I'm going to go pick up my Mac Pro from the mailbox right now and I have an SSD and a 1TB Caviar Black waiting to be put into the system. How should hard drives be formatted before installing OSX? And do I format them all the same? Right now I'll have
Boot Drive (SSD)
Data (1TB)
Time Machine (640 that came with Mac Pro)
Also, are there any benchmark tests I should run to see how my system is performing?
I have a few questions:
When sites do various benchmark tests, they typically use something like 3DMark, and I think Cinebench CPU, etc.
First, I probably got those benchmark apps wrong...which ones do tech sites typically use?
Also, what exactly do these benchmarks exam.
Say I have a rendering application that is processor heavy...what benchmark should I be looking at?
Say I have another application for modeling, and I know it is graphics intensive. What benchmark should I be looking at?
And, to round things out, if I have an application that I know is memory heavy, what stats should I look at.
The reason I'm asking, is when upgrading my computer (at this point RAM), or considering a new MacPro, I want to know I'm buying for the right reasons.
I don't want to buy a powerful computer to find out that its max potential is not fully realized as it relies on something else. Granted I understand a new comp all around will perform better. However, applications such as Maxwell render does not hold back, it will use every processor available (8-cores would be amazing!), but others don't rely on processor, but memory more so.
Even then, I'm not sure all the time how the application performs. With as many apps as I use for different things (Rhino NURBS modeling [XP], Maxwell Render, VIZ/3DS Max, SketchUp, Adobe CS3, CAD) I can't always tell what part of the comp they use.
Thanks [for those who read everything and understand what I'm asking]
I bought the WD raptor 10000 RPM 150GB drive but it scores only 75 on Xbench1.3 and the WD disc WD2500AAJS that came standard with the macpro scores 84. Is there a better benchmark or am I missing something?
View 4 Replies View RelatedIs there a site where I can see Benchmark results between certain machines. I wanna see if the results between the iMac 1.84 Core Duo vs the new Aluminium Macbook 2ghz.
View 3 Replies View RelatedJust installed Intel X-25M 80GB SSD into my new i7 MacBook Pro. 4Gb Ram. Stored SSD in Optibay and 500GB HDD in default position.
Repaired permissions and PRAM'd for safety net.
Confirming that below benchmark numbers are positive? A bonus if you have the same machine and SSD results Again I'm happy with the snappiness and speed of the SSD, just postings my results essentially.
I wanted to run some benchmarks on my hardware for high-end audio, video and 3D tasks. Can anyone recommend something good that shows more detailed info than the standard activity monitor? If there is something that shows the number of files loaded, their size, hard drive info, etc.
I already have some apps for checking heat, fan speed etc, need something for detailing what the hard drives, RAM and processor are doing when I trigger things in certain apps.
"Test "Mule" was the Nehalem Mac Pro 8-core running at 2.93GHz (12G of RAM)."
From what I understand, the above configuration could actually slow down frame-rate because it is unnecessary extra hardware?
Would frame-rate improve slightly by using a Quad-Core Mac Pro with 6GB of RAM, or am I not understanding?
(And assuming this is on OSX, but you can answer both ways).
I just finished putting up some Benchmarks of Windows 7 using the latest builds of Parallels, Fusion and VirtualBox with both x86 and x64 based images on various Macs. More results coming soon. [URL]
View 3 Replies View RelatedI was wondering why my Mac Pro under XP Pro is delivering lower scores in the 3DMark tests than PCs with similar specs.
An Intel Core 2 Quad (2.66GHz) with an ATI Radeon HD 3870 x2 and 2GB RAM scores 19137 3DMarks, while my Mac Pro, 2x2-Core Xeon (2.66GHz,) also with a 3870 x2 and 5GB RAM (Windows doesn't use it all - I know) scores a meager 12136 3DMarks (Both 3DMark06.)
I could understand that the Xeons probably aren't as good with games and graphics, but the difference is pretty large.
I get equally poor scores compared to the same computer in the PCMark05 tests. (8299 vs. 5136)
Any guesses to what might be going on?
ALSO: In tests with actual games, my frame rates were lower than comparable systems.
I don't know about everyone else, but I literally cannot wait to sink some gaming hours into this wonderful machine that up until recently I did not thing would game at all!
Although my Air is still on a conveyor belt somewhere with cool lasers and stuff I know there are some people out there with there machines in there hands ready to do some showing off , well here is where you can do it!
I will keep an updated list of games people have requested to see benchmarked here in this first post. All you have to do is pick a game (preferably one you already own) and benchmark it! You can add your benchmark to this thread and again i will direct link to your benchmark in this first post. Useful and awesome eh? Games can be mac or boot camp just so long as you let us know which you are trying out! I'll get us started on a list but request away.
Games awaiting benchmark:
- World of Warcraft
- Dragon Age
- Mass Effect 2
- Half Life 2
- Left 4 Dead 2
- Team Fortress 2
- Crysis
- GTA IV
Benchmarked Games
- Call Of Duty 4 - OSX - Thanks to theunits3
- Starcraft 2 - OSX - Thanks to theunits3
I recently picked up a couple of external drives, and decided to benchmark them to determine whether the interface and/or drive type made much of a difference. For those that don't want to read the details, here's the bottom line: If you're going to splurge on a FW800 interface, it's well worth fitting this with a 7200 rpm drive to maximize performance. Uncached sequential writes over FW800 were twice as fast on the 7200 rpm drive compared to the 5400 rpm. FW800 is a marked improvement over USB 2.0 as well. Full results are below. For background, when shopping for drives, I was interested in using the FW800 interface on the MBPs, for the simple reason it's rated almost twice as fast as USB 2.0. Some of the drives I was shopping for included 7200 rpm drives. My first thought was this was silly, since the interface limited the throughput to far-below the limits a 5400 rpm drive could produce, so why bother upgrading to 7200 rpm? Well, it turns out it does make a difference. I've got both a FW800 enclosure (G Drive Mini) and a USB 2.0 interface (Nexstar TX) as well as a 320GB 7200 rpm drive (Hitachi) and a 640GB 5400 rpm drive (Western Digital). So, I benchmarked both drives using both interfaces. Some interesting results! Turns out, the 7200 rpm drive does in fact dramatically improve performance in the FW800 interface. For sequential operations, Firewire has a dramatic improvement over USB 2.0; for random read/writes, drive speed seems to be a more important factor. And for large files, the combination of Firewire and 7200 rpm gives a pretty impressive throughput of almost 75MB/s. Full results are below. Note that the drive and interface are noted in the title bar for each drive.
View 18 Replies View RelatedLooks like the 2.26 is doing better after all. Some users have even gotten Cinebench scores for the new 2.26 like: 3142 (single) and 20,138 (multiple) reported here.
CINEBENCH 10
This free benchmark app uses real world code from Cinema 4D to render a sample project. It stresses all available cores. In the case of the Nehalem, hyperthreading fools the app into thinking there are 16 cores on the 8-core models and 8 cores on the 4-core models. The graph below shows the Cinebench rating for "Multi-CPU" render test.
GEEKBENCH 2
It's not only multi-core aware, but it includes some memory tests which explains why the Nehalem based Mac Pros beat the older Penryn based Power Macs with higher core frequencies. The graph below shows the overall 32-bit score.
There is also a 64-bit version of Geekbench. Fewer results exist for it since, for some unexplained reason, consumers will gladly spend thousands for a new Mac but resist purchasing a $20 serial number in support of a starving Mac developer.
I'm just wondering if anyone has any recommendations as to how I should test my Refurb Mac Pro (dual 2.26 Octo, GT120, 6GB Ram) as supplied by the online store. I shall be upgrading the RAM, graphics card and hard drives in the near future, but want to check that the machine works correctly out of the box first.
I'm due to take delivery of a U2711 Dell monitor today or tomorrow, and so will be turning this system on for the first time then. I understand that everything should have been thoroughly checked through by an Apple tech at the factory, but the very fact that a refurb store exists means that the quality tests sometimes fail.
I'll be runnung FCS3 from this machine and need the machine to be reliable for paid work, hence the post. I have done a quick search, but only found a thread that was started over 18 months ago, and wondered if you guys had any current advice that could help me. Oh, and I probably should say that I'm new to macs also, so be gentle!!!
I ordered a i7 15" Macbook Pro high resolution anti glare screen over a week ago. I've been reading lots of forums on the subject and have heard about the small print, yellow tint to the bottom half of the screen, the laptop not sleeping etc.
So I contacted the store to find out about the possibility of returning it if I'm not happy. They said I can spend all the time in the store with it but as soon as I leave the store there is a 15% restocking fee. It hasn't arrived yet but I'm expecting it any day now.
Can someone tell me all the tests I can perform in the store before I leave?
I am wanting to do a t-test in Excel (for a class I am teaching). So as a practice, I did this (in columns A and B):
3413
3523
2329
13200000
14200000
5612
43
These are my two groups, with means:
31.1428571466679.5
Certainly the means seem different!
However, the ttest procedure gave me this p-value:
0.174751284
The formula was this:
=TTEST(A1:A7,B1:B6,2,3)
So I was curious to see what the difference would be between10.5.1 to 10.5.2
2 gigs of RAM to 6 gigs of RAM
So, when I first got the Mac Pro I ran both Geekbench and Xbench. I haven't tallied the Geekbench results, but the overall scores go like this:
10.5.1 |2 gigs RAM = 7324 | Memory Score = 2486
10.5.2 |6 gigs RAM = 7793 | Memory Score = 2693
I forgot to run Geekbench with 10.5.2 and 2 gigs of RAM.
Attached are the numbers for Xbench. I also graphed them in Numbers. For all those who enjoy this stuff, here you go.
If someone notices something that seems jacked up with these numbers for this system in its various states of configuration, PLEASE let me know!! I'm not savvy with these benchmarking programs.
I just thought some folks out there would like to see the info.The chart can't fit in all the chart titles, so you'll have to look at the raw data to interpret what belongs to what.
Feedback always appreciated. I'm off to finish loading some Windows programs and my games, and then move that partition to the 400 gig drive, and then tell VMware where to go git 'er done!
I have a Macbook Pro Intel Core Duo (first generation of MacBook Pro released). I run OSX 10.6.5. My disk utility has detected a problem and says I need the install disks that came with the computer. Called apple and they said I could reboot from snow leopard or the upgrade.** Problem is that I don't have any disks with me except those that came with my brand new iMac. Can I use those to reinstall the system? Is there any other way?
**They also said that after 2007, the install disks that come with computers are keyed to that specific computer so I "might" not be able to use the disk to repair.
Additionally, and I don't know if this makes a difference but I have the airport/time capsule which backs up my computer for easy restore.
If I'm buying a new hard drive, are there any tests/diagnostics I should run on the drive out the box?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have had FileVault 2 enabled on my MacBook Air (late 2010) and have been running regular disk speed tests using Blackmagic.
This week I bought a new 2GHz Air with 256GB disk and ran Blackmagic, which showed impressive 453/404 MB/s speeds. All well and good. Then I switched on FileVault 2 and decided to repeat the test to see if there was any speed degredation as a result of the encryption. Now I get an error message that the Air's disk is "read only" and Blacmagic cannot run. If I had had problems on the old Air I would have assumed FV2 was the culprit.
Info:
MacBook Air 11, iPad 2, iMac i7, Mac OS X (10.7), iPhone 4
Does anyone know what settings they used in their battery life tests such as screen brightness, what they were doing on the computer etc?
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhen both Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 were tested on a MacBook Pro, Apple's new operating system clearly beat Microsoft in terms of speed, a new test has shown.
Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet, and each was given its own, separate, clean hard drive. The 64-bit version of each OS was included in the test, which measured a variety of speed and performance related tasks. Snow Leopard was given true, full 64-bit support with most of its native applications taking full advantage of modern processors.
Each OS had the same software installed: iTunes 9, QuickTime, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Cinebench R10. In the test, Snow Leopard booted and shut down significantly faster than Windows 7.
"In time-based tests, Snow Leopard consistently outdid Windows 7," the study found. "It took only 36.4 seconds to boot up, while Windows took 42.7 seconds. In a shutdown test, Snow Leopard took only 6.6 seconds, while Windows needed twice the amount of time: 12.6 seconds. Both computers, however, took just about 1 second to return from sleeping. For this reason, I didn't actually test the wake-up time as it was too short in both operating systems to produce meaningful numbers or even allow me to measure the difference."
The Mac software also unsurprisingly ran Apple's own native applications more efficiently. Converting a movie from M4 format to iPod in Quicktime X on Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds, while Windows 7, with QuickTime 7 (the latest version available) took 723 seconds. Similarly, converting 17 songs in iTunes from MP3 to AAC took 149.9 seconds in Snow Leopard, while Windows 7 required 162 seconds.
The test also found that Mac OS X 10.6 had better battery life on the MacBook Pro than Windows 7. The 2008 model has a removable battery. But author Dong Ngo said he believes Boot Camp drivers were mostly responsible for the Windows 7 battery life, as many PC laptops fared much better than the 77 minutes the Microsoft OS fared.
One area where Windows 7 was able to easily trump Snow Leopard was in graphics performance. The system's 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT graphics card helped the system score much better in the latest version of Windows, earning a 5,777 3D rendering score in Cinebench R10. Snow Leopard scored 5,437.
In testing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Windows 7 again came out on top, with an average 26.3 frames per second performance, compared to 21.2 frames per second within Snow Leopard.
Ngo's conclusion: Unless you are a gamer, get a Mac.
"If you can get by with just software designed by Apple and if money is not a big issue, you will be happy with a Mac," he said. "Examples of these software choices are iTunes, iLife, QuickTime, Safari, iChat, and so on (and you probably won't need much more than those for daily entertainment and communication needs). Finally, if money is not an issue--and it definitely is for most of us--you should get a Mac anyway. It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."
See also:
Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard
Exploring Windows 7 on the Mac
Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard
CBS.com is currently testing HTML5 video playback for streaming episodes of its TV shows, signaling that the major U.S. broadcast network aims to be iPad compatible before Apple's new multimedia device launches.
As discovered by MacRumors, accessing "iPad - test" video links accidentally posted by CBS through the iPad simulator, or when spoofing a browser's "user agent" setting, loads a new page that appears to be set up for HTML5 streaming video. The same links take users to the Adobe Flash page when accessed with a traditional browser.
"This new version of the video does not yet work but appears to be based on HTML5," the report said. "The css files reference HTML5 and have a number of 'webkit' specific calls. Webkit is the browser engine used in the iPad's mobile safari. While the videos don't currently play, the 'fullscreen mode' reportedly already works in the iPad simulator."
That CBS would be eager to find compatibility with the iPad should come as no surprise -- the network was on board with Apple's proposal for a TV subscription deal while other networks were wary. The network has also suggested it will lower prices of some TV shows on iTunes to 99 cents, down from the current standard of $1.99.
In February, it was rumored that Hulu, an online streaming video destination for multiple networks, plans to make its videos available without Flash for the iPad platform. Reports then alleged that the Web site could be prepared by the time the iPad launches April 3, though it was said the service would likely be subscription only.
CBS iPad test page, screenshot credit MacRumors.
In January, Google added support for HTML5 in YouTube, the Web's most popular streaming video destination. Allegedly labeled a "CPU hog" by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, Adobe Flash has been a target of Apple, which has not allowed the Web standard on its iPhone OS, including the forthcoming iPad.
For more on Apple and Flash, and why the Web format will likely never be available on the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I received my 500GB Seagate Momentus XT yesterday and ran some quick and crude benchmarks that I thought I'd share with you guys in case anyone else was thinking of upgrading. Here are my observations.
With Factory Seagate 7200rpm 500GB Drive:
-------------------------------------------
Time to boot measured from hitting the power button to when the finder toolbar appeared at the top averaged approximately 40s to 45s.
Running Photoshop CS5 immedately after reboot took approximately 10s.
The above two tests were repeated about 4 or 5 times and were fairly consistent.
With new Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid Drive:
--------------------------------------------
Time to boot measured from hitting the power button to when the finder toolbar appeared at the top averaged approximately 30s.
Running Photoshop CS5 immedately after reboot took approximately 3s to 5s.
The above two tests were repeated 4 times (sorry I ran out of time to run more) and as expected the first attempt was a little slower than subsequent tests. The times listed above represent the times I was getting after the first reboot.
All in all i'm happy with the improvement, especially when i consider the fact that I still get my 500GB capacity. I wanted an SSD but couldn't bring myself to fork out the money to get a drive with enough capacity to meet my needs.
If you have any questions or want me to run specific tests let me know. Not sure about running battery life tests since my battery-o-meter is all over the place telling me i have anywhere between 2 hours and 8 hours of battery life depending on what i'm doing at any given moment
For some reason, Apple marketing has left out a very import bit of information regarding the sale of Flash based storage. The specs of our flash storage is and was as important as the RPMs off our mechanical drives. As most of you know, shopping for SSDs is like wading through a sea of speed tests. Yet for some reason, Apple is not forthcoming about the IOPS, Read, and or Write speeds of their flash media. There have been endless reports about Toshiba and Samsung based flash media being shipped with iMacs and MBPs with different speeds. I think the earlier brand being a slow dog most of the time.
I called Apple yesterday and got the, we don't have that information sir. I also send an email to feedback explaining that it's probably a good idea to let professionals who are spending nearly 4000$ USD for a rMBP to know the specs of the storage so we can know if it meets our speed needs. With all that said, I welcome all of you to post speed tests of your rMBP. You can do this with 2 tests that I am aware of. If anyone knows of others, please let me know. Please also post your basic model specs, like rMBP 16GB 768GB?
1. Reboot with no apps open
2. Then run Blackmagic Speed Test or AJA System Test
I'm sure the results will not be the same each time you run the test, but over a few tests, you can come up with an average. You might not be able to run the test directly on your drive since Lion has locked us out of our own hard drives, so you might need to pick a folder in your user folder.
Third party testing has confirmed that Apple's new 27" iMac can only be used as an external display for devices designed to provide DisplayPort video. It will not work with any equipment that only supports VGA, DVI, or HDMI output.
In a follow-up to its teardown of the 27" iMac last week, iFixit said it revisited the new hardware to see if it could display high-definition video from a non-DisplayPort external source.
The results of the testing indicate that Apple's stated specifications for the iMac were correct; while video input worked as expected with a 13" MacBook Pro equipped with Mini DisplayPort, all attempts to use a physical adapter dongle to supply alternative video signals to the new 27" iMac failed.
"The iMac will not act as a second (or primary) display using the Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter that Apple sells," the group's website stated. "We tried it on a PS3 Slim, as well as a MacBook and MacBook Pro. It looks like we'll have to wait for a special adapter from Apple or a third party."
A one way street
According to Apple's stated specifications however, the 27" iMac's video input feature will only ever work with DisplayPort devices, and no physical adapter will change that fact.
Apple has frequently used converter dongles on its notebooks in order to support multiple types of video output signaling via the same port. For example, previous notebook models provided Mini-DVI ports proprietary to Apple which could deliver both VGA and DVI outputs using the appropriate connector. These ports provided multiple signaling types over the same physical pins.
Apple's modern machines similarly all supply a Mini DisplayPort connector (originally designed by Apple but now part of the official DisplayPort specification); using the right connector, users can extract and output any video signal type supported by the computer, including VGA, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort.
VGA is analog video; DVI and HDMI are both digital, electrically compatible, serial video data formats that only differ in their physical connectors; DisplayPort is an entirely new format that uses a packet signaling format.
The iMac's Mini DisplayPort supports output of all three, but can only input and display DisplayPort video. Unlike moving from DVI to HDMI, converting a DVI signal to DisplayPort requires more than a cheap physical dongle; it would necessitate a relatively expensive converter box to process the signal into a completely new format and possibly also a scaler to match the output device to the 27" iMac's enormous resolution of 2560x1440.
This prevents the new iMac from serving as an HDTV-style output source for older DVI-based computers or HDMI-output devices such as the Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Apple TV, or standard DVD and Blu-Ray players. Future devices that support the DisplayPort standard will work, of course.
Why no DVI or HDMI input is supported
The 27" iMac's inability to input DVI video is rooted in the fact that the DisplayPort specification is uniquely designed to work as both an internal (video card to built-in display) and external (PC to monitor) video signaling system.
Non-DisplayPort systems typically use LVDS for internal video cabling and DVI for external video connectors. No Apple computers supply any sort of internal DVI input to support driving their built-in LCD via the DVI port using an external computer.
Apple's existing MacBooks, Mac mini, Mac Pro, and the smaller new 21.5" iMac model do not support video input at all. The company's 24" LED Cinema Display is the only other device that currently supports (and only supports) DisplayPort input. The 30" Cinema Display HD only supports DVI input, but not DisplayPort.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I'm looking for a comparison between all iMac processors. I believe that the only processors used for iMacs have been G5, Core Solo, Core duo, Core 2 Duo, Core i5 and Core i7. If I'm missing something let me know.
View 2 Replies View RelatedHow do i get the Mac to run the hardware self tests. I saw the guy at the Genious Bar do it on my MacBook Pro.
I replaced the parts that showed bad, i would like to run it again.I tried holding down the D on powerup but didn't work
I ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".
I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845
Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.
Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.
Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.
I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.
The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.
The results are interesting:
We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.
We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.
To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.
Here are the results:
The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.
Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).
For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.
What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.
I accidentally reformatted my Sandisk SD card for my camera. Is there anyway to format it back to DOS FAT 16? I tried doing it in my camera and it didn't work.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI try to install it and i get the error cannot install on this computer. I assumed this is because I had a newer version of leopard on it so I erased the data on the drive through disk utility but its still giving me the error!
View 9 Replies View Related