I don't know what people are complaining about really. Universal
binary is not a hidden Turbo button.
It just makes your app native on Intel and PPC instead of running
emulation.
2x2GHz G5 should compare quite well with Intel Dual Core 2GHz,
perhaps with faster memory and video card the Intel should get some
speed improvement. From my trials, on 2x2GHz G5 (2GB memory) and my
MBP 2GHz, I would say the speed is quite comparable, but the MBP is
faster overall. But I know if I put a decent graphics card in my G5
it would perform better.
But then again, both the above machines kick some serious butt
compared to my Mac Mini (G4 1.4GHz) and PowerBook 17" (G4 1 GHz).
You can not really compare these machines.
UB builds are not some answer to all speed wise, no one has found a
really large sleep function anywhere. The intel mac is faster, but
only when you compare similar machines. Without having tested it my
self, I would say that a 4xG5 2.5 GHz would be quite a lot faster
than than my MBP (2GHz).
But to the real issue. Running RB 2006 on Rosetta or in native Intel
Mac. The speed difference is more than quite awesome. RB 2006 R4
feels quite like RB 5.5 on my G5 (I tried). Compile speeds and just
all overall speed.
Trausti
On Oct 10, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Dr Gerard Hammond wrote:
At 9:47 AM +0200 10/10/06, Lundstrom Design wrote:
It depends very much on what you are doing.
I'm working on a fairly complex 3D application that both rely
heavily on math calculations as well as massive amounts of drawing
on the screen. All in all I have to say that the UB expected UB
performance boost is more or less non-existent, with a few
exceptions. VectorWorks, for example shows a 2.3 times speed
improvement, to mention something similar.
I compared a 1.6 G5 with an Intel iMac 1.8. All in all, and
including compensation for the clock speed, it redraws are about
15% quicker on the Intel Mac when compiled with the 2006 R4. When
compiled with the 5.5, I basically got exactly the same speed as
the IntelMac on the PPC machine, as it typically generates code
being 10-20% quicker than the 2006.
In other words, and despite islands of speed improvements, the
general performance of the 2006R4 is not very impressive. It works
OK, but does not shine in any way.
Claes Lundstrom
Thanks for this appraisal, Claes!
As one who is about to buy a new Intel Mac laptop (Come on Apple
release the new Core Duo 2 chip already!!!) I'll adjust my RB
expectations accordingly. Compiling my current large app (PPC IDE
on 1.6Mhz G4 laptop) isn't dreadful, but it isn't RB5.5 let alone
Rb4.5.
--
Cheers,
Dr Gerard Hammond
MacSOS Solutions
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
