10-30-2007, 04:13 PM

... at least on a G5

If you have a C2D (i.e. 64-bit Intel), it will be quicker in 64-bit mode. Hardly a surprise eh?

If you run Leopard in 64-bit mode on a G5, you lose a lot of performance, vs Tiger.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-to-beat-tiger

Thoughts?

10-30-2007, 04:18 PM

My CD Mini and G4 Powerbook feel much faster with Leopard.

:shrug:

10-30-2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

My CD Mini and G4 Powerbook feel much faster with Leopard.

:shrug:

Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!

10-30-2007, 04:31 PM

New operating systems are expected to be slower than their predecessors, so I'm not entirely surprised at this news. Though you have to give credit to Apple for not making the slowdown apparent to the user, as is the case with Vista.

10-30-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Kash

New operating systems are expected to be slower than their predecessors, so I'm not entirely surprised at this news.

Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.

10-30-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.

1) My programs over faster, my searches are quicker, and even Frontrow is improved.

I must be dreaming all of this, with a stop-watch in my hand.

2) 10.0.0 or 10.0.* ?

Biiiiiiiig difference

10-30-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

1) My programs over faster, my searches are quicker, and even Frontrow is improved.

I must be dreaming all of this, with a stop-watch in my hand.

2) 10.0.0 or 10.0.* ?

Biiiiiiiig difference

The GUI is very slick, agreed.

If I meant 10.0.x I would have said that. 10.0.x to 10.4.x showed benchmark and GUI improvements for each major release. Leopard bucks the trend, but as far as I am concerned, this just shows that Leopard really is probably the biggest leap OS X has taken so far. It's a next gen OS.

10-30-2007, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.

I don't know that they necessarily did...certainly the user experience was more responsive, as with Leopard, but not necessarily the entire OS.

The slow-but-steady upward march of the system requirements since 10.2 belies increasing bloat and complexity.

10-30-2007, 06:32 PM

Zoolook, did you read the Leopard review at Ars? Here's a quote from that article that may explain our Leopard experience:

There's a big difference between being "fast" and being "responsive," and Apple's focus is on the latter.

If what the author said is true, that could explain why Leopard "feels" faster but may not do as well in benchmarks.

10-30-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Kash

Zoolook, did you read the Leopard review at Ars? Here's a quote from that article that may explain our Leopard experience:



If what the author said is true, that could explain why Leopard "feels" faster but may not do as well in benchmarks.

Yeah I read the article, and I said what you've just said in my 2nd post...

Originally Posted by zoolook

Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!

10-30-2007, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by technologist

I don't know that they necessarily did...certainly the user experience was more responsive, as with Leopard, but not necessarily the entire OS.

The slow-but-steady upward march of the system requirements since 10.2 belies increasing bloat and complexity.

Agreed completely.

Another point is, I really do not have much respect for Synthetic benchmarks at all. I have seen Xbench for one score lower after a major upgrade where the machine is clearly faster running real applications and timing the work being done. I wonder what would happen if say you compiled something, Converted a video, a Music file in itunes or something real world and see then how Tiger and Leopard would compare speed wise.

I do know that many things are faster using Leopard that I have tried, but most like Time Machine is due to the improved design of TM itself.

10-30-2007, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Zoolook

The GUI is very slick, agreed.

If I meant 10.0.x I would have said that. 10.0.x to 10.4.x showed benchmark and GUI improvements for each major release. Leopard bucks the trend, but as far as I am concerned, this just shows that Leopard really is probably the biggest leap OS X has taken so far. It's a next gen OS.

I never said that a "slick" GUI was the reason my programs opened faster, and my experience was quicker.

So there is nothing we agree on.

10-30-2007, 09:37 PM

Your Thread title is misleading. I have a Core 2 Duo therefore it will be faster on my mac.

10-30-2007, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

I never said that a "slick" GUI was the reason my programs opened faster, and my experience was quicker.

So there is nothing we agree on.

Slick is a poor word. The user experience is better and things do seem to open quicker, the GUI does appear faster. I think we do agree, and that's not such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by brian67

Your Thread title is misleading. I have a Core 2 Duo therefore it will be faster on my mac.

You're right, this is mentioned in the 1st sentence of the actual post.

10-31-2007, 12:17 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but did they do a test between a single core G5 (1.6Ghz) and a C2D Intel (2 Ghz)? Is anyone surprised at ALL that a dual core processor beat a single core processor?

This is simply an unfairly lopsided test for any number of reasons:

1) 1.67Ghz SINGLE core vs 2.0Ghz DUAL core.

2) 333Mhz RAM vs 667Mhz RAM

Maybe a 2Ghz Dual Core G5 vs a 2Ghz C2D would be a bit more realistic AND revealing.