How does your Mac stack up? - Xbench

[BrianLachoreVPI]

Looks like Brian and I have the exact same computer, I wonder what the difference can be?

It does except you have the 750GB 5400 rpm drive and I have the 500GB 7200 rpm drive? Right? That does sort of render some of these results suspect. I may do another run today. It also seems clear that disk tests have a very large impact on the overall scores. Maybe it's time for me to put an SSD in this thing.


Edit: The more I look at the difference between our two results - the less sense it makes. Maybe someone here has a theory? I really don't understand why you would have a higher disk score.

 

[bobtomay]

It does except you have the 750GB 5400 rpm drive and I have the 500GB 7200 rpm drive? Right? That does sort of render some of these results suspect. I may do another run today. It also seems clear that disk tests have a very large impact on the overall scores. Maybe it's time for me to put an SSD in this thing.


Edit: The more I look at the difference between our two results - the less sense it makes. Maybe someone here has a theory? I really don't understand why you would have a higher disk score.

Because these tests just are not all that accurate. It only gives you a sense of how well your system performs. Just look at the difference on his machine on the Thread Test in the two separate runs.

Even if they were accurate - No two systems will have the exact same scores - even if identical. The hardware itself, the same chip - yet a different one - which software and firmware updates - what's loading at startup - all sorts of stuff.

Having said that, I'd like to see more comparisons between the 2.3 MBP and the 3.4 iMac.

 

[BrianLachoreVPI]

Because these tests just are not all that accurate. It only gives you a sense of how well your system performs. Just look at the difference on his machine on the Thread Test in the two separate runs.

Even if they were accurate - No two systems will have the exact same scores - even if identical. The hardware itself, the same chip - yet a different one - which software and firmware updates - what's loading at startup - all sorts of stuff.

Having said that, I'd like to see more comparisons between the 2.3 MBP and the 3.4 iMac.

I would expect to see some variance between identical systems - I think I'm surprised to see that he has a higher disk score. I actually just restarted - closed down everything I had running at startup (almost everything) and scored lower. I guess I'd need to understand what's underneath Xbench's skirt a little better.

BoostedBrian - I'd be interested in knowing your Geekbench scores.

I'm hoping to add a 3.4 iMac to his thread very soon. It's in Baltimore as of 1am this morning - but it's not showing that it's been sent out for delivery I guess FedEx2day doesn't do Saturdays? Makes me think I won't be getting it until Monday.

Oh - one other thing that had occurred to me. Boosted - have you installed the firmware updates that were just released this week?

 

[bobtomay]

Check out these reported SiSoft scores for that Hitachi:

All run in Win7 64 bit

 

[cwa107]

 

[BrianLachoreVPI]

Check out these reported SiSoft scores for that Hitachi:

All run in Win7 64 bit

It makes me think I either have an underperforming drive - or Xbench's tests aren't accurate - but they should be equally inaccurate regardless. I have no complaints about my drive performance though - this machine is the quickest machine I've ever owned.

I'm really curious to know if Boosted has installed the latest firmware. The reason I ask is because chscag made this comment and when I read that, I was asking myself what tweaks could they have made in firmware that would improve the thermal operation while not negatively impacting performance. I don't know this to be true - I was just having an internal conversation. I was planning to do before and after Geekbench tests just out of curiosity. I've only installed half of the update though.

At the end of the day - I just want second place back!! :Blushing:

 

[bentharbour]

2010 iMac 27" i3 3.2Ghz 12 GB Ram

 

[cwa107]

It makes me think I either have an underperforming drive - or Xbench's tests aren't accurate - but they should be equally inaccurate regardless. I have no complaints about my drive performance though - this machine is the quickest machine I've ever owned.

Compare mine to yours. I have a 7K500 as well, and my numbers are significantly lower than yours - even with what I suspect is the same SATA controller (albeit a slightly different drive model).

 

[bobtomay]

Seeing ya'lls numbers, believe I'll stick with my WDs.

When I was using the 320, I also matched the number dtravis put up on his, but the 500 boots almost 10 seconds faster than the 320 did.

 

[Ramimac1]

OK Here is my 2010 27" i3 8gb Ram

 

[cwa107]

Seeing ya'lls numbers, believe I'll stick with my WDs.

When I was using the 320, I also matched the number dtravis put up on his, but the 500 boots almost 10 seconds faster than the 320 did.

I've always had noise and vibration issues with the WDs. The last one I bought is in an external case - and every time that sucker fires up in its MacAlly FW case, I would think I'm being buzzed by a helicopter.

Not sure if you remember, but I even had NewEgg swap it out, and the replacement was exactly the same.

In a desktop, I don't really care about noise and vibration, but in a laptop, it's a real PITA.

 

[bobtomay]

Yeah, I remember you having that vibration issue and you're not the only one reporting it. Guessing maybe I've been lucky with mine - but, as long as the luck continues, I'll probably keep on giving them my cash until I can afford a SSD.

I just can't give any money to Samsung, or I'd be looking at that SpinPoint with 2 different users getting a score at over 100 with it - or at least consider more research on it.

 

[cwa107]

I have yet to see a Samsung drive that still works outside of a year or two. And when they fail, they fail spectacularly, with little hope of any recovery. Toshiba is a little better and Fujitsu just a notch up from that.

 

[cwa107]

Samsung does make excellent washers and driers, however

 

[dtravis7]

This is the 2.16 C2D mini that was originally a Core Duo Mini. The basic scores are not far off from the iMac but the iMac doing real work like video conversion takes way less time. That is why I don't put too much stake in some benchmark apps like this one.

 

[pigoo3]

I think that this thread is going well so far...and I don't want to be a "buzz-kill"...but Xbench may not be the best benchmarking program to use (good/great for most Macintosh models, but not all).

I ran Xbench on my Mac Pro (8-core, with hyper-threading 16 virtual cores)...and I couldn't figure out why my computer was scoring lower than some computers in the thread so far (computers that it should be scoring better than). Then I noticed in the Xbench "Thread Test"...that it was only testing with 4 threads. From the information that I could gather for Xbench...it is "mutli-core/multi-thread" capable...but the info didn't mention how many threads. From what I can tell...Xbench is limited to 4 threads (4-cores)...which is what I see in my 8-core Mac Pro's Thread test results (it should be showing 16 threads).

There are pretty much three downloadable benchmarking programs available:

- Geekbench (will test as many cores as your computer has, shortcoming is it only tests the cpu, not video, etc.)
- Xbench (good program, but seems to be limited to 4threads/4-cores)
- Cinebench v11.5 (a long download, and the test takes longer, but IMHO a better test, although I don't think that it has a disk test)

MAXON: CINEBENCH 11.5

For those interested..maybe we could start a second set of results for Cinebench v11.5...and see how things stack-up.

FYI #1...I think "HarryB" is the only person so far who submitted Xbench results for a Mac Pro. Harry has a 1st gen. Mac Pro 1,1 (which has 4-cores) so Xbench benchmarks for this model computer are just fine (just like any of the quad-core iMac's or quad-core MacBook Pro's). It's only when you exceed 4-cores (later model Mac Pro's) when things may be get "under-measured".

FYI #2..."Speedmark" benchmarking software is what MacWorld usually uses when it benchmarks Macintosh computers. But I don't think that this program is downloadable (or at least I couldn't find a site to download it from).

FYI #3...If you decide to run Cinebench...definitely use version 11.5...since the earlier version 10 doesn't support all the cores in some newer Mac Pro's.

- Nick

p.s. robduckyworth...great job! I know that you mentioned choosing Xbench...since as you mentioned...the 64-bit version of Geekbench isn't free.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

This is off my mid-2010 iMac i3 3.2 GHz with 4 GB RAM. (iMac 11,2)

As a side note, Xbench hasn't been updated since 2006. With the improved engine in Snow Leopard and how it handles multi-core processors, I'm wondering how accurate it is now.

 

[BrianLachoreVPI]

I think that this thread is going well so far...and I don't want to be a "buzz-kill"...but Xbench may not be the best benchmarking program to use (good/great for most Macintosh models, but not all).



There are pretty much three downloadable benchmarking programs available:

- Geekbench (will test as many cores as your computer has, shortcoming is it only tests the cpu, not video, etc.)
- Xbench (good program, but seems to be limited to 4threads/4-cores)
- Cinebench v11.5 (a long download, and the test takes longer, but IMHO a better test, although I don't think that it has a disk test)

MAXON: CINEBENCH 11.5

For those interested..maybe we could start a second set of results for Cinebench v11.5...and see how things stack-up.

Excellent idea - or perhaps a thread for each tool - and then once enough data has been collected some enterprising person can capture the highlights from all 3 in a meaningful display.

This is off my mid-2010 iMac i3 3.2 GHz with 4 GB RAM. (iMac 11,2)

As a side note, Xbench hasn't been updated since 2006. With the improved engine in Snow Leopard and how it handles multi-core processors, I'm wondering how accurate it is now.

If it hasn't been updated since 2006 - that makes Nick's suggestion that much more appropriate - at least to my feeble mind.

A side question - since I'm suddenly obsessing about disk performance - what do you contribute your high disk score to?

At the very least - at the end of this data collection exercise - especially if extended to the other benchmarking tools - it'll provide a nice "at-a-glance" feel for what the performance hitters are as well as technology trending for Apple.

Excellent idea for a thread Rob - or even a series of threads as Nick has suggested.

 

[BrianLachoreVPI]

Compare mine to yours. I have a 7K500 as well, and my numbers are significantly lower than yours - even with what I suspect is the same SATA controller (albeit a slightly different drive model).

You're right - which makes me that much more curious about BoostedBrian's results.

Samsung does make excellent washers and driers, however

I still like their TV's


P.S. I just called FedEx - my new iMac is in Baltimore - at the holding facility (only 20 min from here) - but due to the Mother's day log jam - I won't get it until Monday and, since I'll be in Chicago Monday and Tuesday - that means I have to wait until Tuesday night.

 

[Stretch]

I've always had noise and vibration issues with the WDs. The last one I bought is in an external case - and every time that sucker fires up in its MacAlly FW case, I would think I'm being buzzed by a helicopter.

Not sure if you remember, but I even had NewEgg swap it out, and the replacement was exactly the same.

In a desktop, I don't really care about noise and vibration, but in a laptop, it's a real PITA.

Never noticed any vibration issues with WD drives. I've swapped the Mini's drive out with one and had a few of the 2.5in portables. If I start having issues with the Hitachi drive that is in my MBP, I'll probably replace it with a WD. I might do it anyways since I really don't trust Hitachi.

After Seagate's firmware issue with their 1TB drives, I won't buy their drives any more, and all the other companies are kinda iffy in my book.