On 10/10/06 20:25, "Tim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote: > >> I got a 2X speed improvement on my Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz over my old >> powerbook >> 1.5 Gig running a long "batch job" task. > > I believe that the real comparisons should be between your PPC > version running on an Intel system under Rosetta and that same app > compiled as UB running on the same system in native Intel mode. ??????? Err what?? My question wasn't about the improvement gain of Rosetta vs native intel. I have never needed to run my app under rosetta. I went straight from RB on Powerbook to RB UB ( beta initially ) on the new Mac Pro. > That's where most are seeing improvements. As for claims of 2x or > 10x, that's something that will vary from system to system depending > on what OTHER things you have running. I did the benchmark with nothing else running. And OS configurations were roughly the same. > Don't forget that OS X is not > like OS 9 in that even if you think that your app is the only thing > running, there can be dozens of others things running that you aren't > directly aware of. > As for a 2x improvement, that IS a very big > increase - what used to take 2 hours now takes 1. Agreed. I was just expecting more. Lets face it, even foregoing the multiple CPUs, the jump from a G4 powerbook to a new Mac Pro Xeon is a big one architecturally. My Powerbook is around 3 yrs old. > If I could chop any of my daily tasks in half, I'd have more time to play guitar :). Sadly my guitar seems to stay in its case these days, but my new Mac Pro has allowed me to play with Logic/DP/Cubase / virtual instruments etc on my keyboard while waiting for batch jobs to run :) > > If you're comparing PPC to Intel from the perspective of general > machine performance, the new Intel's are recognizably faster at I/O > operations and hardware level performance. Do graphics apps move > faster? I've run some simple core graphics tests that are faster on > the Intel and others that win on the PPC (probably altavec > specific). Does Pages run faster? Yes. > > However, what's the big question here? > > Is RB 2006r4 generating code that compares with RB 5.5? > Is the Intel Mac better than the PPC Mac? > Are UB apps really worth the effort on Intel systems? > > On the first question, most will agree that the code created by 5.x > is more compact and in some cases faster than the same project > compiled with the new tools regardless of UB, Mach-O or PEF. > > On the second, this is a moot point as Apple's made the move and > isn't going back any more than they're going to re-enable Classic > mode support. > > On the third, that can only be answered by your customers / users. > In my case, it is important as it allows the use of the UB logos and > listing on Apple's software "Made4Mac" Macintosh Product Guide pages. > > Tim > -- > Tim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
