benchmarks posts

Filed under: OS, TUAW Labs, Snow Leopard

Benchmarking results: Is Snow Leopard really any faster than Leopard?

by Chris Rawson (RSS feed) on Sep 2nd, 2009

Be sure to check all of our ongoing Snow Leopard coverage right here.

One of the biggest features of Snow Leopard isn't something apparent to the naked eye: software tweaks and refinements intended to make OS X a leaner, meaner OS for your fighting Apple machine. But is Snow Leopard really any faster? Now that I've successfully upgraded two Macs to Snow Leopard I've got some benchmarking results to share.

My Early 2008 MacBook Pro shipped with OS X Leopard 10.5.2 installed. I ran Geekbench on the stock OS X installation after upgrading the RAM to 4 GB to get a baseline for comparison of future performance. 18 months later I ran the same test immediately after updating to 10.6. Both tests were performed with Geekbench testing in 32-bit mode immediately after a restart, with no other programs open except the Finder, nothing loaded in Dashboard, and no Time Machine backup running.

Machine specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.60 GHz w/ 4GB RAM

Average Overall Geekbench score for this model of MacBook Pro: 3304

Read on for the scores.

Continue reading “Benchmarking results: Is Snow Leopard really any faster than Leopard?”

Tags: 10.6, benchmarks, geekbench, Snow Leopard, SnowLeopard

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Macbook Pro, MacBook Air

MBP vs. MBA benchmarking showdown

by Mike Schramm (RSS feed) on Apr 21st, 2008

Bare Feats continues to pit Macs against each other in a no-holds-barred, up-against-the-wall benchmarking breakdown, and this time around it's the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air in the octagon together. And things go about as planned -- while the solid state drive in the MBA has its advantages, the processor and GPU (what little there is of it) in the MBA don't even really compare to the MBP. Sure, it's a small, super thin, super portable computer, but not only are you paying in cash for the portability, you're paying in performance, too.

This doesn't mean the MBA is a bad computer at all -- for most tasks, it'll work just fine. But complicated 3D graphics (both Halo and Unreal Tournament 2004 were tested) will be almost unplayable in games, and there will be a substantial wait, sometimes up to minutes more, for certain processor intensive tasks. If speed is a high priority (at least higher than portability), the MBA isn't for you.

I would like to see how the MacBook compares, though. It's not surprising that the MBP is a fast machine, but where does the MBA line up compared to the cheaper model?

[Via IMG]

Tags: barefeats, benchmarks, cpu, gpu, graphics, intensive, macbook-air, macbook-pro, tests, timing

Filed under: OS, Software

CNET Labs benchmarks Parallels and Fusion virtualization products

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Aug 20th, 2007

Whenever two options are presented, it is often a smart move to weight the pros and cons of each and make a decision based on your needs. If you need to push Windows in a virtualization environment, Daniel A. Begun at CNET Labs has benchmarked Windows Vista running in both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion. The short of the long? If you really need to push Windows, do it in Boot Camp if at all possible. If Boot Camp is out of the question, VMware Fusion was the winner in heavy duty, multimedia tasks by a landslide, due largely in part to its support of multiple core processors (Parallels, as of this writing, only supports one core per CPU). On the flip side, however, Parallels Desktop is the only virtualization product that supports 3D gaming right now, but as a Parallels owner, I'll still vouch for running your games in Windows via Boot Camp.

At the end of the CNET Labs day, both apps still have their pros and cons. Begun hails Parallels Desktop for being the more usable and intuitive of the two (and during my initial tests of both before deciding to buy, I agreed), though I had a much easier time getting non-Windows OSes installed in VMware Fusion (to this day, Parallels Desktop still won't install Ubuntu, and I have received no response as to why). Still, the moral of this particular story is that if performance is at the very top of your virtualization shopping list, VMware Fusion is, at least for now, the reigning champion. Check Begun's full article for more details on the tests and how they were performed.

Tags: benchmarks, Desktop, Fusion, Parallels Desktop, ParallelsDesktop, performance, virtualization, VMware Fusion, VmwareFusion, Windows

Filed under: iMac, Apple, Mac mini

Meet the New Macs, A Little Faster Than the Old Macs

by Chris Ullrich (RSS feed) on Aug 13th, 2007

Personally, I crave speed. No, not the kind that can often be purchased on some local street corner in that part of town on the wrong side of the tracks. No, I'm referring to processors, front side buses, RAM and other factors that go into calculating the raw, unbridled, number-crunching power of the latest and greatest Macs.

No doubt you are aware that Apple recently released an updated version of its flagship prosumer desktop iMac as well as an updated Mac Mini too. The new iMacs feature changes both external and internal with increases to the clock speed of its Intel Core Duo 2 processors as well as a switch to the faster Santa Rosa chipset. Yes, that all sounds great but what does it mean in terms of the new iMac's ability to crunch those numbers?

Well, according to Primate Labs' tests on the new 24" iMac, as featured at Apple Insider, it doesn't help a great deal unless you're using one of those math-intensive apps like Photoshop or Aperture. In that case, according to the article: "If you're running memory-intensive applications you'll certainly notice an increase in performance with the new 24-inch iMac. Heck, the fact that the new 24-inch iMac supports 4GB of RAM while the old 24-inch iMac supports 3GB of RAM might be enough to convince you to get one." Good point. More RAM is a good thing.

Continue reading “Meet the New Macs, A Little Faster Than the Old Macs”

Tags: benchmarks, core duo 2, CoreDuo2, imac, mac mini, MacMini, santa rosa, SantaRosa

Filed under: Hardware, Mac mini

Hacker installs Core 2 Duo chip in Mac mini, hangs on for the ride

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Jun 13th, 2006

Macenstein has blogged a Mac mini CPU swap, as a poster in a Taiwanese forum has switched out the Core Duo chip for a Core 2 Duo chip, a next-generation CPU from Intel. The brain upgrade has resulted not only in the Mac mini stomping a PowerMac G5 dual 2.5 GHz in an iTunes MP3-AAC conversion test (remember: Mac minis have slower laptop hard drives than desktop PowerMacs), but it also runs cooler, due to the new architecture of these Core 2 Duo (code name: Merom) Intel chips.

Given reports like this of these new chips, we might as well talk about the elephant in the room: if these reports of cooler running and even more powerful chips so soon from Intel are true, I foresee a lot of criticism of Apple jumping the gun on cramming Intel chips into their present lineup, in light of all these complaints about heat.

[via MacNN]

Tags: benchmark, benchmarks, core, CPU, dual, duo, hardware, install, intel, mac, merom, mini, speed, swap

Filed under: Gaming, Hardware, MacBook

Macworld delves into gaming on the MacBook

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Jun 3rd, 2006

While the performance line between Apple's high and ~~low end~~ mid-range portable notebooks has lost some serious girth with the introduction of the MacBook, anyone hoping to snag a portable Mac for gaming has some tough decisions to make. The Pro machine packs a a high-end dedicated 3D card that can chomp through today's most demanding games without breaking a sweat, but the MacBook has an integrated Intel graphics chipset, borrowing RAM from your main system stash and dragging down performance. But how much of a drag is that Intel GMA 950 graphics chip, really? What games can it run, and where is the line actually drawn?

If you've been searching for answers to questions like these, I think Rob Griffiths over at Macworld might have cut your googling short with MacBook gaming: A graphics concern? Rob investigated this whole 'integrated graphics card' issue and found that the MacBook can perform surprisingly well, as long as you max it out with as much RAM as you can afford. Testing an unofficial Universal version of Quake 3 (while old, it is fairly 3D-intensive), the MacBook cranked out 52 fps with 512 MB of RAM (which is already a great stat), but once he maxed the machine to 2 GB, Quake 3 offered up 98 fps.

Rob explores gaming performance on the MacBook with a wide variety of other games, both in and out of Rosetta, and even lays out two separate 'what can/can't you play' sections to get down to specifics. Check out the full story if you're still biting your nails on deciding just how much you'll need to pony up to get your mobile Mac game on (also: stop biting your nails. It's a nasty habit).

Tags: benchmarks, game, gaming, MacBook, numbers, performance, stat, statistics

Filed under: Software

MacTech benchmarks Office 2004 on Rosetta

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Apr 23rd, 2006

MacTech has published what I am fairly certain are the comprehensive Office 2004 on Rosetta test results for Intel Macs. Honestly, there is so much literature and testing in this article that I simply skimmed most of it and skipped ahead to the conclusion: "in general, Office 2004 under Rosetta works "well enough" to "very well," and in some cases, it's even faster than on the PowerPC baseline machine." Having recently acquired a MacBook Pro, I have to agree. However, I think Word has a slightly longer startup time than on my previous PowerBook, but I would attribute that to Rosetta having to work some magic in the background.

Don't take my word though: check out MacTech's article for more than you'd ever want to know about how well Office 2004 will perform on Intel Macs.

[via MacMinute]

Tags: 2004, benchmarks, Entourage, Excel, MacTech, Office, performance, PowerPoint, response, Rosetta, speed, test, Word

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion

ASIA--or--Another Stupid Inquirer Article

by Damien Barrett (RSS feed) on Apr 20th, 2006

Now, this is just stupid. Here's an inquirer article that suggests Apple doesn't want Windows running side-by-side with Mac OS X because then people would see that "Mac OS X is slower than Windows." What's their proof? They installed Mac OS X and Windows on the same Intel machine then ran World of Warcraft while booted into each OS and compared framerates. The Windows version scored better. C.K. showed us this a week or so ago.

Um...how exactly is this a speed comparison between Mac OSX and Windows? It's actually a speed comparison between World of Warcraft for Windows and World of Warcraft for Mac OS X. WoW is not a benchmarking tool.

Everyone knows games are better on Windows, including us Mac Heads. But I guess the foobs at the Inquirer couldn't pass up a chance to snipe at Apple and Mac OS X.

Tags: benchmarks, boot camp, BootCamp, inquirer, World of Warcraft

Filed under: Hardware, Software

PC World welcomes Apple to their charts

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Apr 17th, 2006

In a move that's causing many to check out their window to see if the sky is falling, PC World has laid out a welcome mat for Apple's hardware into their Top Power PCs testing charts, thanks to Boot Camp. So far, no Macs have made the charts due to some policy quirks (they typically only test stock PCs - Macs don't ship pre-installed with Windows) and test compatibility hiccups, but from a blog entry covering their initial tests, the iMac running Windows XP fared pretty well.

We certainly live in interesting times with Macs running Windows, rumors of virtualization in Leopard and now Apple's hardware being put to the test alongside its now (let's face it) PC brethren hardware. We'll keep our ears out for more results on just how well these new Macs stack up.

Tags: Apple, benchmarks, blog, hardware, iMac, Mac, PC World, PcWorld, post, speed, testing, tests, welcome, Windows, XP

Filed under: Hardware

Someone finally tests Adobe apps on Rosetta vs. PPC

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Apr 13th, 2006

Bare Feats has been busy with their Mac OS X vs XP tests earlier today and now this. From what I can tell, they are probably the first site to post some benchmarks of non-Intel native Adobe apps, specifically Photoshop CS2 and After Effects 7.0. Check out the machines they used, and note the equality of RAM:

MacBook Pro CD/2.0 -- Apple Intel MacBook Pro with 2.0GHz Core Duo and 2GB of memory
PowerMac G5/2.0 -- Apple Dual Single-Core G5/2.0GHz Power Mac with 2GB of memory
PowerBook G4/1.67 -- Apple PowerBook G4/1.67GHz with 2GB of memory

Not surprisingly, the PowerMac swept the floor with the MacBook Pro, but to my delight: the PowerBook didn't perform that much better. In fact, in the After Effects render test, the MacBook actually beat out the PowerBook.

The SP (Single Processor) Actions test is where you can really see the performance void of Rosetta apps on the MacBook Pro, as the PowerMac and PowerBook clearly are going home with the prom queen.

Still, I'm glad to see that the MacBook Pro will perform more or less like my PowerBook G4 when running these pro apps, especially since I'm living in After Effects these days. Unfortunately, I now must curse Bare Feats for ever performing these tests, as they got my 'hmm, maybe I could upgrade' gears grinding again. Thanks guys.

Tags: 7.0, AE, After Effects, AfterEffects, Bare Feats, BareFeats, benchmark, benchmarks, CS2, Intel, MacBook Pro, MacbookPro, Photoshop, Universal Binary, UniversalBinary

Filed under: Hardware, Macbook Pro

MacBook Pro vs PowerBook 2.0 GHz benchmarks

by David Chartier (RSS feed) on Mar 21st, 2006

No, that headline is not a typo. I found an extensive set of MacBook Pro benchmarks over at Bare Feats that pits the machine against a Dual Core G5 2.0 GHz, an iMac Core Duo 2.0 GHz, a MacBook Pro Solo 2.0 GHz (for good measure I guess) and a PowerBook G4 that has been upgraded to 2.0 GHz, thanks to Daystar Technology. Yes, from checking out their site it looks like it's possible to upgrade some PowerBooks to 2.0 GHz G4 chips, but it'll cost ya - the upgrade is $499.

Getting back to the benchmarks topic: Bare Feats ran the typical Cinebench and Photoshop tests between these machines, and as usual the iMac Core Duo typically won out, with the MacBook Pro pleasantly nipping at its heels. They also produced some pleasant frame rates when testing Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004.

Bare Feats also tested whether matching memory pairs - such as two 1 GB sticks - made any difference in performance over a 1 GB 256 MB configuration. Fortunately, there was virtually no difference in their tests, save for small, single digit improvements in iMovie and Photoshop CS that aren't really anything to write home about.

[via IMG]

Tags: benchmarks, Cinebench, Core Duo, CoreDuo, Doom, MacBook Pro, MacbookPro, speed, tests, Unreal

Tip of the Day

Holding the Command key (aka the Apple key) and pressing Tab will cycle through your open applications. It's easier to Cmd-Tab if you are Copy (Cmd-C) and Pasting (Cmd-V) to and from various applications.

Learn More

TUAW flickr Pool

www.flickr.com

Featured Galleries

TUAW bloggers (30 days)

#	Blogger	Posts	Cmts
1	Steven Sande	52	4
2	Dave Caolo	36	1
3	Mike Schramm	32	0
4	Mel Martin	31	0
5	TJ Luoma	25	28
6	Joachim Bean	19	2
7	Victor Agreda, Jr.	17	7
8	Erica Sadun	16	2
9	Michael Rose	16	15
10	Josh Carr	13	22
11	David Winograd	12	17
12	Sang Tang	11	1
13	Ken Ray	11	2
14	Brett Terpstra	9	8
15	Megan Lavey	5	9
16	Chris Ullrich	4	1
17	Tim Wasson	4	1
18	John Burke	4	3
19	Kent Pribbernow	4	0
20	TUAW Blogger	3	0

More Apple Analysis

AAPL on BloggingStocks The Apple category feed from BloggingStocks.com
AAPL Quote, News & Summary The AAPL financials page from AOL Money and Finance
iPhone analysis from BloggingStocks iPhone tag feed from BloggingStocks
Macintosh news and reviews on Download Squad The Macintosh category feed from Download Squad

The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)