Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro flies with Snow Leopard

K

kaks

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 26, 2008
48
0
I dont know if anyone else can see a difference, but the applications pop open. Not to mention stacks are faster and finder is a lot lot faster than before.

Really loving the upgrade :). If you are thinking about it, its worth it.

I just upgraded, no clean install. Everything works great. Perian doesnt work with QuicktimeX, but then again we have other players, or even QuickTime 7 which is still installed.

Thanks for listening :)
 
Well I've just saved my 'before' Xbench full results. Now just 27h more to go on my Download :(

I do have a $10 upgrade disc in the mail - but I won't be back in the US to receive it for another 10 months so...
 
VirtualRain said:
Is anyone here planning to do some before/after benchmarks with some heavy processing tasks? Cinebench? Photoshop?
Click to expand...



Whoopdefaggindoo.

Macworld :

142425-snow-leopard-speed_original.jpg




Performance wise it seems to be huge meh at the best. But intresting
to see more specific charts,if there is any benefits with the pro apps.
 
Macinposh said:
Whoopdefaggindoo.

Macworld :

142425-snow-leopard-speed_original.jpg




Performance wise it seems to be huge meh at the best. But intresting
to see more specific charts,if there is any benefits with the pro apps.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem bad to me! I'd like to see some Open GL/Grand Central optimized apps - or at least a handbrake encode to see if there's much benefit yet. Probably no apps taking advantage of those technologies yet... ?

Wake up from sleep? You guys let your Mac Pros sleep? Mine gets no rest. I let the screens sleep while I do, but otherwise it's working download day and night - I run my office like Gitmo! ... and I have a 512 Internet connection so it takes me 24h for 1 HD movie :p
 
nightfly13 said:
Doesn't seem bad to me!
Click to expand...


Duude? What are you smoking?
Most of the relevat app´s are the same or worse!

Who cares about :
-iTunes import (it is a macpro,you are supposed to use LR or Aperture..),
-java (burst appliance,it is nothing that churns for 40 mins..)
-Zipping (you put things zipping when you finish your day..)


Compressor gets a mindbogling 5% increase wich is frigging bits-and-tits if you are doing 10-60min compressions for work.
Photoshop is the same...
But as said,intresting to see if there is any kind of approvements in,say:

-LR batch processing (well optimized allready)
-PS filter renders (I doubt,adobe hates you)
-FCP3 renders,especially in color (dudes...1 core utilization in 2010!)


etc..



And nightfly : I hope the HD movies are legal... :)
And eco-police would punch you in the boob if it would know that you waste our earths precious resources...
 
I think it runs faster. Just booted into 64 bit so see if any programs crash. So far it boots a little bit faster in 64 bit. Guess we won't see much difference until the apps get rewritten though. I did run xbench. Lost about 100 points. Like others have said, xbench sucks/to old. Wish someone would develope a new bench test that will give true results. Cinebench raise all area's a few points. I still have the stock ati card. I'll change that soon though. My true test will come when I edit another project in iMovie and FCE.
 
bearcatrp said:
I think it runs faster. Just booted into 64 bit so see if any programs crash. So far it boots a little bit faster in 64 bit. Guess we won't see much difference until the apps get rewritten though.
Click to expand...

Huh?

64 bit apps will run in 64 bit mode whether or not you are booted into the 64 bit kernel.

Apps do not care what kernel they use. People need to stop thinking "64 bit boot" = "64 bit apps". It does not. 64 bit apps will run by default and be able to use more than 4 gigs of RAM. Check your Activity Monitor.

http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html

64bit.png


I am currently booted into the default 32 bit kernel on my Mac Pro at work. See all the nice 64 bit apps?

Snow Leopard isn't even required for 64 bit apps. They'll run under Leopard as well.
 
The only difference I see is kernal task (shown in activity monitor) will show 64 bit when started with 6 and 4 keys. Otherwise its in 32 bit mode. Both work fine for me. None of my 32 bit programs crash when in 64 bit mode.
 
bearcatrp said:
The only difference I see is kernal task (shown in activity monitor) will show 64 bit when started with 6 and 4 keys. Otherwise its in 32 bit mode. Both work fine for me. None of my 32 bit programs crash when in 64 bit mode.
Click to expand...

Correct. Programs don't need to be rewritten to use the 64 bit kernel. The speeds are what they are, and what they will be in the future. When you boot into the 64 bit kernel, that's what your speed gain or loss is going to be.
 
This seems to be a real advantage vs. Windows. In Windows, to gain the benefits of 64-bit computing, you need to run the x64 version of the kernel and therefore 64-bit drivers which have been slow in coming and never given as much focus as their 32-bit counterparts. It would seem that with OSX you can gain all the benefits of 64-bit computing by running 64-bit apps without having to worry about driver compatibility.
 
Quicktime absolutely flies when working with h.264 content. Waiting for the update to iMovie to make it even better! Looks like Rosetta emulation is broken for some older apps ;-( oh well!
 
handheldgames said:
Quicktime absolutely flies when working with h.264 content. Waiting for the update to iMovie to make it even better! Looks like Rosetta emulation is broken for some older apps ;-( oh well!
Click to expand...

Oh that's right... my NDA is gone now... I can talk about the tech behind QuickTime X. :)

I'm pretty sure that when you send a flag to QuickTime X that you're going to be editing H.264 that you lose the GPU acceleration and go back to software rendering, so it may be a bit until we see iMovie updated for QTX.
 
How can the performance in some of the apps actually worsen? For example, finder duplicate......

I thought the finder was supposed to be one of the most improved things about 10.6? Instead it shows worse performance.

I would have hoped that apple would have optimized os x to use less memory, looks like they skipped out on that.

Oh, and heres to hoping they also at least rename itunes to iMedia, because that is by far the most bloated peice of software they have. It'd be nice to have a simple, low memory usage application just for the simple task of playing back mp3s. Because not all of us wish to have an ipod, iphone, itv, etc and need support for all those, as well as wish to have itunes music store, and all the other junk that comes with itunes. er, imedia.
 
ungraphic said:
How can the performance in some of the apps actually worsen? For example, finder duplicate......
Click to expand...

Because it's environmental. The graph presented is completely worthless unless each feature was executed thousands of times on the exact same machine. Some of the benchmarks we pass around here on MR and at places like Barefeats are the same as well. A lot of the differences are environmental in nature and the machines are in reality not as different as presented. For example in the graph I put together I received four "2009 2.26 Octad" results that were scoring in the high 17,000 to low 18,000 before I got the one that scored 20,138. But since the graph is the "best of" scores now everyone who looks at that graph without thinking, is going to assume the 2009 2.26 Octad is faster than the 2007 3.0 or the 2008 2.8 - which I only received one score each for. When in reality it's not really correct and the 2.26 was much slower in the other 4 out of the 5 scores I received.

If it's not the exact same hardware (or an average of very many different machines of the same spec) and the score is not an average of hundreds or even thousands of repeated tests then the graph may only be good for noticing trends - if that. Like if all of the SL bars were 120% or something then we might be able to say SL generally tends to be faster. With some slower and some faster the only thing we can say in all honesty is that the graph is worthless. If you wanted to say or prove that it isn't then you need to repeat and average 100s of times.
 
ungraphic said:
How can the performance in some of the apps actually worsen? For example, finder duplicate......

I thought the finder was supposed to be one of the most improved things about 10.6? Instead it shows worse performance.

I would have hoped that apple would have optimized os x to use less memory, looks like they skipped out on that.

Oh, and heres to hoping they also at least rename itunes to iMedia, because that is by far the most bloated peice of software they have. It'd be nice to have a simple, low memory usage application just for the simple task of playing back mp3s. Because not all of us wish to have an ipod, iphone, itv, etc and need support for all those, as well as wish to have itunes music store, and all the other junk that comes with itunes. er, imedia.
Click to expand...

Look for the blue "Q" icon in your applications folder. Quicktime is the most simple, straightforward mp3 player that you will ever see from Apple.
 
ungraphic said:
How can the performance in some of the apps actually worsen? For example, finder duplicate......

I thought the finder was supposed to be one of the most improved things about 10.6? Instead it shows worse performance.
Click to expand...

Meh. Copying to a thumb drive has been suspiciously slow, but everything else has been fine for me.

ungraphic said:
I would have hoped that apple would have optimized os x to use less memory, looks like they skipped out on that.
Click to expand...

64 bit apps use more memory. It's something that usually people forget about with all the "64 bit is the betterz!" screaming... But your integer size has doubled, and every pointer in the app is now twice as large in memory.

ungraphic said:
Oh, and heres to hoping they also at least rename itunes to iMedia, because that is by far the most bloated peice of software they have. It'd be nice to have a simple, low memory usage application just for the simple task of playing back mp3s. Because not all of us wish to have an ipod, iphone, itv, etc and need support for all those, as well as wish to have itunes music store, and all the other junk that comes with itunes. er, imedia.
Click to expand...

iTunes hasn't been a huge problem for me. Just disable the other features in preferences if you don't want them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back