# Test your real-world machine speed...



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

First, get SpeedX from versiontracker.  I have provided a link...  The download is small.

http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12561&db=mac

Next, run the app with light processor load or no processor load apps in OS X, and with 10 billion instructions.  The Finder can be the only app that's running, if you wish...  When I did my tests I was running Fire and the Finder, and of course, SpeedX.  My results...

Typical instructions:  331.9 MIPS
Fast Integer instructions:  700.9 MIPS

iMac DV G3 400 MHz

Run all the tests you can and post your results.    Make sure to post your machine if it's not in your sig.  Have fun, all!


----------



## azosx (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical instructions: 485.8 MIPS
Fast Integer instructions: 1.8 BIPS

vrooooooom


----------



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

What kind of machine are you running, azosx?


----------



## wdw_ (Aug 12, 2002)

I scored:

Typical Instructions: 527.9
Fast Interger Instructions: 2.0 BIPS

I was running IE and iChat when I ran it though, so I might be able to get a higher score.

Ricky: There is no "MIPS" under Fast Interger Instructions.


----------



## scope (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical Instructions: 353.6 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 775.2 MIPS

G4 400MHz AGP with 512MB of RAM


----------



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wdw_ _
> *Ricky: There is no "MIPS" under Fast Interger Instructions. *


On a pitiful little machine like mine there is.


----------



## wdw_ (Aug 12, 2002)

Oh! Sorry. 

I didn't even think about what MIPS and BIPS stood for.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

No problem.    Easy mistake.

(You have one fast machine there..  )


----------



## snuflupukis (Aug 12, 2002)

PowerMac G4 733 Mac OS 10.1.5

10 Billion Instructions

Typical Instrustion=556.1 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions=2.1 BIPS


----------



## fbp_ (Aug 12, 2002)

279

595

g4 500 512mb
why does my computer suck?


----------



## voice- (Aug 12, 2002)

Tested on my PowerMac (specs in sig)

Typical: 574.7 MIPS
Fast: 2.1 BIPS


----------



## dreamtime (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical instructions: 405.4 MIPS 
Fast Integer instructions: 872.1 MIPS

G3 B&W 450/1Gb  
10.1.5/9.2.2


----------



## ksv (Aug 12, 2002)

PowerMac G4 400 MHz Gigabit Ethernet overclocked to 500 MHz@2.1v with L2 cache running at 2:1 (250 MHz):

Typical Instructions: 468.8 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 1.0 BIPS

The PPC7400 seems to be slower on fast integer instructions, but faster on typical instructions, than newer revisions of the G4 for some reason.

But, this little application doesn't support AltiVec, so I like this app better. It draws a fractal and shows the average speed it was drawn on in the window title bar. My G4 archieves 1.6496 GigaFlops (billion floating point operations per second) on the initial calculation when you start up the application, and up to 2 GigaFlops with several other configurations. Apple says the 500 MHz G4's peak performance is 3.7 GigaFlops.
This is also a great utility to measure processor temperature level and stability. Every time I overclock a machine, I leave it calculating an extremely large fractal overnight and see if it has crashed the next day or not.
When I overclocked my own G4, I also hooked a  thermometer on the heatsink right over the processor to measure temperature. It was right above room temperature when I was doing normal tasks like email reading, internet surfing etc, and peaked at around 40°C when calculating fractals.
Ah, isn't it nice to have a PPC?


----------



## Paragon (Aug 12, 2002)

iBook 500, 128 MB RAM.

Typical Instructions: 433,2 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 924,5 MIPS

...with chimera and launchbar running.


----------



## themacko (Aug 12, 2002)

Ohh this is fun!  

Typical:  508.5
Fast-Int:  1.9

eMac w/128 mb of ram.  Only Finder and Navigator were running.


----------



## vanguard (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical: 454
Fast int: 957

iceBook 500


----------



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

Interesting.  So it appears that a G4 running at the same clock speed as a G3 is actually a mite slower without the AlitVec enabled.

Keep 'em coming, guys!


----------



## boi (Aug 12, 2002)

530
1.2

with IE, mail, itunes and adium running.
imac 600


----------



## mr_mac_x (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical instructions set: 597.6 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 2.2 BIPS

I've got the fastest Mac around 

iMac/800/384/6C115

Thats with nothing but the Finder open.


----------



## goynang (Aug 12, 2002)

Oh dear, oh dear....

Typical: 262.5 MIPS
Integer: 557.1 MIPS

My poor old 300mhz G3 (320mb)

Ask me again when I've splashed some cash on the new power Mac's hopefully coming soon. 

I have the money to spend, don't let me down Apple!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 12, 2002)

Not blazing fast, but not snail's pace either:

_PowerMac G4/400 PCI Yikes!:_
Typical: 365.9 MIPS
Fast: 790.5 MIPS


----------



## Paragon (Aug 12, 2002)

does the amount of ram have anything to say in this test?


----------



## mr_mac_x (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Paragon _
> *does the amount of ram have anything to say in this test? *



I doubt it because wdw_ has twice the RAM I do and he got lower scores.


----------



## jeb1138 (Aug 12, 2002)

PowerBook 800 with "Processor Performance:  Reduced"
Typical: 505 MIPS
Integer: 1.9 BIPS

PowerBook 800 with "Processor Performance: Highest"
Typical: 609 MIPS
Integer: 2.3 BIPS

(1 GB RAM)


----------



## deagle five o (Aug 12, 2002)

561.3 MPIS
2.1 BIPS

*evil grin*
733 G4 quicksilver
1.2 gigs of ram


----------



## Paragon (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mr_mac_x _
> *
> 
> I doubt it because wdw_ has twice the RAM I do and he got lower scores. *



Hhmm...good point, I didn't catch that one.


----------



## OmegaMan (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *
> Typical instructions:  331.9 MIPS
> Fast Integer instructions:  700.9 MIPS
> ...



Running no programs, except Dave networking....

(10 Billion instructions)

Typical Instructions:  705.8 mips (705 882 416)
Fast Integer Instructions:  2.6BIPS (2 631 579 184)

Only running G4 933 (QS), 1024ram, 10.1.5, geforce4mx


----------



## Jason (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical 607.3MIPS
Faster 2.3BIPS

g4 800 896mb ram, no progs running


----------



## avg joe (Aug 12, 2002)

Tested with no programs running except some taskbar apps.

Typical Instructions: 600.0 MIPS
Fast Intiger Instructions: 2.2 BIPS

Running 10.1.5 (5S66)
768 MB Ram
800mhz G4 Tower


----------



## gatorparrots (Aug 12, 2002)

G4 1 GHz DP / 1.5GB RAM

Typical Instructions: 1.7 BIPS 
Fast Intiger Instructions: 4.7 BIPS 

By the way, the thread topic is a bit misleading. This program in no way is capable of measuring "your real-world machine speed", as no benchmarking program is capable of such a feat. Benchmarks are benchmarks and don't really accurately reflect real-world performance, particularly under a typical user's workload.


----------



## Jason (Aug 12, 2002)

may i ask what computer you are using?


----------



## Ricky (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by G. Peretz _
> *Typical Instructions: 1.7 BIPS
> Fast Intiger Instructions: 4.7 BIPS *


Dual G4, I suspect...


----------



## Jason (Aug 12, 2002)

i didnt think a dual g4 would get twice the speed as mine unless this prog was optimized for dual processors


----------



## marmotton (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical Instructions: MIPS 407.9
Fast Integer Instructions: MIPS 868.3

with nothing running, after a restart. OS 10.1.5.


----------



## gatorparrots (Aug 12, 2002)

The release notes for the program indicate that it is dual-processor aware:
*Version History*
V1.2  12/14/2001
     Added support for multiple processors

*CPU Monitor, PTH CPU Monitor, Grafboard* and *top* all confirm this. Interestingly, *top* displays the usage as greater than 100% CPU usage -- topping out at around 175%. [I suspect this is due to the Finder, Dock, and various daemons running in the background.]


----------



## edX (Aug 12, 2002)

Typical instructions: 310.6 MIPS 
Fast Integer instructions: 663.7 MIPS 

now i know all these people with G4's who complain about speed are just whiners.


----------



## profx (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _*
> Typical instructions: 310.6 MIPS
> Fast Integer instructions: 663.7 MIPS
> *





> _Originally posted by Ricky _*
> Typical instructions:  331.9 MIPS
> Fast Integer instructions:  700.9 MIPS
> iMac DV G3 400 MHz
> *



interesting
*
Typical instructions:  370.1 MIPS
Fast Integer instructions:  785.3 MIPS
*these results are exactly the same after a restart

on my iMac DV G3 400MHz, 192MB ram 10.1.5
that didnt have any other programs running (ex finder and speedx obviously)

mine's quite a bit quicker!

even with IE, stickeys and itunes (not playing) open  
Fast Typical instructions:  356.5 MIPS
Integer instructions:  751.9 MIPS

Still faster. Whats the diff?


----------



## onegoodpenguin (Aug 15, 2002)

On my iBook, I got:

626.3 MIPS
1.3 BIPS


----------



## DualG4X (Aug 15, 2002)

MIPS 1.2
BIPS 1.9
DUAL 533, 512MB, 10.2
Finder n Speed X Only


----------



## mr_mac_x (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DualG4X _
> *MIPS 1.2
> *



Are you sure you aren't running a Mac Classic


----------



## DualG4X (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mr_mac_x _
> *
> 
> Are you sure you aren't running a Mac Classic  *



if mines a classic then urs must be a Lisa


----------



## DualG4X (Aug 15, 2002)

Does anyone konw of any apps that benchmark the video card ?


----------



## JonnyTrap (Aug 15, 2002)

Fast Integer: 2.0 BIPS
Typical Instructions: 572.7 MIPS

eMac 700 Combo, 640 MB RAM

Is that good?


----------



## JonnyTrap (Aug 15, 2002)

There is an other tool which seems to make use of both cpus, if you have:

German: http://www.bitcom.ch/products-cocoabench.html
English: http://www.bitcom.ch/products-cocoabench-e.html


----------



## senne (Aug 15, 2002)

Is there an OS 9 app for speedtesting?


senne.


----------



## jarinteractive (Aug 15, 2002)

typical:  468.8
fast int:  983.6

TiBook 500
768MB RAM

-JARinteractive


----------



## senne (Aug 15, 2002)

Note: running under Mac OS 9.2

Typical: 641.7 
Fast Integer: 1.4 BIPS (hehe, bips!)


iMac, G3, 700Mhz, 256mb RAM.

Should it be faster or slower on os x?

s en n e.

ps: i'll do the test again when i switch to 10.2 (10.1 has crashed, it's gone ........ )


----------



## ulrik (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DualG4X _
> *Does anyone konw of any apps that benchmark the video card ? *



It depends on what feature of the graphics board you want to benchmark. For simple, 2D, non open-gl performance, use the skidmarks which come with the Apple Developer Toolkit.

If you want to benchmark pixel, texel, polygon and shader fillrates, download the trail of Cinema4D and the benchmark for it. This benchmark is based on Cinema4D, but Cinema4D has maybe the fastest rendering engine in the scene, so the results are comparable.
(if only Maxon would give me propper 2D motionblur so I could render my Maya scenes in Cinema4D .Net)


----------



## Captain Code (Aug 15, 2002)

Typical Instructions:  342.9 MIPS
Fast Integer Instructions:  751.9 MIPS

G4 400 896 MB RAM


----------



## profx (Aug 15, 2002)

Lets change the test a bit.

Post your top speed in FLOPS, this is apples speed test (the unit of measure i mean).  This test uses Altivec on G4s so we will see some improvements on the G4 speed front (my iMac 400 DV has beaten the G4 400 just above this post).

For those of you who dont know what a flop is:
"a gigaflop is a billion floating-point operations per second (FLOPS)"

My FLOP rating is

241.7 MegaFlops
iMac 400 DV 

to download the test program:
http://www.daugerresearch.com/fractaldemos/AltiVecFractalCarbon.hqx
its not big (under 80kb)

go here for the developers:
http://www.daugerresearch.com/fractaldemos/altivecfractalcarbon.html


----------



## OmegaMan (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by profx _
> *Lets change the test a bit.
> 
> Post your top speed in FLOPS, this is apples speed test (the unit of measure i mean).  This test uses Altivec on G4s so we will see some improvements on the G4 speed front (my iMac 400 DV has beaten the G4 400 just above this post).
> ...



Alrighty.....let's try that!  *l*

(Not changing any of the settings, running only finder and Dave sharing in the background)

My FLOP rating:
Time:  4.0 seconds
3310.4 MegaFlops

Running on a G4 933 (QS), 1024ram, geForce4mx 64mb, OS X 10.1.5

My reading might be a bit higher, but I have network time ON, and it's connected to my dsl isp through my router (active)....


----------



## edX (Aug 15, 2002)

> My reading might be a bit higher, but I have network time ON, and it's connected to my dsl isp through my router (active)....



me too. so that would explain why my imac 400 Dv is a tad slower than everybody elses? i thought it might be something like that but wasn't sure.


----------



## theed (Aug 15, 2002)

904 MIPS typical
1.5 BIPS fast int

2.5 Gflops on the fractal tip yo

dual G4 450, .5G RAM


----------



## OmegaMan (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> 
> me too. so that would explain why my imac 400 Dv is a tad slower than everybody elses? i thought it might be something like that but wasn't sure. *



I dunno....would the network time really matter?  It only checks a few secs, when you turn on the system, and I suppose, whenver you wake from sleep.  Don't think it would make too much of a diff on the test...but hey....any more gflops I can pump out of this thing, would make me happy!     I suppose jag's quartz extreme will boost my overall performance, dumping most of the redrawing to my videocard....then I can run that fractal test again!  *l*

I also use the smc 7004abr router....it's nice, too bad the parallel printing is slow.  

I hear the new yahoo IM can use webcams....any idea which ones?  My brother is using our Intel Pro cam, on his toshiba laptop....


----------



## profx (Aug 15, 2002)

now we see the G4s pull away!!  It took near on a minute to load the default settings in Fractal Carbon on my G3 400 (241.7 MFlops)

3.3 Gigaflops aint too shabby for a G4 933!! A super computer is 1 Gigaflop

Bring on the dual 1.25 G4s!! they are supposed to be up around 18 Gigaflops


----------



## OmegaMan (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by profx _
> *now we see the G4s pull away!!  It took near on a minute to load the default settings in Fractal Carbon on my G3 400 (241.7 MFlops)
> 
> 3.3 Gigaflops aint too shabby for a G4 933!! A super computer is 1 Gigaflop
> ...



They also dropped the price of my comp, by $900can (approx $584us).  Argh!  it's only 3 months old!  *l*  (not eligable for the jaguar upgrade - but these are discussions for another thread  hehe)


----------



## profx (Aug 16, 2002)

what?????   Completely irrelevant!  This is a speed test thread not a bitch about the price of my computer thread


----------



## senne (Aug 16, 2002)

29.5 sec, 482.7MFlops

Beuh.......... (But i have a pretty beautiful image !   )

G3 iMac 700Mhz, Mac OS 9.2






senne.


----------



## Paragon (Aug 16, 2002)

We should agree on the "standard" setup to run this program in.

43.3 sec.  329.4 MegaFlops

colorspeed: 10
maximum count: 4096
zoom factor: 2

iBook 500 MHz with 128 RAM.


----------



## Decado (Aug 16, 2002)

These are my readings:


----------



## DualG4X (Aug 16, 2002)

3724.4 MFlops
so thats 3.7 Gigaflops right


----------



## bbloke (Aug 16, 2002)

Typical instructions: 1.7 BIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 5.3 BIPS

(3 billion instructions used)


----------



## bbloke (Aug 16, 2002)

Elapsed Time 1.9 seconds
6991.8 MegaFlops -> 6.99 GigaFlops

I presume everyone is using the default settings for the fractal demo... (?)


----------



## DualG4X (Aug 16, 2002)

when i leave it on default mode and set it to automatic mode, i can get anywere from 3.3 to 4.0 depending on the pattern


----------



## Paragon (Aug 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bbloke _
> *Elapsed Time 1.9 seconds
> 6991.8 MegaFlops -> 6.99 GigaFlops
> 
> I presume everyone is using the default settings for the fractal demo... (?) *



...interesting. Supposedly the new dual 1.25 can do 18 GigaFlops.


----------



## spitty27 (Aug 16, 2002)

Typical instructions: 339.4 MIPS 
Fast Integer instructions: 683.6 MIPS 


Apps that were open:
internet explorer, kdx, finder, and speedx

TEST 2

Typical instructions: 339.6 MIPS 
Fast Integer instructions: 767.3 MIPS 


Apps that were open:
Finder, speedx


----------



## Captain Code (Aug 16, 2002)

1.245 GFLOPs with the Fractal program on a G4 400


----------



## monotheisM (Aug 16, 2002)

375
792
I find it funny that my G3 is faster than the G4's at identical MHZ, not bad for this old work horse!
//G3_400B/W
256ram


----------



## MoNkeY mAgIc (Aug 17, 2002)

598Mips (Typical)
2.2Bips (int)

2.9 Gigaflop (fractal thingy  )

Better than my old Bondai!


----------



## hwit73 (Aug 17, 2002)

Logged in as root:
Typical: 524.9 MIPS
Fast Integer: 2.0 BIPS
(at 10 billion instructions)
Fractal: 2428.3 Mega FLOPS

Logged in default user account (with Login items running):
Typical: 466.2 MIPS
Fast Integer: 1.8 BIPS
(at 10 billion instructions)
Fractal: 2271.8 Mega FLOPS

tested on iMac G4 15" 700Mhz CD-RW with 384MB RAM running OS X 10.1.5


----------



## dsibilly (Aug 17, 2002)

My po' lil' Beige G3 scored:

Typical Instructions: 274.7 MIPS (36.40 sec)
Fast Integer: 583.1 MIPS (17.15 sec)

That's with nothing but the Finder open (after a fresh reboot) and a ssh session running from a PC @ work...

Must... get... G4... ZIF Upgrade....


----------



## julguribye (Aug 18, 2002)

10 Billion

Typical: 365.2
Fast: 789.5

No apps running

PowerMac G4 AGP 400Mhz 256 RAM


----------



## satanicpoptart (Aug 18, 2002)

with 10 billion

typical instruction 1.1 bips

fast integer 1.9 bips

a big whooooo to that one... i feel more secure with my procesing power now.


----------



## satanicpoptart (Aug 18, 2002)

i noticed that the newer quicksilvers are scoring in the 500 range for typical while an older 4 pipeline g4 at 25%-60% less mhz is scoring twice as much(in my case 1.1 or twice as much).  considering the off prosesory l2 cache and NO lvl 3 cache on the cpu's this seems a big posative for either 1. low pipelines   or 2. dual systems.

the dual seems to make a big help, i would like to see a big comparisoin sheet from all the data... this is a great app..


----------



## Ricky (Aug 18, 2002)

Hey, guys, I'll go ahead and do the chart for ya.    I started this thread to begin with...


----------



## Ricky (Aug 19, 2002)

Okay, here's the chart.  Fixed.


----------



## profx (Aug 19, 2002)

great stuff Ricky!!

Very interesting chart.  I would like to claim the prize for fastest iMac 400 DV!!

It would be good if you could add in the gigaflop readings (for those that did them). Then we can really see how much faster the G4s are than the G3s...

May be a new chart.  If you dont want to ill do it some time


----------



## bobw (Aug 19, 2002)

Typical instructions: 750.00 MIPS 
Fast Integer instructions: BIPS 2.8

OS X 10.1.5
G4/450/AGP, 1.25 Gb Ram - PowerLogix G4/1Gig processor upgrade.


----------



## satanicpoptart (Aug 19, 2002)

bob oviously your upgrade card did quite well, im glad to see the new cards from powerlogix are up to par with build in models


----------



## bobw (Aug 19, 2002)

Feels like a new machine now. OS X was slow opening apps, jerky scrolling and sizing. Now it runs great. I'm using X full time now.


----------



## OmegaMan (Aug 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *Okay, here's the chart.  Fixed. *



Any reason why there are two dp 1ghz g4s on the chart. with different ratings?


----------



## bbloke (Aug 20, 2002)

It could be expected there will be a bit of fluctuation in the value recorded for a particular model, as each person's Mac will be running different processes.  My 1 GHz DP QuickSilver ran the tests without any other background processes, so that could account for the higher speed.  Each person's specs will be slightly different as well, so we might not be comparing exactly similar machines!  Additionally, try running the tests a few times at different intervals and you may notice a small degree of fluctuation in the values recorded.  Taking all of these factors into account, I don't think the discrepancy you see is anything concerning.

You will notice there are also two 800 MHz QuickSilvers, two 500 MHz iBooks, two 400 MHz G4s, and two 400 MHz iMac DVs there too.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Aug 20, 2002)

now...if only there were a program like this that would run on both macs and pcs....

personally, I like altivecfractal carbon for benchmarking macs...it renders fractals. It seems like this should be easy to port over to use as a common benchmark. hmm...


----------



## bbloke (Aug 20, 2002)

I get the feeling the main problem with benchmarking software is that the programs tend to be, in practice, not reliably cross-platform.  It always feels the software is optimized for one hardware set or another, but not equally optimized for all architectures, thus skewing the results!

Anyone know of benchmarking software that has been properly optimized for different architectures so that we can make reasonably fair comparisons?


----------



## Ricky (Aug 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bbloke _
> *You will notice there are also two 800 MHz QuickSilvers, two 500 MHz iBooks, two 400 MHz G4s, and two 400 MHz iMac DVs there too. *


Three iMac DV 400's.    One's way further up on the list.


----------



## bbloke (Aug 21, 2002)

> Three iMac DV 400's.  One's way further up on the list.


Ooops!  You're quite right, I missed one.  (ahem)


----------



## kommakazi (Aug 21, 2002)

My Blue & White tower (G3 350 overclocked to 400mhz, 512MB RAM, OS X.I.V, only the Finder running)
10 Billion Instructions
Typical: 366.7 MIPS
Fast Integer: 789.5 MIPS

My iceBook (G3 500mhz original model, 384MB RAM, OS X.I.V, only the Finder running)
10 Billion Instructions
Typical: 463.3 MIPS
Fast Integer: 985.2 MIPS


----------



## drash (Aug 21, 2002)

10 Billion Instructions

231.7 MIPs Typical Instructions
494.2 MIPs Fast Integer Instructions


----------



## mpconnick (Aug 21, 2002)

Here are the results for my brand new, dual processor 1 GHz machine:

1.8 BIPS Typical
4.8 BIPS Fast Integer

6991.8 Megaflops (or 6.991 Gigaflops)

Drove 500 miles round-trip to purchase it last week from the nearest Apple Store.  I actually ordered one directly from Apple the day after they were announced, but it still hadn't shipped after 3 days and I canceled that order.


----------



## rezba (Aug 22, 2002)

and for Ricky's chart, here's a dual 800 results
(10 millions instructions)

Typical : 1,4
Fast Integer : 3,7.


Still a good machine, though...

Ohh, and the Altivec Fractal Carbon results :
5,48 gigaflops.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Aug 27, 2002)

Looks like I'm only the 2nd to post stats of the new PowerMacs:

Typical = 1.5 BIPS
Fast integer = 4.3 BIPS

Fractal = 6052.5 MFlops


Lets get that chart updated!!


----------



## earthshine (Aug 28, 2002)

does this:
10 Billion@Typical= 542.5 MIPS
10 Billion@Fast   = 1,158 MIPS (1.16 BIPS)

My Powerbook G3/233 is currently disassembled, but I'd certainly like to use that to claim the 'slowest' prize. Just don't douse me in caca to celebrate the futility when I post the numbers.

eshine(Eshine

Will test an iMac G3/333 Fruity Flavor tray-loader circa 8/1999. It's around here somewhere.


----------



## plastic (Aug 29, 2002)

10 billion instructions

Typical:  657.9 MIPS
Fast-Int:  2.5 BIP

G4/867 with 1 GB RAM used in this test. Dual 1G machine was rendering video when I was playing around, so this is the fastest machine I could lay my hands on at the time.


----------



## plastic (Aug 29, 2002)

From the above post, seems like a Dual IS DOUBLE THE POWER! I will get the results from my Dual1G soon.


----------



## plastic (Aug 29, 2002)

10 billion instructions

Typical:  1.9 MIPS
Fast-Int:  5.1 BIP

This is the result from the Dual 1GB QSilver, not the newer DDR Ram model. It is running with 1.5GB Crucial ECC RAM. Vroom vroom!


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Aug 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by plastic _
> *10 billion instructions
> 
> Typical:  1.9 MIPS
> ...



1.9 MIPS, really?  Not BIPS ?


----------



## plastic (Aug 29, 2002)

Oppss... typo error... it should be BIPS... 

Too excited when I got the results.


----------



## Jason (Aug 29, 2002)

My official results i guess

run with everything off

10 billion

typical 16.81 seconds @ 594.1 mips

fast 4.42 seconds @ 2.3 bips

Flop test

4.8 seconds @ 2816.1 megaflops

altivec deactivated (for comparo with g3 i suppose)

34.1 seconds @ 417.9 megaflops

G4 800mhz, 896mb ram, Radeon 7500 32mb ram, 40gb/60gb hd's

im slow


----------



## tk4two1 (Aug 29, 2002)

Typical 957.7
1.6 Fast

G4 450 DP 512 MB Ram


----------



## Ricky (Aug 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BuddahBobb _
> *im slow  *


I'm slower


----------



## alexachucarro (Aug 29, 2002)

Typ: 633.6 MIPS
Fast:  2.6 BIPS

Typical seems slow


----------



## Cabeza (Aug 29, 2002)

typical 579 MIPS fast 2.1 BIPS

stock iMac G4 800MHz (you know 256MB, SuperDrive, etc) running 10.1.5, Finder and OmniWeb


----------



## plastic (Aug 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by alexachucarro _
> *Typ: 633.6 MIPS
> Fast:  2.6 BIPS
> 
> Typical seems slow *



I got the same results on my G4/867 SINGLE QS too. Think this is standard.


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Sep 2, 2002)

My test results on my iBook G3 700mhz with 384mb of ram:

Typical:643.8MIPS
Fast:1.4BIPS


----------



## plastic (Sep 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Total Konfuzion _
> *My test results on my iBook G3 700mhz with 384mb of ram:
> 
> Typical:643.8MIPS
> Fast:1.4BIPS *



You got a pretty speedy iBook!


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Sep 3, 2002)

dude, i noticed that....wierd...It's beating some of the desktop g4's =/  that just puzzles me


----------



## plastic (Sep 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Total Konfuzion _
> *dude, i noticed that....wierd...It's beating some of the desktop g4's =/  that just puzzles me *



Noob to Noob... did you use a speed hack? ha ha ha... just kidding...

They used to be able to bump up the 600 to 700 (or was it 500 to 600) with the iBook. LOL.


----------



## boi (Sep 11, 2002)

dual 867 DDR
1.5 typical
4.8 fast integer


----------



## plastic (Sep 12, 2002)

iMac G4/800 - 768MB RAM - OS 10.2

Typical : 552.5 MIPS
Fast : 2.1 BIPS

Am I "fast" or what... duhz!


----------



## genghiscohen (Sep 12, 2002)

Drool!  I wanna dualie!  
Anyhow...
10 billion
Typical: 442.5 MIPS
Fast:  934.6 MIPS

See sig for specs.


----------



## malexgreen (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *First, get SpeedX from versiontracker.  I have provided a link...  The download is small.
> 
> http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12561&db=mac
> ...



Just wondering. Is there a PC version of this benchmarking program? Where can I go to see how a Apple benchmarks against a comparable PC? I'm thinking of buying a Mac, but want a little more data first. Thanks.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 12, 2002)

Typical - 1.7 BIPS
Fast - 4.7 BIPS

Specs below. Typical run wiht Finder, SpeedX and Chimera open. Fast run with Finder and SpeedX open.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by plastic _
> *10 billion instructions
> 
> Typical:  1.9 MIPS
> ...



I only have 512MB of ram in the same machine, looks like a full set of ram will boost me up a bit. Cool


----------



## plastic (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by malexgreen _
> *
> 
> Just wondering. Is there a PC version of this benchmarking program? Where can I go to see how a Apple benchmarks against a comparable PC? I'm thinking of buying a Mac, but want a little more data first. Thanks.  *



Err.... I dun think it is speed that you are after in a Mac. It is the stability and ease of use.


----------



## plastic (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by swizcore _
> *
> 
> I only have 512MB of ram in the same machine, looks like a full set of ram will boost me up a bit. Cool  *



It might be RAM quality. "Crucial" by Micron is one of the top quality 1st party RAM. They are way better than the common RAM that you buy off the shelves. Their responce time is faster. Hope I am making sense here.


----------



## malexgreen (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by plastic _
> *
> 
> Err.... I dun think it is speed that you are after in a Mac. It is the stability and ease of use.  *



Well the Apple web page says that the top-of-the-line PowerMac and Powerbook outperform comparable Pentium4 machines on Adobe by 33-60%. So I'm wondering if there are any other benchmarks that are run?


----------



## swizcore (Sep 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by malexgreen _
> *
> 
> Well the Apple web page says that the top-of-the-line PowerMac and Powerbook outperform comparable Pentium4 machines on Adobe by 33-60%. So I'm wondering if there are any other benchmarks that are run? *



These figures are not taken from benchmarks but real world design situations. I can attest that my 800MHZ G4 iMac (now sold) would easily beat out my girlfriends 1.2ghz in graphics. Actually it was faster at everything. I really don't see the argument PC users like to make regarding speed over Mac. I am dumbfounded that anyone would CHOOOSE a PC over a Mac. But I deal solely with web design, digital video and page layout so I cant speak for those with other interests. Using PC's reminds me of the movie Pleasantville-The PC is the B&W world while the Mac is the freedom of full color.


----------



## hazmat (Sep 13, 2002)

Typical Instruction: 656.5 MIPS
Fast Integer: 2.4 BIPS

PowerMac G4 867


----------



## plastic (Sep 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hazmat _
> *Typical Instruction: 656.5 MIPS
> Fast Integer: 2.4 BIPS
> 
> PowerMac G4 867 *



Just wondering how much RAM you have in your machine?


----------



## Tigger (Sep 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by malexgreen _
> *
> 
> Well the Apple web page says that the top-of-the-line PowerMac and Powerbook outperform comparable Pentium4 machines on Adobe by 33-60%. So I'm wondering if there are any other benchmarks that are run? *


Try http://www.barefeats.com

They have some Photoshop benchmarks compared with Pentium 4 machines. Only for the last edition with SDRAM though.
But as the DDR Macs aren't any faster, it seems that Barefeats comes to a totally different conclusion than Apple.
I really want to know what filters Apple runs for their Photoshop benchmarks.


----------



## hazmat (Sep 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by plastic _
> *
> 
> Just wondering how much RAM you have in your machine? *



I have 896 megs.  Three DIMMs.  1 original 128 meg, 1 Crucial 256 meg, and 1 512 from Mac Solutions.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 13, 2002)

Hmm.

Wonder if RAM makes a difference in the benchmark...


----------



## plastic (Sep 13, 2002)

My same 867 is a fraction faster than hazmat, and maybe it is because I have 1.5G RAM and all running on Crucial. Dunno if this is the reason. 

Maybe some hardware guru can shed some light on this subject.


----------



## hazmat (Sep 13, 2002)

Huh.  There are so many other variables, though.  Maybe the amount of RAM you have, but I would think that test is more CPU-intensive, right?  I would think that the reason is what we had running in the background.  I had closed all apps, but there is other stuff taking up the processor.  We could try running the test again, noting the % used of the CPU at the time.  I can't do it until I get home, though.


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Sep 13, 2002)

ram shouldn't affect this benchmark.  It should be soley dependant on your cpu.  Active processes in the background will have an affect, and the only true way to measure how fast your cpu would be..would be if nothing at all was taking up cpu in the background.  Ram shouldn't really affect this benchmark.  Cpu and maybe cache...but i doubt even that.


----------



## plastic (Sep 13, 2002)

hazmat, please do. I am very curious why even though we have the same machine but the benchmark results varies a little.


----------



## Krevinek (Sep 14, 2002)

My 8600/300 Stock CPU under OS X:
274.3 MIPS Typical
545 MIPS Fast Integer

My 7300/G4/400 Upgraded under OS 9:
384 MIPS Typical
820 Fast Integer

It appears that OS 9 does give slightly slower results at times, since I remember my 8600/300 getting only 400-450 MIPS Fast Integer when I ran this under OS 9.

Oh, and despite this seemingly small gap between the two, the 7300 runs Oni at 30fps+ on Medium quality, while the 8600 chokes at 15-20fps on Lowest quality... 7300 has a Voodoo 3 and the 8600 has a Voodoo 5.


----------



## DonnelsonM (Sep 16, 2002)

Typical Instructions: 451.1 MIPS
Fast Integer MIPS: 
972.4


----------



## Urbansory (Sep 16, 2002)

Well I planned on getting a new computer when the next models are released, I see no big problems till i render, which can be done while I sleep.

Typical: 367.2
Fast Int: 783.3

No big difference after a restart, a few apps run in the background. Entourage event and menu extras.


----------



## Silkred (Sep 17, 2002)

Running Illustrator, Photoshop, Explorer, Mail, Suitcase, BB Edit - ie - normal:

457.0
1.7

Quiting everything:

658.6
2.5

I have a silver G4, 867Mhz, 768Mb RAM, OS 10.1.5.


----------



## aptenergy (Sep 20, 2002)

Typical Instructions: 521.7 MIPS
Fast Integer:  2.0


----------



## Ricky (Sep 21, 2002)

I shall be making a new speed chart soon, for everyone that added onto the results after I posted the first one.  May possibly add the macosx.com screennames to it just for the heck of it.


----------



## Tom600 (Sep 26, 2002)

Typical: 546.9 MIPS
Fast Int: 1.2 BIPS

iBook 600/128/OS 10.1.4


----------



## karavite (Sep 28, 2002)

Brand spanking new DP 1 GHz with 768 RAM

Typical Instructions: 1.7 BIPS
Fast Integer Instructions: 4.8 BIPS


----------



## malexgreen (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Total Konfuzion _
> *ram shouldn't affect this benchmark.  It should be soley dependant on your cpu.  Active processes in the background will have an affect, and the only true way to measure how fast your cpu would be..would be if nothing at all was taking up cpu in the background.  Ram shouldn't really affect this benchmark.  Cpu and maybe cache...but i doubt even that. *




RAM affects the performance of a computer executing a given program. There is a term in computer architecture called spacial locality, which means if you have enough fast memory to hold all of the memory accesses that the CPU could ever make while executing a given program, then it will never have to access a larger and slower memory space to satisfy a given access. If the benchmarks y'all are running take up more space than what you have in main memory (your DIMMs) then someone with a larger main memory will get better performance, because the CPU won't have to access the hard-drive (which is extremely slow from the CPU's perspective) as much as a an identicle CPU that is attached to a smaller amount of main memory.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2003)

Bump!


----------



## steven_lufc (Feb 25, 2003)

Just ran the test and results were....

Typical - 560.2 MIPS

Fast Integer - 1.2 BIPS.

Nothing running at all in the background.

These are meaningless to me. Could anybody explain what they mean and if I have a fast Mac??!! Thanks

600 MHz PowerPC G3
256mb
OS 10.2.4


----------



## Snowball (Feb 25, 2003)

Ah, this good old thread.
Power Mac G4 Dual 1 GHz, 1.25 GB DDR RAM, "WindTunnel" Edition

Typical: 1.6 BIPS
Fast Integer: 4.8 BIPS


----------



## chevy (Feb 25, 2003)

My 1GHz iMac 17" 256MB of DDR
Typ. 661 MIPS
Fast I. 2.8 BIPS


----------



## ksv (Feb 25, 2003)

zzZZzZZZZzzzZzzZzzzzzz  



SpeedX really isn't a god benchmarking app. And it doesn't even support AltiVec.
So let's start posting our Xbench results:

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=15699&doc2=1


----------



## Greystroke (Feb 25, 2003)

well here are my Xbench results:

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=15701&doc2=1&setCookie=true

anyone care to explain half of those tests....


----------



## aaike (Feb 25, 2003)

Real world... so I got Finder, Menu Meters, Virtual Desktop, Konfabulator, Tablet Driver, Dock Extender, Mail, iCal, ITunes (playing) Excel, Terminal, Tekxteditor, OmniOutliner, Periodic Table X and Speed X running and I only got

Typical 233,1
and Fast-Int 949,4 Mips on my G4...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2003)

I agree, Xbench is much better.  
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=15702&doc2=1&setCookie=true  My results.  My machine is SO SLOW  :\


----------



## davidflas (Mar 3, 2003)

Typical Instructions: 749.1 MIPS
Fast Integer:            2.8 BIPS

Running on battery and airport


----------

