#Xbench improve user interface test serial#
#Xbench improve user interface test driver#
#Xbench improve user interface test plus#

No matter how long we run the test it won't help.ДЇloating Point BasicД‘09.68Д“90.05 Mflop/secДЇloating Point LibraryД‘08.85Д”.36 Mops/secД¬omputationД‘07.29Д64.37 Kops/sec, 4 threads If the FFT is blocked for 256 KB and we are really unlucky with the page allocation, we have 64 lines trying to crawl into each 8 way set. There is room for 64 4KB pages in the L2, but it is only 8 way associative. This probably shows that MacOS X doesn't implement page coloring. If we are seeing caching influence the numbers between runs then a much, much longer period of testing should be used to stabilize these effects. There's obviously something wrong with the implementation in this test. VecLib needs to be thrown out on this test or rewritten to give consistent results. Re-running the test will show the correct result, mostly. Sometimes the vecLib FFT score hits some bug and gives a very small score, for some reason.

It is extremely low, and drags down my whole CPU score. Whoa! What is up with my vecLib FFT score.

#Xbench improve user interface test plus#

Plus the SATA drives are going nowhere but up in speed anyway.Д®dit: by 'typo' do you mean that the internal rate should be 683MB/sec instead of Mbits? However, the speed still isn't that bad all things considered. That was my initial thoughts as well (considering that this is the 'lowend' 1.6 G5).

#Xbench improve user interface test driver#

If that is indeed the case, then perhaps Apple's device driver is still undergoing some tweaks.

#Xbench improve user interface test serial#

Only with a 4 way raid setup would you probably reach this.Д¬ertainly I understand this, which is why I went into detail about the theoretical versus actual speeds, but the fact that the SATA drive is going to be virtually the same speed as the ATA100, at least at the mechanism level means that the only improvements that will be seen is at the serial interface and driver level-with this particular drive. I don't think there are ANY SATA drives that can even come close to saturating 150Mbytes /sec.

I've gotta have a fast disk drive.Д«TW In reference to the post ahead of me: It looks like theres some write cacheing going on.Д«TW I just ordered a 36GB 10000rpm SATA WD Raptor drive for my G5. I have a few of its nearly identical brothers the CudaIV.ДЄnyway those HD scores are probably wrong. Its damn near silent through and a nice drive if you don't care too much about performance. The 7200.7 is pretty slow because its basically a budget part for OEMs. It also means that there isn't much difference between that Seagate SATA drive and their ATA100 drive, which is why you're seeing similar performance from both on the x-bench test. Still the average transfer rate is around 58MB/sec, so this may never become an issue in the current drive design. However, you'll note that the actual drive componentry is shared between the SATA and ATA100 drive. Considering that the interface max theoretical speed is 150 MB/sec for a SATA drive, this seems unnecessarily limiting for the drive.

That means that the maximum actual transfer rate is going to be 85.375 MB/sec. Well, the specs look good except for one thing-the max internal transfer rate is 683 _Mbits_ according to the spec sheet. That drive actually has an internal transfer speed lower than the theoretical speed of Firewire 800. Well, the specs look good except for one thing-the max internal transfer rate is 683 Mbits according to the spec sheet. im not really sure what those numbers mean, or how they relate to what xbench gives us, but hopefully someone will.