Tiger performance

Discussion in 'macOS' started by danman, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. danman macrumors member

    Jul 5, 2002
    It's early days yet, but judging by the Developer preview, we should not (as I kind of expected) hold out for any more major speed increases in the step from Panther to Tiger.

    This appears to be a shame, as advances in compiler technology from IBM that clearly show a great improvement in code generation over GCC 3 seem to be being ignored by Apple.

    Herewith some current benchmarks from XBench, clearly showing slowdowns/ or flat performance between the two OS Xs...

    Results	133.39	
    	System Info		
    		Xbench Version		1.1.3
    		System Version		10.4 Pre-release (8A162)
    		Physical RAM		768 MB
    		Model		PowerBook5,2
    		Processor		PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
    			L1 Cache		32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    			L2 Cache		512K @ 1.25 GHz
    			Bus Frequency		167 MHz
    		Video Card		ATY,RV350M10
    		Drive Type		FUJITSU MHT2080AT
    	CPU Test	151.77	
    		GCD Loop	146.64	5.73 Mops/sec
    		Floating Point Basic	152.34	550.92 Mflop/sec
    		AltiVec Basic	154.00	4.47 Gflop/sec
    		vecLib FFT	153.75	2.39 Gflop/sec
    		Floating Point Library	152.34	6.10 Mops/sec
    	Thread Test	110.61	
    		Computation	80.35	1.08 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    		Lock Contention	177.40	2.23 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
    	Memory Test	131.56	
    		System	145.77	
    			Allocate	585.07	381.64 Kalloc/sec
    			Fill	159.18	1267.09 MB/sec
    			Copy	79.44	397.19 MB/sec
    		Stream	119.88	
    			Copy	124.49	910.02 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Scale	126.01	929.93 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Add	118.55	758.74 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Triad	111.57	681.70 MB/sec [altivec]
    	Quartz Graphics Test	169.78	
    		Line	129.41	3.29 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    		Rectangle	156.87	11.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    		Circle	159.57	3.68 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    		Bezier	150.49	1.64 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    		Text	410.44	6.69 Kchars/sec
    	OpenGL Graphics Test	100.24	
    		Spinning Squares	100.24	70.15 frames/sec
    	User Interface Test	229.27	
    		Elements	229.27	73.75 refresh/sec
    	Disk Test	48.81	
    		Sequential	48.36	
    			Uncached Write	44.06	18.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	38.06	15.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	105.39	16.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	41.23	16.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    		Random	49.26	
    			Uncached Write	56.43	0.85 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	41.32	9.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	53.66	0.35 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	48.44	9.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Results	135.71	
    	System Info		
    		Xbench Version		1.1.3
    		System Version		10.3.4 (7H63)
    		Physical RAM		768 MB
    		Model		PowerBook5,2
    		Processor		PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
    			L1 Cache		32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    			L2 Cache		512K @ 1.25 GHz
    			Bus Frequency		167 MHz
    		Video Card		ATY,RV350M10
    		Drive Type		FUJITSU MHT2080AT
    	CPU Test	151.86	
    		GCD Loop	146.59	5.72 Mops/sec
    		Floating Point Basic	153.17	553.91 Mflop/sec
    		AltiVec Basic	153.48	4.46 Gflop/sec
    		vecLib FFT	157.97	2.45 Gflop/sec
    		Floating Point Library	148.60	5.95 Mops/sec
    	Thread Test	109.95	
    		Computation	79.99	1.08 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    		Lock Contention	175.78	2.21 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
    	Memory Test	140.12	
    		System	155.63	
    			Allocate	786.50	513.04 Kalloc/sec
    			Fill	163.43	1300.91 MB/sec
    			Copy	84.13	420.67 MB/sec
    		Stream	127.41	
    			Copy	128.81	941.59 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Scale	130.21	960.96 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Add	128.28	820.96 MB/sec [altivec]
    			Triad	122.63	749.27 MB/sec [altivec]
    	Quartz Graphics Test	154.54	
    		Line	136.05	3.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    		Rectangle	128.48	9.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    		Circle	156.77	3.61 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    		Bezier	152.73	1.66 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    		Text	232.83	3.80 Kchars/sec
    	OpenGL Graphics Test	99.02	
    		Spinning Squares	99.02	69.29 frames/sec
    	User Interface Test	217.21	
    		Elements	217.21	69.87 refresh/sec
    	Disk Test	61.72	
    		Sequential	65.00	
    			Uncached Write	60.71	25.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	54.43	22.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	126.76	20.07 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	53.17	21.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    		Random	58.76	
    			Uncached Write	67.88	1.02 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Write	52.18	11.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	57.41	0.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    			Uncached Read	59.68	12.28 MB/sec [256K blocks]
  2. bitfactory macrumors 6502


    Jul 22, 2002
    that's precisely your problem - you're "judging by the Developer Preview"

    folks, this release is AT LEAST 7 months away. keep that in perspective.
  3. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    The fact that this is a developers' release means nothing to you?
  4. stoid macrumors 601


    Feb 17, 2002
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    From what I hear, the early releases of Panther were pretty unoptimized and slow. I would expect that this code sees a major optimization overhaul before the Gold Master release.
  5. danman thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 5, 2002
    Neither of you can read can you? What is the very first thing I said in my post?
  6. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816


    Nov 30, 2003
    exactly. when panther was at the dp stage it got faster with each build and even a little faster with each update since the final. the difference with panther though is that it was showing big gains in performance over jaguar in the very first dp build. tiger will get faster for sure as builds are released but the question is how much faster.
  7. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Jun 25, 2002
    Gone but not forgotten.
    Early releases of each Mac OS X version have been slow until about 60 percent through the development cycle. It's always been a developing adage to get it right first, then make it fast.


    While it's possible that Apple might use IBM's compilers to help Tiger code, there is no good reason for this to happen. In fact, it might lead to negative results among those trying to re-compile the Darwin portion with gcc 3.x. Also, the IBM compilers explicitly support G5 and G4 processors, but not G3s. Do you really want to alienate that many users?
  8. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816


    Nov 30, 2003
    ibm is now the sole manufacturer of G3 cpu's so why would they not support their own product?
  9. JFreak macrumors 68040


    Jul 11, 2003
    Tampere, Finland
    beta software always carries debug code and that is jus unnecessary slowdown compared to final release. even if nothing else changes but the debug code is removed, there will be a significant performance boost.

    just focus on features, not performance. the function of a developer preview is to give developers new frameworks and other hooks that they can use in programming their own code - those frameworks are not necessarily even finished yet, and you guys whine about developer release not being optimized ;) come on... give apple some time. if you NEED to use the developer preview, you will value the features and couldn't frankly care less about the performance. if you're a developer, you know how the process goes.

    as someone said, apple first does it right and then makes it fast. it takes time. microsoft however is very fast in doing it wrong ;)
  10. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Jun 25, 2002
    Gone but not forgotten.
    They may support the G3 but they don't say explicitly that there is support in the Mac OS X version of the XLC compiler for it. This may only mean that the code exists but they have not tested it or it may mean that it doesn't exist at all. Obviously, since the AIX version has more legacy, it may have to support the G3 and perhaps, even the 604/604e but there is always gcc.

Share This Page