Speed comparison

I'm sure this is asked all the time, but I've had my 2.1 ghz iMac G5 (iSight) for a little more than a year, and im noticing it being slower than usual. I'm thinking of getting a 2GB memory stick to bump up the speed and stop all the annoying lags that shouldn't be (when iTunes and safari are open, and another small app, theres a 2-3 second lag every now and then)
before I spend the nearly $200 on the memory, how much of a difference will I see? getting the 2GB will mean it'll have 2.5gb (i only have the standard 512mb) so im guessing it'll be pretty noticeable, but by how much? does anyone have 2.5gb imac that can tell me? is there a website that compares speeds in memory upgrades?

G'day Kyle,
Yes, I agree with Miriam that you should get a significant increase in speed in many applications by installing more RAM than you currently have. Just how much will depend on what you do with your computer, what sorts of applications you use, how many you run at a time, etc., so it isn't really possible to be specific.
I'm a bit worried about the "slower than usual" part of your comments , though. Slower operation is often the first sign of developing problems.
Firstly, make sure you have plenty of free space on your internal drive. Aim to keep about 20% free at all times.
Secondly, boot from your MacOSX DVD and run DiskUtility from the menu bar. Get it to "Repair Drive" and "Repair Permissions". It may be that the apparent slowdown is due to some directory or permissions corruption. Better still, run something like DiskWarrior, which will also "optimise" your directories, and often give a bit of a speed bump accordingly in some situations.
If your drive has ever been very full then it may be that you are suffering from something called "free space fragmentation". This is a little different to the "file fragmentation" which OSX does a reasonably good job of dealing with. If the "free space" on your drive gets very fragmented then tasks which require access to the drive can become slow. As you only have a small amount of RAM your computer will be using the HD as "virtual memory" quite a lot. If the free space is badly fragmented then the amount of time it takes to access VM can increase, causing processing bottlenecks, etc. Similarly, many programs (like Photoshop, and many other graphics and video reated programs often set up their own "scratch files" on the HD. If these become fragmented, then again you can suffer some slowdown in performance.
Cheers
Rod

Similar Messages

Speed comparison iPhone 3GS and 4?

Hi,
I am developing a game using Air 2.7 but I only have an iPad 1 to test it on. The speed is really good (a steady 60fps) but I'm a bit curious how fast it will run on 3GS.
Have you guys done any speed comparisons between iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4?
I guess the speed on iPhone 4 is about the same as iPad 1?
Thanks,
/Andreas

I have tested the same vector animations on iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPhone 3GS. If you have selected to use high resolution, the performance on the 3GS and iPhone4 will be similar, because the iPhone 4 will have to update four times the screen area of the 3GS. The iPad 2 may be slightly faster, and I guess you may be right about the iPad 1 being similar to the iPhone 4. If you use standard resolution, the iPhone 4 may be the fastest of them all.

Speed Comparison between Quadro FX 5800, 4800, 3800

Question: Speed Comparison between Quadro FX 5800, 4800, 3800
Both Adobe and Nvidia technical support said they do not have speed comparison benchmarks on the same Windows 7, 64 bit computer for both rendering and encoding between the Quadro FX 5800, 4800, and 3800. Does anyone know of such speed comparisons. Thanks in advance.

I just had a new computer built using a 6 core AMD processor and 16 gb Ram, cs5, etc. Is it possible for me to apply your benchmark and how would I do it?
Thanks,
John Rich

Please verify core duo vs. core 2 duo speed comparison

Hi,
I was looking for RAM to upgrade my MacBook CoreDuo 512mb to 2gb, and found this:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks
If you go down, there is performance comparisons b/t core duo and core 2 duo, and between different size of rams. I am looking at photoshop result. Notice C2D 1gb is FASTER than CD 2gb.
Since I will be using Photo Editing Apps. to process RAW files, speed is my primary concern. Could you please verify this data? If this is true, I am going to consider selling my current MB and getting a new one with C2D.
Thanks!

Performance comparisons vary from tests to tests. And even if you test the same machine 10 times, you will get 10 different results. But from looking at the data, it seems though that the differences are very minute.
Selling your CD MB to get a C2D MB would not be a smart investment for that small improvement in performance, but the decision is up to you. If you decide to upgrade since speed is your primary concern, why not opt for Macbook Pro?

1.4.2 vs 1.4.1_02 speed comparison

Houston, we have a problem....
I have a swing applet(JFrame) that updates 1800 JLabel boxes(yes they are tiny, no text) with a color.
1.4.1_02 is about 8 times faster than 1.4.2 to initially update the screen after it displays
by changing all the JLabel colors based on the data sent via socket connection from the server.
I recompiled with 1.4.2 jsdk and loaded 1.4.2 jre on my win NT4.0sp6/Netscape 4.76 pc,
updated my applet code for 1.4.2 plugins.
1.4.1_01 takes about 2 seconds, 1.4.2 takes 10 seconds.
If this is an indication of whats to come in 1.5, i'll be stuck with 1.4.1_02 forever.
However, other applets that display a 2 megabyte JTable seem to be the same speed.
No errors in java console.
Does anybody see speed problems with JLabels or swing components in general?

Perhaps you should create a test case and submit a bug against 1.4.2 indicating that it's a performance regression.

USB Hi-Speed vs FireWire 400 external drive write speed comparison

Since there were a host of external hard drive questions, I thought I'd just try out my own speed test while I'm watching TV in the background.
The drives I used were a bus-powered 250 GB LaCie Little Disk USB Hi-Speed + FireWire 400, and an adapter-powered 320 GB Western Digital MyBook Home USB Hi-Speed + FireWire 400 + eSATA. I judged the speed by running Activity Monitor and checking for Disk Activity's Data written/sec. There didn't appear to be much else happening, so I thought that the average rate was an accurate indicator. I plugged them directly into my MacBook's ports (no hubs or daisy-chaining).
_LaCie Little Disk (using the USB power-sharing cable made no difference - I tried both):_
USB: 23-25 MB/sec.
FW400: 32-33 MB/sec
_Western Digital MyBook Home (7200 RPM):_
USB: steady 27 MB/sec
FW400: 32-33 MB/sec
So definitely FireWire won out, although I wasn't getting the same speeds as advertised. WD doesn't specify anything other than the interface's raw speed, and of course those are never achieved for bulk transfers due to negotiations, overhead, etc. LaCie advertises up to 41 MB/sec for FW400 and up to 34 MB/sec for USB.
I found it a little bit strange that the LaCie drive was a bit slower with USB than the WD drive, but that could have to do with the particular chipset used.
I was going to post the product page of the two drives I used, but I had one thread deleted because I posted a product webpage link without using it to answer a direct question.

Oso Grande wrote:
I love Firewire but what has really pushed it out of the home/prosumer market is the TON of cheap USB 2.0 drives available.
I just pulled out my WD Passport Essential 160 GB drive with the original FAT32 format. I'm getting about 15-19 MB/sec although that was on my second try. The first try was only 12-14 MB/sec. Strange. I thought it would have been faster. I'm wondering if FAT32 makes a difference. Reads were at about 32-35 MB/sec, although there was a huge spike at the start before settling down to about 33 MB/sec.
I forgot to mention that both drives in my first test were HFS+ formatted. The LaCie drive used Apple Partition Mapping as a backup for two PowerPC Mac backup partition and an additional swap space. The WD MyBook Home used GUID Partition Mapping. Let me give reads a try.

Speed comparison (AMD64) between sunf95, ifort, gfortran and NAG f95

Hello,
I compared the current GCC Fortran Compiler (gfortran; 4.3.0-trunk) with the Sunstudio Fortran Compiler (sunf95), the Intel Fortran Compiler (ifort) and the NAG f95 compiler using the Polyhedron Fortran Benchmark suite.
http://physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/
sunf95 is approximately as fast as ifort, 10% faster than gfortran and 15% faster than NAG f95.
Comparing with the Polyhedron page [which does not state which gfortran version was used and does not include sunf95], sunf95 is about 7% slower than the fastest compilers.
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/pb05/linux/f90bench_AMD.html
For my compilers, for "fatigue" it is 30% faster than ifort and 60% faster than gfortran. This is quite impressive. On the other hand for gas_dyn it is 35% slower than ifort and 20% than gfortran.
(Which shows that one can not really say, which compiler is the fastest - it really depends also on the program, the platform and the exact compiler options.)
Thanks to Sun for making such a nice compiler available free of charge!
Tobias

An interesting comparison - thank you for sharing it with us.
If you get bored, I'd be interested in seeing how the Sun performance library compares against the AMD acml (can you even use acml with Sun Studio?). I'm running on an Opteron system (soon to be an opteron cluster) and am trying to decide which compiler to go with. I suppose doing application specific benchmarking is what I will need to do.

ADSL and Infinity Speed comparison. Irchester, Nor...

Having checked my number on the wholesale site, my line "currently supports estimated ADSL max Broadband line speed of 1mbps, typically line speed between 750kbps and 2.5mbps" and whoop de do I got around 770kbps when I did a line speed check tonight..... the wholesale site also kindly informs me that my line also currently supports "fibre technology with an estimated WBC FTTC Broadband where consumers receive downstream line speed of 40mbps and upstream line speed of 15mbps".
I am about 4km from the exchange.
Does this message mean that I can definitely get Infinity and can anyone suggest what speed am I really likely to get?
Will it be comparable to my current speed, i.e at the very slowest end of the speed scale? Which to be honest couldnt be much slower unless I typed, printed and walked the e-mail to its destination myself......
Where can I find a map of local cabinets/upgrade dates and current speeds received by people near me? If there is such a thing.....

Using the BT wholesale checker my telephone number result .-
Our test also indicates that your line currently supports a fibre technology with an estimated WBC FTTC Broadband where consumers have received downstream line speed of 26.6Mbps and upstream line speed of 11.1Mbps.
If you've input your Telephone Number and get a similar result then Infinity is available to you.
A Post Code check would only give a rough area result.
My results over wireless "n" came out as THIS. (My upload is capped due the option of Infinity I am on).
But I cannot promise you'll get as good a result....
But lets face it your checker estimate is much higher than mine so I would hope so.
And in THIS announcement a couple of paragraphs down, there is mention of increasing FTTC speeds, but we don't know if that will be chargable or not.
Your distance from the exchange will now be irrelevant as the exchange to your local cabinet are connected by "speed of light" fibre cable.
So think of it as if your exchange has now been moved to your local green Fibre Cabinet. (Typical fibre cabinet picture HERE.)
The governing factor now is the distance your copper (hopefully and not aluminium) cable has to travel from your cabinet to your house.
This document updated monthly by Openreach giving information when exchanges are ready or coming soon/future.
But if the checker is supplying not mentioning "planned" but "currently supports" then you could order.
Scroll a bit down on this BT INFINITY site, enter your landline number and if it comes up with Infinity NOW then your good to go.
Current speed check over wireless "n".-
Please Click On any Text in Blue as that automatically links to information.
PC (NDEGR)

Simple interface vs. inline speed comparison with unexpected results

I posted this question also to the Hotspot internals section which was, may be, the wrong place.
Recently, I wrote a simple superficial test to inform myself about the potential penalty for calling methods through interfaces, generic interfaces, final classes vs. inlined code. The example consists of two interfaces
public interface A{
    public long doA( long a );
public interface B{
    public long doB( long b );
}an interface that extends both
public interface AB extends A, B {}and two final classes, one implementing AB and the other implementing A and B
final public class ABClass implements AB {
    final long c;
    public ABClass( final long c ) { this.c = c; }
    @Override
    final public long doA( final long a ) {
        return a * a + c;
    @Override
    final public long doB( final long b ) {
        return b * b + c;
final public class APlusBClass implements A, B {
    final long c;
    public APlusBClass( final long c ) { this.c = c; }
    @Override
    final public long doA( final long a ) {
        return a * a + c;
    @Override
    final public long doB( final long b ) {
        return b * b + c;
}I perform five tests, each looping over long i from 0 to 1000000000, summing up the return values of both methods called with i. The test is performed calling methods using the parameters AB, a generic Type implementing A & B, and the final classes directly in all possible combinations
final static private long finalAB( final ABClass ab, final long x ) {
    return ab.doA( x ) + ab.doB( x );
final static private long finalAPlusB( final APlusBClass ab, final long x ) {
    return ab.doA( x ) + ab.doB( x );
final static private long nonGeneric( final AB ab, final long x ) {
    return ab.doA( x ) + ab.doB( x );
final static private < T extends A & B >long generic( final T ab, final long x ) {
    return ab.doA( x ) + ab.doB( x );
}Furthermore, as a last test, the calls to doA( x ) + doB( x ) are explicitly inlined
x * x + c + x * x + c;All six tests are performed 10 times.
The test is here, including the sources:
[http://www.speedyshare.com/files/22401605/download/test.jar|http://www.speedyshare.com/files/22401605/download/test.jar]
java -jar test.jar
When running the test, I get two surprising results:
1. The first run is the fastest for all tests but the explicitly inlined test. All tests are approx. equally fast but the inlined version is slowest(?).
2. From the second run, all tests are about 1.5x slower, except the explicitly inlined which has constant speed in all runs and is now the fastest.
I would be very happy if somebody could highlight to me the rationale behind these effects.
Thank you very much in advance.

axtimwalde wrote:
Again, you're wrongly interpreting, I assume it would help to look at and understand the test?! It demonstrates nicely, that, in Java 6, there is no additional cost for calling methods through interface hierarchies vs. final classes which is very nice. With Java 5, this is not the case, which is also clearly demonstrated by this test. So?
Referring to nanoseconds makes no sense at all, what matters is the factor that separates two different execution speeds. There are applications, where it matters a lot if it is an order of magnitude slower or not, that may be the argument that separates great from trash. Name one application where your results would make the major functionality of the application an order of magnitude faster.
Consider also, that there are platforms that still lack support for Java > 5.I write high performance servers for a living. And I have been doing it for years. I have done it in C#, Java and C++. I have profiled applications in all of those languages in multiple problem domains.
And there was never a single case where call semantics impacted the speed of the application in anyway that was even measurable.

4G Speed Comparison

So, I have heard from many people that Verizon's 4G service is the fastest but have heard that AT&T currently has more coverage, etc. Anyway, I started looking into it and came across this study:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/221931/4g_wireless_speed_tests_which_is_really_the_fastest.html
What it seems to suggest is that 4G speeds ARE the fastest with Verizon. But only on laptops.
When you look at smartphones, it shows that Verizon is actually the slowest.
13 city average - http://zapp5.staticworld.net/images/article/2011/03/4g_speed_test_chart2x-5152351.jpg
By city - http://zapp5.staticworld.net/images/article/2011/03/4g_speed_test_chart4x-5152356_new-5156097.jpg
I have heard a number of people admit that other networks are generally cheaper but at least Verizon's is the fastest. I think it's safe to say that, when it comes to 4G, we are paying the most for the least. I just thought it was worth noting (since I myself have said the same thing without actually having done any research on the subject in the past).
So now you know. We're getting screwed.

AT&T and Verizon has LTE which AT&T are in limited markets and not saturated at the level Verizon is at.
Highest speed I have seen for both LTE networks are around 50mbps(I average 26-35mbps with peaks around 45mbps on Verizon). No AT&T LTE in Hawaii.
Sprint 4G Wimax I have seen nothing higher than 15mbps locally in Hawaii.
T-Mobile HSPA+ I seen nothing higher than 10mbps in Hawaii.
For most things 10mbps is great, but they don't have the coverage where I need to go, Sprint can suck it, AT&T doesn't give me unlimited data, but has some coverage in places I need go(data never works there for them).
IF T-Mobile had the coverage I would be on their carrier for the price, but they don't, and I want the coverage. At some point I will drop my lines when I feel the coverage and price are too high for the luxury. I will no longer use a cell phone.

Browser Speed Comparison

I'm about to purchase an Ipod Touch, likely the 8 gig model, gen. 3. I don't have tons of music nor do much video watching; the main use will be browsing/reading etc. I read that the 8 gig doesn't have the upgraded processor that the 32 and 64 gig models received, but how noticeable in use would this be? If it's just a few milliseconds, who cares, but actual 'poor' performance would encourage me to get the 32 gig. I've googled this topic thinking it would be of some interest to users, but no 'hits' on the topic. Thanks

Thanks very much for your quick response. That makes sense, of course. Even at home here with usually good wifi, results vary. One more question regarding the Touch; it appears there are legal, successful, 'apps' available where one can then have the abiity to 'text' someone's cell phone. Even if it's just a 'alert' type text to tell someone to check their AIM for a needed conversation. Do you have an opinion about this? Again, thanks.

FireWire drive speed comparison ...

Hello,
What is the increase in performance of a FW400 drive with a 911 OXFORD chipset over a brand new regular FW400 drive ??? and over the insertion of a new IDE drive in an empty FireWire MAXTOR enclosure that I have ??
Where can I have more information on this subject ?? Thanks in advance.
Robert Lespérance

No replies ...

New Imac chip speed comparison

I am considering to buy the new Imac 2.0 GHz model but my current Imac is 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo... My question is does this make a big difference? I know the new mac has a faster system bus that makes it work more efficiently but does this make the new mac work faster than the 2.16 GHz chip?

I have the same problem. I have external hard drive which works on other computer. I managed to mount the drive via USB and it works fine, but not via FireWire. I hope it can be fixed without taking the computer to the store, I have installed so much stuff by now...... I guess that is what people deal with when they buy very new model.

Speed Comparison: iMac G5, Macbook C2D, and Macbook CD

I was wondering what is fastest. First second and third. First being the fastest-third being the slowest.
- iMac G5 with 1.8 Ghz PPC processor and 1.25 GBs RAM
- Macbook C2D with 1 Gigabytes RAM
- Macbook CD with 2 Gigabytes of RAM
Thanks for any input!

I was wondering what is fastest. First second and
third. First being the fastest-third being the
slowest.
- iMac G5 with 1.8 Ghz PPC processor and 1.25 GBs
RAM
- Macbook C2D with 1 Gigabytes RAM
- Macbook CD with 2 Gigabytes of RAM
Thanks for any input!
1. MacBook CD w. 2 GB of RAM
2. MacBook C2D w. 1 GB of RAM
3. iMac G5
The only way the iMac will be a better mechine is if you plan on using a lot of PPC apps, that will require Rosetta to open them. If I had to put money on it, Microsoft Word would open faster on the iMac then the MacBook C2D, but the CD would prob. be around the same amount of time as the iMac because of the 2gb's of ram.
I am using a MacBook CD with 2gb of RAM and it is the fastest computer I have ever used. Besides for the Mac Pro with 12 GB of RAM that I demoed at the store. That is a rediculious amount of money.
So the MacBook CD with 2gb of memory is definitly overall the fastest of those three computers.

NSU vs OTA: N96 Speed Comparison

After updating the system, would you say the N96's overall performance is faster if "updated via PC" or "if updated via OTA"?
I found this at Nokia's Web Site: They are recommending OTA when updating N96 as well as 5800xm.
http://europe.nokia.com/get-support-and-software/download-software/device-software-update/update-n96...
Solved!
Go to Solution.

psychomania wrote:
It is irrelevant which method you use as the performance of the phone afterwards will be exactly the same. This is because of the user data preservation (UDP) feature that both models have.
In the past when an NSU update wiped the phones contents you would always see a boost in performance because of the "fresh start". If you want a fresh start on a UDP enabled device you can wipe it using *#7370#. This works whatever method you used for the update.
When an update is widely available OTA the nokia website often recommends that method first as it's the simplest, most reliable and available to more users.
Message Edited by psychomania on 12-May-2009 02:36 PM
OK psychomania I trust you on this!

Speed comparison

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for