Barefeats New Tests!

[Trout74]

iMac is looking more and more impressive. I am eating crow as we speak and it tastes good! The iMac is indeed starting to flex its muscles.

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html

Trout

 

[rainydays]

Looks pretty good. It would be interesting to throw in the 2.4 there as well. But I suppose it would come somewhere in between the 2.8 and the 2.33 on the number crunching tests.

My MacBook 2GHz scores 3150 in Cinebench 10 - MC Rendering. My 2.4 will be quite a lot quicker even if it's not as fast as the 2.8.

 

[paetrick]

Looks pretty good. It would be interesting to throw in the 2.4 there as well. But I suppose it would come somewhere in between the 2.8 and the 2.33 on the number crunching tests.

My MacBook 2GHz scores 3150 in Cinebench 10 - MC Rendering. My 2.4 will be quite a lot quicker even if it's not as fast as the 2.8.

It will run with same fps on the 2.4 as it's not using 100% processor capacity, in this case, it's "all" about the graphics. The old one isn't better because of it's 2,33 ghz processor, it's because it's graphicscard, so EXPECT same fps on the 2.4 ghz one !

 

[Red-red]

Can somebody please post the results on the forum for me, I can't look on the page for some reason.

 

[jimsoff]

"INSIGHT: This test, which puts as much as a 30% load on the GPU, is definitely faster on the new iMac 2.8GHz with the Radeon HD 2600 GT."

It's a pro not a GT, odd typo.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that it performs better than people had expected.

 

[rainydays]

It will run with same fps on the 2.4 as it's not using 100% processor capacity, in this case, it's "all" about the graphics. The old one isn't better because of it's 2,33 ghz processor, it's because it's graphicscard, so EXPECT same fps on the 2.4 ghz one!

I'm not talking about the GPU performance, I'm not worried about that. I'm more interested in the pure CPU performance difference between the 2.4 and the 2.8.

 

[Red-red]

I'm not talking about the GPU performance, I'm not worried about that. I'm more interested in the pure CPU performance difference between the 2.4 and the 2.8.

I would guess there will be a difference. Not a massive one but im sure there is a thread on it.

 

[rainydays]

I would guess there will be a difference. Not a massive one but im sure there is a thread on it.

I still haven't seen any decent benchmarking on the subject. I've only seen two Geekmark scores, where the 2.8 performed 11% better than the 2.4.

 

[Trout74]

Can somebody please post the results on the forum for me, I can't look on the page for some reason.

We are busily testing the new 2.8GHz iMac Aluminum against various other Macs. In this second installment, we have a mixed bag of test results to share.

First, we used BootCamp 1.4 to create a partition for install Windows XP Pro and the newest BootCamp 1.4 drivers for Windows. So far we've only run the Aspyr Prey test. We wanted to see if the Windows drivers produced faster frame rates than the Mac OS X drivers:





INSIGHT: Yes, the Windows drivers are "more mature." Hopefully we will see the Mac drivers optimized to at least match the performance of the Windows drivers in the near future.

Next we ran Maxon's new Cinebench 10 CPU and OpenGL tests on four different desktop Macs:





LEGEND
Mac Pro 8c = Mac Pro 8-core 3GHz with Quadro FX 4500
Mac Pro 4c = Mac Pro 4-core 3GHz with Radeon X1900 XT
iMac 2.8 = iMac C2D 2.8GHz with Radeon HD 2600 Pro
iMac 2.33 = iMac C2D 2.33GHz with GeForce 7600 GT

INSIGHTS: If you are serious about rendering complex 3D models, you'll want the Mac Pro.

The iMac 2.8 Aluminum shows its strength compared to the previous fastest iMac (2.33) by rendering the model 21% faster and flying through the sample 27% faster.

The next test was to do a RAM Preview Render of two Motion 3 Templates. The first one is the Fire-Mortise 2 NTSC (720x486) 300 frame template. The second is the Tech Blue - Video Open (1920x1080) 150 frame "HD" template.





INSIGHT: This test, which puts as much as a 30% load on the GPU, is definitely faster on the new iMac 2.8GHz with the Radeon HD 2600 GT.

The last test we are posting on this page is from a Core Image "showcase" app from Stone Design called iMaginator. We measured how long it took to render and playback the animation of a multi-effect Core Image morph (1000 frames).



INSIGHT: The new iMac did very well on this test, beating the previous high-end iMac handily.

MORE TO COME
We will be adding other tests and other examples of older iMacs in the days to come. Stay tuned.

 

[Trout74]

^^^^^^^^^didnt work quite right sorry^^^^^

 

[Red-red]

np, thanks for trying!