My in - depth flavor at go down up and running a Mac Pro cover . In the first installment , I shared my out - of - the - loge experience and ran some run on some apps . In the second , I talked about my observation of working on the background , do audio recording and video tasks , and use Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop to work my Mac Pro into a Windows - ply fireball .
In this third and last installing , I fire up my preferent games to screen frame pace . I also test transference speeds for FireWire drives and wrap it all up with a small methodological analysis .
Gaming on the Mac Pro
Unlike the play subdivision in my mini writeup , there ’s no pauperism to restrict what type of games I test on the Mac Pro . Whereas the miniskirt lacks a graphics card of any kind , this Mac Pro is equipped with the work up - to - order X1900 XT , ATI ’s top - of - the - tune Mac video card . Also , since I covered gambling peripheral gadget before , I wo n’t go down that street again — fundamentally , if they do n’t need a driver and work on a PowerPC Mac , then they ’ll work for sure . If they do need a driver , check the manufacturer ’s website for an Intel - compatible version . This time , I thought it would be interesting to see in on one 3D graphics - base secret plan that runs in Rosetta , as well as the one current plot I own that runs on both Windows XP and OS X. I ’ll also allude on the other game I looked at before , relative to their operation on the Mac Pro .
Quake 4 : This would be the one current Windows XP and OS X plot I own . I was interested in seeing how it ran on the Mac Pro under both Windows XP and OS X. After making certain I had the up-to-the-minute update ( 1.3 ) on both systems , I then configured them identically . I used a 1440 - by-900 silver screen size , to check the reminder I was using , and had the quality pop - up set to “ high timber . ” Other than that , I go away all the residuum of the setting in their farm animal position — with one important exception . In the Advanced section of Quake 4 ’s preferences , I made certain that multiple CPU ( or core ) support was enable . For the actual test , I made sure no other GUI apps were bleed , though each OS intelligibly as an potpourri of setting tasks running all the time . I then ran a clock time demo ( timedemo in Quake - speak ) in each OS , using this console command ( press control - option - tilde to degenerate down the console ):
At the conclusion of the demonstration , expend the cabinet down again and you ’ll see the average framing per second for the timedemo . So how did OS X hold up to Windows XP ? In my tests , which I repeated three fourth dimension , it was fairly logical : on ordinary , OS X scored right around 72fps , while Windows XP cranked out 90fps . So , it seems for this one secret plan at least , the OS ex “ it ’s a good OS ” performance tax seem to be a 20 per centum framerate hit . That ’s a definiteouch , but it ’s perhaps not quite so bad in the literal existence of actual gameplay . temblor 4 caps the refresh pace at 60fps in plot play , and during my testing on the early levels , I have yet to see it drop down below that when playing at the 1440 - by-900 resolution .
Testing was done with no other GUI applications running. The final column compares the Universal and Rosetta results for the Mac Pro, stating Rosetta’s figures as a percentage of the Universal figures. The higher the percentage, the better the performance under Rosetta as compared to native performance.
This difference should drop sometime in the futurity , too , assume Quake 4 is patch up to support the new multi - threaded OpenGL feature in OS X 10.4.8 on the Mac Pros . I ’m not certain when , or if , we ’ll see such a patch , though . In the short terminal figure , the biz is very playable on the Mac Pro , even at somewhat higher resolutions . If you want the ultimate frame rate in Quake 4 on your Mac Pro , though , you ’ll want to boot into Windows XP .
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 : This plot has not yet been update to go natively on the Intel Macs , so it ’s a honest test of gaming under Rosetta . When I tested this plot on the Mac miniskirt , I found it was almost playable — skeletal frame rate were downcast but acceptable , though it might get a morsel too slow on fussy screens . On the Mac Pro , by dividing line , it’sveryplayable . Running at 1024 - by-768 resolution , I was see framing charge per unit anywhere between 20 and 45 , with typical averages on holes in the 30s . pace do n’t drop too much when you add some wind and cloud — but do n’t turn over on the display of rain in the video setting , or you ’ll see a dramatic dip in frame rates ( though this is true even on my G5 ) .
To show the playability of the plot , I thought I ’d redo the television from the report on the mini . So here ’s that same hole at the same resolve ( 1024 - by-768 originally ) , except on the Mac Pro . And since Snapz Pro now fly the coop on the Intel Macs , this capture is of much high quality .
Click the effigy to debase the 2.2 Bachelor of Medicine movie in a new windowpane :
As you’re able to see , the blind refresh was relatively quick and fluent . Given that TW2005 is one of my favorite quick - play diversions , I was glad to discover that it had acceptable performance , even under Rosetta . I still have my fingers span for a Universal update , but even if it never comes to pass , the secret plan is playable .
Halo , Spider - Man 2 , andUnreal Tournament : I discussed all three of these games in the original mini writeup in more detail . All three are worldwide , and they all work wonderfully well on the Mac Pro . I ran a time demo in Halo , with every mise en scene maxed out ( forward-looking pixel shaders , 9x anti - aliasing , uttermost electron lens flare , gamey model detail ) , and score 43fps at 800 - by-600 . With the anti - aliasing drip down to 4x and the lens flare to eminent , that number shot up to 112fps . In actual play , at 1440 - by-900 resolution , the game is amazingly smooth and glitch - free .
X - Plane :X - Plane reckon and flies great ; I can set very long view distance with in high spirits levels of detail without bogging down the simulator . Instead of reduplicate the screenshots from the mini report , here ’s one of a dissimilar venue ( click for a larger image ):
That ’s a take - off out of Telluride aerodrome in Colorado , with some low clouds in the mountains . If you ’ve ever been to the aerodrome , then you know that this isbasically the viewoff that last of the runway ( though in realness , they typically take off in the other direction , wind permitting ) . Contrast the above image with the fogginess - shroud view on the PowerBook from the premature report , and you could really see the payoff from the faster CPUs and video card .
Quake III Arena : Not a whole draw to say about Quake III Arena , other than 718fps . No , that ’s not a typographical error . That was the built - in timedemo result at 1024 - by-768 in the Universal Binary version of Quake III . By way of comparison , the miniskirt manage a paltry 90fps . Even my Dual G5 , with the ATI X800XT , score only in the 285fps orbit . Yes , it ’s nonmeaningful for today ’s games , but it render you just how chop-chop the Mac Pro can dump graphics onto the screen .
Just for fun , I snaffle a Snapz movie of the intact timedemo — it ’s only a few seconds long . you’re able to find out either thefull - size time ( 1024 - by-768 , 2.4MB)ora small version(512 - by-384 , 1.2 MB ) if you ’re on a slower connexion . Note that because Snapz Pro movie capture need a fair number of CPU time itself , the physique charge per unit in the above demo is “ only ” 538 frames per 2nd ( and I film the movie at 15fps , to aid minimize the CPU hit ) . I still think the video recording give you a very good sense of the great speed at which the frame are rendered . )
Overall , the Mac Pro seduce an excellent gaming machine . However , given its price point , it ’s definitely not the most economical play machine you could purchase . That said , if you ’re a Mac user , you enjoy encounter games , and your plans call for a fresh Mac Pro at some decimal point , you wo n’t be let down by its gaming performance . While high - end PCs will still make better play platforms ( thanks mainly to their power to use multiple video cards to withdraw to a undivided screen ) , the Mac Pro is n’t a slouch by any stretching .
Three takeaway points
Testing the Mac Pro
you may see the results of Macworld Lab ’s Mac Pro tests in our full review .
For this news report , I did n’t parallel those tests , but instead , take to update the tests I go for my study on the Intel - power Mac mini .
GeekBench benchmark : In the point of time since I usedGeekBenchfor the miniskirt follow-up , it ’s been update a few times . So I re - function the benchmark on all my machines : the PowerBook G4 ( 1.25GHz , 768 MB RAM ) , the Intel mini ( 1.67GHz Core Duo , 2 GB RAM ) , the MacBook ( 2.0GHz Core Duo , 2 GB RAM ) , the Dual G5 ( 2.0GHz G5 , 2.5 GB RAM ) , and the unexampled Mac Pro ( Dual 2.66GHz Xeon , 2 GB RAM ) .
After all the crunching was done , here ’s how everything issue forth out :
ROB’S GEEKBENCH TESTS
examination was done with no other GUI app unravel . The net column compare the Universal and Rosetta results for the Mac Pro , posit Rosetta ’s figures as a percentage of the Universal figures . The higher the share , the good the carrying into action under Rosetta as compared to native performance .
There are some interesting tidbit conceal in that board :
As I stated , this is decidedly not a benchmark for evaluate substantial - world usability — if it were , the G5 would have scored much higher than it did . What it does accurately think over , however , is the office of the underlying processor(s ) in each machine . In that sense , I rule the results to be quite precise . In my use of iMovie , for instance , I found that rendering transitions and effects took basically the same amount of time on the MacBook as it did on the Dual G5 .
Cinebench benchmark : The freeCinebenchbenchmark uses the Cinema 4D locomotive to quiz the graphics performance of your Mac . It ’s also available for Macs and microcomputer , so I tested everything I could . Back in March , that included my now - sold Athlon political machine , so that ’s still in the result mesa ( as the bench mark has n’t been updated , I felt it fair to pull up stakes in ) . I added my MacBook and the Mac Pro to the results , and with the Mac Pro , I included the results when running in Windows XP via Boot Camp — this to see if there were any platform - specific differences in the benchmark ’s carrying into action . When the debris settled , here ’s how things came out ( click the image for a much bigger , easier - to - read version ):
When I first published this chart , my old Athlon - power microcomputer was the champion , handily lather the G5 in the OpenGL tests , and fundamentally tie it in the other areas . The Mac Pro put an end to that , and as you’re able to see , by a all-inclusive margin . ( I have no doubt that there are probably faster PCs out there — but I do n’t have one usable for testing ) . The PowerBook , as common , is solidly in last place , as both the no - graphics - card MacBook and mini beat it out . I was pleasantly surprised to see no significant differences in the Mac Pro ’s results no matter of whether it was lead Windows XP ( via Boot Camp ) or Mac OS X — the XP box was about 2.5 per centum quicker in the Open GL ironware test , and the Mac Pro was marginally warm in all the other trial .
What that chart ca n’t show you is the visual difference between melt down the test on my Dual G5 and the Mac Pro . Though the G5 is n’t a plodder , the Mac Pro is over twice as fast when drag the candid GL hardware - accelerated tantrum , and that variety of difference is obvious to the eye . As I ’ve said many times before , the Mac Pro with the ATI X 1900XT video lineup is one fast machine .
Testing was done with no other GUI applications running. The final column compares the Universal and Rosetta results for the Mac Pro, stating Rosetta’s figures as a percentage of the Universal figures. The higher the percentage, the better the performance under Rosetta as compared to native performance.
Xbench : Although there ’s a fresh version ( 1.3 ) ofXbenchavailable , I was take in some troubles getting what I felt to be credible fig from the program . One problem is that it does n’t decent essay for accelerated OpenGL graphics on machines ( like my MacBook and miniskirt ) with a graphics chipset instead of a circuit card . Also , I was getting very unknown outcome on the “ User Interface ” portion of the test — the miniskirt and the MacBook were both scoring about twice what the G5 was tape . Finally , the score for the Disk lot of the tryout on the G5 just seemed completely out of line — even testing on a newly - formatted effort , my musical score was roughly one - fifth of what it should have been for a stock G5 .
Based on these odd results , I ’ve chosen to bear off on any Xbench results until I can do some more examination with my car ( and hopefully , a new version is eject that addresses some of the issues I experienced ) .
FireWire examination : As a new test this time , I thought I ’d compare the time need to imitate three sets of data ( a individual large single file , a folder with tons of littler files , and a minor assortment of mid - sized files ) to and from both FireWire 400 and FireWire 800 drive . I only tested the Mac Pro and the Dual G5 , and I localize the three datum sets to be copy onto a relatively unclouded ( of late initialise ) partition on each simple machine , then copied them from there to the FireWire parkway . When copying the file back , I copy them back to a single partition on the Mac Pro ( not the RAID 1 boot cause ) . Here ’s what I found — the top human body in each cell is the bit of seconds to finish the task , and the number below is the transfer rate in megabytes per second :
FIREWIRE PERFORMANCE TESTS
In each cellular phone , the top pattern is seconds and the bottom is MB per secondment . Best results inred
High - def television magazine : 37 HD movie trailers organise into five folders , totaling 5.93 gibibyte . Parallels disk image : The Windows XP practical drive for Parallels , 6.22 GB in size of it . iChat file away : 10,026 file devise into 125 pamphlet , plus 668 unfiled detail , sum up 750.7 MB in size .
This is obviously a far - from - complete test , and I did n’t do everything necessary to keep in line all the variables as would be necessary in a real execution evaluation . Still , there are some interesting results to consider :
Overall , FireWire seems to knead about as well on the Mac Pro as it does on the Dual G5 — at least when copying to or from internal drive . I ’ve heard a report that copy between FireWire drives on the various bus are ho-hum on the Mac Pro , and I be after on doing some examination in that area for a future report .
Rosetta and Intel transition issues
As I look back on what I wrote in the leap in this section of the miniskirt ’s report , I still mean my ecumenical conclusions reap back then are still true today — just a bit less so ( in a skilful room ! ) in some respect .
Regarding Rosetta , I wrote :
That ’s definitely still a true assertion today , but the fastness of the Mac Pro mean that even a non - native Photoshop is n’t an excessively slow Photoshop — as long as you ’re working with reasonably sized persona . For most remaining Rosetta apps , unless they ’re doing something exceptional with graphics , you probably wo n’t even notice that they ’re extend in Rosetta . Apple realized early on that Rosetta would be the key to a successful Intel changeover , and it seems to me like they ’re gotten it passably much correct . I ’m still astounded that something like Tiger Woods PGA Tour even launch in Rosetta , much less streak at a semi - decent human body rate .
Regarding that Intel transition , back in March I wrote ( about the mini ):
Of course , we ’re now whole transition to Intel , and some models are already into their second propagation . I think anyone who has used an Intel Mac will tell you that it ’s still got the soul of a Mac . It still runs OS X. It still work with peripherals as well as it always has . Sure , some thing have changed under the hood , but the machine are still Macs . Back in March , I lamented the lack of bothSnapz ProandSideTrack , but now , both are uncommitted for the Intel Macs . In March , we had about 1,000 Universal applications to pick from . Now that flesh is well over 4,000 .
The combining of Apple ’s industrial design and Intel ’s speedy chips has created some of the degenerate , most expandable , and least expensive Macs that we ’ve ever run into ( more on that in a minute ) . If I had to order the Intel passage , I ’d probably have to give Apple an A- or a B+ , as there ’s not much to fault them on . Sure , a native Adobe suite would ’ve been nice to have , but beyond that , I experience the modulation has gone much better than I expected . For my takeaway dot , I ’m sound to reprize two from the spring , and add one new one .
Conclusion
As I drop a line this , I ’ve had the Mac Pro for almost exactly one calendar week . It ’s been a busy week , with good deal of shuffling between the two machines ( they ’re on opposite side of meat of the desk at the second ) , and lots of file copying ( and recopy ) and organisation updating ( and re - update ) . Through all of that , I ’ve been impressed with the Mac Pro ’s quietude and speedy operation . AssumingMacworldbought everything on my auto through the Apple storehouse , it retail for $ 3,126 ( 2.66GHz mannequin with 2 GB of RAM , Bluetooth , AirPort , one 250 GB thrust , and the ATI X1900 XT video board ) . While that ’s not an insignificant amount of money , I would indicate that it ’s an amazing note value on two different fronts .
First , there ’s just the raw economic value of the simple machine . compare to my Dual G5 , Leontyne Price have drop tremendously ( as they generally do in computing ) . I ordered my machine on June 23 , 2003 , in this configuration :
For all of that , I wrote Apple a check for $ 3,299 . Adjusting for inflation , that would be $ 3,638 in today ’s money . So for $ 500 less , I have a machine with doubly as many processors ( and those processors are much faster ) , a larger and libertine ( SATA 2 ) hard driving , a much good video card , a quicker SuperDrive , room for three more ( instead of one more ) internal drive and a 2nd visual thrust , Bluetooth , AirPort … and no modem . clear today ’s Mac Pro contain a mess more technology for a less monetary value .
secondly , there ’s the “ two mints in one ” time value of the Mac Pro . It ’s not just that that Mac Pro is an first-class type O ecstasy loge . It ’s also a very capable Windows XP machine . If I had a “ veridical ” job , this one machine could well take the plaza of two — consider a graphic designer who has to use some corporate Windows XP - only software , for example . So instead of stimulate two Brobdingnagian box sit on their desk , the designer would have just one , and use either Parallels Desktop or Boot Camp for when they needed approach to Windows XP .
So there you have it , my in - depth looking at at the Mac Pro . And now it ’s clock time to actually end my information migration , which I ’d set away to complete this report . I ca n’t wait to make the replacement , and move the Mac Pro into its lasting maculation on my output phone line . The Dual G5 will become some sort of household waiter , though I ’m not quite sure in what regard just yet — perhaps that task will be the depicted object of a future news report .
[ Rob Griffiths is a aged editor atMacworld . ]
