On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: > On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same > G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests > found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in > my opinion.
That would be this article: <http://lowendmac.com/ed/royal/09sr/leopard-vs-tiger.html> I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I believe my estimate is born out by the archived results on both xBench & Geekbench. Also, it should be noted that Intel Macs are the opposite, they are faster for Leopard and slower for Tiger. > I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would > say it made it 10-15% faster. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. In order to do a valid comparison you'd need to install a clean OS onto one HD or partition and run the test; then erase that HD or partition and install the other OS onto the SAME HD or partition and rerun the test. I believe if you run the tests on IDENTICAL setups you'll see that Leopard is 15-20% slower than Tiger. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
