Comparing graphics performance - Surprising results.

[Feek]

Today I did a quick graphics performance comparison between my Macbook pro, my Mac Mini and my Mac Pro. The results were not quite as expected.

I ran the three grahics tests in Xbench, the Quartz Graphics Test, the OpenGL Test and the User Interface Test.

My Mac Pro has an 8800GT graphics card, the Macbook Pro was using the 9600M and the Mac Mini was using the 9400M.

I expected the Mac Pro to be the top performer which it was but not by as much as I was expecting.

The surprise came between the Macbook Pro and the Mac Mini.

In the Quartz and OpenGL tests, the Mac Mini outperformed the Macbook Pro. That's a system with a 9400M running faster than a 9600M. The Mac Mini has a faster CPU though at 2.53GHz as opposed to 2.40GHz. Both machines have DDR3 so it's not a memory bottleneck making the MBP slower.

Here are the results - You can see the Xbench figures by clicking each title.

Mac Pro
Result - 235.40
Quartz - 263.52
OpenGL - 167.26
Interface - 336.60

Mac Mini
Result - 202.65
Quartz - 214.60
OpenGL - 158.96
Interface - 259.53

Macbook Pro
Result - 191.11
Quartz - 190.02
OpenGL - 148.51
Interface - 270.13

Now I know that as Mac users we're not really generally too fussed about performance figures but I was surprised by this. Is this down to a limitation of Xbench being very old - Surely the MBP with the 9600 should be faster than the Mini with the 9400 even with a slight CPU speed difference?

I wonder if anyone has a 2008 Mac Pro with a 4870 card, I'd be very interested to see the Xbench figures as I'm considering getting one.

 

[NickK]

Apple do vary the GPU speed of their laptops based on the screensize and which range it is. It's the reason I got the 256MB MBP 15" variant rather than the 128MB as the GPU core ran faster.

MacBook Pro: 15" 2.4GHz, 667MHz DDR2 4GB, 8600M GT (256MB version), OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD.
Mac Mini: 2.66GHz, 1066MHz DDR3 4GB, 9400M, 5400rpm 320GB HD.

In Xbench the MBP, from memory, still beats the Mini - just but that could in the margin of error..

In apparent terms of user application experience speed, the MBP absolutely hammers the Mini thanks to the SSD. The MBP is instantaneous. However give the two machines something heavy to do then the Mini leaves the MBP in it's dust.

 

[ps3ud0]

Useful info NickK - slightly off-topic but Im looking to get a MBP and perhaps I might opt for the higher specced 15" now cos of the GFX improvements...

ps3ud0

 

[Feek]

My MBP is 15" with 1066MHz DDR3 , same as the Mini which is why I'd expect it to be quicker due to the 9600M over the 9400M.

 

[ukSleek]

I just ran xbench on my uMBP 15" 2.53 9400m 250gig 5400rpm HDD

Results: 203

Quartz: 196.07

OpenGL: 160.42

Interface: 295.52