Cinema 4D rendering. Now all we need are some Core 2 Duo MacBooks and we'll have the family fully upgraded -- that is, until they get those quad-core chips going.
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.
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]
Pointing out the obvious regarding the MacBook and gaming
The MacBook will play many of your really old games at an acceptable level, but you can forget about playing any recently released intensive 3D games (i.e. the ones you want to play). That's the conclusion MacWorld has reached in its first look at the MacBook as a gaming machine. The article suggests maxing out the RAM in the machine if you want to play games: the writer saw a 50fps increase in Quake 3 Arena when he upgraded the machine from 512MB to 2GB. A nice finding for owners of MacBooks interested in a bit of retro gaming.However, lets get something straight here, the MacBook is not a gaming machine. It has an integrated graphics card. No computing hardware that lacks a dedicated graphics card should be even mentioned in the same sentence as "gaming." We understand that some Mac owners may need to be persuaded to overlook this machine's blatant Achilles heel but it isn't MacWorld's job to do this. The site is doing a disservice to its readers by pointing to the poor gaming performance of the MacBook and then suggesting that people "understand [the MacBook's] limitations" and go "buy an XBox360 or Playstation2 for [their] gaming needs." It's this sort of advice that gives Apple free reign to charge $149 for a paint job (um, can I have a graphics card instead?) and allows the mainstream media to say things like "Mac users aren't into games."[Via TUAW]
Macworld delves into gaming on the MacBook
While the performance line between Apple's high and low end mid-range portable notebooks has lost some serious girth with the introduction of the MacBook, anyone hoping to snag a portable Mac for gaming has some tough decisions to make. The Pro machine packs a a high-end dedicated 3D card that can chomp through today's most demanding games without breaking a sweat, but the MacBook has an integrated Intel graphics chipset, borrowing RAM from your main system stash and dragging down performance. But how much of a drag is that Intel GMA 950 graphics chip, really? What games can it run, and where is the line actually drawn?If you've been searching for answers to questions like these, I think Rob Griffiths over at Macworld might have cut your googling short with MacBook gaming: A graphics concern? Rob investigated this whole 'integrated graphics card' issue and found that the MacBook can perform surprisingly well, as long as you max it out with as much RAM as you can afford. Testing an unofficial Universal version of Quake 3 (while old, it is fairly 3D-intensive), the MacBook cranked out 52 fps with 512 MB of RAM (which is already a great stat), but once he maxed the machine to 2 GB, Quake 3 offered up 98 fps.Rob explores gaming performance on the MacBook with a wide variety of other games, both in and out of Rosetta, and even lays out two separate 'what can/can't you play' sections to get down to specifics. Check out the full story if you're still biting your nails on deciding just how much you'll need to pony up to get your mobile Mac game on (also: stop biting your nails. It's a nasty habit).
MacTech benchmarks Office 2004 on Rosetta
MacTech has published what I am fairly certain are the comprehensive Office 2004 on Rosetta test results for Intel Macs. Honestly, there is so much literature and testing in this article that I simply skimmed most of it and skipped ahead to the conclusion: "in general, Office 2004 under Rosetta works "well enough" to "very well," and in some cases, it's even faster than on the PowerPC baseline machine." Having recently acquired a MacBook Pro, I have to agree. However, I think Word has a slightly longer startup time than on my previous PowerBook, but I would attribute that to Rosetta having to work some magic in the background.Don't take my word though: check out MacTech's article for more than you'd ever want to know about how well Office 2004 will perform on Intel Macs.[via MacMinute]
ASIA--or--Another Stupid Inquirer Article
Now, this is just stupid. Here's an inquirer article that suggests Apple doesn't want Windows running side-by-side with Mac OS X because then people would see that "Mac OS X is slower than Windows." What's their proof? They installed Mac OS X and Windows on the same Intel machine then ran World of Warcraft while booted into each OS and compared framerates. The Windows version scored better. C.K. showed us this a week or so ago.Um...how exactly is this a speed comparison between Mac OSX and Windows? It's actually a speed comparison between World of Warcraft for Windows and World of Warcraft for Mac OS X. WoW is not a benchmarking tool.Everyone knows games are better on Windows, including us Mac Heads. But I guess the foobs at the Inquirer couldn't pass up a chance to snipe at Apple and Mac OS X.
PC World welcomes Apple to their charts
In a move that's causing many to check out their window to see if the sky is falling, PC World has laid out a welcome mat for Apple's hardware into their Top Power PCs testing charts, thanks to Boot Camp. So far, no Macs have made the charts due to some policy quirks (they typically only test stock PCs - Macs don't ship pre-installed with Windows) and test compatibility hiccups, but from a blog entry covering their initial tests, the iMac running Windows XP fared pretty well.We certainly live in interesting times with Macs running Windows, rumors of virtualization in Leopard and now Apple's hardware being put to the test alongside its now (let's face it) PC brethren hardware. We'll keep our ears out for more results on just how well these new Macs stack up.
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.
Buyer's Guide: Graphics cards compared
Choosing a new graphics card can involve a difficult and lengthy hunt for comparative benchmarks to work out where to put your cash. Fortunately, Tom's Hardware Guide have put together a handy interactive comparison chart which can help reduce this problem to the simple act of staring at a few graphs. It may be reasonably old, but it's useful, with a few caveats; not all of the cards were tested on identical systems, so some of the results are a little surprising -- clicking on the individual bars of the results reveals the relevant system specs. Also, although it is "updated on a regular basis", several cards are missing from the list. Still, if you're in the market for a new graphics card, this should help simplify your search. [via digg]
Windows on an Intel Mac: WoW, what a difference
We've already seen WoW on an Intel Mac thanks to our resident Mac-user, but he's managed to go one better. Previously we saw the OS X Universal Binary version running at 50-60fps; running WoW under Windows on the same hardware, maximising all the graphics settings, there's actually a gain in framerate to the tune of 6fps.Those of us with PCs creaking along on the default settings are justified in being envious. While keeping up with the vast succession of new PC games requires regular upgrades and a killer gaming rig, if your free time is taken over by WoW then you obviate the need to upgrade -- but miss out on the fantastic framerates such upgrades can afford.
MacBook Pro vs PowerBook 2.0 GHz benchmarks
No, that headline is not a typo. I found an extensive set of MacBook Pro benchmarks over at Bare Feats that pits the machine against a Dual Core G5 2.0 GHz, an iMac Core Duo 2.0 GHz, a MacBook Pro Solo 2.0 GHz (for good measure I guess) and a PowerBook G4 that has been upgraded to 2.0 GHz, thanks to Daystar Technology. Yes, from checking out their site it looks like it's possible to upgrade some PowerBooks to 2.0 GHz G4 chips, but it'll cost ya - the upgrade is $499.Getting back to the benchmarks topic: Bare Feats ran the typical Cinebench and Photoshop tests between these machines, and as usual the iMac Core Duo typically won out, with the MacBook Pro pleasantly nipping at its heels. They also produced some pleasant frame rates when testing Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004. Bare Feats also tested whether matching memory pairs - such as two 1 GB sticks - made any difference in performance over a 1 GB 256 MB configuration. Fortunately, there was virtually no difference in their tests, save for small, single digit improvements in iMovie and Photoshop CS that aren't really anything to write home about.[via IMG]
