Leopard = Faster?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by ccalleri, Jul 18, 2007.

  1. ccalleri macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
    #1
    Seeing as how Leopard will be 64bit through and through, do you think that this will increase system/application speed on Core 2 Duo's (since they are 64-bit)? Any thoughts?
     
  2. defeated macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    #2
    I doubt most apps can/will take advantages of 64bit OS

    so my answer is no
     
  3. James Cole macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    #3
    I didn't know the new core 2 duos were 64 bit... are you sure they are?
     
  4. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    yes they are.

    and defeated is correct, unless the app is able to take advantage of, and use the full 64 bits it won't make a difference.
     
  5. afornander macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
  6. James Cole macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    #6
    But Leopard will take advantage of the 64bit architecture, so in theory leopard should be much faster right? or is OSX already taking advantage of this?
     
  7. astrostu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #7
    Perhpas should be posted to a new thread ... but what exactly is the advantage of 64-bit? I know it means that it can count higher and access more memory, but otherwise, what's the benefit? Like, how could 64-bit benefit Safari, or Mail, or OmniOutliner?
     
  8. Caitlyn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #8
    But wasn't Leopard written in 64-bit compatible code allowing it to take advantage of this technology?
     
  9. ccalleri thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    OK .. the program in question is the CS3 Suite .. thx
     
  10. defeated macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    #10
    emmmm, good question, whats the purpose of an OS? eventually, the question is " is photoshop/vlc/office faster?"

    leopard is faster or not, is not a really a problem. IMO

    If you really want to know if a 64 bit OS is "faster", rather then guess, you can just search around about the OSes already in the market, see if "vista 64 is faster than vista 32"?
     
  11. ccalleri thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
    #11
    now now let's not compare apples to crab apples ;)
     
  12. memeyou macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    #12
    You will not notice any speed difference due to the mere change in 32bit to 64bit. Some killer apps may apply but I'm going to guess you don't use any scientific software.

    crab apple are apples, you know. people mix them in the cider to enhance flavor, you know.
     
  13. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #13
    Well actually... in 64-bit mode on X86 chips the number of available registers doubles. This means that X86 processors are faster in 64-bit mode than 32bit mode. So you will notice a difference.

    G5 chips on the other hand are a different kettle of fish and won't see an increase.
     
  14. ThomasShaped macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #14
    It's like having Windows on boot camp :D
     
  15. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #15
    64bit Leopard or Tiger will allow PSCS3 to directly address up to 8GB of RAM.
    32bit Win Vista, for example, is restricted to a system total of 4GB. (32bit maximum).

    Leopard will be perceivably "faster" due in part to CoreAnimation handing off more of the UI functions to the GPU.
     
  16. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #16
    Well it should allow access to a lot more than just 8GB of ram. Also x86-64 processors benefit from increased register count in 64-bit mode which allows them to run faster.
     
  17. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #17
    8GB is the limit for CS3 in a 64bit OS.
    This limit is not based on the theoretical limits of 64bit software, but rather the limits of the latest Photoshop architecture.
     
  18. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #18
    I.E., bad design :)
     
  19. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #19
    It's probably just a compromise based on diminishing returns.
    The benefits of addressing more than 8GB of memory would probably be swamped by disk access bottlenecks with files over 2GB.

    CS3 is certainly a vast improvement over CS2, in terms of memory addressing.
     
  20. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #20
    I run parts of CS3 on my new 2.66 duo, and it is screaming fast compared to my old G4 Mdd duo 1.25 model. Instant squee. CS2 was just PURE JUNK.

    Obviously Leopard will work faster on the 64 bit machines. That's just common sense, unless Apple really blows it and loads in code that slows it down horribly fast, but I doubt it.
     
  21. Fairly macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    #21
    Wider registers doesn't imply faster CPUs unless instructions previously had to be broken up into successive feeds. For what an instruction oriented computer does 64-bit is total overkill. 64-bit lets you deal with inordinate quantities of data in RAM without swapping but it doesn't at all mean "faster". If anything it will be a bit slower as more data has to be fed into the CPU(s) and a lot of that will be "empty".
     
  22. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #22
    How about more registers? You know maybe double ... like in the x86-64 instruction set...
     

Share This Page