You are not logged in.

#26 2015-10-30 17:10:31

cc333
Member
From: North S.F. Bay Area, CA
Registered: 2014-05-23
Posts: 562

Re: Chikorita157's Collection

Yeah, Intel versions of Tiger lacked Classic Mode, so you'd have to run something like Sheepshaver.

The nice thing about that, though, is that you can run it in full screen mode, and for all intents and purposes, it's almost like the real thing (be advised, though, that due to a lack of MMU emulation, it's limited to 9.0.4 because 9.1 and later required an MMU).

It's probably more ideal to stick with real hardware, though, at least until emulation becomes more perfected.

c


Main Macs: Early '09 Mac Pro, Mid '12 MacBook Pro 13"
Secondary Macs: Early '08 Mac Pro, Mid '12 MacBook Pro 15"
Playthings: Mac SE/30, 3.0 GHz Mavericks-based HackServe, Many others....
Desired: Lisa, Kanga PowerBook G3, Apple IIc, Apple II, Spare parts, etc.

Offline

#27 2015-10-31 18:18:41

chikorita157
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2015-03-13
Posts: 15

Re: Chikorita157's Collection

The lack of Classic is why I still have PowerPC machines around.

With that, I done some benchmarks after trying to get Windows 7 Professional 64-bit since it has problems installing. Ended up taking the hard drive out of my 2010 Macbook Pro, install it, take it out and image with Winclone and restore it onto the Mac Pro. I ran some benchmarks and it got pretty good scores.

Under Windows, the Mac Pro got a Novabench score of 957. The CPU score is close to a actual Intel i3 system (383 for CPU test), but slightly slower. Under Yosemite, it got a 592, which is about a 300 point drop.

The 3D Mark scores are impressive though. 5094 for Fire Strike and 11204 for Sky Diver. Thanks to the GTX 950, this machine graphics performance is faster than my 2012 Macbook Pro, although the CPUs are not as fast. About 5x faster on Fire Strike and 2x faster on Sky Diver.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/9102588 - Fire Strike
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/9102653 - Sky Diver
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/9102653 - Ice Storm
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/9103137 - Cloud Gate

Offline

#28 2015-10-31 18:35:50

bbraun
Member
Registered: 2014-05-29
Posts: 1,064
Website

Re: Chikorita157's Collection

Those macpros have some impressive specs that still seem applicable, but around the Ivy Bridge time frame, a lot of improvements were made that make a huge difference, and then Haswell pretty much sealed the deal.  Especially since recent OSX's have started including x86_64h CPU subtype slices in the universal binaries for including Haswell optimizations.

I'm not really a fan of benchmarks in general because they're pretty much meaningless to any real world workflow.  My workflow is entirely based around compilation times, so that's what I use for comparison.  With my macpro3,1 2.8ghz 8 core with a 6g sata card and SSD, a late-2010 macbookpro 2.2ghz Ivy Bridge with the same SSD is about 7x faster in single threaded compilation, and a 2013 2.8ghz 13" macbookpro is about 11x faster.  There's still some win for tasks that can be sufficiently parallelized to take advantage of all 8 cores, and the real advantage of the macpro IMO is the ability to take better graphics options, since the mobile graphics in all the laptops, imacs, and minis are pretty gimped in comparison to what's available with desktop graphics.  Especially with multihead and 4k displays.
The compilation speed difference was enough to convince me to move my development off the macpro3,1 and use those for running VM test machines.

Offline

#29 2015-10-31 20:58:03

chikorita157
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2015-03-13
Posts: 15

Re: Chikorita157's Collection

bbraun wrote:

Those macpros have some impressive specs that still seem applicable, but around the Ivy Bridge time frame, a lot of improvements were made that make a huge difference, and then Haswell pretty much sealed the deal.  Especially since recent OSX's have started including x86_64h CPU subtype slices in the universal binaries for including Haswell optimizations.

I'm not really a fan of benchmarks in general because they're pretty much meaningless to any real world workflow.  My workflow is entirely based around compilation times, so that's what I use for comparison.  With my macpro3,1 2.8ghz 8 core with a 6g sata card and SSD, a late-2010 macbookpro 2.2ghz Ivy Bridge with the same SSD is about 7x faster in single threaded compilation, and a 2013 2.8ghz 13" macbookpro is about 11x faster.  There's still some win for tasks that can be sufficiently parallelized to take advantage of all 8 cores, and the real advantage of the macpro IMO is the ability to take better graphics options, since the mobile graphics in all the laptops, imacs, and minis are pretty gimped in comparison to what's available with desktop graphics.  Especially with multihead and 4k displays.
The compilation speed difference was enough to convince me to move my development off the macpro3,1 and use those for running VM test machines.

I have a 2014 Mac mini, which I use as a server. While people complain about it not having a quad core, it does perform better due to having better single core performance and it uses a lot less power than a Mac Pro does (the 2014 Mac Mini uses 10 watts on idle). Combined with a Thunderbolt 2 RAID, it makes a nice low power server (and I run ESXi server within VMWare Fusion).

But really, the main advantage of the classic Mac Pros is the upgradability, something that Apple got rid of with the 2013 Mac Pro, which I don't like that much since you are stuck with AMD GPUs (and I prefer nVidia GPUs).

Offline

Board footer

About ThinkClassic

ThinkClassic specialises in the maintenance, repair, restoration and modification of Vintage Apple and Macintosh computers. Ask questions and find answers about classic Apple desktops, laptops, accessories and peripherals.