Benchmarks: 6100/60,
66The Power Macintosh 6100 came in two speeds: a 60 MHz
version introduced on March 14, 1994 as one of the first
Power Macs, and a 66 MHz version introduced on January 5,
1995. Until I benchmarked a 6100/60, 6100/66, and 6100/66
with 256 KB level 2 (L2) cache, I assumed the 6100/66 was
just a slightly faster version of the 6100 -- but there seem
to be other differences, as well. All three systems were similarly configured with Mac OS
8.6 on an Apple/Quantum 230 MB hard drive. Disk cache was at
the default of approximately 1.2 MB. The drive was not
optimized before benchmarking. Remember that benchmarks are arbitrary. They measure
certain types of performance that may or may not reflect the
way you work. Virtual memory was tested, but the difference in scores
was insignificant, as much because of Apple's improvements
in running virtual memory as the fact that none of these
benchmark programs pushed the system to the point where it
needed more memory than was installed. Speedometer
3.06The systems were tested on 17 October 1999 using Mac OS
8.6 with the normal complement of extensions. No third-party
software was added. Computer attached to a 14" color monitor
and tested in 8-bit video mode at 640x480 resolution.
Results are relative to a Mac SE or Classic, which rates
1.0. Numbers rounded off to two decimal places. (Tests with
a 256 KB L2 cache in the 6100/60 were performed on 22 Oct.
1999 with the system attached to an 832x624 monitor.) These scores compare the three models tested using the
default cache of about 1.2 MB. model CPU graphics disk math
6100/60 8.15 7.5 4.46 91.1
w/256L2 8.19 7.7 3.90 92.5
6100/66 8.94 21.4 4.08 100.4
w/256L2 8.94 26.9 4.38 101.9
CPU results bear out the 10% faster processor, as do math
results. Both should be unaffected by the L2 cache. The
6100/66 with the L2 cache scores about 7% higher on the disk
test, which could be due to drive variance or due to the
cache. The great surprise is the difference in graphics
performance between these three machines -- I ran results
twice to verify the difference. Based on a 10% faster
design, graphics performance on the 6100/66 would score
about 8.3. Instead, it scores 21.4; Apple evidently made a
change in the graphics circuitry when moving the 6100 to 66
MHz. Instead of running 10-12% faster, graphics is 187% faster
-- and faster yet with the L2 cache. I'd heard that the L2
cache made a great difference on the 6100, since it uses
regular system memory for video. This bears it out. Graphics
performance improves by 25% with the addition of a 256 KB L2
cache when running in 8-bit mode at 640x480. Very
impressive! However, adding the L2 cache to the 6100/60 did not
result in significant improvement, increasing my suspicion
that there are more changes than clock speed between the
6100/60 and 66. Speedometer
4.02The systems were tested on 17 October 1999 using Mac OS
8.6 with the normal complement of extensions. No third-party
software was added. Computer attached to a 14" color monitor
and tested in 8-bit video mode at 640x480 resolution.
Results are relative to a Quadra 605, which rates 1.0.
Numbers rounded off to one or two decimal places. (Tests
with a 256 KB L2 cache in the 6100/60 were performed on 22
Oct. 1999 with the system attached to an 832x624
monitor.) These scores compare the three models tested using the
default cache of about 1.2 MB. model CPU graphics disk math
6100/60 3.11 1.44 1.23 106.3
w/256L2 3.12 1.48 1.51 106.3
6100/66 3.40 1.68 1.54 116.5
w/256L2 3.43 2.14 1.73 118.4
Again, the CPU and math scores reflect the 10% faster
processor. Curiously, the same 230 MB hard drive on the
6100/60 that outperformed the 6100/66s came in behind them
on Speedometer 4 -- and by a significant margin. In this
case, the 6100 with the L2 cache did score appreciably
higher on the disk test, about 13% higher (vs. 7% with
Speedometer 3). But under Speedometer 4, we find the graphics difference
between the 6100/60 and 66 is only 14% -- just a bit more
than you'd expect from a 10% faster CPU. But the 256 KB L2 cache again makes an appreciable
difference, in this case scoring 27% higher on the graphics
test. Your mileage may vary depending on screen resolution,
bit-depth, and size of the L2 cache. In fact, later tests of
the 6100/60 with a 256 KB L2 cache show almost no difference
in benchmark scores. It seems there's more difference
between the two models than just clock speed. MacBench 5These systems were tested on 17 October 1999 using Mac OS
8.6 with the normal complement of extensions. No third-party
software was added. Computer attached to a 14" color monitor
and tested in 8-bit video mode at 640x480 resolution.
Results are relative to a Power Mac G3/300 (beige), which
rates 1000. Numbers rounded off to two decimal places. I also tested the 6100/60 with 256 KB L2 cache on 22
November 1999. The only other difference was a 832x624
monitor, which also let me run the graphics benchmark. model CPU math disk graphics
6100/60 100 161 n/a n/a
w/256L2 112 171 n/a 371
6100/66 112 177 n/a n/a
w/256L2 135 192 n/a n/a
As above, the difference between CPU and math results on
the 6100/60 and 66 is almost exactly what you'd expect with
a 10% faster processor. Unlike the Speedometer CPU and math
tests, which are relatively unaffected by the presence or
absence of a level 2 cache, under MacBench 5, the L2 cache
makes a measurable difference -- about 20% on the CPU score
and 8% on the math score on the 6100/66, but only 6-12% on
the 6100/60. Yet another bit of evidence that there's more
difference between these two machines than mere clock
speed. Because Mac OS 8.6 takes about 150 MB, there was
insufficient room to run the disk tests. Likewise, the use
of a 640x480 monitor prevented running the graphics test,
which requires an 800x600 resolution.
<back to 6100
profile>
|