Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
mac vs. pc flash performance benchmark
- Thread starter Megaquad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
im not running jag so no safari for me but with all these test you guys have done i think this is another example of how mac hardware is really behind the windows world. thought i would throw in these marks though nothing to do with flash so please no flames and thanks for the tests.
Attachments
update
I updated benchmark!!
http://www.lcarsplanet.com/benchmx
check it out now, it is completely different, it doesnt measure text rendering speed anymore, all random shapes and coded shapes
you can still find old version here
http://www.lcarsplanet.com/benchmx/old
i get score 54 on safari v60 with this new version
-------
note: this is the last time i am updating testing core of flash benchmark, score is not "compatible" with that old version but all upcoming versions will be compatible from now
I updated benchmark!!
http://www.lcarsplanet.com/benchmx
check it out now, it is completely different, it doesnt measure text rendering speed anymore, all random shapes and coded shapes
you can still find old version here
http://www.lcarsplanet.com/benchmx/old
i get score 54 on safari v60 with this new version
-------
note: this is the last time i am updating testing core of flash benchmark, score is not "compatible" with that old version but all upcoming versions will be compatible from now
lol, megaquad; you need to hurry up and put out a final--i'm getting sick of closing chimera and all my apps to test safari 
.
136 in Safari v 62 on my TiG4/1Ghz/1GB
[edit] sorry for saying v64 originally, just a typo[/edit]
. 136 in Safari v 62 on my TiG4/1Ghz/1GB
[edit] sorry for saying v64 originally, just a typo
[/edit]
Originally posted by Shadowfax
lol, megaquad; you need to hurry up and put out a final--i'm getting sick of closing chimera and all my apps to test safari
136 in Safari v 62 on my TiG4/1Ghz/1GB
[edit] sorry for saying v64 originally, just a typo
I think I see why we're getting different rates, Shadowfax (love the name, BTW - LOTR rocks).
I'm using v60, whereas you're on v62...
I'm getting about 125 frames now.
thanks! sorry to bore you, but (real fast) storytime!
my grandfather is a cool ret. technician who worked in Los Alamos (all kinds of cool stories about fusion energy testing &c); he's always built his own PCs, and he built my very first computer. he would always name his "my computer" and the network name "Gandalf." so i called mine "Shadowfax" (Ganfalf's horse) when i got it... and i have called all my computers that since then. then i just started using it as a nickname, i guess. On my mac, the computer name is shadowfax, and my username is "mithrandir" (gandalf's elvish name). lol, that's that, and this probably belongs in the geek thread
interesting. i guess 2 builds can really make a difference--though it really wasn't that significant. another problem solved, hehe.
This is true, but raw performance isn't everything. Quartz extreme makes much of the UI faster and more stable in OS X. I see default icons in XP routinely, haven't and don't even know if that's possible in OS X.
Firewire with my iPod is noticeably faster, I'd say 25%. That's software, but it's fact.
I'm not excusing Apple hardware, it is waaay behind for the price you pay. But it's not quite as bad as it seems on paper. If the gap continues to widen of course....
since a2, you dont need to test again anymore, even if new version comes out you dont need to test it again because testing core will remain the sameOriginally posted by Shadowfax
lol, megaquad; you need to hurry up and put out a final--i'm getting sick of closing chimera and all my apps to test safari
You mentioned Quartz, well this old test measures text rendering speed and depends on graphics card a bit..i think that explains why some computers got very big score on it
www.lcarsplanet.com/benchmx/old
okay i have 2 theoriesOriginally posted by thebt
On a Dual 450 PowerMac G4 I get:
Netscape 7: 76
IE 5: 64
Safari: 83
Ok, I also tested it on Virtual PC with Windows 2000
In IE 6: 78 !!!
So it's faster on Virtual PC than on my mac, except in Safari!!!!!
How can that be!?!
1.flash player in vpc "jumps" through flash player movie without rendering every frame of it corectly so..
2.flash player for pc is A LOT better and VPC uses your 2 processors well
dunno..
I just found out that on a PC, score depends on graphics card a lot.
Some guy put rage128 vs. geforce 3 ti on a same machine, and difference was around 150 frames!
Now, it would be nice to know if Flash Player on mac depends on graphics..
So, does anyone have 2 macs running at same clock but with different graphics cards?
Some guy put rage128 vs. geforce 3 ti on a same machine, and difference was around 150 frames!
Now, it would be nice to know if Flash Player on mac depends on graphics..
So, does anyone have 2 macs running at same clock but with different graphics cards?
NO NO NO NO NO
I dont know if this has been posted yet but.....
Safari for the Mac didnt originally use Flash Player. It used Quicktime, which is only Flash 4 compatible! Thats why some of your results are slower. This has been fixed.
Do the test again with the latest Safari to get accurate results.
However, Flash player is a horrible tool for benchmarks. Its so flighty, you'll often get wacky playback speeds. It also depends on how the Flash movie is exported as to how it plays back.
I dont know if this has been posted yet but.....
Safari for the Mac didnt originally use Flash Player. It used Quicktime, which is only Flash 4 compatible! Thats why some of your results are slower. This has been fixed.
Do the test again with the latest Safari to get accurate results.
However, Flash player is a horrible tool for benchmarks. Its so flighty, you'll often get wacky playback speeds. It also depends on how the Flash movie is exported as to how it plays back.
well, i got safari v64
slightly better performance on the test.
i went from 136 in v62 to 138 in v64. so it's negligible.
slightly better performance on the test.
i went from 136 in v62 to 138 in v64. so it's negligible.