DiaboliK Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Alright kids, i hate xbench's opengl and other graphics tests, cause it dependent on the monitor's resolution and refresh rate, change that and your results change! so some people here at : GioFX , created OpenMark : OpenGl benchmarking for Mac OS X with that said and done lets post some results. heres my ATi x1300Pro 256 pci-e with NatitX1300(R1) and 1049 ATi kexts: (you need to convert the .tga to something uploadable to attach here) X1300Pro.R1.OpenMark.result.txt i will post my other cards when im done actually using them, to pull a few benches off them. -DiaboliK (if this program crahses your system or locks it up, you have a problem with your OpenGL ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiaboliK Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 couple more of my cards: XFX 7600GS fanless 256mb pci-e: natit dual v02, unedited nvidia 1049 kexts Diabolik.7600GS.Fanless.OpenMarkresult.txt Sapphire X1600Pro 512mb pci-e: NatitX1600 (R1v3), edited atiradeonx1000.kext and 10.4.5 atindrv.kext , all other ati kexts are 1049 Diabolik.X1600Pro.512.OpenMarkresult.txt Ive got a couple more cards but they are agp and i cant use agpgart so ill post anyway but i have to get that machine updated:P lets see some more benches so we can have a nice comparison! -DiaboliK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicheusz Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 GF 6600 TC on 10.4.9 kernel 8.9.1, I am curious how this benchmark is depended on CPU I have celeron 2.53GHz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiaboliK Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 GF 6600 TC on 10.4.9 kernel 8.9.1, I am curious how this benchmark is depended on CPU I have celeron 2.53GHz this doesnt bech your cpu just your gpu and opengl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxkid Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Hackintosh specs: AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200 1GB Corsair Ram Gigabyte K8N Pro SLi (1) XFX Geforce 7900GT Overclocked OSX 10.4.8 Semethex 8.8.1 kernel Natit Universal Installer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alc0h0lic Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 GMA950 @ 1600x1200x32 = 609 Points... yeah it suxx bigtime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritalin Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 GMA950 @ 1024x768x32 = 720 Nvidia 6200 PCI @ 1280x1024x32 = 5807 Both on a Asrock conroe 945G-DVI with a C2D 1.87GHz E6300 and 1Gb Ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu.Walker Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Can't run the bench at any other resolutions other than 1152x870x32 (crashes when switching to fullscreen), my desktop is at 1280x1024x32. Everything works fine otherwise, the app scared me. Natit Dual v.02 with 10.4.9 kexts, more at sig. Palit Geforce 7600GT 256MB PCIe Openmark Score: 16040 OpenMark_result.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Pentium 4 3Ghz HTT 2GB DDR 200GB HDD 10.4.8[8.8.1] 1680x1050x32 res 7900GS stock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consolation Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I'm surprised to see 7600GTs scoring higher then 7900GS' and very close to 7900GTs, I suspect something is very unwell with kext's responsible for 7900s. All benchies below were run at stock speeds.... Good old 9800, still pulling it's weight, damn that was a good card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcell Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Sapphire Ati Radeon x1600xt 256MB DDR3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kle500 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Although i couldn't run the bench on my EIZO CRT, i changed monitors and on my Mitsubishi CRT i got the following results Graphics = Gainward 7600GS passive Stock speed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRed Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 ATI MSI x1950xtx stock SCORE : 16040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Well this makes me feel a bit better about my 7900 GTO. xBench had it running at around 160, which is quite a bit slower than my buddy's x1600 in his Macbook Pro. I'll be interested to see what his card gets in OpenMark. My result was a 23,557. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I'm surprised to see 7600GTs scoring higher then 7900GS' and very close to 7900GTs, I suspect something is very unwell with kext's responsible for 7900s. I was running the benchmark in 1680x1050 resolution. The 7600GT was running in 1100x700 or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postaldave Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 i really don't understand these numbers. in consolation's post there is a 7600GT with a score of 16,040 and a 7600GS with a score of 10,396 but the GT was at 9 FPS and theGS was 363 FPS here is the part i don't understand, how does the GT get higher score running 9FPS? that just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 The FPS probably dropped when the screenshot was taken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiaboliK Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share Posted April 2, 2007 i really don't understand these numbers. in consolation's post there is a 7600GT with a score of 16,040 and a 7600GS with a score of 10,396 but the GT was at 9 FPS and theGS was 363 FPS here is the part i don't understand, how does the GT get higher score running 9FPS? that just doesn't make sense. the bottom fps is just the fps thats currently going. if you used the tga that it output it would usally be 9fps. screenshots will vary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritalin Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 So could we normalize the results somehow? Normalized Result = (Width x Height x Depth x Score)/1000000000 Using that formula would give the following: DaxTsurugi 7900GS (1680 x 1050 x 32 x 15769)/1000000000 = 890 consolation 7600GT (1440 x 900 x 32 x 16040)/1000000000 = 665 My Nvidia 6200 PCI (1280 x 1024 x 32 x 5807)/1000000000 = 243 SA22C 7900 GTO (1280 x 1024 x 32 x 23557)/1000000000 = 988 Does this make sense or am I talking {censored}? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 That seems reasonable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 That makes more sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu.Walker Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 How about trying this out, also includes a nifty utility: OpenGL Extensions Viewer It would make things easier IMHO, and it's not as buggy/picky with GioFX's fullscreen problems. I can run the included benchmarks in all resolutions, also has AA/AF tests and GPU capabilities. Maybe a better Better OpenGL Benchmarking app? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consolation Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 How about trying this out, also includes a nifty utility: OpenGL Extensions Viewer It would make things easier IMHO, and it's not as buggy/picky with GioFX's fullscreen problems. I can run the included benchmarks in all resolutions, also has AA/AF tests and GPU capabilities. Maybe a better Better OpenGL Benchmarking app? Multi-Render tests will crash on some hackies using OG Extension viewer, I think it's still affected by screen resolution (display mode selection) + lod/aa settings it would be even more of a pita to standardize. We could all agree to bench @ a lowest common denominator (1024x768) or a common resolution (1280x1024). First option will work on any display, but gives old/low end card a deceptive advantage, second may not be possible on all displays. Ritalin's normalization method seems to provide results approximate to what you see in the real world. if you are interested in how these compare to PPC macs mid-range high-end -you will need to register for the SDs site, but it's well worth the hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consolation Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Actually - OpenMark seems reasonably resistant to resolution change, I benched at different resolutions: 1024x640= 655360pixels 16313 1440x900= 1296000pixels 16040 1280*1024=1310720pixels 16040 Doubling the pixels resulted in only a 1.7% drop; so the benchmarks at different resolutions are comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu.Walker Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 So I guess it doesn't really matter what resolution you bench it on, it just calculates pure GPU processing power. Nice. I'm liking this bench more. Let's forget about me suggesting OpenGL Extensions Viewer And considering that the 7600GTs returned almost the same results (16040), makes it much more reliable than the other GPU benchmarks I know, even at different resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts