Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Running a video card benchmark on your Mac.

flopticalcube said:
ATITool 0.27b2 clock the GPU up by steps of 7MHz and the mem by 9MHz
Click to expand...

when you say by 7mhz, say the core speed is 520, you make it 527mhz?
I did the find maximum thing on vista, but got bored at half an hour so stopped it at like 300mhz over, and then I got crazy business with colourfull ants on crack running around my desktop (probably the gnomes under the hood were not too happy, but hard reboot fixed it)..
I'm concerned about the MBPs heat management, do you think if I just increase it by 7mhz (1.3%) and the memory by 9mhz its going to make a good difference w/o damaging hardware? and what's a very safe upper limit (alternate to default)
 
recoman3 said:
when you say by 7mhz, say the core speed is 520, you make it 527mhz?
I did the find maximum thing on vista, but got bored at half an hour so stopped it at like 300mhz over, and then I got crazy business with colourfull ants on crack running around my desktop (probably the gnomes under the hood were not too happy, but hard reboot fixed it)..
I'm concerned about the MBPs heat management, do you think if I just increase it by 7mhz (1.3%) and the memory by 9mhz its going to make a good difference w/o damaging hardware? and what's a very safe upper limit (alternate to default)
Click to expand...

7mhz is only for the imac... but its universal for your mbp i spose. id just go up like 20mhz at a time.. just check the temps and see how your going..

if it doesnt overheat and shutdown on you that means that its not TOO hot :p
mine normally overheats and dies...u get that tho
 
DoFoT9 said:
7mhz is only for the imac... but its universal for your mbp i spose. id just go up like 20mhz at a time.. just check the temps and see how your going..

if it doesnt overheat and shutdown on you that means that its not TOO hot :p
mine normally overheats and dies...u get that tho
Click to expand...

I just realised that I don't need to overclock it anyway, UT3 runs super with some settings on ultra and most on the 2nd highest settings, 1920x1200 resolution.. I probably will be looking at overclocking to play UT5 or Crysis 3 or something =P
 
Rev. B 12" PowerBook (1GHz G4, 32MB GeForce FX Go5200, 768MB RAM)
OSX 10.3.9, 1024x768 (native) res
Score: 460

Does that mean the X3100 (score 1936 a few posts up) would give roughly 4x the fps?
 
10.5.1

OpenMark started...
workdfolder: /Users/abarreno/Desktop/GioFX OpenMark/
resources: /Users/abarreno/Desktop/GioFX OpenMark/OpenMark.app/Contents/Resources/
hardware detected:
cpu family: 0x69353836
cpu type: 0x69353836
opengl vendor: Intel Inc.
opengl renderer: Intel GMA X3100 OpenGL Engine
opengl version: 1.2 APPLE-1.5.18
test parms:
surface 1280x800 32bpp
textures: on
lighting: on
keep in sync: off
test started
FPS 504.0 0 triangles
FPS 382.0 1152 triangles
FPS 442.0 4608 triangles
FPS 427.0 10368 triangles
FPS 374.0 18432 triangles
FPS 289.0 28800 triangles
FPS 234.0 41472 triangles
FPS 194.0 56448 triangles
FPS 162.0 73728 triangles
FPS 134.0 93312 triangles
FPS 106.0 115200 triangles
FPS 96.0 139392 triangles
FPS 79.0 165888 triangles
FPS 72.0 194688 triangles
FPS 63.0 225792 triangles
FPS 55.0 259200 triangles
FPS 50.0 294912 triangles
FPS 45.0 332928 triangles
FPS 40.0 373248 triangles
FPS 36.0 415872 triangles
FPS 33.0 460800 triangles
FPS 30.0 508032 triangles
FPS 28.0 557568 triangles
FPS 26.0 609408 triangles
FPS 24.0 663552 triangles
FPS 22.0 720000 triangles
FPS 20.0 778752 triangles
FPS 19.0 839808 triangles
FPS 18.0 903168 triangles
FPS 17.0 968832 triangles
FPS 16.0 1036800 triangles
FPS 15.0 1107072 triangles
FPS 14.0 1179648 triangles
FPS 13.0 1254528 triangles
FPS 12.0 1331712 triangles
FPS 12.0 1411200 triangles
FPS 11.0 1492992 triangles
FPS 11.0 1577088 triangles
FPS 10.0 1663488 triangles
FPS 10.0 1752192 triangles
FPS 9.0 1843200 triangles
final score: 1936
test stopped


Note: The 1 GB score was 1936 and then my 2 GB score originally was 1492.
 
risc said:
The scores above were in Tiger (6653). The same machine in Leopard (10.5.0) scores 6830. Translation the iMac HD2600 drivers still suck! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

10.5.1, latest firmware = exactly the same score 6830.

I really have to say it sucks that the new iMac is scoring worse than the old 1. Apple has a lot to answer for!
 
DoFoT9 said:
underclocked
Click to expand...

BareFeats iMac driver test

imal3kaktj0.gif


... :rolleyes:
 
DoFoT9 said:
vista is impressive tho.
Click to expand...

I guess this is where we differ I don't think it is impressive at all that a video card is running as expected with the correct drivers. All I see when I look at that is how bad the drivers are in OS X.

edit:

Just read this at BareFeats :-

We reran our 3D accelerated game test suite after installing Leopard and iMac Software Update 1.3 on our Aluminum iMac 2.8GHz (24"). We used High Quality at 1920x1200. The frame rates improved as much as 18%, depending on the game.

Yet we're told there is work going on to squeeze even more speed out of the Radeon HD 2600 Pro. We'll report on that as soon as it happens.

Hopefully we see some updated drivers soon.
 
My results seem quite decent. I'm running a MBP with an NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (256mb)
 

Attachments

  • graphics test results.png
    graphics test results.png
    37.8 KB · Views: 120
GMA 950 1280x800 32bit (MacBook):

968

Radeon 9600 1400x900 32 bit (iMac G5):

4147

Yes, Intel graphics sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back