Click Here to visit Newer Tech.'s web page for this product.
A note about "real world" testing: There is always the issue of repeatability in application test runs between products. Even using the same machine and cpu card, run to run variations as much as a few % of the score are common. Compound that variable with how repeatable you are at starting and stopping the stopwatch, along with the thermal issues of extended runs on the hard disk performance (drives do thermal calibration, esp. an issue in non-AV drives) as well. After Effects, Bryce2 and Infini-D 4.0 do their own recording of render times, so no human error is present there. However in most of the tests human error is a consideration, especially when test results are less than one second apart. I go to great lengths to ensure consistent timing, but I'm only human. All these factors can add variation to the run times. I personally do as much as possible to ensure consistent test results such as: Rebooting between each test/application Performing the identical series of steps for each test. Running the tests in the same order for each product. Use standard image files for timings (samples usually) when possible. Machine under test is not used for any recording of data (only the application under test is running) Keep these things in mind when comparing the application test run times - what is most important is the % difference between products. Even when scores are close, a consistently lower time for one product is a clear indication it is the better performer. Also be aware I was using a beta2 copy of Newer Tech's MaxPowr Pro control panel. Later revisions may perform differently. Due to some surprising scores - I'll be re-testing in some cases to verify that the recorded scores were accurate ( at 3am there is always a chance I made a mistake, however unlikely) One definate skew is that the MaxPowr Pro tests were run after the Photoshop disk was optimized (to determine if fragmentation was the reason for a low test score when installed in the PowerCenter machine) and the desktop files were rebuilt on all drives. As a result, I'll have to redo the tests with the PowerForce card to ensure equivalent scores are there for comparison.

Application Testing
Application tests are somewhat of a mixed bag, considering the claims made regarding the PowerPC 750 chip in comparison to the 604E. As you'll see from the tests below, the 750 does have an advantage in literally all the tests - but in some cases such as heavily floating point (FPU) performance dependent applications, it is a relatively minor one. Operations such as searches (Find File) were dramatically faster than the 604E cards, and database applications should really see a performance boost with the PPC750 based cards. I've just bought FileMaker Pro 4.0, and will be reporting on this in a future update. FPU speeds of the PPC750 seem to be only 10-15% faster in single precision than a similar speed 604E. The chip itself is said to be half as fast at double precision FPU operations, due to one less execution unit in the chip for double-precision floating point, but the backside cache's speed more than makes up for this in most applications it seems. However if you're upgrading from a 120, 150 or even 200mhz 604E, especially with a smaller L2 cache, you'll notice substancial improvements in performance. Keep in mind the PowerLogix Pro 233 scores were taken running at 263mhz, with a 1 meg L2 cache installed - not your Average Mac 604E to be sure. However I'm not a magazine, or online subsidary that depends on advertising so I wanted to show how the 750's compare to the best and fastest of the lower cost 604E cards, not just a stock 120 or 200mhz system. I'll let you make up your own mind - I just provide the facts. These cards perform very well with no L2 cache, saving you an upgrade there - and they feel very responsive in all areas of use. If you can afford the delta in price - I say go for the 750 chip every time. (Reprinted from the PowerForce review) To provide some concrete application test results, I used After Effects 3.1, Bryce2, Photoshop 4, Infini-D 4.0, Freehand 7.0 and Virtual PC to perform typical real world tasks (except for VPC) to compare the speed of the MaxPowr Pro card with the best of the 604E cards, the PowerLogix Pro 233 card (set to 52.67mhz bus/263.35mhz cpu speed) and the more expensive PowerLogix Powerforce 250 cards (running a 2X larger, much faster backside cache), as well as the stock 8500/120 (w/1meg L2 cache). I didn't have the patience to run the 8500/120 yet on the Infini-D test, as it would take several hours I estimate. The After Effects rendering test involved a short movie with a explosion/fire filter effect. The Infini-D 4.0 test was to render a 150 frame animation, with ray tracing, shadows and medium anti-aliasing - using the Chapter 7 Tutorial file. This PowerForce G3 250 card tests were run with and without the PowerLogix 1meg RapidCache installed on the motherboard, as noted (it's the same cache used with both PL Pro 233 & 8500/120). The Powerforce results are all with a full speed backside cache setting (1:1). The results are shown below: Launch After Effects test: MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 7.75 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 7.87 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 7.44 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 7.36 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 7.31 PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 7.01 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 7.53 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 9.66 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 11.06 After Effects Rendering test: MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 5:37 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 5:38 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 5:14 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 5:05 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 4:51 (64megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 4:49 PowerForce 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 4:58 PowerLogix Pro 233 w/1meg L2 (604E@263mhz) = 5:34 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 12:18 Infini-D 4.0 Rendering test: MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 53:17 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 53:47 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 47:10 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 45:14 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3= 42:25 (64megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 43:18 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 45:18 PowerLogix Pro 233 w/1meg L2 (604E@263mhz) = 1:20:26 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = (I don't have the patience...) Bryce2 Rendering Tests Test scenes are from the Sample Scenes folder, Kai subfolder (I used these std scenes to allow other Bryce2 owners to compare their results with mine). Default 16980k memory allocated to Bryce2. Time to render the "Magical Night I" scene MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 4:28 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 4:27 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 4:06 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 3:58 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 3:45 PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 3:46 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 3:52 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 4:46 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 11:36 Time to render the "Alexandria II" scene MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 6:08 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 6:08 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 5:39 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 5:29 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 5:12 PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 5:10 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 5:19 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 6:33 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 15:32 Photoshop 4.0 Tests ** NOTE: MaxPowr Pro tests run after the PhotoShop Swap Disk was defragmented, therefore PowerForce tests will be repeated soon - Photoshop pages to the swap disk on most tests with larger images so this could have affected the test times ** Time to launch Photoshop 4.0 (50 megs ram allocated to Photoshop) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 8.31 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 8.38 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 7.90 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 7.90 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3= 7.52 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 6.37 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 7.35 PowerLogix Pro 233 w/1meg L2 (604E@263mhz) = 7.85 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 13.04 Time to load/display 16.1MB (file size) image MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 10.00 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 10.41 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 9.90 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 9.62 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 12.36 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 9.51 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 11.18 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 11.50 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 14.82 Rotate 32MB image 45 degrees (50 megs allocated to Photoshop) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 48.22 (60ns memory setting)** MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 49.38 (70ns memory setting)** MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 46.88 (60ns memory setting)** MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 45.87 (60ns memory setting) ** PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 53.71 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 46.47 (retested 11/1/97)** PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 49.57 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 57.31 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 1:30 ** tests used optimized swap file disk. Rotate 32MB image 45 degrees (PS allocated 80MB ram) To test if more Ram added to PS would increase the performance of the 60ns Pro Timing setting. PS still hits the disk swap file during this test, but the 60ns memory timing did show consistently better performance with the larger memory allocation. MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 37.65 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 41.32 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 37.75 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 39.87 (60ns memory setting) (Ran 3 times) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = TBA (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 36.49 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = TBA PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = TBA Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = TBA Resample (up 4X) 2MB image MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 8.03 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 7.89 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 7.20 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 5.28 (!) (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 7.57 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 6.57 PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 7.16 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 10.34 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 15.06 Gaussian Blur 8MB image MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 3.75 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 4.13 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 3.41 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 1.85 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 1.66 PowerForce G3 292mhz w/no L3 = 1.71 (retested 11/1/97) PowerForce G3 285mhz w/1meg L3 = 3.71 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 4.04 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 6.13 Premiere 4.2 Make Movie Tests: Make movie test - Sample Proj. Quicktime 320x240 MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 51.60 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 52.84 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 45.47 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 45.02 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 44.35 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/noL3 = 44.72 PowerForce G3 285mhz = 44.75 PowerLogix Pro 233 (604E@263mhz) = 57.90 Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 1:45 Virtual PC 1.0 "Wintune 97" Test Results: MaxPower Pro 60ns vs 70ns Testing: (128megs ram/4 meg Vram/Mac set to 1024x768, thousands colors, VPC 1.0 run in full screen mode 640x480, 256 colors.) 60ns Timings - 1.5 cache ratio Load - 29.72 & 30.75 sec's (2 tests) Reported Clock Rate: 333 Mhz (2nd run 336mhz) Dhystone: 144 Mips (same both runs) Whetstone: 48 MFLOPS (2nd run 47 MFLOPS) Video Speed: 5.1 MP/sec (same both runs) Cached Disk: 5.1 MB/sec (same both runs) UnCached Disk: 1.4 MB/sec (same both runs) RAM Read Avg: 218 MB/sec (same both runs) RAM Write Avg: 97 MB/sec (same both runs) RAM Copy Avg: 187 MB/sec (2nd run 186 MB/sec) 70ns Timings - 1.5 cache ratio Load - 29.75 & 30.70 sec's (2 tests) Reported Clock Rate: 335 Mhz (2nd run 333mhz) Dhystone: 142 Mips (2nd run 144 Mips) Whetstone: 47 MFLOPS (same both runs) Video Speed: 4.8 MP/sec (2nd run 5 MP/sec) Cached Disk: 5.1 MB/sec (2nd run 5.0 MB/sec) UnCached Disk: 1.3 MB/sec (same both runs) RAM Read Avg: 217 MB/sec (2nd run 219MB/sec*) RAM Write Avg: 95 MB/sec (same both runs) RAM Copy Avg: 182 MB/sec (2nd run 181 MB/sec) As shown above, Virtual PC shows slightly better performance in some areas (Video primarily) with the faster 60ns memory control panel setting. MaxPowr PRO+ (45/266/266/60ns) VPC results: Using 1.2b2 control panel - set to 1:1 cache, 60ns memory timing. 60ns Timings - 1.0 Cache ratio Load - 27.75 sec Reported Clock Rate: 359 Mhz Dhystone: 155 Mips Whetstone: 51 MFLOPS Video Speed: 6.2 MP/sec Cached Disk: 6.4 MB/sec UnCached Disk: 1.6 MB/sec RAM Read Avg: 255 MB/sec RAM Write Avg: 103 MB/sec RAM Copy Avg: 209 MB/sec The table below shows the results of running Windows Magazine's "Wintune 97" benchmark with the the MaxPowr Pro (running 250mhz cpu/166mhz cache), the PowerForce G3 250 (running 292 mhz cpu/292mhz cache, with no motherboard cache), PowerLogix Pro 233 (running 263mhz w/1meg cache) and the stock 8500/120mhz cpu (w/1meg cache). 64 megs of memory were allocated to VPC, and video mode was set to 640x480, 256 colors, not running full screen. For comparison, the once king of the P90 systems (1994) - the Zeos Pantera - is shown for reference. < Wintune Test MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 PowerForce 250 @292mhz (no MB cache) PL Pro 233 @263mhz w/1meg L2 8500/120 w/1meg L2 Zeos P90 Clock Rate reported: 333 mhz 387 mhz 263 mhz 120 mhz 90 mhz Dhrystone: 144 Mips 168 mips 170 mips 71 mips 165 mips Whetstone: 48 MFLOPS 56 MFLOPS 47 MFLOPS 20 MFLOPS 52 MFLOPS Video Speed: 5.1 MP/Sec 7.4 MP/Sec 4.3 MP/sec 2.5 MP/sec 16 MP/sec** Cached Disk: 5.1 MB/Sec 6.5 MB/Sec 2.7 MB/sec 1.2 MB/sec 11 MB/sec UnCached Disk: 1.4 MB/Sec 1.6 MB/Sec 1 MB/sec 0.61 MB/sec 2.9 MB/sec RAM Read Avg: 218 MB/Sec 263 MB/Sec 243 MB/sec 106 MB/sec 155 MB/sec RAM Write Avg: 97 MB/Sec 108 MB/Sec 108 MB/sec 53 MB/sec 32 MB/sec RAM Copy Avg: 187 MB/Sec 224 MB/Sec 108 MB/sec 73 MB/sec 28 MB/sec ** = denotes Zeos Pantera P90 was running 16-bit color mode. VPC Performance Comparison Table Note: Wintune warns that the CPU L1 cache is turned off with any PPC750 based, backside cache card, but not with the 604E cards. (Further investigation leads me to believe this is due to the delta between the Read and Write times, which WinTune attributes to a disabled L1 cache. WinTune could be correct, or just pinpointing a VPC emulation issue). VPC Full screen mode was used in all MaxPowr Pro tests, Win95 video set to 640x480, 256 colors as usual. VPC Results Summary: In general the Pro outperforms the 263mhz 604E by a good margin on the Video, Disk and Ram copy performance and surpassing the real P90 on the memory tests. It also does a respectable job compared to the PowerForce card on most tests. Odd that the Dhrystone scores are slightly lower for the PPC750 than the 604E, which is the opposite of what I expected. Slight differences (+-3% or so) in some tests can be attributed to run-to-run variations, which I've seen before. I'm eager to report these results to Connectix. Note that I have not applied the update patch from Connectix due to the problems I've read regarding the patch. Note that overall Ram performance was far superior to the P90 systems - from 3X to 10X faster with the with the PPC750 cards. Freehand 7.0 Tests: AfterBurner compress "Associated Press.." document MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 4.12 (60ns memory setting)** MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 3.82 (70ns memory setting)** MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 3.22 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 3.19 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 4.16 sec (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 3.05 sec PowerForce 250 @285mhz w/1meg L3 = 3.07 sec PL Pro 233 604E @263mhz w/1meg L2 = 4.88 sec Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 7.74 sec ** Test run 3 times (machine rebooted each time), but each time the 70ns speed delivered the better performance AfterBurner Compress "Hispanic.." document MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 11.72 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 11.72 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 10.88 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 10.13 (60ns memory setting PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 11.25 (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 9.75 sec PowerForce 250 @285mhz w/1meg L3 = 10.07 sec PL Pro 233 604E @263mhz w/1meg L2 = 14.73 sec Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 26.68 sec Load & Display "Hispanic.." document MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 7.56 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 8.19 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 6.90 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 6.31 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 6.20 sec (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/noL3 = 6.60 sec PowerForce 250 @285mhz w/1meg L3 = 6.97 sec PL Pro 233 604E @263mhz w/1meg L2 = 9.81 sec Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 20.20 sec Launch Freehand 7.0 (96K disk cache setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 15.93 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro 45/250/166 w/no L3 = 15.91 (70ns memory setting) MaxPowr Pro+ 45/266/266 w/no L3 = 15.44 (60ns memory setting) MaxPowr 275 45/275/275 w/no L3 = 15.40 (60ns memory setting) PwrCenter w/PF G3 65/292mhz no L3 = 13.96 sec (64 megs ram) PowerForce G3 292mhz/no L3 = 12.88 sec PowerForce 250 @285mhz w/1meg L3 = 15.37 sec PL Pro 233 604E @263mhz w/1meg L2 = 17.23 sec Stock 8500/120 w/1meg L2 = 20.35 Note: Disk cache was 96K during this test, as I forgot to reset it to my normal 512k size after resetting the Cuda chip during previous CPU card swaps. So I tested all cards with 96k disk cache on this test. (the following is repeated from the PowerForce G3 review) Application Observations: In general, most 3D applications make heavy use of Floating Point instructions, which don't show a large increase in performance with the PPC750 (vs. a similar speed 604E), since it's optimized for integer operations. Databases and most other business applications primarily use integer math, which would show a much larger advantage in performance with the PPC 750 chip. Web Browsing shows a large increase in performance - except for slow server connections of course. Going back to the 120mhz cpu card is painful after using the PPC750 cards. How quickly we get spoiled by speed.
Final Analysis:
The MaxPowr Pro is currently the most affordable 750 chip based card on the market, providing about 80% of the MacBench CPU score and 90% or more of the performance in real world applications of the more expensive Pro+ model. It's no match overall for the PowerForce 250 card, but then it's $800 less as well. At about $1100 (street), you pay a premium for the 750 chip and fast backside cache. The 604E cards are still the the best bangs for the buck out there now, but many need a L2 cache upgrade for best performance. If you don't want to mess with L2 cache upgrades and you need the application boost the 750/backside cache provides but can't afford the $1800+ price tags of the high-end PPC750 cards - then the MaxPowr Pro is just the ticket.
= Where to Buy = Any Newer Technology retailer. Better prices than retail are often at found at Bottom Line. Other World Computing or MacGurus. Prices change so often (almost daily) that I no longer try to list them. And remember that price is just one consideration before buying, so shop carefully.
Feedback	Send us your questions or feedback Don't like forms? Then send us a quick Email instead!
About Us	About Computer Resources
= Top of Page = = To Main Review Page = = Back to WWW.XLR8YOURMAC.COM =
Copyright © , 1997. No part of this sites content is to be reproduced in any form without written permission. All brand or product names mentioned here are properties of their respective companies. Users of this web site must read and are bound by the terms and conditions of use.