Speed Difference ~ 17" and 20" iMac

I have two new Core 2 Duo iMac's running OS x v10.4.8. 17" is 2GHz with 2GB RAM and 20" is 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM. I have installed Windows XP Pro using Boot Camp Beta v1.1.1 with an equal partition of the 250GB HD of both computers. No applications have been installed other than those that come with the two operating systems. Both computers passed the complete diagonstics of TechTool Pro v4.5.1 before the Windows install. The 20" machine seems much slower than the 17' even allowing for the 8% difference in processor speed. I timed Cold Start and Restart and found that the 20" was about 50% slower. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Does anyone know what might be causing this issue?
cwsheets
Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Ian, thank you for a reply. I will respond to your questions.
1. I did not because I had no sense that the two machines were different. It was too late after I realized that there was a significant difference in speed. I still have no applications installed and am considering a clean install of OS X v10.4.8 on the 20". I may also reinstall everything on the 17" as well.
2. Meaningless, maybe? Cold Start: 17" = 0.34 min. and 20" = 0.55 min. Restart: 17" = 0.42 min. and 20" = 0.62 min. My timing device was a stopwatch and two runs were averaged.
If I do not obtain any insight into my issue I will do a clean reinstall on both machines and install applications. Then I will retest incrimentially and post the results.
cwsheets

Similar Messages

New iMacs speed difference with ProTools

Hi, I am wondering if anyone has purchased a new iMac with 2.66 speed or greater and notices much of a difference in performance with audio mixing programs such as Protools or Logic. I am considering upgrading from my 24" 2.16 imac to a new one for the ram, speed and graphics. Any help would be appreciated.

HI,
Try posting in the Logic Pro forum. http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1201
You could try searching that forum also.
Carolyn

Any speed difference between Apple Wifi Router(air express) and Tp link(or others) wifi router)

Any speed difference between Apple Wifi Router(air express) and Tp link(or others) wifi router?
I'm using a tp link router and sometimes it takes a long time delay for my 2 mac computers to connect each other. I don't know this is because of the router compability or the computers.

Anyone knows?

Wireless speed difference with WEP and WPA2?

I am connecting to my FiOS router wirelessly, since I was new on wireless networking, I did lots of reading they all say WEP encryption is flawed, and WPA2 should be used instead. So I changed the router's default WEP to WPA2 the same day I got FiOS installed. When I check about 10 of my neighbor's wireless networks, 8 of them using WEP, 1 has Security Disabled(D'oh), and I am the only one using WPA2-personal. My question is will I see any connection speed difference between using WEP and WPA2?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

in every day use, your experience will vary. There is more "going on" with WPA and WPA2 than with WEP, such as message checking and encryption key changes for each data transmission, so these, combined with other possibilities inherent in computer-connected-to-internet use, can slow you down. Another factor: There will be more administrative overhead to use WPA or WPA2. such as if you ever have to reset the router (to default settings), the default is WEP, so you have to go into the router to then chage it (or import a config file you previously saved on your PC). AND If you need to call verizon tier one tech support, they only support default settings. Their premium service is called Expert Care.
cjacobs001

Speed difference between i7 quad 3rd gen 2.6ghz and i7 quad 4th gen 3.1ghz?

How much speed difference in Logic X will I notice between an i7 quad 3rd gen 2.6ghz and i7 quad 4th gen 3.1ghz?
both loaded with 16gb 1600 ram... 256gb ssd

Kappy wrote:
All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.
Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.
But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.
Your comments on graphics pretty much confirm the majority of what I've been reading on other sites.
The conflict is with cores. About half the people are saying for low CPU intensive tasks 4 cores are totally unnecessary, while the other half says they'll make things faster no what the task (one thing all seem to have in common is they're totally against the 2014s).
So it seems I'm left with the decision between faster performance vs better graphics.
I appreciate your input.

Speed difference between hotspot and cellular

Looking at an iPad mini, I have a hot spot on my phone, so I'm wondering how much of a speed difference there might be using a Mini with an iPhone 5 hotspot with AT&T and AT&T cellular on the Mini.

Download an app such as Speedtest to your iPad. Test both ways and see the results for yourself.

HT3696 How to know if your mac is using the latest Haswell architecture processor or not? and how to know the difference between the new imac and the 2012/13 imac?

How to know if your mac is using the latest Haswell architecture processor or not? and how to know the difference between the new imac and the 2012/13 imac?

Sorry to reopen an old post, but I've just purchased a 2nd hand late-2013 iMac (or so thats what the seller said).
I'm always sceptical though, and just wanted to know if there is a way to check if my iMac is indeed the late-2013 model that included Haswell?
I've attached screenshots of the About This Mac section hoping it may help shed some light.
Thank you in advance for your help!
PS - I can't compare to the iMac specs link you posted above because its now showing the late-2014 models.
<Image Edited by Host to Remove Serial Number>

If unboxed how could you tell the difference between refurbished imac and new imac?

If unboxed how could you tell the difference between refurbished imac and new imac?

Besides all of that, you can purchase Apple Care which will extend your warranty to 3 years just like you can on a brand new iMac.
If you're considering a "refurbished" iMac, buy it ONLY from Apple. I believe it's your best bet.

Is there much speed difference between the iMacs?

Just wondering, if there is any noticeable performance difference between the 1.83 - the 2.0 and the 2.16?
I'd be surprised to learn that there was (and also, keenly interested to learn).
My experience is that a dual processor is noticeably more capable than a single processor (regardless of minor increments at the end of the processor number).
Anyone?

You are right that it is more about futher differentiating the models than anything else. The speed difference is negligible, but a nice plus is you choose a larger display. Typically you also get a larger standard HD and maybe a better video card and if you add all those things up, the price difference is worth it.

Difference in speed between i5 and Core 2 Duo (same GHz)?

My two-year old MacBook Pro has a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo processor and 4GB RAM.
The cheapest MacBook Pro introduced today has a 2.4GHz i5 processor with 4GB RAM.
Anyone have any idea what the speed difference might be between these two? Approximately?
And does software have to be re-written to take advantage of the i5? In other words: What do I stand to gain if upgrading today?

Read this page and it should answer your questions.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html
Check out the new remodeled MacOSG website! 24-hour Apple-related news & support.
 MacOSG: An Apple User Group  iTunes: MacOSG Podcast  Follow us on Twitter: MacOSG

What can I delete from what folders to A) get more space and B) speed up machine. 2009 Imac Intel based Leopard

What can I delete from what folders to A) get more space and B) speed up machine. 2009 Imac Intel based Leopard

If you start deleting things in hidden system folders, or in an /Library folder you may very well mess up something.
That is why I say limit what you delete to your User folder only and only those files you've put or created there. Start messing with anything system or application related without know exactly what you are doing and you risk fubar'ing something.
There are in fact many places in the system areas that will appear to be redundant, but they are not so just because they have similar path or file names.
Also, how much free space do you have with just a freshly rebooted system? If your system does not have much RAM (given the apps your normally run on it), it may be creating quite a bit of swap space. That will be flushed out with a reboot, but if your system is RAM limited, then it will just grow back. In such a case, more RAM would help.
Use Activity Monitor to look at your RAM and swap use over a few days of normal use - look particularly at the page outs, as that will tell you how much virtual memory is actually being used on the drive. If page outs are high (thousands to 10's of thousands or more) your system is RAM limited, and your drive will be filling up with swap files.

AppleScript speed difference between 10.4 & 10.5

This post is related to a question I posed in March 2009 (https://discussions.apple.com/message/9226100) regarding the speed difference between AppleScript text handling in OS X 10.5 compared with 10.4.11.
I have recently written a script to search through a text file which is an xml file exported from WorkGroup Manager. The file, which is approximately 1.8 MB, contains all the user names on the school server (just over 1720 of them), their settings and any other information we have added. After adapting some script ideas (using text delimiters and offsets) which I found on the internet to assist with counting the number of users and searching through the information of each one, one at a time, I have a script which works far in excess of my expectations in terms of speed when run under OS X 10.4, but runs slower than molasses in winter under 10.5.
The script counts the number of accounts, extracts each user's log-in name and also their actual name (which we have entered under a 'general info' or 'comments' field - I can't remember exactly where, but it is stored in the file), makes up a complete list of all account names (with the actual name, if present) and also makes up a subset of this information into a separate list which contains only the log-in names of those whose actual name has not yet been recorded on the server, then saves both lists to separate text files.
My original attempts, using some rather clumsy text searching and comparison techniques, took about 1-2 minutes to go through the whole procedure. After some internet searching, head-scratching and a bit more more work, the finished script, when run on my G5 under OS X 10.4.11, takes less than 3 seconds to do all I have described above, including the writing to text files. To say I was pleased would be an understatement!
Because the school/work environment, where the script would be run, is all OS X 10.5 or higher, I thought I should test it out under at least OS X 10.5. The script was developed on my DP 2.5GHz G5 with 8GB RAM running OS X 10.4.11. Using a fresh, clean installation of 10.5 I ran the script and was extremely disappointed. After letting it run for more than 20 minutes and still not finishing, I force quit AppleScript and reduced the number of accounts in the file. 40 accounts took 3 seconds, 60 accounts took 6 seconds, 80 took 11 seconds, 100 took 19 seconds and 120 took 27 seconds. I eventually let the script run right through - total time taken to process 1720 users was 65 minutes, compared to 3 seconds under 10.4.11!
Given that it was tested on the same Mac, with the same amount of RAM, using the same script and the same original text file, the only variable left (that I can think of) is the change of OS version - 10.4.11 vs 10.5.
As was pointed out to me in my previous post, AppleScript in OS X 10.5 handles all text as Unicode and has a greater overhead in processing time as a result. I have implemented the various bits of advice offered by respondents to my original post and changed the way I handled lists, etc. Obviously, if the script works so speedily under 10.4.11, I must have done something right in terms of code optimization/efficiency. It's when that exact same script is run under OS X 10.5 that it slows down incredibly. I even tried it on a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac running 10.5.8 - it still took 40 minutes and Activity Monitor showed CPU usage by Script Editor constantly above 80% (often well above 90%). Saving the script as an application made no difference in the time taken.
Does anybody have any knowledge about what makes AppleScript Unicode-only text handling so slow? In this case, it is 1300 times slower! Is there any way of coercing/restricting the text handling/parsing to ASCII? If I really have to, I will set up a humble eMac at school with 10.4 on it just to handle large text files quickly with AppleScript, but I would prefer to be able to do it on the normal work Macs which have 10.5 or later on them. As mentioned, under 10.4.11 the script processes the 1.8MB text file with 1720 users and writes results to two files - all within 3 seconds, so I'm not really looking for coding suggestions unless they are directly related to what has changed in AppleScript under OS X 10.5. Without sounding too smug, the script works properly and speedily (at least in 10.4). I really would like to learn about the changes in AppleScript in OS X 10.5 and how to cope with or work around those changes.

Hi,
text 3 thru 14 in largeText
character 3 thru 14 in largeText
text 3 in largeText
character 3 in largeText
These lines will be slow on Leopard
Getting some text in a variable that contains more than 60000 characters will be slower on Leopard,
but I don't know why it's slower
Here a test script.
script o
    property t_text : ""
end script
set a to "abcdefghij"
set tResult to ""
repeat with i from 1 to 3
    set o's t_text to a
    repeat (item i of {17, 15, 14}) times
        set o's t_text to o's t_text & o's t_text -- add characters in the variable
    end repeat
    set StartTime to current date
    -- test
    repeat 20 times
        set b to text 3 thru 14 in o's t_text -- get a text in the variable
    end repeat
    -- end test
    set EndTime to current date
    set TimeTaken to EndTime - StartTime
    set tResult to tResult & " Getting text in the variable which contains " & length of o's t_text & ", (20 times) = " & TimeTaken & " seconds." & return
end repeat
tResult
Here the result on my old G5, 2 x 1.8 GHZ
Getting text in the variable which contains 1310720 characters, (20 times) = 50 seconds.
Getting text in the variable which contains   327680 characters, (20 times) = 12 seconds.
Getting text in the variable which contains   163840 characters, (20 times) =   6 seconds.
The result on the same machine on Tiger is always less of one second.
Also, I try with 20 millions characters on Tiger, the result : getting text in the variable which contains 20971520 characters, (20 times) = 0 seconds.
The solution ( text item in a list)
Here the script
script o
    property my_List : {}
end script
set OldDelims to text item delimiters
set RecordDelimiter to "::::::::::::::"
set LengthOfRecordDelimiter to length of RecordDelimiter
set o's my_List to findAll(read (choose file), RecordDelimiter)
on findAll(str, findString)
    set Oldtid to text item delimiters
    try
        set text item delimiters to findString
        if str does not contain findString then return {"Nothing found"}
        set t to str's text items
        set text item delimiters to Oldtid
        return t
    on error eMsg number eNum
        set text item delimiters to Oldtid
        error "Can't findAll: " & eMsg number eNum
    end try
end findAll
set NumberOfrecords to (count o's my_List)
display dialog "There are " & NumberOfrecords & " accounts."
set StartTime to current date
set text item delimiters to ":"
set FullUserList to {}
set ListOfUnnamedUsers to {}
-- first user needs to be done separately as it is not preceded by RecordDelimiter
set EndOfHeader to "Standard:URL"
set LengthOfEndOfHeader to length of EndOfHeader
set EndOfHeaderOffset to the offset of EndOfHeader in (item 1 of o's my_List)
set OffsetToApply to EndOfHeaderOffset
set TextBeingChecked to text (OffsetToApply + LengthOfEndOfHeader + 1) thru -1 of (item 1 of o's my_List)
tell TextBeingChecked to set {UserName, NameForInfo} to {text item 1, text item 7}
if NameForInfo = "" then set end of ListOfUnnamedUsers to UserName & return
set end of FullUserList to (UserName & tab & NameForInfo & return)
-- now do all the others
repeat with CounterG from 2 to (NumberOfrecords - 1)
    set TextBeingChecked to item CounterG of o's my_List
    tell TextBeingChecked to set {UserName, NameForInfo} to {text item 1, text item 7}
    if NameForInfo = "" then set end of ListOfUnnamedUsers to UserName & return
    set end of FullUserList to (UserName & tab & NameForInfo & return)
end repeat
set o's my_List to {}
set text item delimiters to OldDelims
-- write results to file
-- 1). full user list
set TargetFile1 to (path to desktop folder as string) & "FullUserList1.txt"
try
    open for access file TargetFile1 with write permission
on error
    close access file TargetFile1
    open for access file TargetFile1 with write permission
end try
set EndTime to current date
beep
set InfoToBeWrittenToFile to FullUserList as text
write InfoToBeWrittenToFile to file TargetFile1
close access file TargetFile1
-- 2). list of users without NameForInfo
set TargetFile2 to (path to desktop folder as string) & "UnnamedUsersList1.txt"
try
    open for access file TargetFile2 with write permission
on error
    close access file TargetFile2
    open for access file TargetFile2 with write permission
end try
set InfoToBeWrittenToFile to ListOfUnnamedUsers as text
write InfoToBeWrittenToFile to file TargetFile2
close access file TargetFile2
beep 3
set TimeTaken to EndTime - StartTime
set TimePerAccount to TimeTaken / NumberOfrecords
display dialog (NumberOfrecords & " accounts took " & TimeTaken & " seconds." & return & return & "That equals " & TimePerAccount & " seconds per account.") as string

Between the Imac 2.7 I5 and the Imac 3.4 I7...

I'm in between the Imac 2.7 I5 and the Imac 3.4 I7. I know there's a $500 difference so I'm trying to see if I really need that much power. I do mostly audio stuff with Digital Performer and Native Instruments Komplete which streams instruments. I'm also going to boost the RAM to 16GB. I'm mainly worried about glitching. I want to make sure that when I run photoshop and Final Cut Express that I won't have a problem with the 2.7 i5. Will it be fast enough? $500 is a lot of money for power that I may or may not use and would rather spend it on software upgrades if I truely don't need the fastest Imac. What is your opinion?

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
vs
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Higher clock speed
2.9 GHz
vs
2.5 GHz
More than 15% higher clock speed
More l3 cache
4 MB
vs
3 MB
Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports trusted computing
Yes
vs
No
Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Better 3DMark11 physics score
5,140
vs
3,130
Around 65% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better turbo clock speed
1,250 MHz
vs
1,100 MHz
Around 15% better turbo clock speed
More l3 cache per core
2 MB/core
vs
1.5 MB/core
Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark (Single core) score
1,790
vs
1,524
More than 15% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better 3DMark06 CPU score
4,134
vs
3,553
More than 15% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Better PassMark score
4,543
vs
3,823
Around 20% better PassMark score
Slightly better geekbench (32-bit) score
5,849
vs
4,947
Around 20% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better clock speed
3.25 GHz
vs
2.88 GHz
Around 15% better clock speed
Slightly better PassMark score
1,823.4
vs
1,623.4
More than 10% better PassMark score

Bonjour vs. DNS mapping to afp server -- huge speed differences

This is my original topic:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1340637
Initially, I thought the issue was Leopard's Finder sidebar was mapping via smb -- hence the very poor speeds. After several replies with RCR, I'm seeing that both machines were copying via afp, the only difference is the Leopard sidebar mapped the machine via Bounjour vs. DNS.
Here's my setup:
- Leopard iMac (August 2007), 4GB ram, gig-e connection
- Tiger Server Mini (August 2007), 2GB ram, gig-e connection
Using Leopard, mounting the sidebar via Finder will copy a file (located via Bounjour, over afp, confirmed with via Sharepoint and "mount" on cli) roughly 32MB/sec. Disconnect the Bounjour mapping and reconnect to the same machine (command-k) via DNS (full.three.partnaming) and the same transfer will be nearly 78MB/sec.
Has anyone else seen this speed difference? Can anyone else test this speed difference on Leopard?

As requested:
Last login: Thu Jan 24 16:16:51 on console
imac:~ vash$ dns-sd -G v4v6 imini.local
Timestamp A/R Flags if Hostname Address TTL
16:18:39.609 Add 3 4 imini.local. 192.168.1.40 120
16:18:39.609 Add 2 4 imini.local. FE80:0000:0000:0000:0216:CBFF:FEAB:6B84 120
Here is similar for the other full part naming:
imac:~ vash$ dns-sd -G v4v6 imini.fenjikufenji.com
Timestamp A/R Flags if Hostname Address TTL
16:19:56.768 Add 2 0 imini.fenjikufenji.com. 192.168.1.40 108002
16:19:56.777 Add 2 0 imini.fenjikufenji.com. 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 0 No Such Record

I want to hide my time capsule so a burglar cannot find it (we were broken into last week and our imac taken).

So, I would like to keep it separate from my BT wireless router. Is this stupid? Will my wireless connection be weaker as a result?
I would like my BT router to sit in the downstairs study with my macbook and replacement imac connecting wirelessly to it. Then I would like my time capsule to be hidden away elsewhere out of sight in the event of another break in. It seems silly connecting it to the router so that a thief could easily swipe it if they try to come in again - and then my backups are gone. But on the other hand, don't apple recommend that the time capsule is your main wireless hub rather than simply annexing it to your existing network?
Will the backups be much slower if the time capsule is stored elsewhere?
Will I be unable to connect my printer to the wireless network?
Thanks, all advice appreciated

Interesting post.. first of its kind I have read.
pamihar wrote:
So, I would like to keep it separate from my BT wireless router. Is this stupid? Will my wireless connection be weaker as a result?
Not stupid in the circumstances.. i hope you had contents insurance and got it replaced and had backups of your files.
You cannot wireless link the TC to the BT router.. you can ethernet connect them.. or use ethernet replacement like EOP adapters.
Then I would like my time capsule to be hidden away elsewhere out of sight in the event of another break in. It seems silly connecting it to the router so that a thief could easily swipe it if they try to come in again - and then my backups are gone. But on the other hand, don't apple recommend that the time capsule is your main wireless hub rather than simply annexing it to your existing network?
Will the backups be much slower if the time capsule is stored elsewhere?
Will I be unable to connect my printer to the wireless network?
Thanks, all advice appreciated
You can use it in bridge as a wireless access point plus hard disk. That will not affect the network.
Backup speed will depend on the wireless connection to your BT router.. that will be the issue. Unless you do some tricky stuff and use a secondary wireless client in the computer.. a usb stick could be plenty for the internet access but stick with TC for local lan.. but this might be getting too complicated.
Is the printer a wireless network printer or needs to be usb connected?
If the printer is wireless type then no issues.. but even that can be worked around.
The TC doesn't have wall mount holes, unlike the old discus version.. which was very neat.. On the other hand you can remove the rubber mat easily with a hot air gun and easily remove the bottom aluminium cover so to add wall or ceiling mount holes.. ceiling mount is excellent as a thief will probably never look there. or find it too hard to reach and if you screw it down well.. which you have to as it weighs a bit, then the rf radiation pattern is near ideal. Stupid apple for removing design features from one model (eg POE as well) in the old model for aesthetics only design.

Speed Difference ~ 17" and 20" iMac

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for