[beppeg]

Finally we are ready to launch the SpeedTest v1.1
Special thanx to Rivoli for the fiberglass.mxm and Thomas An. for the fine tuning of the SIMball™ mxs
Link for downloading the scene:
http://www.maxwellrender.it/Fileshare/S ... t_v1_1.zip
Please post the results in this way:
CPU: processor type and speed in GHz*
Cores: number of total cores
Ram: in GB
OS: only few choice for now (Vista, XP32, XP64, 2000, X10.3, X10.4, P2000**)
Time: 00:00:00
Bench: bench value
*if the cpu is overclocked, specify the nominal speed and the new one with the @ simbol (es. 2,66 GHz @ 2,8 GHz)

**P2000= Parallels + Win 2000 under mac osx 10.4.8

Thanx:)
Speedtest in PDF format:
http://www.beppegullotta.it/STpdf/Speed ... 1_1_28.pdf
[/url]

[beppeg]

I made some tests with the new M~R v1.1UB for mac and my G5's are ~15% faster than with v1.1 standard

[rivoli]

thanks for setting this up beppe. and now let's see some quad core bench

[sandykoufax]

May I request more specified cpu info? like xeon 5160 or 5060

Dual Xeon processor has too various core.

So I want to know what kind of core do you have. (dempsey or woodcrest or irwindale or others)

Rivoli's xeon quad core seems that Xeon 5150 woodcrest dual. right?

Anyway, Rivoli's system is about 6 times faster than mine.

I have P4 2.6C.

[rivoli]

Rivoli's xeon quad core seems that Xeon 5150 woodcrest dual. right?

yep, that's correct. it's a mac pro with two xeon 5150.
as soon as I find a bit of time I will do the test again under xp 64 and with the ub version under osx.

[sandykoufax]

as soon as I find a bit of time I will do the test again under xp 64 and with the ub version under osx.

Yes, thanks. I really want to know.

but I think usefulness of xp64 is shown with more bigger scene.

so IMO the difference between 32bit xp and 64bit xp is not serious.

but none the less, the test is really curious.

[aitraaz]

yup, I'm running it right now on a macpro with xp64, but as sandy says with such a small scene i doubt there's much sense to it. Will post the results soon, just for curiosity...So far I've got 4 minutes time passed and 35 minutes time left with a 164 bench so it looks like its gonna be about the same...

[rivoli]

yup, I'm running it right now on a macpro with xp64, but as sandy says with such a small scene i doubt there's much sense to it.

you're both right, it shouldn't make much of a difference. but with three OSs on a sinlge machine one wants to try them all. like a OS frenzy.

[aitraaz]

lol, its a fedding frenzy alright...here's the macpro bench of XP64:

CPU: Macpro Dual Xeon Woodcrest 5150 Dualcore 2.66 GHz Cores: 4 RAM: 4,0 GB OS: XP64 Time: 00:39:55 Bench: 165.67 Minutes: 39:55

[jomaga]

CPU: Pentium 4 D940 Dual core 3,2GHz
Cores: 2
Ram: 2 GB
OS: Windows Vista RC1 64bits
Time: 2h:23m:48s
Bench: 42,28

[zoppo]

CPU: AMD x2 3800 @ 4800 (2GHz @ 2.4GHz)
Cores: 2
Ram: 2GB
OS: XP32

Time: 1h:43min:29sec
Bench: 63.89

[glebe digital]

CPU: AMD AthlonX2 +4800
Cores: 2
Ram: 2GB
OS: XP64
Time: 01:34:21
Bench: 70.04

[andretto]

CPU: COnroe 6600 (OC 3060 GHz)
Cores: 2
RAM: 2Gb
OS: XP32
Time: 1:00:24
Bench: 109.49

[aitraaz]

Here's the bench on the same box for OSX UB 1.1:

CPU: Macpro Dual Xeon Woodcrest 5150 Dualcore 2.66 GHz Cores: 4 RAM: 4,0 GB OS: OSX 10.4.8 Time: 00:45:38 Bench: 144.65 Minutes: 45:38

So, the XP64 to OSX comparison:

XP64: Bench: 165.67 Minutes: 39:55
OSX 10.4.8: Bench: 144.65 Minutes: 45:38

As a sidenote, before running the UB on OSX, tried a quick run with the old power pc version, the benchmark was around 40 and time around 2hrs 40 minutes, so, quickly concluding:

1) Massive OSX performance increase with the UB on itel macs
2) XP still a step ahead, not much

Would like to see the benches on the macpro xeons at 3,00 GHz, curious to see if the performance increase justifies the +800 € price

[Pietro Spampatti]

yep, that's correct. it's a mac pro with two xeon 5150.

rivoli... you are one of the new users than it has contributed to raise apple's market share...

P.

p.s: remember to conserve the box!