PDA

View Full Version : Leopard Performance


MacBytes
Oct 27, 2007, 07:37 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Benchmarks
Link: Leopard Performance (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071027083705)
Description:: Primate Labs compares the performance of Tiger and Leopard on an Intel-based iMac and a Power Mac G5, and takes a look at 64-bit performance under Leopard.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

juanster
Oct 27, 2007, 07:42 AM
hmmm interesting

Genghis Khan
Oct 27, 2007, 07:52 AM
so why is leopard slower?

InLikeALion
Oct 27, 2007, 09:11 AM
so why is leopard slower?

I know, that's weird, right? It seems to be contrary to what a lot of the beta testers and early installers were saying. I guess maybe Geekbench doesn't monitor 'Snappiness'? ;)

I found it strange, too, that for PPC they benched the PM G5 1.6ghz - that's not a duel processor IIRC, which makes it a difficult comparison. Most people with single processors have G4's, which are 32 bit, so it doesn't work as a good demonstration for these owners. But those with G5's mostly have dual or even quad processors (cores) so it doesn't work as a good comparison for how Leopard will run on most with 64bit machines. Not to mention the skimpy RAM. I would assume most people with a PM would have at least 2g's.

Belly-laughs
Oct 27, 2007, 06:10 PM
The iMac was never dual G5.

Amiga2000HD
Oct 27, 2007, 09:09 PM
I agree about that guy's Power Mac G5. It's got the slowest G5 CPU and it's a single unit. A more fair comparison would be to compare the performance of a dual processor/core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2 GB memory against the iMac since that would level the playing field with respect to the number of processor cores, CPU clock speed, and system memory. Now the results from that test would be very interesting to look at.

nagromme
Oct 27, 2007, 10:14 PM
Any time capability increases, there's a chance that performance will decrease. (That's why modern software that does more needs faster machines than we had 10 years ago.) In fact, with Windows, performance does decrease with each version.

So it seems unlikely that everything would be faster with Leopard. SOME things will be. (Like mounting network volumes, Spotlight searches, and anything that is now better multithreaded.)

Fiveos22
Oct 27, 2007, 11:51 PM
Not the screaming increases seen from 10.1.5 to 10.2, or from 10.2 to 10.3...or even from 10.3 to 10.4


I'll reserve judgement for after someone figures out how to install 10.5 on a g3 and benchmark it.

InLikeALion
Oct 28, 2007, 10:07 AM
The iMac was never dual G5.

As in there are a bunch of G5 imacs out there that aren't dual processor? Hmm. That's a good point and I hadn't thought about it. But surely we can see that there would probably be more professional concern about benchmark performance on the PM with dual processors, as that's likely what the majority of the pros would be using.

aarond12
Oct 28, 2007, 10:57 AM
Not the screaming increases seen from 10.1.5 to 10.2, or from 10.2 to 10.3...or even from 10.3 to 10.4
I noticed a speed decrease when going from 10.3 to 10.4 on my PowerPC-based computers (dual 2GHz G5, Powerbook G4 1.25GHz).

I did notice a significant speed up on the Powerbook G4 when going from 10.4.10 to 10.5. Everything seemed faster. No, I don't have benchmarks, but even the "System Preferences" window seemed to operate more smoothly. I don't own the G5 anymore, but I did notice the author's G5 was the low-end model that was euniched...

bluey-
Oct 28, 2007, 01:04 PM
how can i install or start the 64bit version of leopard? If i rip of the i386 part and preserve the x86_64 part, it refuses to start.

TantalizedMind
Oct 28, 2007, 03:42 PM
Most people with single processors have G4's. But those with G5's mostly have dual or even quad processors (cores) so it doesn't work as a good comparison for how Leopard will run on most with 64bit machines. I would assume most people with a PM would have at least 2g's.

When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME!

1. I have a PowerMac G5.. its a Single Processor. And I know lots of people that do too! Though I understand what your saying.
2. I have 1Gig not 2.

Killyp
Oct 28, 2007, 05:42 PM
how can i install or start the 64bit version of leopard? If i rip of the i386 part and preserve the x86_64 part, it refuses to start.

You're talking about installing on a PC, no? I really wouldn't do that...

If you aren't, then you just install OS X as normal and it runs in 64 bit by nature if your computer is capable.

Rodimus Prime
Oct 28, 2007, 06:48 PM
so why is leopard slower?

if I had to guess it is because they switch from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. back in the day when OS went from 16 bit to 32 bit the 16 bit OS where faster.
So stepping up to 64bit means a a little slower but the ceiling speed wise is higher so in a short time span they will be faster than the 32 bit just because 32 bit speeds are maxed out.

genereyes
Oct 28, 2007, 07:27 PM
I don't have any benchmarks either, but Leopard does feel and act a lot faster than Tiger did on my CD MBP.

Boot time feels a tad faster, but the real gain is once logged in. Dashboard widgets load and populate in less than a second for me, whereas they took upwards of 10 seconds in Tiger. Safari feels faster, and is now once again my main Mac OS X browser. Expose and Spaces animate fluidly no matter how many windows I have open - in Tiger, Expose seemed to struggle and skip some animation frames when I had several windows open at once.

Now, my question is... Will Leopard feel and act this fast on my G4 Mac mini? Anyone tried Leopard on the original minis yet?