Real world performance?
I would like to know what the difference in real world performance is with Jaguar. We all know that the GUI is faster, but what about other tasks?
For instance take the same DV movie say a 5 minute clip and render it to quicktime in 10.1.3 and then in Jaguar what would be their relative rendering times?
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
For instance take the same DV movie say a 5 minute clip and render it to quicktime in 10.1.3 and then in Jaguar what would be their relative rendering times?
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
Comments
<strong>I'd like to know if anybody used Virtual PC in 10.2 and what kind of estimated performance gains they saw.</strong><hr></blockquote>Zero performance gains.
Remember, apps typically won't take advantage of new technologies (sch as the speedier gcc 3.1) until they have been recompiled and updated for 10.2.
<strong>Zero performance gains.
Remember, apps typically won't take advantage of new technologies (sch as the speedier gcc 3.1) until they have been recompiled and updated for 10.2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting. I would have thought that VPC would have naturally run faster on 10.2 since the grapics cpu was doing more work which would free up the microprocessor.
Thx kcmac & starfleetX...
<strong>Zero performance gains.
Remember, apps typically won't take advantage of new technologies (sch as the speedier gcc 3.1) until they have been recompiled and updated for 10.2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's terrible. I 10.1 was a real boost over 10.0.3, but on this occasion you don't think we will see any gains other than the GUI :eek:
I would have thought that 10.2 was another optomisation of the code that would immediatly benifit all of us.
<strong>That's terrible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you misunderstand. I was specifically answering sc_markt's question regarding Virtual PC.
Of course there are some "overall" speed improvements, most notably with gcc as I mentioned before, but it's difficult to find specific examples when you discount the GUI itself and its performance increase.
<strong>Zero performance gains.
Remember, apps typically won't take advantage of new technologies (sch as the speedier gcc 3.1) until they have been recompiled and updated for 10.2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don´t agree!
Run SETI@home and watch. When you set the screen to blank it runs appr. 10-15% faster. Obviously the 2D-graphics use quite some processor perfomance. If Quartz Extreme really transfers all 2D-calculation to the graphiccard, then Jaguar should be faster (at least with programs like SETI@home).
<strong>I don´t agree!</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I swear... people here are getting dumber every day. Go back and re-read this thread.