PDA

View Full Version : 3D benchmarks for the Intel based MacBook Pro



NigelH
04-17-2006, 12:03 PM
http://oceania.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=39238

... Nothing really surprising, but certainly nothing to cheer about... particularly for LightWave users.

Captain Obvious
04-17-2006, 12:48 PM
Lightwave is not yet a universal binary, so it doesn't really count.

NigelH
04-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Lightwave is not yet a universal binary, so it doesn't really count.


That's why it's not so surprising. But if anyone is planning on making a purchasing decision based on 3d performance (not unlikely on this forum), this may be useful information.

cresshead
04-19-2006, 01:03 PM
hey you could run bootcamp and use lw in xp on the mac!:devil:
and that DOES fly!....weird to think that windows BEATS macosx on the apple machine for rendering currently!

Captain Obvious
04-19-2006, 02:19 PM
hey you could run bootcamp and use lw in xp on the mac!:devil:
and that DOES fly!....weird to think that windows BEATS macosx on the apple machine for rendering currently!
Not in Cinema 4D. Mac OS X gets a slightly higher Cinebench score than Windows when run on the same hardware. ;)

http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html

****it, NewTek, hurry up with that universal binary!

Ade
04-19-2006, 06:43 PM
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.spacetitox.info%2fpage6%2fp age6.html

PPL have discovered apple has underclocked the mac book cards and now overclocking them.

Xlr8yourmac.com for more info.

LSlugger
04-20-2006, 08:08 AM
The author of the Oceania article claims that "Performance of LightWave in Rosetta is so cripplingly weak that it really can't be considered a viable platform." He bases this on the fact that MacBook Pro renders took more than twice as long as on the PowerMac.

For me, at least, render times are not the be all, end all. I know it's harder to benchmark, but I'm more interested in responsiveness during interactive use. LightWave is a lot faster on a 2.0 GHz Athlon / GeForce FX 5900 than it is on a 1.3 GHz G4 / Radeon 9550.

LightWave's UI is heavily OpenGL based. For Rosetta, is that good, bad, or indifferent? We're finally getting an Intel iMac at work, so I should have a chance to try it soon.

eblu
04-20-2006, 08:20 AM
darn... and I thought rossetta would be the answer to all our problems ;)

lissen, LW needs to be ported to xcode, sometime after lw9 ships (whens that happening again?). THEN it can be ported to Intel. the way it sounds like they are doing it... even when the main program is ported to intel, MOST of the plugins that make LW up won't have made the transition. Its highly unlikely that you can use components form the same application across the rossetta boundary. So... we will be stuck with rossetta LW for as far off as Newtek has planned.

If your going to complain about 3d performance, the slowest performance is in the development process, thats where our bottlenecks are :P

I refuse to use LW on rossetta (especially in light of all the complaining Newtek has done in the last 10 years about the Apple hardware platform... which was BS if you ask me). if LW doesn't run natively on Intel Macs by the time I Upgrade to intel, I'm not waiting. I'll find a 3d developer that really does want my money. Newtek, you have your deadline.

Elmar Moelzer
04-22-2006, 06:24 AM
I am not a Mac- user, but I am interested in getting a Macbook pro for software development reasons. Now, looking at the specs I have to wonder about one thing:
WHY, why the ***l does Apple go with Ati- graphics- cards? Their performance is horrible for OpenGL and their OpenGL- driver- support is lacking to say the least. The only thing they are good at is DirectX and since MacOS does not use DirectX, where is point?
IMHO this is nothing but a marketing decision by Apple. Ati- graphics- cards have a good name among gamers because of their supperior DirectX- performance, but for anyone who wants to run OpenGL- apps they are not a good choice. Not trying to bash apple here, just wondering...
CU
Elmar

Captain Obvious
04-22-2006, 07:21 AM
Elmar:

In OS X, the ATI drivers are much better than the Nvidia drivers.

joao
04-22-2006, 07:36 AM
actually... from my understanding ati cards are better in macs.... just not for lightwave. i hear its the same on pc side as well.

JackDeL
04-22-2006, 07:44 AM
I wish Apple would stop screwing around, and get SERIOUS about raw performance. I could care less if I have an extra widget or two. Give me SPEED!:bangwall:

Elmar Moelzer
04-22-2006, 07:50 AM
Interesting, then they have to be much, much better on the Mac than they are on the PC.
On the PC they are much, slower under OpenGL than Nvidia cards, further their OpenGL- drivers are full of bugs and dont fully support OpenGL2.0- specs (e.g. Non Power of two 3d- textures cause crashes on Ati and not on Nvidia). They are much slower at processing GLSL- shaders too.
Hmm, LW does nothing that is out of OpenGL- spec. Just the standard OpenGL2.0- stuff if you have GLSL enabled, otherwise it is just normal OpenGL1.5, from what I know...
CU
Elmar

Captain Obvious
04-22-2006, 02:18 PM
I wish Apple would stop screwing around, and get SERIOUS about raw performance. I could care less if I have an extra widget or two. Give me SPEED!:bangwall:
What the heck? Apple are dead serious about performance.





Interesting, then they have to be much, much better on the Mac than they are on the PC.
On the PC they are much, slower under OpenGL than Nvidia cards, further their OpenGL- drivers are full of bugs and dont fully support OpenGL2.0- specs (e.g. Non Power of two 3d- textures cause crashes on Ati and not on Nvidia). They are much slower at processing GLSL- shaders too.
Hmm, LW does nothing that is out of OpenGL- spec. Just the standard OpenGL2.0- stuff if you have GLSL enabled, otherwise it is just normal OpenGL1.5, from what I know...
CU
Elmar
I don't know how the Mac drivers compare to the Windows drivers, but Mac OS X seems to have better OpenGL performance in Mac OS X than in Windows on the same exact hardware (ie, Windows on a Mac), and I know for a fact that the ATI drivers for OS X are better than the Nvidia drivers for OS X. I don't know about the OpenGL 2.0 spec, but my iBook doesn't support non-power-of-two texture maps, but that might be a limitation in the Radoen 9550, rather than Mac OS X's drivers.

Elmar Moelzer
04-22-2006, 03:15 PM
Well, when we were doing our tests for VoluMedic here, we tested our Nvidia cards and the Ati- card of our programmer Sebastian. The Ati card would simply crash with non power of two 3d- textures, the Nvidia card works as expected and thats just one of the many examples we ran into with Ati- cards.
Non power of two textures are part of the OpenGL2.0 specs though.
Also how come that Apple still does not support OpenGL2.0 in the latest OSX- version (unless I missed something)? They dont have any alternatives to OpenGL to rely on, so one would assume that their OpenGL- support should be even better...
We are currently working on the things we need to do for a Mac- port of VoluMedic and these are some real showstopper problems for us.
CU
Elmar

Captain Obvious
04-22-2006, 03:33 PM
I don't really know anything about OpenGL, but I found this (http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/extensions/ext_texture_rectangle.html). I have no idea what it means.

Elmar Moelzer
04-22-2006, 05:47 PM
that does not really help, sorry...
Anyway we would have to stripp down some functionality to make VoluMedic work on the Mac (at least on non Nvidia Macs, since Nvidias CG works fine, LOL), or we keep waiting for Apple to get their hardware- GLSL- support fixed.
Sigh, I dont get it... I really dont...

CU
Elmar

JackDeL
04-22-2006, 11:43 PM
Capt Obvious, I think that Apple may be serious about performance, but it seems like they have spent the last few years since OS X was introduced constantly changing some very major things. We all had to make the transition, from OS 9 to OS X, and now we all have to make the transition from Motorola to Intel. I happen to think that both of these things are good for Apple and us...in the long run. but in the mean time instead of pouring their resources into refining and improving the overall performance of OS X and Macs in general, they are spending their time developing stop gap measures to fill in all the holes that these transitions leave behind. Meanwhile, on the job front all working professionals like us see is that Apple and Macs are still "behind" and are "too slow". I'm sure someday this will change, I was just hoping that day would come sooner than this. it's frustrating! :compbeati

Captain Obvious
04-23-2006, 07:22 AM
or we keep waiting for Apple to get their hardware- GLSL- support fixed.
What's the problem with 10.4's GLSL support? Is it too slow, or too buggy, or what?




Meanwhile, on the job front all working professionals like us see is that Apple and Macs are still "behind" and are "too slow".
I dispute that. Photoshop isn't slower on Macs than on Windows PCs. Neither is After Effects, as far as I know. Applications that are properly coded for OS X is just as fast or faster on OS X than on Windows, on equivalent hardware. It's basically just Lightwave that's slower on OS X than on Windows.

As for the rest of your post... Every single new version of Mac OS X has been faster than the version before it. Run 10.4.6 and compare it to 10.2.0 and see which is faster. These are not stop-gap solutions, but actual performance enhances. And there will be even more to come. Apple have frozen the main APIs as of 10.4, letting them focus even more on performance enhances and bug fixes in 10.5. Also, 10.4 lay the grounding for a whole set of new technologies for enhancing performance (like Q2DE), that isn't actually in use yet, but probably will be by 10.5.

Elmar Moelzer
04-23-2006, 10:13 AM
From what I understand it is only partially there (some of the extension that would be needed are not working, even though they are listed to be there) and software only, no hardware support.
Thats at least what the forums on OpenGL.org say. The only thing that seems to be working fine is CG and thats oddly enough by Nvidia.
CU
Elmar

Captain Obvious
04-23-2006, 02:29 PM
According to the OpenGL Extensions Viewer, all but ARB_draw_buffers and ARB_texture_non_power_of_two (**** I hate that name) are supported.