Is El Capitan faster than Mavericks?

Discussion in 'OS X El Capitan (10.11)' started by MacMartyr, Jun 10, 2015.

  1. MacMartyr macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Anaheim, California
    #1
    I can see that it's a lot faster than Yosemite, but how does it compare to Mavericks?

    I'm using a 2014 MBA on Mavericks, so not sure if I will see the changes most Retina people have been seeing.
     
  2. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #2
    I have Mavericks and El Capitan dual booting on my MacBook Air (2014), and in this early stage, I notice little difference in their performance.
     
  3. Ritsuka macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    #3
    Finder performance are back to Mavericks level (in Yosemite it slow down even when resizing a small window, and even the selection rectangle lags).
     
  4. lynxdeb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    #4
    regarding graphic UI seems very good (on rMB12), also other improvements on application launch
    for a first beta it's very good.. waiting for DP2 :)
     
  5. Antoni Nygaard macrumors 6502a

    Antoni Nygaard

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Location:
    Denmark
    #5
    I have a MacBook Pro 4,1 2,4 ghz 4GB ram and nvidia 8600M GT 256mb which was running Yosemite animation was slow and performance was not that good, recently downloaded to Mavericks and now installed El Capitan to a new partition it on par with Mavericks i think, and much smoother and faster than Yosemite.
     
  6. Maxwill macrumors member

    Maxwill

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    #6
    Since updating to Yosemite my finder is much more slower. El Capitan is much quicker than Yosemite, but I can only see a little bit difference when comparing to Mavericks.
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    This is good news, its only DP1, but yet you guys can already see an improvement. :D

    Taking a leap of faith but the further DPs and public betas may be even faster.
     
  8. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #8
    This! I have no idea how these types of issue slipped QA...
    Any person who uses Finder for more than 2 minutes will easily discover huge performance issues.
     
  9. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #9
    From what I see now, El Capitan is:
    A) Definitely faster than Yosemite, no matter if the graphics card supports Metal or only OpenGL;
    B) Has the potential to be as fast as Mavericks on Mac post 2012 (support metal);
    C) For cards that don't support Metal (2011 and before), El Capitan will be less fluid than Mavericks.
     
  10. MacGizmo macrumors 6502a

    MacGizmo

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Location:
    Arizona
    #10
    I've not noticed a slow-down from Mavericks to Yosemite. But then, I'm running a fairly new iMac with i7 processor, full RAM and upgraded video card. I suspect the speed boost I'm seeing with El Cap over Yosemite will be seen by any computer it runs on, to varying degrees.
     
  11. bmac89 macrumors 6502a

    bmac89

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    #11
    All sounds good. I will be interested to know how it performs (and compares to Mavericks) on pre 2011 machines such as a 2009 Imac.
     
  12. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #12
    Not as smooth as Mavericks, especially when blurring effect ("vibrancy", in Apple's terms) applies to significant amount of area. But for everything else, it is acceptable and usable.

    However, it is noticeably more fluid, and less buggy (not in terms of 3rd party app support, as that's not the point of DP1) than Yosemite.
     
  13. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #13
    I think it's too soon to make this declaration. We are at the VERY FIRST beta, there's plenty of time for further optimization. I have no reason to believe that it will be less fluid than Mavericks on pre-2012 machines once completed.
     
  14. Andropov macrumors regular

    Andropov

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Location:
    Spain
    #14
    Well, I don't think that's the case. I have a mid-2011 21.5" iMac and OS X 10.11 is significantly faster than any previous OS since Snow Leopard, at least in UI animations. It crashes a few times a day (it's a beta) but otherwise is fast and responsive.

    At least, for me.
     
  15. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #15
    For me it's been very stable. I've not had a single crash. The only thing I can't do right now is edit video on FCPX. It launches and presents the normal interface on the desktop, then promptly closes. Everything else is working great so far.
     
  16. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #16
    Um... Interesting experience. Does "since Snow Leopard" include Snow Leopard?
     
  17. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #17
    Yes. Very, very stable as DP1.
     
  18. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #18
    True.
     
  19. kwokaaron macrumors 6502a

    kwokaaron

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    #19
    So is it reasonable to assume that post-2012 Macs running El Capitan are already currently as fast as/faster than Mavericks? I'm still running Mavericks and I'm not sure if it'll slow down my Mac.
     
  20. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #20
    For now, it's:

    a) *as fast* in some areas (most day-to-day-things such as using Notes, iTunes, Spotify, Pages, etc.);

    b) *faster* in some other areas (Speed of launching apps on spinning hard drives, Window-resizing and full-screen switching, navigating through pro apps such as Affinity Designer, scrolling through webpages in Safari);

    c) and *less fast* in minor areas (such as boot-up speed, the expansion of Stacks in Dock and drawing of blurring effects for text outlines, or scrolling through PDFs).
     
  21. vista980622 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    #21
    Expect things to change between not and final release, though.
     
  22. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #22
    Yes, it's as fast on my system. UI actually feels faster to be honest, but I'm not booting a current Mavericksinstall so I can't do a side by side comparison.
     
  23. jblagden macrumors 65816

    jblagden

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    #23
    When you say "upgraded video card", it sounds like you're talking about having upgraded it yourself. But since it's an iMac, particularly a recent iMac, I doubt that's the case considering Apple has been using irreplaceable CPUs, GPUs, and RAM lately.
     
  24. MacGizmo macrumors 6502a

    MacGizmo

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    Nope. When I bought my 27" iMac, the video card was upgradable at time of order. I have the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4096 MB card. The RAM I did upgrade myself, because it takes about 10 seconds on the 27" iMacs, unlike the smaller models which, as you know, have chips soldered on to the motherboard.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 4, 2016 ---
    In general, it should be at least as fast as Mavericks, but there are areas where it may not be. The real killer is not having an SSD storage drive. If you still have a spinning HD, you're probably not going to like El Capitan (or Yosemite, for that matter). 16GB of RAM should also be the minimum threshold for El Capitan. 8GB is just enough for running the OS and doing basic things like email, notes, web, etc.
     
  25. Ebenezum macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    #25
    I am curious about the RAM requirements, in my experience El Capitan has better RAM management compared to Yosemite. I agree that Apples official requirements are shockingly low, I tested 10.11 on iMac 2007 with 2 GB of RAM (usually it has 6GB but I wanted to see how it would work with less RAM) and it was unbearable slow, beachball everywhere. I only used Safari and Mail with Activity Monitor and RAM use was constantly on the red. I wonder did Apple bother to test it with 2 GB of because it is clearly far too little even with minimal use?

    I know using 10.10 or 10.11 with SSD is much better but iMac is for testing purposes only and I'm not going to spend any money upgrading it.

    Based on my experience I am not certain how the most Core 2 Duo processor equipped Macs are going to fair with El Capitan, it was clearly slower than Mavericks (unsurprisingly Snow Leopard is much faster than both of them).
     

Share This Page