Slashdot Mirror


Early Tiger Benchmarks Show Slight Speed-Ups

GatorMarc writes "Geek Patrol has published early speed benchmark tests on Tiger. Despite the fact that Tiger is still in development, the results are promising. Could we see a similar performance improvement as we did upgrading from Jaguar to Panther?"

4 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Move along by isd_glory · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article: "Looking at the results, it appears that Tiger is as fast (if not faster) than Panther in all areas except for UI performance." His numbers show Tiger barely edging out Panther, using Xbench (a purely synthetic benchmark) as the test basis.

    I've tried Tiger out on my G4 powerbook, and have actually noticed a *decrease* in Xbench ratings, despite an overall "snappier" feel. Maybe the increase isn't really going to happen for those without 64 bit machines. Then again, its a pre-relase, so there is plenty of room for change.

    1. Re:Move along by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      IIRC, Apple's X implementation is a fork of XFree with some custom enhancements to run in rootless mode under Aqua and integrate with the native window manager and hardware drawing acceleration. So it's really "neither". If you were so inclined, presumably you could load up Darwin/XNU in console mode and compile and run either XFree or X.org fullscreen, since the code bases are almost identical at this point.

  2. Perceived speed vs throughput by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

    These two benchmarks seem to be continuously confused by slashdotters over the years. Of course it is debatable which is really more important. I think OS X has definitely concentrated on perceived speed, which is good because that is what the user "feels" and sees as he interacts with the computer. This does in no way mean the whole OS is faster; it just feels faster.

    OS X has definitely not improved dramatically in throughput and raw horsepower over the last few releases. In fact I'm sure it has decreased slightly. Sacrificing a little of that throughput for smoother rendering yields a significant percieved speedup that the users really like. I would say that every release of OS X has gotten a little heavier and is a little bit slower. A sacrifice I'm willing to make for my pretty Panther desktop, though.

    Windows has gotten slower on both counts over the years.

    Linux's throughput has actually increased fairly dramatically in the last year or two. Unfortunately as the weight of the desktop comes to bear, and due to current weaknesses in X11 and the toolkits (most notably the lack synchronized redraw which make resizing appear really slow), the perceived speed of linux has seemed to decrease with recent distros. The 2.6 kernel provided some speedup in this area (the interactive scheduler), but there is still much work to be done.

    The experimental X server from www.freedesktop.org implements a lot of features that will lead to a perceived speedup. For example the damage and composite extension reduce redraws when windows are uncovered. Work is also being done to allow windows to resize smoothly (synchronizing the widget drawing and compressing events). Even with the vesa driver and no acceleration, it feels faster than normal accelerated X.org. Again perceived speed vs throughput. Give it a try. It's cool.

    Fortunately I think Linux will deliver on both benchmarks. Expect exciting things over the next year from linux desktops.

    1. Re:Perceived speed vs throughput by j1walker · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's an article about this on macosxhints.com here:

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040 51208143172&query=sheet+speed

      I'm off to try this myself now...