What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
123 Comments
- dtfinch, on 09/02/2009, -3/+48I love it when people try to judge operating system performance using raw cpu/memory bechmarks that don't touch the OS hardly at all.
- digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -2/+38the performance boost will be negligible until devs start harnessing tools like Grand Central and OpenCL to derive more power from your hardware for computational processing. things like 1080p en/decode have already seen drastic boosts in QT-X as a result of these technologies, it's simply a matter of time before we start seeing new software versions that have been optimized to use these new features in SL.
- cyberdork, on 09/02/2009, -3/+18I'm a Mac user since 10.2 and 10.6 is the first upgrade where I notice a SIGNIFICANT overall speed increase and stability improvement.
- sputnikv, on 09/03/2009, -0/+14I'm running it on a Nehalem 2 x 2.26GHz Quad-Core, 8GB of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM with an ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB. I find some applications faster by a factor of 2. General system benchmarking, for my system at least, are significantly better than on the last version of leopard.
Also of note, some apps need updating for Snow, though fortunately in my case, the ones I have are superficial, and updates are under way. I am excited for the future prospects of more efficient apps, both on the mac and windows side. - digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -2/+15i wasn't aware we were a club.. i'm afraid i hereby tender my membership though as i'm still going to bury you for failing to actually read the article.
- benvds, on 09/03/2009, -1/+14Perceived performance is the only thing that matters. Integers, floating points, I don't care.
- AvanteGarde, on 09/02/2009, -6/+19"While the performance gains aren't huge, they do seem to reflect the optimizations present in Snow Leopard. And this is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Snow Leopard's potential. Once developers start taking advantage of new technologies like Grand Central and OpenCL, applications in OS X will be screamingly fast."
read the post moron - MacParrot, on 09/02/2009, -4/+16Burying one of our own? What does that even mean? Just because you're a Mac user doesn't make you different from anyone else other than using a different OS on occasion. I use OS X at home (but have Win7 on Bootcamp and Linux through VM) and use XP at work. They all do what I need them to I just happen to prefer OS X.
- buckyballs, on 09/03/2009, -0/+10@streak: You really don't have a clue
TheWindBlows has covered most of your points, but
a) iTunes IS NOT a Java app. It's written in C++ using Carbon (not Java). The reason that it also runs in Windows is that the Apple engineers wrote the Windows version from scratch using C++, Win32, and Visual Studio. Even though they look identical, they are both completely different code bases that are both built on QuickTime. Apple make developer frameworks. It wouldn't be in their interest to use a third-party one.
b) Even if iTunes were Java (which, I repeat, IT IS NOT), it wouldn't matter from a 64-bit point of view, since Snow Leopard ships with both 32- and 64-bit Java 1.6 VMs (64-bit by default) - digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -1/+11yeah.... i kind of assumed that the apps would be re-written to Cocoa64 as well, otherwise what would be the point?
also, there isn't just one bundled app not running 64-bit. iTunes, Front Row, Grapher and DVD Player are all still 32-bit and why would 64-bit java make itunes run faster, it's carbon? - gaymathman, on 09/03/2009, -0/+9With a synthetic benchmark that only measures CPU performance like this one, the 'speedups' are from a sample size that is too small. Raw CPU performance won't magically increase. An actual test would be to compare the speeds at which the build in compression utility compresses one gigabyte of random text. As that has received a rewrite and is 64 bit, you could get a rough estimate as to what the new APIs make possible.
- digitalpencil, on 09/02/2009, -1/+10i didn't assume that the largest performance boost would come from GCD or OpenCL. in fact, the largest boosts aren't necessarily to do with X64 either.. it depends on what you're doing. Adobe for example have only measured meager speed boosts of around 8% in CS5 due to the 64-bit Cocoa rewrite.
also, iTunes isn't Java. it's carbon. it's not java on any platform.. in fact, a java clone of iTunes called jTunes was made a few years back under LGPL but never fared much success outside of the sourceforge community. - TheWindBlows, on 09/03/2009, -1/+10@streak: Stop your blabbering. You don't know how wrong you are.
"64 bit" as its called today is x86 with 64 bit extentions and optimiztions built in.
The main advantage the typical 64 bit application has over a 32 bit application is that 64 bit applications are more optimized when compiled, because there are more extensions that can be used along with wider memory bandwidth usage. All that equates to about 3-20% difference in speed on an average application. In some cases an SSE2 flag on video makes a huge differences but thats really the only case and most x86 have SSE2 anyways.
Now Apple has OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch. OpenCL allows for code that is handled by both multi CPU and GPU. GPU's accelerate leagues at handling floating point type operations compared to a x86 CPU along with graphics handling. So from OpenCL more power is available for processing and for the most part OpenCL causes speed gains of at least 2 fold because of how powerful GPU are today. Plus OpenCL has parallel processing with the CPU available to it also. The gains are huge as long as OpenCL is available on your computer.
Now there is Grand Central Dispatch which allows for better threading of applications in Mac OS X. Which can give a nice little benefit even to applications that aren't coded to GCD, because GCD programs are better organized at processing allowing jobs to be handled more efficiently. As for programs that are coded toward GCD they get larger performance boost and so on.
I didn't mean to write this much, but the point of the matter is 64 bit isn't as big as you think. - mrBitch, on 09/03/2009, -1/+9@ streak, RE: " .. The big boost for most apps comes from leaving the brain dead X86 architecture of the 1980s behind and compiling for X64."
You really shouldn't post on subjects you obviously know so little about.
x64 is just x86 with 64 bit extensions.
if x86 is "brain dead", then so is x64.
Please do a little background reading instead of assuming that everyone will believe whatever idiotic dribble you decide to make up as fact... - Altotus, on 09/03/2009, -1/+9iTunes isn't a Java app:
$ file /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386 - TheWindBlows, on 09/03/2009, -1/+9Your an idiot...
You can't "compare 64 bit to 32 bit directly" the major speed boost come from optimizations like compile flags and all that shows is what the processor is capable of. You ever wonder why AMD / Intel haven't started running up a CPU bit competition? The benefits of such a thing are zilch. The main reason 64 bit applications are faster is because x86_64 generic has better compile flags than x86_32 generic.
Now then the reason running in 32 bit mode feels slower is because it has to use the library seperately. aka 32 bit libraries have to get loaded in the background. Versus your 64 bit applications already have the libraries loaded and the libraries are in memory being used staying active. Meanwhile a 32 bit application's libraries in a 64 bit OS don't get used as much and as such the OS will cycle them down as lower priority possibly into swap ( the hard drive ), and as such that 32 bit application suffers the toll of not being part of the gang. Trust me 64 bit Java just is not more than a few hairs faster than 32 bit Java, I know because Java 64bit exist for linux.
You'll probably bury me for being correct, understanding how modern OS's work, being a linux user, knowing how to program, reading assembly information, or whatever reason you come up with. Though you'll want to read both post. - MtheoryX, on 09/02/2009, -2/+9One of our own?
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. - mrBitch, on 09/03/2009, -0/+6@ TheWindBlows, completely agree it's important to understand how modern OS's work if you're going to talk about differences between 32 and 64 bit apps.
@ streak, RE: " .. All but one (a java app named iTunes)."
You really don't understand what a java app is do you? - mattus, on 09/03/2009, -2/+8I thought the performance increases in Snow Leopard came from the optimising of many of its components? So obviously the best way to test is to run a pure CPU bench that does the same calculation over and over again. Buried.
- gaymathman, on 09/03/2009, -1/+664 bit isn't as much of a speedup as using the gpu would be. The average GPU has over 128 cores, and if you have the knowledge to make massively parallel apps, the performance gains would be HUGE. That's what the whole OpenCL aims to make easier, although I'd guess that CUDA will severely limit its adaptation; as CUDA has already made inroads into several HPC staples (MATLAB, Grid computing systems, Mathematica, video encoders). If OpenCL succeeds with more pedestrian apps, we'll see big gains there.
- gaymathman, on 09/03/2009, -0/+5It's also worth noting that while OpenCL provides far less of a speedup, it is also not nearly as huge of a pain in the ass to work with. It is almost just like C, while CUDA is restricted to a substantially smaller subset of C. This is again great for applications where performance isn't everything (ie, most every program), as the developers will be much more likely to use OpenCL due to the relative ease with which it can be used.
- fromaworld, on 09/03/2009, -0/+5Geekbench is a crappy synthetic benchmark. To see the improvements from Snow Leopard you'd really need to hand time real-world things like opening Safari or a Java-heavy page in Safari.
It amazes me that any 15 year old kid can start a blog and slap up numbers with a complete lack of understanding those numbers. - sputnikv, on 09/03/2009, -1/+5I can't tell much of a difference. The performance intensive apps I have haven't made the jump to 64-bit as of yet, so its difficult to gauge.
- streak, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4Unlike Microsoft, Apple has also moved users to 64-bit computing without requiring them to do a clean install.
- Echosphere, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4There are enough "features" that justified me paying $30 more.
What I think is Revolutionary is a company that has actually actually taken time to make their product more stable, smaller OS footprint and run faster.
I paid 5% of my MacMini's retail price to have it crash less, free up more space, and work flow more efficiently.
My wife, god knows why, spent 20% of her retail price to upgrade her laptop from XP to Vista and seems about half as slow as it was before.
Feel free to say I'm an Apple Sheep. Fine. I understand how it might be silly to pay for a SP. Though, I think of it as an amazing SP built on top of years of well executed grander SPs. For that I don't mind paying. - edebolt, on 09/03/2009, -1/+5I just installed it on 2 ghz MBP with 2 gig ram and it is more efficient. My fans run slower and generally does feel faster. FWIW best $29 I have spent in a while.
- CowGoesMooo, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4Do you get paid to troll or do you just get bored?
- borez, on 09/03/2009, -0/+41. the G5 is 64bit
2. Apple stopped producing the G5 in August 2006, which yeah was 3 years ago, but I got mine as last stock trade so It would have been around £5000
3. When did the digg comments section start becoming the youtube comments section? - falser, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4I just got done installing it about an hour ago. So far the speed up is very noticeable in a lot of places, especially app start up times and whenever the interface used to lag behind the mouse and button clicks. $35 very well spent.
- lapiak, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4You can't install it on any computer except for Apple computers. It even says on the software package of Leopard/Snow Leopard. Your Dell is not an Apple.
- roazena, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4As a fellow G5 owner who purchased his in 2003, "too soon" is frankly *****. You're demanding Apple scrap most of what makes SL's performance improvements possible to support an EOLed chipset.
IBM had plenty of opportunities to make 64-bit PPCs consume less power in order to make G5 laptops feasible. Their response was to tell Apple that Apple should pay them to develop a technology Intel was already exploiting successfully.
IBM also arbitrarily removed the feature that made x86 emulation easy without consulting with Apple (or vendors of virtualization software) and to this day have not explained this decision.
Bottom line; the moment video game console vendors became IBM's largest customer, Apple got thrown under the bus and so did you. I regret dropping $2K on a boat anchor too, but you had four years to get with the times. - atgmac, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4Grand central dispatch will help a lot in that regard, as writing concurrent code is now as easy as non-concurrent code (and some cases, easier).
- streak, on 09/04/2009, -1/+4Microsoft sure has you brainwashed! SL doesn't require a clean install, so you consider it to be like a service pack. In that respect, it is like a service pack, but Microsoft never upgraded anyone from 32-bits to 64-bits without a clean install, so in that respect, SL isn't like a service pack. ROTFL@U!
- BeerRules, on 09/03/2009, -2/+5All I know is my apps are starting in less bounces, and iChat video is much clearer between my parents and I, both using 10.6, also I got back like 20GB of space :)
- DavidTurnbull, on 09/03/2009, -2/+5I performed a clean install and SL feels lightning fast. Then again, a lot of that is probably because of the clean install side of things.
- Spuy767, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3I jimmied a Diamond 4870 with a Gig of VRAM into my late 2006 Mac Pro after I installed 10.6 and holy balls is it MUCH faster doing certain tasks. It was noticeably faster before, but now it ***** screams when I'm doing video editing and whatnot, mostly because of QE/CI acceleration, but still, it's an appreciable change. Also, in one of my own applications, the apps I usually write are small and would be far too much of a hassle to thread out properly for the performance gained, I took the time to set it up to use GCD, and it sped up probably 300%. Give the developers time to embrace these new features and you'll get more performance than you though possible.
- TheWindBlows, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3@Gloony FPU shows a regression in x86_32 bits design (made to handle applications that used very little memory), because you typically need to use an assembly alternative to handle the addressing and flushing thats required for FPU speed on 32 bit. I do understand overhead is caused by need to address more memory than a register size, but for the most part in this case with OpenCL, FPU is accelerated so very much more by the GPU than the 32bit vs 64 bit difference.
As far as architecture goes thats obvious. Legacy is hard thing to maintain especially with x86. Otherwise by now Intel or AMD would have a modular CPU capable of accelerating specific task with its different module processor. Such as a virtualization module with an x86 type cpu built in and to handle x86 code or a core made specifically for handling video streams etc. - streak, on 09/04/2009, -0/+3You're talking about just the kernel running 32-bit by default, except on Xserves. That doesn't make even a hill of beans difference to anyone except under rare circumstances (such as an overloaded system) that are to be avoided in the first place. This allows 32-bit drivers to be used until their authors can come out with 64-bit versions. 64-bit apps all run 64-bit. And if you knew anything about computer performance, you'd know that's WTF.
I take a few nickels and dimes and tremendous convenience over the outrageous price Microsoft demands for Windows 7 upgrades that fix only some of the problems with the pricey 3-year old and 3-year late Vista, along with its clean install requirements. - zephc, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3JessicaWinters has a hilarious profile - clearly a bored troll:
I luv Digg! ♥♥♥ Kevin Rose is soooo cool! Things I like: Hannah Montana, nice people, and flowers on my b-day. Things I dislike: Miley Cyrus, attitudes, people who don't respect other people's cultures, and French people - insertjokehere, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3As has been previously said iTunes is a Carbon App and not a Java app. Java has been available in 64-bit since Java 6 was released on Leopard (I am a Java user). The Java VM in SL defaults to 32 bit, but the Java Prefences app can soon change that
Annoyingly, Apple have deprecated the Java-Cocoa bridge and I believe that any apps that use Swing will not be 64-bit processes and revert to 32-Bit since Swing uses Carbon for windowing rather than Cocoa. Java apps that don't use GUIs are 64-bit capable. One advantage of Java over compiled C based languages is that there is significantly less effort required for making 64-bit apps due to the usage of architecture independent bytecode - SuperSunny, on 09/03/2009, -3/+6People just need to compare it themselves.
I bought a 15 Inch Pro, 2.8 ghz, with an SSD. After throwing on SL, it runs SO MUCH FASTER. The machine was already blazing, now it's even faster. It logs in and out in literally 3 seconds, and turns on and off in a heartbeat. Love this - inactive, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3why not compare 2 things that are the same such as a single platter 5400 with a single platter 7200. and the new ones barely make any noise.
the WD black toasts any 5400 rpm. - kyofu, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2From what I can see, Snow Leopard's features don't really warrant it being called just a service patch; I've never seen a service patch include new technologies like Grand Central or include recompilations of 32-bit programs to 64-bit. In any case; if Snow Leopard is a service pack, might as well call Windows 7 one, and I'd much rather pay $29 for a service pack than $49,$99, or $100+.
- CressCrowbits, on 09/03/2009, -3/+5Perception can be tricked. Scientific testing can't.
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2I feel bad for you, I really do.
But you bought the ppc when intel had just come in. Surely you knew apple would eventually stop supporting ppc. - Virgule, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2+1. Responsive and snappy interfaces totally outclass raw processing power. Dude.. we got gigahertz and gigaram and giga this and that but we somehow still have to wait for an app to load.... it's so wrong!
- streak, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2Then I guess you'd suggest Apple speeds up the bounces when running an app in 32-bit mode? Because merely launching Safari in 32-bit mode takes more bounces than in 64-bit mode.
- mrBitch, on 09/03/2009, -3/+5Your lack of tech history knowledge is showing.
OS X has been a 64 bit OS since the PowerPC days back in 2002 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970
" .. The PowerPC 970, PowerPC 970FX, PowerPC 970GX, and PowerPC 970MP, are 64-bit Power Architecture processors from IBM introduced in 2002. When used in Apple Inc. machines, they were dubbed the PowerPC G5." - snookie1977, on 09/03/2009, -2/+4Back in the real world where people know what they are talking about....a 500GB 5400rpm drive is almost as fast a a 7200 rpm drive because it is a single platter and therefore has reduced seek times. Plus it is quieter and uses less power.
iron, you are too dumb to bother replying too. - TheWindBlows, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2These benchmarks reveal that the base operating system is far more efficient due to these new technologies. A full 5% increase in speed on an application with no recompile is quite large considering Mac OS X 10.5 was already very efficient.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is