Diglloyd tested Snow Leopard in both 32 bit and 64 bit kernel modes and noticed that the 64 bit kernel was faster in many photo applications such as lightroom, aperture, photoshop and nikon capture. Anyone else notice any speed differences between 32 and 64 bit kernel modes?
[URL]
Many users on the forums have stated their is no difference between the two modes. If Diglloyd is correct then there is a noticeable difference.
Ok... so... tonight my most badass girlfriend actually BOUGHT me another 1 TB drive as a surprise for the Mac Pro!!! God, you gotta love that girl! This replaced the stock 320 Gig drive which I HAD previously been using for Media only (Itunes library and the like) with a 1TB Western Digital Green drive (Best buy w/ coupon for $206).
Well, I thought I'd devise a little benchmark to test just how crazy fast the Hitachi 1TB that I use as a boot drive is vs the original drive that Apple shipped (320 Western Digital) and others in my system...
So this is what I did. Might be right, might be wrong, don't really care... but I THINK this is a great representative of total, complete "speed and throughput" of a hard drive.
I created a folder called "Test Folder" on my Hitachi 1TB (Boot Drive). I added to this folder the following subfolders / files:
1 Folder Entitled "Movies" containing 12 Large Files = 8.5 Gigabytes
1 Folder Entitled "Guns n Roses" containing 67 Medium Files = 455 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Extensions" Folder containing 271 Small Files = 208 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Frameworks" Folder containing 57,263 Tiny Files = 1.49 Gigabytes
This gave me a total of 57,617 Files of VARYING Sizes totaling 10.64 Gigabytes.
I then proceeded to DUPLICATE this folder on each of my drives... which I believe shows a great overall speed indicator...
"read/write/in-cache/out-of-cache/tiny to huge file size"
And as it is doing all of the reading / writing on the SAME DRIVE... that eliminates any drive compatibility problems, slow to fast drive copy speed interpretation, bus issues, etc.
And here are my results... pretty stunning if you ask me... I think Apple really stuck some DOG SLOW drives in there as stock. I honestly think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Time to Duplicate Folder on Stock Hard Drive: (Western Digital 320 Gig WD3200AAJS) = 9 Minutes, 08 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Hitachi 1TB Replacement: (Hitachi HDS721010KLA330) = 5 Minutes, 35 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Western Digital 1TB Drive: (Western Digital WD10EACS-00ZJBO) = 6 Minutes, 20 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 500GB Drive: (Western Digital 5000AAJS-32YFA0) = 7 Minutes, 18 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 400GB Drive: (Western Digital D4000KD-00NAB0) = 8 Minutes, 52 Seconds
I am planning on buying a 15 inch MBP in the near future, but I am waiting to see some gaming benchmarks to decide if I should shell out the extra money for the i7 for the extra VRAM or just stick with the i5. Have any of you seen any sites that compare the two systems? I know barefeats has benchmarks using different apps, and says it will have something on gaming benchmarks soon, but I didn't know if anyone has already done it. Barefeats just updated with their benchmarks, but they used 17 inch MBPs, so the i5 and i7 comparison used the same video card (512 MB) instead of comparing 256 vs 512. How disappointing.
View 17 Replies View RelatedI have a 15" i5 MBP and I've noticed that on these new machines OSX SL still defaults on 32-bit kernel (I think for third-party drivers compatibility issues)... My question is are there any benchmarks that shows if there are some performance gains forcing SL to boot with a 64-bit kernel? Which of the two kernels do you use?
View 7 Replies View RelatedSo, with Snow Leopard, there is a 32-bit kernel, and a 64-bit kernel. Correct?
As I understand it, it will boot into the 32-bit kernel by default, but if your hardware is supported, you can select the 64-bit kernel.
My question is - where is the list of supported hardware, and how do you select the 64-bit kernel?
My confusion comes from several posts and various articles which all say the first-gen aluminium iMac has a 32-bit EFI, and therefore can only boot into the 32-bit kernel. But I've just downloaded an app called Startup Mode Selector, which shows you your system config, and it says I have a 64-bit EFI.
I'm looking for a new monitor to go with my MBP, and I'm stuck trying to choose between the ones listed above.
The 2407WFP is a couple of years old now I guess, but it's the rev A04 version, which supposedly fixed the (few) problems with what was otherwise meant to be a great screen. It's an sPVA screen.
I've heard good reviews of the G2410, with its LED backlighting. It's still a TN panel and I hear so much bad stuff about them.
The 2209WA is an eIPS panel which I like the sound of, but it's smaller and lower resolution.
The F2380 is a cPVA panel, the image quality looks better but I've heard bad things about blacks on this panel.
They just tested the "maxed out" 11" and 13" models. [URL] The 13" 2.13GHz model tests about 10% faster than the 1.86GHz.
View 15 Replies View Relatedcan anyone link me? i'm specifically looking for performance benchmarks of the new 13" 2GB MBA vs. a 4GB MBA with the same specs
View 2 Replies View RelatedAlthough some people have the new machines I have not seen any photoshop benchmarks at all.
View 8 Replies View Related[URL] releases the benchmark results of new imacs. [URL] There is no big difference between graphcis cards gt120 and gt130. I dont know, if I have to buy the iMac 2,93 GHz with gt130 or gt120?
View 23 Replies View Relatedjust wondering if anyone had any cpu benchmarks on this imac.. Im stuck between getting this model or going for a quad core pc? How future proof is the core 2 duo and is this powerful enough for using the Adobe suite extensivley. along with lots of other windows open?
View 3 Replies View RelatedJust added an SSD Boot drive, with the optibay. It seems like alot of people are interested in doing this lately, so I thought I would post some benchmarks. Quite impressive!
The whole process (minus cloning drives and transferring data) took about 15 minutes. I would say it was worth it!
I don't want anything terribly expensive - I just want to test my times against those uploaded to Amazon from PC's.
Info:
Mac OS X (10.7.4), 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD
It was slightly faster than than the GeForce 8800 GT running our six 3D accelerated games.
In another session, we performed a RAM Preview render on 15 Motion 3 templates. The Quadro FX 5600 (and GeForce 8800 GT) were slower than the Radeon HD 2600 XT in 14 out of 15 tests. The Radeon X1900 XT beat the nVidia cards rendering all 15 templates.
Tomorrow we will post results on our Windows Vista 64 tests (Prey, Doom 3, 3DMark06, etc.). As a preview, the Quadro was faster than the Radeon HD 2600 XT but slower than the GeForce 8800 GT running Prey and Doom 3. In the 3DMark06 benchmark the Quadro was faster than the GeForce 8800 GT.
Its benchmark figures for the 2009 imac versus the 2008 imac.
I found it very interesting and answered some of the questions that have been posted on this forum over the past few weeks
[URL]
I have a 'aging' 2006 mac pro with dual 2.66 mhz cpu's. The system is snappy enough for most tasks on the mac side but when running windows 7 pro 64 bit and ripping some of my bluerays the cpu's peg at 100% and it takes a while. My question is how does my 2.66ghz dual cpu mac pro compare cpu wise against the new intel core i7 930 cpu family? I know I cannot drop one into my mac pro but I have been thinking about building a new pc with the i7 and picking up a mac mini for my wife who refuses to leave the mac camp then sell my old mac pro.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI would first like to start off with the disclaimer that I am not good at writing guides and I am also not a pro with overclocking but here is my attempt at both. Also I am not liable for damages to your computer and ask fobis has mentioned each gpu even if they are the same may overclock better or worse then the next. So take my overclocking numbers for what they are worth. Experiment and try it out on your own.
Note: This guide assumes your running Windows 7 64bit, and also it assumes that you are new to overclocking.
-------------------------------GUIDE------------------------------
1.First make sure you have a copy of windows installed through bootcamp.
2.Then go ahead and install the drivers that came with bootcamp ( we won't be using the gpu drivers but the rest are going to be useful anyway so might as well go ahead and install them )
3.After you have all that you will want to go here to get a modified driver. This will give you better performance then the bad drivers that apple supplies it will also let you overclock the gpu
4.After you have downloaded both the driver and the INF file open up the driver and it will extract the files to the directory that you choose. It will also try to launch the install but it will fail saying something like " no compatible hardware found " ignore this for now.
5.Now take the INF file and copy it to the folder that the driver was extracted too. It will ask you if you want to overwrite the file just say yes.
6.Now open up the device manager by right clicking on my computer, selecting properties, this should open a new window and on the left there should be something that says device manager.
7.Under the tab that says "display adapters" select the only device that shows up on that tab. Right click it and choose uninstall.
8.After you have done that it will likely mess up your resolution and set it too 800x600 don't worry this is normal. Now just restart your computer.
9.Once you have restarted when it starts back up it will say new hardware found. Now you have to choose to install it manually choose the option that says something along the lines of " search for drivers in specified area "
10.Now it will take you to a new page and on that page there should be an option that says "have disk" choose this and select the directory that you extracted the driver too earlier in this guide. It should find one of the files that it can use and install it just fine.
11.You will need to restart again once this is done but when you start back up your resolution should be fixed if not just right click and hit screen resolution and just change it back to the native resolution.
12. Download Nvidia system tools found here
13. Go ahead and install this it should be self explanatory.
14. Once it is installed open the program and go to the performance tab on the left. ( It might ask you to agree to some terms of use )
15. Just put in these numbers and hit apply
646 for the first one
864 for the second one
and 1314 for the third one
Now your done if your paranoid like me of overheating your computer you can also optionally download and install LubbosFanControl to max out your fans to keep it as cool as possible.
Enjoy your faster GPU!.
----------------------BENCHMARKS-----------------------------
Before OC:
Furmark
Points:912
FPS: min=13 max=22 avg=15
Crysis: 24.89
Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10:24.9fps (score:1057)
OpenGL: 23.2 (score:982)
Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10:18fps (scores 452)
OpenGL:16.3 (scores 410)
Unigine Heaven Demo:
DX10:14.8fps (scores 372)
OpenGL:12.6fps (scores 317)
3DMark06:5975
3DMark Vantage: P2294
After OC:
Furmark
Points: 1081
FPS: min=16 max=26 avg=18
Crysis: 33fps
Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10: 31.2fps (scores: 1322)
OpenGL: 28fps (scores: 1211)
Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10: 21.7fps (scores: 546)
OpenGL:19.8 (scores:498)
Unigine Heaven Demo:
DX10:15.7(scores:395)
OpenGL: 16.2(scores:408) WTF? OpenGL wins? lol
3DMark06:6994
3DMark Vantage: 2922
Notes: Crysis was run at 1280x800 everything on medium excapt physics on very high
Another note: The highest GPU temp underload from Crysis got up to about 78C after about 15mins of running the game. Furmark got the temp up to 80C though after about 15mins also.
I have also played TF2 at max settings @ 1920x1200 for over 2 hours to test stability and it ran fine without any hiccups
Also I feel that this card can be pushed further then this ( I have not tried ) but from what I see it cools a lot better then I expected from a laptop I come from a world of desktop overclocking.
I'm pretty satisfied with the Marware cover, although it can be a little frustrating when typing quickly..I'm wondering if I should go back, return the Marware cover and pick up the iSkin.
So, for those of you that have any of these in comparing..which do you think is the best?
And yes, I did search and am aware threads like this exist..but I couldn't find any comparing all three, only iSkin vs. Moshi.
I'm trying to decide which product to buy and I was hoping for some advice.
First and foremost I want a device so that I may transfer my VHS tapes to DVD.
Live TV recording is secondary but for the price, I'd like to find the device that suits me best so I can continue to use it after i've transferred all my VHS.
Here are my concerns:
1) I'm going to be moving from the US to Ireland in a couple of months (not sure for how long, could be years+) Obviously there's the whole NTSC vs. PAL, ATSC vs. DVB.
I know with EyeTV 250 it's either or, any ideas if buying some sort of converter is an option (prices, quality)? If I bought just a PAL one, would I still be able to convert VHS or would it be completely unusable in the US?
2) I'd like some sort of HD/Digital abilities. From what I can tell TVMax is analog only and Blackmagic may also be but I can't find more specs on that.
Does this mean they'll be useless once the US undergoes the conversion?
So as of now I'm leaning towards EyeTV 250 but the question are there any forseeable problems with using a PAL to NTSC converter or using a PAL EyeTV in the US just to convert VHS.
Yes you read that right. Your brand spanking new MBP will use a 32-bit kernel as default.
You can force 64-bit kernel but some of your hardware will not be working.
So all that marketing crap about the benefits of 64-bit etc are all B.S.
I don't want a million threads about how this will not effect the running of 64 bit apps, etc. because it will. Your 64-bit app will run but it will not be able to address more than 4Gb of RAM.
There are also many more advantages to having a 64-bit kernel.
So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly work in Adobe CS and do a far amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro compare to the above?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI am planning on purchasing a new display for use (currently) with my imac. I am completely torn between these two models, and cannot make a decision. Any thoughts? I like the Dell because it is LED backlit, thus good blacks and little to no backlight bleed. But I like the Samsung because of the (supposedly better panel and (supposedly) better color reproduction. I like the simplistic look of both of them (though they could look a little better ) so I'm not sure which one to buy.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".
I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845
Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.
Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.
Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.
I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.
The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.
The results are interesting:
We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.
We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.
To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.
Here are the results:
The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.
Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).
For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.
What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.
Two short questions on which I really need an answer. This academic year, I'll be writing a lot of papers, but most specifically, I am forced to use SPSS (statistical software package for social sciences).
Will I really need the 2.93 over the 2.66 and notice the improvement?
Same goes for the gfx. I like full-hd 1080, I'll be in InDesign, and use Logic Pro. Will I need "slash" notice the 4850 over the gt130?
Also, are the "hang-ups" with the 4850 truly fixed and does it indeed run a lot hotter (inc. really that more noise) than the gt130?
I like eMacs but the G5 looks sooo nice. I know I probably won't be able to use any for very long but whatever. What is the best?
View 24 Replies View RelatedI've heard Office:Mac isn't that great, and doesn't make up for what iWork 09 is missing. So I'm wondering what people think about it and why does it get such a bland reputation? Also, do people use a combination of the above? Such as iWork and Office:Windows? Both Offices? I do mainly word processing, some soft Excel work (no hardcore giant spreadsheets...yet), and general PowerPoints for presentations. I have access to cheap iWork/Offices (school discount) and a family pack of the top-level edition of Office:PC (family) so it isn't a big deal to get any of the above.
Lastly, what's the difference between Camino and Firefox? I use Firefox currently and love it, mainly due to the add-ons (weather at the bottom, Gmail alert, skins, page views, other customizations). Tabs seem to be on all browsers these days, so are there any other key differences?
The first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
View 20 Replies View RelatedBy far the most interesting benchmark trend coming out of the latest Macbook Air tests is that of the 320M GPU - is this thing somehow clocked differently than in the Macbook/Macbook Pro?
From:
[URL]
The latest Macbook Pro 13" 2.4 Ghz gets 33 FPS in Call of Duty 4, whereas the Macbook Air 13" (using the same 320M GPU) gets 40 FPS. Even the 1.4Ghz 11" gets 37! So obviously we're not talking about a CPU limited game - the only explanation then is that the GPU in the Macbook Air is clocked differently than in the 13" Macbook Pro, no?
From:
[URL]
Again the Macbook Air clocked at 2.13 ghz is beating the 2.4 Ghz Macbook Pro in World of Warcraft and Portal! And in WOW the 11" 1.4ghz still manages to beat the 2.4 Ghz 13" Macbook Pro.
Anyone have any additional insight into this? Anand did a terrible job of testing these for gaming performance, unfortunately, so he may not have even noticed this trend.
Are there any sites that have done benchmarks for all the different versions of Macbook Pros? I'm interested how much of a difference the 2.53, 2.66, 2.8 and 3.0 ghz processors make.
I searched to see if anything had already been posted before like this, i didnt see anything so i apologise if its already been asked.
Soon i will be getting a Mac(i think) and was wondering about a case. Since i want a Macbook Pro with the Unibody Housing i want it to be safe. Now i can't decide if i want a case or a Sleeve. Now the Case might have heat issues even with the vents that are on the case. The sleeve won't have that issue but will it be more prone to scratching the Macbook it self? Or should i go no case and just sorta deal with the scratches. There is a Price difference between the Sleeve and the Case. About $20 Cdn more for the Case.
Sleeve[URL]
Case[URL]
