I got my 400 MHz TiBook at the end of January 2001. As I was
preparing to replace the stock 10 GB Toshiba hard drive with a newer,
faster 20 GB IBM drive, I realized I'd never done a benchmark page.
Well, here it is.
The TiBook has 512 MB of RAM, is running Mac OS 9.2.2, and has not
been optimized in the least. Except for changing the size of the disk
cache for some tests, these benchmarks were run with my usual
complement of fonts, control panels, and extensions.
Hard disk benchmarks were also run on an external Western Digital 80
GB 7200 rpm hard drive with an 8 MB onboard cache in a FireWire
enclosure using the Oxford 911 bridge - since this is the drive I used
to store my files while moving from the old drive to the new one.
The drives:
- Toshiba MK 1016GAP/HDD2152, 4200 rpm, 1 MB buffer
- IBM Travelstar 40GNX, 5400 rpm, 8 MB buffer
- Western Digital WD800JBRTL, 7200 rpm, 8 MB buffer
Remember that benchmarks are arbitrary. They measure certain types
of performance that may or may not reflect the way you work.
Speedometer 4.02
The system was tested on 5-6 October 2002 under Mac OS 9.2.2 in my
standard configuration. Display run at default 1152 x 768 at millions
of colors. Results are relative to a Quadra 605, which rates 1.0.
Numbers rounded off to one or two decimal places.
Benchmark numbers compare performance at with three different hard
drives. All tests were run with the cache at the 8 MB default
setting.
drive cache CPU graphics disk math
Toshiba 10GB 8MB 30.61 n/a 3.35 1124.6
IBM 20GB 8MB 29.88 n/a 4.54 1123.7
WD 80GB ext 8MB --- n/a 4.80 ---
The CPU and math settings are virtually identical. Both the external
Western Digital drive/FireWire combo and IBM Travelstar drive handily
outperformed the stock Toshiba drive. In the case of the IBM drive, the
5400 rpm speed and larger cache managed to boost overall drive
performance by 35%.
MacBench 5
The system was tested on 5-6 October 2002 under Mac OS 9.2.2 in my
standard configuration. Display run at default 1152 x 768 at millions
of colors. The disk cache was set to 256 KB or 8 MB as indicated.
Results are relative to a Power Mac G3/300, which rates 1000.
drive cache CPU math disk graphics
Toshiba 10GB 256K 1282 1519 896 n/a
Toshiba 10GB 8MB 1277 1509 1274 n/a
IBM 20GB 256K ---- ---- 1676 n/a
IBM 20GB 8MB 1279 1518 2193 n/a
WD 80GB ext 256K ---- ---- 1676 n/a
WD 80GB ext 8MB ---- ---- 2445 n/a
These figures show that there is huge difference between running
with a 256K disk cache and a much larger 8 MB one. Everything
about the TiBook felt slow with the smaller cache - booting, opening
files, you name it. If you're not using as big a disk cache as
possible, you're not getting all the performance your Mac is capable
of.
Still, even with the big cache the Toshiba drive didn't hold a
candle to the performance of the two other drives - even when they
were set to the smaller 256K cache. Overall, the Western Digital drive
in the FireWire box provided almost twice the performance of the
Toshiba drive, and the IBM Travelstar was over 70% faster.
SpeedRun & OS 9
There's a new benchmark in town. SpeedRun benchmarks Macs running
the classic Mac OS and is also available in an OS X version.
Results cannot be directly compare between the two operating
systems.
The system was tested on 5-6 October 2002 under Mac OS 9.2.2 in my
standard configuration. Display run at default 1152 x 768 at thousands
of colors, as required by SpeedRun. The disk cache was set to 256 KB or
8 MB as indicated.
drive cache graphics disk CPU RAM
Toshiba 10GB 256K 548 425 249 1337
Toshiba 10GB 8MB 690 679 266 1358
IBM 20GB 256K --- 562 --- ---
IBM 20GB 8MB 695 748 263 1246
Reduced 8MB 525 586 198 1025
WD 80GB ext 8MB --- 687 --- ---
Just for kicks I ran SpeedRun at the reduced CPU speed of 300 MHz,
which is an option in the Energy Saver control panel. It makes a
significant difference.
Again, the difference between a 256K disk cache and 8 MB is
monstrous. If you've got the memory, you should use as large a disk
cache as the Mac OS allows. With this benchmark, the IBM Travelstar
doesn't show off nearly as well, offering only a 10% higher score on
the disk benchmark.
That's one reason for running several benchmarks. Each provides a
different picture of how much certain changes affect the overall
system, and drive performance varies depending on how your applications
are using the drive.
SpeedRun & OS X
This is the first Mac I've benchmarked under OS X.
The system was tested on 5-6 October 2002 under Mac OS X
10.1.5 in my standard configuration. Display run at default 1152 x 768
at thousands of colors, as required by SpeedRun. The disk cache cannot
be set in Mac OS X. Disk numbers are the average of three
tests.
drive graphics disk CPU RAM
Toshiba 10GB 210 257 137 261
IBM 20GB 210 302 138 263
WD 80GB ext 218 269 138 263
The IBM Travelstar acquitted itself very nicely, coming in at a
17.5% higher score than the stock Toshiba drive. What's really
surprising is how little difference there was between the fast 7200 rpm
Western Digital drive in a FireWire enclosure and the original Toshiba
hard drive.
The computer was tested again on 14 February 2003 under Mac
OS X 10.2.4 after optimizing the drive with Norton Speed Disk.
drive graphics disk CPU RAM
IBM 20GB 182 273 145 260
The CPU score is up about 5%, the RAM score is virtually unchanged,
but both the disk and graphics results are worse than under 10.1.5.
Let1kWindowsBloom
Let 1000 Windows
Bloom has become a standard graphics benchmark for Mac OS X.
Run on the 400 MHz TiBook under Mac OS X 10.2.4 on 14 February
2003, it turned in times of 57 seconds in both 16-bit and 24-bit video
modes.
Xbench
Another new, OS X-specific benchmark program is Xbench, which runs a fairly comprehensive set
of benchmarks. Following results were obtained on 14 February 2003
under 10.2.4.
Test 16-bit 24-bit
CPU 38.5 37.6
Thread 29.8 29.7
Memory 65.6 63.4
Quartz 49.2 52.6
OpenGL 50.0 45.8
User Interface 50.0 47.0
Disk 58.8 59.0
Overall 45.9 45.1
Based on these tests, the TiBook averages 2% faster overall in
16-bit mode, with the biggest difference (almost 10%) in the OpenGL
test. Interestingly, Quartz is more efficient in 24-bit mode, and the
TiBook benchmarks roughly 5% better with the higher bit-depth. Except
for programs that take advantage of OpenGL, there is no compelling
reason for switching to 16-bit video.
Conclusion
The stock Toshiba drive was no slug, but I had nearly run out of
space. With under 1 GB free, it was only a matter of time before I
ran out of room. DealMac recently featured a bargain price of $101.50
shipped from Googlegear, and I'll
probably sell my older Toshiba drive to one of my sons to replace the
4 GB drive in his WallStreet, so my net cost will be minimal.
Overall, the IBM is a much perkier drive. The computer boots faster
in both OS 9 and X, applications launch faster, and BBEdit zips
through global search-and-replaces faster than ever. With nearly half
the drive free, I don't think I'll outgrow this until it's time to
replace the whole computer - and that's something I hope to postpone
until January 2004 if at all possible.
Go to the PowerBook G4 profile.
