| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sross
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 168
Location: New Zealand
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:10 am Post subject: xbench 1.2 |
 |
|
| Hey, what kinds of overall scores on xbench 1.2 are you guys getting? I ran 41.00 overall, with internal disk. I then ran it from my new Maxtor One Touch II 7200rpm 250gig 16meg cache firewire and got an overall of 50 which I think is pretty good judging a list of other xbench scores, actually it was the highest one I could find. The external disk sure has sped things up for me.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andp
Senior Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 358
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I get a 41.04 with xbench 1.2. What's up with that? The numbers were much higher before downloading 1.2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg
Veteran Member
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 613
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andp wrote: | | I get a 41.04 with xbench 1.2. What's up with that? The numbers were much higher before downloading 1.2. |
1.2 re-calibrated the 100 point baseline to a 2.0 GHz G5 running Tiger. Therefore you're essentially operating off of a new scale which can't be compared directly to scores from older xbench releases.
_________________
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB RAM
miniStack 500GB
Dell 1905FP
Logitech Wave Cordless Desktop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andp
Senior Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 358
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's what I figured after looking at the results page. My heart skipped a beat after seeing the score. I was like WTF?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sross
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 168
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andp wrote: | | That's what I figured after looking at the results page. My heart skipped a beat after seeing the score. I was like WTF? |
Mee too, I recalled seeing older scores of over 100, and when I benched my mini and got half that I thought something was wrong! hehe
_________________
mac mini 1.42/1gig ram/bluetooth/
airport/superdrive/80gig for storage/
new 250gig Maxtor 7200 16meg cache external for Xbench 1.2 overall 48.25 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bsnoel
Senior Member
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 355
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still pulling 103.99. Of course that is on my PowerMac G5.
_________________
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz, PowerMac G5 2.3 GHz, iMac Core Duo 17", MacBook Pro 2GHz, MacBook Pro 2.2GHz, Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. Multi-K9 Security System. No false alarms, just lots of sharp teeth.
www.grweather.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andp
Senior Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 358
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bsnoel wrote: | | I'm still pulling 103.99. Of course that is on my PowerMac G5. |
That's not fair! 
What PowerMac do you have? How much memory do you got in that bad boy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gmas
Junior Member
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bsnoel wrote: | | I'm still pulling 103.99. Of course that is on my PowerMac G5. |
I bet that if you overclock the mini to 1.67, connect a fast 3.5" drive via 2.5" to 3.5" adaptor, and put a gig in there, the gap would close a little bit...
Anyone has this configuration to try it out???
Gmas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bsnoel
Senior Member
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 355
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gmas wrote: | | bsnoel wrote: | | I'm still pulling 103.99. Of course that is on my PowerMac G5. |
I bet that if you overclock the mini to 1.67, connect a fast 3.5" drive via 2.5" to 3.5" adaptor, and put a gig in there, the gap would close a little bit...
Anyone has this configuration to try it out???
Gmas. |
Well, My Mini is not over-clocked, but it does have the 7200 RPM Hitachi drive in it. That gave me a 43.03 in Xbench.
I doubt that over-clocking the Mini is going to narrow the gap that much. The Mini runs a 166MHz Front Side Bus VS dual independent bidirectional FSBs @1.15GHz in the PowerMac. On the new 2.7 GHz PowerMac model the FSB translates to a mind numbing 21.6 GBps of bandwidth. Then there is the 2 processors against 1 issue. In other words, it's just not a fair comparison the PowerMac cost a full $2000.00 more than the 1.25GHz Mini. However, the Mini is still one of the funnest Macs ever created.
_________________
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz, PowerMac G5 2.3 GHz, iMac Core Duo 17", MacBook Pro 2GHz, MacBook Pro 2.2GHz, Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. Multi-K9 Security System. No false alarms, just lots of sharp teeth.
www.grweather.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gmas
Junior Member
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bsnoel wrote: | | Gmas wrote: | | bsnoel wrote: | | I'm still pulling 103.99. Of course that is on my PowerMac G5. |
I bet that if you overclock the mini to 1.67, connect a fast 3.5" drive via 2.5" to 3.5" adaptor, and put a gig in there, the gap would close a little bit...
Anyone has this configuration to try it out???
Gmas. |
Well, My Mini is not over-clocked, but it does have the 7200 RPM Hitachi drive in it. That gave me a 43.03 in Xbench.
I doubt that over-clocking the Mini is going to narrow the gap that much. The Mini runs a 166MHz Front Side Bus VS dual independent bidirectional FSBs @1.15GHz in the PowerMac. On the new 2.7 GHz PowerMac model the FSB translates to a mind numbing 21.6 GBps of bandwidth. Then there is the 2 processors against 1 issue. In other words, it's just not a fair comparison the PowerMac cost a full $2000.00 more than the 1.25GHz Mini. However, the Mini is still one of the funnest Macs ever created. |
You are right, it will never compare, but...the average XBench score on the minis is around 37, you got 43 from an HD upgrade. Now, there is a mod in which someone connected a 3.5" drive directly to the computer by means of a 2.5 to 3.5 IDE adaptor, not firewire. His Xbench results (old numbers) were 150 (withour overclocking). Add 1.67 to that equation and I bet you could get the mini to go to the mid fifties...or higher maybe.
Still, you are right, there is no comparison.
Gmas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homerjatmoes
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 323
Location: Elmira, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I ran it three times and got:
45.18
46.00
44.52
Thats a 45.23 average. My mini Specs are in my sig.
_________________
1.42Ghz
1GB RAM
200GB FW HDD (Boot drive)
80GB HDD
External DVD burner
45.23 Xbench 1.2 average
FireWire Boot Guide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blazer
Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 1066
Location: San Ramon, California
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I get a 43. This new grading scale depresses me. I like it better when we were in the hundreds. It just sounded faster! 
_________________
1.42GHz Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini (2009)
2.5GHz Core i5 Mac mini (2011)
24" Dell LCD & 42" Sharp TV
EyeTV 250 Plus
1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G iPod nanos
16GB 3G iPhone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twalker294
Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I ran it on my bone stock 1.42Ghz/512/80 gig mini and got 37. The hard drive bottleneck is very apparent when you compare the mini results to any G5. I need to bump up my RAM and get a faster drive in there and that should help quite a bit.
_________________
Todd Walker
Mac convert as of 8/3/05
1.42Ghz mini, 1 gig RAM, 250 gig ministack, superdrive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blazer
Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 1066
Location: San Ramon, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twalker294 wrote: | | I ran it on my bone stock 1.42Ghz/512/80 gig mini and got 37. The hard drive bottleneck is very apparent when you compare the mini results to any G5. I need to bump up my RAM and get a faster drive in there and that should help quite a bit. |
I'd like to see a score for a 1.42 with 1GB and 7,200RPM internal hard drive. I could see a mini with those specs hitting 60. I need to take a closer look at results page to see if one is posted.
_________________
1.42GHz Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini (2009)
2.5GHz Core i5 Mac mini (2011)
24" Dell LCD & 42" Sharp TV
EyeTV 250 Plus
1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G iPod nanos
16GB 3G iPhone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homerjatmoes
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 323
Location: Elmira, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blazer wrote: | | twalker294 wrote: | | I ran it on my bone stock 1.42Ghz/512/80 gig mini and got 37. The hard drive bottleneck is very apparent when you compare the mini results to any G5. I need to bump up my RAM and get a faster drive in there and that should help quite a bit. |
I'd like to see a score for a 1.42 with 1GB and 7,200RPM internal hard drive. I could see a mini with those specs hitting 60. I need to take a closer look at results page to see if one is posted. |
Read a few posts back they got a 50 with a hatachi 7200. i don't know if it is an average or the highest mark they got.
_________________
1.42Ghz
1GB RAM
200GB FW HDD (Boot drive)
80GB HDD
External DVD burner
45.23 Xbench 1.2 average
FireWire Boot Guide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Photo Gallery
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
