Geek Patrol

Overclocked Geekbench Comparison (December 2006)

Back at the beginning of December I posted a Geekbench comparison featuring a number of current (and not-so-current) processors. For those of you keeping score at home, you might’ve noticed that the comparison only looked at non-overclocked processors. Since Geekbench is popular with the overclocking crowd, I thought it’d be interesting to look at non-overclocked and overclocked results for some of the more popular processors in the Geekbench Result Browser database.

Setup

Much like December’s Geekbench comparison, I’ve collected results from the Geekbench Result Browser database for the 32-bit Windows version of Geekbench running on systems with at least 512MB of RAM.

Instead of averaging the overall scores for each processor (as was done in previous comparisons), I’ve plotted each score for each processor in a graph that shows the effect of processor frequency on Geekbench score (each processor gets its own graph). Higher scores are better.

Results

Conclusion

I’m not at all surprised to see that Geekbench scores for the same model of processor tend to increase with processor speed; after all, Geekbench is a processor benchmark! I’m also not surprised to see that Geekbench scores don’t just depend on processor frequency; looking at the graphs it’s clear that other factors play a role (such as memory configuration).

What is interesting is the clusters of results at certain frequencies for the Core 2 Duo processors. There’s a cluster of results around the stock frequency, and a second cluster around a higher frequency; I wonder if this second cluster shows the overclocking limit of each particular Core 2 Duo processor (without resorting to exotic cooling systems).

So, if you want to improve your Geekbench score, the most obvious way to do it is by overclocking your processor. However, as the graphs show, there are other, less obvious ways to do it, too (such as investing in faster memory).

Eight Core Mac Pro Benchmarks

As we’ve known for a while now, it’s possible to upgrade the processors in the Mac Pro. Now that quad-core Xeon processors are available now, some enterprising Mac user has gone out and upgraded the processors in their stock Mac Pro from two dual-core Xeons to two quad-core Xeons, and run Geekbench on their new eight-core Mac Pro. I thought it’d be interesting to see how the performance of this eight-core Mac Pro compares to a couple of the stock four-core Mac Pros.

Setup

• Mac Pro (Quad-Core Xeon @ 2.33GHz)

  • Two Intel Xeon E5345 quad-core processors @ 2.33GHz
  • 4096MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8
  • Geekbench 2006 64-bit (Build 242)

• Mac Pro (Dual-Core Xeon @ 3.00GHz)

  • Two Intel Xeon 5160 dual-core processors @ 3.00GHz
  • 4096MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8
  • Geekbench 2006 64-bit (Build 242)

• Mac Pro (Dual-Core Xeon @ 2.66GHz)

  • Two Intel Xeon 5150 dual-core processors @ 2.66GHz
  • 4096MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8
  • Geekbench 2006 64-bit (Build 242)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each benchmark (where a score of 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz would receive). Higher is better.

Conclusion

When it comes to processor-intensive multi-threaded tests, the eight-core Mac Pro is certainly faster than both four-core Mac Pros. However, the eight-core Mac Pro is slower than both four-core Mac Pros when it comes to single-threaded tests, thanks to the fact that its cores run at 2.33GHz (compared to 3.00GHz and 2.66GHz for the four-core Mac Pros). Heck, any processes that uses four threads or less will be faster on the four-core Mac Pros than the eight-core Mac Pro; you’re only going to notice a performance benefit when processes take advantage of the extra cores the eight-core Mac Pro offers.

Should you run out and upgrade your four-core Mac Pro to an eight-core Mac Pro? If you have to ask that question, then probably not. This is the sort of upgrade that appeals to hardware enthusiasts and users that really need more than four processor cores.

Would it make sense for Apple to offer an eight-core Mac Pro? Maybe, if the clock speed of the quad-core processor was comparable to the clock speed of the dual-core processor. Even then, I’m not sure how many users would find the four extra cores worth the extra money.

That doesn’t mean I can’t covet an eight-core Mac Pro, though.

Quad Core Benchmarks

CDRinfo posted some Intel quad-core processor benchmark results earlier this month, including results from Geekbench. While I’ve got concerns about CDRinfo’s benchmark methodology (they under-clocked CPUs to emulate CPUs missing from their lineup, like the E6600 and QX6600), it’s still interesting to see how benchmarks like Geekbench perform on a quad-core CPU.

32-bit vs 64-bit Vista Benchmarks

The folks over at 64-bit-computers.com have published an article comparing the performance of 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Vista, and they’re using Geekbench as their benchmarking tool.

From the article:

Both 32-bit and 64-bit tests were done on a budget AMD Sempron 2800+ powered desktop PC, featuring Asus K8U-X motherboard with 512MB of main memory.

The 32-bit Windows Vista Ultimate achived 99.8 GeekBench points, while the 64-bit version of the same OS gained 110.7 points.

(via Digg)

Geekbench Comparison (December 2006)

Our obsession with benchmarks and Geekbench continues! Earlier this year we did a couple of Geekbench Comparisons using a number of different machines. While the comparisons were popular, a number of people thought we were being, well, less than fair since we didn’t have enough high-end CPUs from AMD and Intel.

So, for this Geekbench comparison, I’m including most of the recent AMD and Intel desktop processors (along with some not-so-recent desktop processors) along with a wide variety of recent Mac models, ranging from the PowerBook G4 to the Mac Pro.

This time ’round, instead of using results from a single computer, I’m using average results from all the computers in the Geekbench Result Browser database (provided the results meet certain criteria outlined below). To make sure I’ve got a good sample size for each computer, I’m only including computers (or processors) that have at least three distinct results in the result browser. This should help compensate for differences in components (such as RAM) between different computers.

Setup

For Intel and AMD processors, results were collected from Geekbench for Windows (32-bit) running on systems with processors running at stock speed (i.e., no over-clocked processors) and with at least 512MB of RAM.

For Mac systems, results were collected from Geekbench for Mac OS X (32-bit) running on systems with standard processors (i.e., no over-clocked processors or processor upgrades) and with at least 512MB of RAM.

I’m reporting the average overall score for each processor, where 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz would receive. As always, higher scores are better.

AMD Processors

You can see differences in performance for each processor depending on its socket type (thanks to the type of RAM each socket uses); Socket 754 (which uses single-channel DDR RAM ) is slower than Socket 939 (which uses dual-channel DDR RAM), which in turn is slower than Socket AM2 (which uses dual-channel DDR2 RAM)

You can also see that AMD model numbers are fairly consistent; an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ offers roughly the same performance as an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (180.2 vs 172.5 for Socket AM2), Unfortunately both are slower than a Pentium 4 3.8GHz (211.0), which suggests the model numbers are somewhat optimistic when compared to Intel CPUs.

Intel Processors

Looking at these numbers, Pentium D processors don’t seem particularly attractive; on one end, high-end single-core Pentium 4 processors offer better performance, while on the other end dual-core Core 2 chips offer better performance and better power-consumption. I’m not surprised that it’s getting harder and harder to buy Pentium D processors these days (save for the low-end Pentium Ds).

Another interesting thing to note is the jump in performance between the Core 2 Duo E6400 and the Core 2 Duo E6600; moving from 2×1MB to 2×2MB of L2 cache makes a big difference for the Core 2 Duo processor. Speaking of Core 2 Duo processors, the Core 2 Duo X6800 is the fastest dual-core processor in this comparison (with only the dual-processor dual-core Mac Pro @ 3.0GHz being faster overall).

Mac Models

Mac mini performance almost doubled with the switch from a PowerPC G4 @ 1.5GHz to an Intel Core Solo at 1.5GHz with no increase in clock speed. Zomg! iBook and PowerBook (er, MacBook and MacBook Pro) performance also increased dramatically with the switch to the Intel Core Duo (and later to the Intel Core 2 Duo), especially since both went from single-core to dual-core processors.

iMac and PowerMac (er, Mac Pro) performance didn’t benefit as much with the switch to Intel processors since the PowerPC G5 isn’t nearly as old and busted as the PowerPC G4, but the high-end Mac Pro does have a considerable performance advantage over the top-end Power Mac G5. Even the low-end Mac Pro is competitive against the high-end Power Mac G5 (and is substantially cheaper to boot).

Final Thoughts

It’s interesting to see where the bottlenecks in processor and memory performance have occurred over the years (hello, PowerPC G4!) and how processor and computer manufacturers worked around these bottlenecks (hello, Intel!). Really, though, it’s graphs like these that make me want to “accidentally” spill a gallon of water on my three-year-old PowerBook G4 so I can go out and get a shiny new MacBook Pro.

PlayStation 3 Performance

Update: Check out the latest Playstation 3 benchmarks which use Geekbench 2 (the new hotness) instead of Geekbench 2006.

On Sunday I saw a clip of Fedora Core 5 for PPC running on the PlayStation 3 over at Kotaku; I’d completely forgotten that Sony was going to make it easy to boot other operating systems on the PlayStation 3!

On Monday I started receiving requests for Geekbench for Linux PPC so people could run it on the PlayStation 3. I managed to get a beta version out last night and while it’s not quite ready for public release yet, one beta tester sent in the results for his PlayStation 3 which I thought I’d share. To give the results some context, I’m going to compare the PlayStation 3 results against one of the first Power Mac G5s running at 1.6GHz.

Update: Geekbench 2006 for Linux PPC is available now, if you’re interested in benchmarking your PlayStation 3 (or PPC-based Linux box) yourself.

Setup

• Playstation 3

  • Cell Broadband Engine @ 3.2GHz
  • 256 MB RAM
  • Fedora Core 5
  • Geekbench 2006 (Build 243)

• Power Mac G5

  • PowerPC G5 @ 1.6GHz
  • 1280 MB RAM
  • Fedora Core 4
  • Geekbench 2006 (Build 243)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each test (where 100 is the score a PowerMac G5 1.6GHz running Mac OS X would receive on the same test). As always, higher scores are better.

Results

Conclusion

There was a comment on Slashdot last year that made the following assertion about the Cell processor:

The problem is that though the main CPU is PowerPC-based like current Apple chips, it is stripped down, and the Altivec support will be much lower than in current G5s. Unoptomized, Apple code would run like a G4 on this hardware.

Turns out the comment was right; Cell processor performance is comparable to low-end PowerPC G5 performance (which in turn is comparable to high-end PowerPC G4 performance). I can’t comment on Altivec performance, unfortunately, since Geekbench for Linux PPC doesn’t measure Altivec performance yet.

Geekbench also isn’t able to exploit the eight vector processors on the Cell processor. Any program designed and optimized for the Cell processor should be a lot faster than one designed for a generic processor (like, say, Geekbench). So while the Geekbench results might seem disappointing, keep in mind that Geekbench can’t exercise the PlayStation 3 to its full potential.

MacBook Core 2 Duo Performance

Apple released updated MacBooks on Wednesday; among the improvements is an upgrade from the Core Duo processor to the Core 2 Duo processor. I thought I’d take a look at the performance of the new Core 2 Duo MacBooks with Geekbench.

Setup

Here’s the setup of the two test machines:

• MacBook (Late 2006)

  • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
  • 1024 MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8 (Build 8N1106)
  • Geekbench 2006 (Build 230)

• MacBook

  • Intel Core Duo @ 2.0GHz
  • 1024 MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8 (Build 8L2127)
  • Geekbench 2006 (Build 230)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each test (where 100 is the score a PowerMac G5 1.6GHz would receive on the same test). Oh, and for the baseline scores, higher is better. I’m also reporting the results for the 32-bit and 64-bit version of Geekbench for the Core 2 Duo since it’s capable of running both.

Conclusion

Apple’s claiming up to a 25% performance increase from moving the MacBook from the Core Duo to the Core 2 Duo, and for once, Apple’s claims don’t seem entirely unreasonable; overall performance went up by 18% with the switch to the Core 2 Duo at the same clockspeed, and I’m sure the increase would’ve been larger had we compared the Core Duo @ 1.83GHz against the Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz. MacBook 64-bit performance is impressive, too (over 28% faster overall than the Core Duo).

What’s also impressive is the Core 2 Duo MacBook is slightly faster than the Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro I tested a couple of weeks ago, especially when you consider the Core 2 Duo in the MacBook Pro is 160MHz faster. ZOMG!

Overall, when it comes to processor performance, the latest MacBook is an impressive laptop.

Sun Ultra 20 M2 Linux Performance

On Monday I posted Geekbench results for my Sun Ultra 20 M2 running Solaris and Windows. Afterwards, I received a number of requests asking how Linux performed on the same hardware.

Now that I’ve finally managed to download Fedora Core 6 (arguably the “official” Linux of Geek Patrol), here are the Geekbench results for Fedora Core 6 (and Solaris, as a comparison) on a Sun Ultra 20 M2.

Setup

Here’s the configuration of my Sun Ultra 20 M2:

• AMD Dual-Core Opteron 1210
• 512 MB DDR2-667 RAM (1 DIMM)
• Solaris 10 (6/06)
• Fedora Core 6 (x86_64)
• Geekbench 2006 (Build 230)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each benchmark (where a score of 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz would receive). Higher is better.

Results

Conclusion

Solaris, once again, is faster overall (although only 7.5% faster than Linux, as opposed to 15% faster than Windows); Solaris (and the Sun Studio compiler) is faster in the floating point category while Linux (and GCC) is faster in the stream category.

If you’re using Linux for processor-intensive tasks, it might be worth checking out Solaris (and the Sun Studio compiler) to see if your tasks run faster under Solaris rather than Linux.

MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo Performance

Apple updated the MacBook Pro lineup on Tuesday; among other improvements the MacBook Pro now uses the Core 2 Duo processor. I thought I’d take a quick look at the performance of the new MacBook Pros (compared against the “old” MacBook Pros, of course) using Geekbench 2006.

Setup

Here is the setup of the two test machines:

• MacBook Pro (17-inch)

  • Intel Core Duo @ 2.16GHz
  • 1024 MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8 (Build 8L2127)
  • Geekbench 2006 (build 230) (32-bit only)

• MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2006)

  • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.16GHz
  • 1024 MB RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.4.8 (Build 8N1037)
  • Geekbench 2006 (build 230) (32-bit and 64-bit)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each benchmark (where a score of 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz would receive). I’m also reporting the results for the 32-bit and 64-bit version of Geekbench for the Core 2 Duo (since it’s capable of running both).

As always, higher is better.

Results

Conclusion

Moving from the Core Duo to the Core 2 Duo means 32-bit MacBook Pro performance is up 10% without an increase in processor clock speed. That’s impressive! Even more impressive is the Core 2 Duo is 20% faster (when executing 64-bit code) than the Core Duo (when executing 32-bit code).

Unless you want to run 64-bit applications (or want one of the other new features the new MacBook Pro offers) I don’t think it makes a lot of sense trade in your old MacBook Pro for a new MacBook Pro. However, coming for almost any other laptop (like, I don’t know, my PowerBook G4), the new MacBook Pro looks like a compelling upgrade, at least from a performance perspective!

Sun Ultra 20 M2 Performance

I’ve been working with a Sun Ultra 20 M2 workstation, running Solaris 10 and Windows XP, over the past couple of weeks. While I’m going to write up my impressions of the Sun Ultra 20 M2 sometime soon, I thought I’d share some of the performance results I’ve collected on the Ultra 20 M2, especially now that Geekbench runs on Solaris.

Update: Geekbench results for Solaris and Linux running on the same Sun Ultra 20 M2 are now available.

Setup

Here’s the configuration of the Sun Ultra 20 M2:

• AMD Dual-Core Opteron 1210
• 512 MB DDR2-667 (1 DIMM)
• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or
• Solaris 10 (6/06 Update)
• Geekbench 2006 (build 230)

I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each benchmark (where a score of 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz would receive). Higher is better.

Conclusion

Overall, I’m pleased with the performance of the Sun Ultra 20 M2. While this model (with an Opteron 1210) isn’t quite as fast as a low-end Mac Pro, it’s less than half the price of a low-end Mac Pro. Models equipped with faster Opterons (like the Opteron 1218) will certainly be more competitive when it comes to performance.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Solaris (and the Sun Studio compiler) outperformed Windows (and Visual C++) by almost 15%. Solaris outperformed Windows in almost every benchmark category, even outperforming Windows dramatically in some specific tests (such as some of the floating point benchmarks). If you’re working with processor-intensive tasks, Solaris might be the operating system for you.