Tag Archives: benchmarks

MacTech finds Parallels beating VMWare Fusion again in annual virtualization rundown

MacTech has posted its annual rundown of benchmarks between two of the most popular virtualization solutions out there on the Mac: VMware Fusion 5 and Parallels Desktop 8. Both are of course used to run Windows-compatible software inside of an OS X environment, and especially on the high end IT side (which MacTech covers well and focuses on with its ongoing conference series), just a few measures of speed or performance can make a big difference in productivity. Or, as the benchmarking study shows, game playing.

As you can see in the comprehensive report, MacTech set up a series of Mac desktops and laptops, and then installed and ran both VMWare Fusion and Parallels on them, along with a series of games (including the great Warhammer 40000: Space Marine) and other productivity and benchmarking software.

So who won? "When we look at the 'big picture' of all the top-level test results," says MacTech, "Parallels is, once again, the clear winner." Parallels has been beating VMWare in these tests for the past few years, and this year won over 68% of the tests by a total of 5% score or more. So if you need a powerful, comprehensive solution for virtualization, MacTech says the choice is clear. However, MacTech also says once again that both of these pieces of software work very well, and that virtualization is more viable than ever as a way to run even the newest Windows software like Windows 8. Bootcamp is still another option for running Windows on your Mac, but if you want to do it without even leaving your OS X environment, either Parallels or VMWare's Fusion will serve you well.

MacTech finds Parallels beating VMWare Fusion again in annual virtualization rundown originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Parallels 8 and VMware Fusion 5 go head-to-head in benchmark testing

Over the past two weeks, both VMware and Parallels released new versions of their flagship virtualization software for the Mac. First on the scene was VMware Fusion 5 (US$49.99 - $99.99), and last week Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac ($79.99) arrived. Both offer faster performance, compatibility with Mountain Lion and Windows 8, and new features for ease of use. Now MacObserver's Jim Tanous has done a side-by-side comparison of the two virtual machine apps, complete with detailed benchmarks of their performance in a variety of conditions.

Tanous' detailed analysis shows that at least for the current incarnations of these two virtualization applications, Parallels Desktop 8 has the edge in terms of performance. He did see some anomalous results when running benchmarks on Windows 8 under Parallels Desktop 8, and chalked up the "too good to be true" performance figures to the way that Windows 8 is virtualized in Parallels 8.

There are a plethora of charts to illustrate the results, and I suggest that you look at them over at MacObserver. Tanous brings up a final point that "Consumers may not be happy with the yearly paid update cycles, but the fierce competition between Parallels and Fusion has led the market to a mature and capable state and consumers of both products will likely be satisfied with their performance."

Parallels 8 and VMware Fusion 5 go head-to-head in benchmark testing originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Report: iOS beats Android at HTML5 rendering

AllThingsD reports that Spaceport.io, which makes a cross-platform gaming SDK, has tested the speed of HTML5 rendering on iOS and Android. The results show that iOS is faster by far.

Spaceport used its own benchmark, called the "PerfMark," which counts the number of moving images on a screen at 30 frames per second, a rate that provides a near-native user experience.

The group demonstrated that HTML5 games ran significantly faster on iOS 5 vs. the Android devices tested. Specifically, iPhone 4S scored 252 PerfMarks and the iPad 2 scored 327. In comparison, the newer Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone scored 147 and the Kindle Fire scored only 25. You'll find more details at VentureBeat.

As for tablets, the iPad 2 beat every Android device it was pitted against. "HTML5 is getting faster over time, as seen in the latest OS updates across Android and iOS," said Spaceport.io founder Ben Savage. "Although this is a welcome trend, there is still a long way to go."

Several companies are jumping on the HTML5 bandwagon, hoping to create a game that will run on many platforms. It will be interesting to see how the next-generation iPad, "iPad 3" if you will, would score on Spaceport's test.

Report: iOS beats Android at HTML5 rendering originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

MacTech benchmarks Parallels and VMware Fusion

The 2011 MacTech Conference starts up here in Los Angeles today, and TUAW will have reports and interviews live from the conference all week. Before things begin, however, MacTech has been busy benchmarking (as usual). Its latest benchmarking showdown features virtualization software options Parallels and VMWare Fusion. Both apps were tested under Windows 7 and, as with previous tests, Parallels stacked up quite well. Of the top tests, says MacTech, Parallels won 60% by a factor of 10% or more, and Parallels Desktop 7 beat VMWare Fusion in nearly 75% of the tests run.

VMWare was faster in a few different places, as you can see on the full worksheet on MacTech's site. The software ran quicker during some of the virtual machine functions, like starting up or shutting down the virtual Windows machine running inside OS X. But on nearly all other points, Parallels topped the speed charts, including the 3D tests and tests of most commonly used apps on the system.

The report concludes by saying that virtualization software is better than ever -- if you've ever needed to run Windows 7 (or even a virtual OS X installation) inside of your Mac operating system, Parallels will help you do it well. As usual, MacTech's report is extensive and conclusive. Stay tuned all week long for more from the conference.

MacTech benchmarks Parallels and VMware Fusion originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Geekbench scores benchmark iPhone 4S A5 at 800MHz


Here is some good news and bad news for prospective iPhone 4S owners. The bad news is that the iPhone 4S has a dual-core 1GHz CPU, but its clocked to 800 Mhz. The good news is that, even with slower clock speeds, the 4S still beats the pants off the iPhone 4 and other Android smartphones.

This information comes from AnandTech which compared the iPhone 4S and other handsets using online benchmarks. The results place the iPhone 4S at the top of the mobile phone market with benchmark scores well above the iPhone 4 and other smartphone competitors like the Samsung Galaxy S2. The only comparable device is the 8.9-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab which benchmarks very closely to the iPhone 4S.

Within the iOS family, the iPhone 4S CPU and GPU benchmarks are about 75% faster than the iPhone 4 and slightly slower than the iPad 2. These results are not surprising as the iPad 2 has the same A5 processor as the iPhone 4S, but it is clocked to the full 1GHz, not 800 MHz.

[AppleInsider]

Geekbench scores benchmark iPhone 4S A5 at 800MHz originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Macworld benchmarks: Mac mini BTO can match iMac performance

As the closest Apple comes to a "budget model" Mac, the Mac mini usually turns out to be substantially less powerful than the larger, more expensive iMac. However, Macworld discovered via recent benchmarks that a build-to-order current-generation Mac mini can meet or exceed many performance marks of a stock configuration iMac.

The tale of the tape:

2011 Mac mini

2.7 GHz Core i7 256 GB SSD 4 GB RAM US$1499 versus 2011 21.5-inch iMac 2.5 GHz Core i5 Standard HDD 4 GB RAM $1199

Unsurprisingly, the Mac mini trounced the iMac at disk-intensive I/O tasks thanks to its speedy SSD. I've seen for myself the huge performance gains that can come from putting an SSD into an otherwise lackluster machine, but it comes at a significant cost; Macworld paid an additional $600 for an Apple-sourced SSD on top of the Mac mini's original $799 price.

Processor-intensive tasks showed remarkable gains for the Mac mini, with several tasks completing at almost the same time as the iMac. However, the iMac's far better graphics hardware handily bested the Mac mini's performance.

By now you're probably wondering why anyone would bother tricking out a Mac mini at a cost $300 higher than the iMac when the Mac mini doesn't come with a display, keyboard, and so forth. Macworld addresses this by correctly pointing out that the iMac's glossy glass display isn't everyone's cup of tea. The BTO Mac mini they tested also turns in similar performance in a far smaller form factor, which could be an important consideration if your workspace is too cramped for an iMac or Mac Pro.

Macworld benchmarks: Mac mini BTO can match iMac performance originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Bare Feats finds iMacs compare to Mac Pros running Final Cut Pro X

Final Cut Pro X users might want consider an iMac instead of a Mac Pro, according to some recent benchmarks run by Bare Feats.

The graphics and speed testing site recently tested FCP X on three different Macs to see which current model was able to tame the power-hungry app the best. The contestants were a 2011 iMac 3.4 GHz Quad Core i7 with 16 GB of RAM and a Radeon HD 6970M GPU with 2 GB of VRAM, a 2011 MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Quad Core i7 with 8 GB of RAM and a Radeon HD 6750M with 1 GB of VRAM, and a 2010 Mac Pro 3.33 GHz 6-core Westmere with 24 GB of RAM and a Radeon HD 5870 GPU with 1 GB of VRAM.

The team ran four different tests using the same 32-second HQ video clip. The first test (above) was to apply the Directional Blur effect to the clip, and in this test the iMac beat both the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro by over 3 seconds. The next test applied the Sharpen Blur effect, and once again the iMac was victorious, beating the MacBook Pro by 4.3 second and thoroughly schooling the Mac Pro which came in a full 5.7 seconds behind.

Two more benchmarks measured exporting and streaming speeds. Here the Mac Pro squeaked ahead of the iMac, coming in .4 second faster on a H.264 export. When the project was loaded into Compressor 4 and exported as an H.264 stream, the Mac Pro was a full 2.6 seconds ahead of the iMac, really showing off the power of the 6-core processor.

The results show two things -- that the new iMacs are surprisingly capable machines for the price, and that Apple really needs to release a new Mac Pro. The latter is widely expected to happen sometime this summer.

One comment about these benchmarks, though -- Final Cut Pro X has full symmetric multicore support and renders in the background, so it no longer really matters how fast rendering is done. You can continue working while your multicore Mac is crunching away on rendering. For further details on the testing, be sure to visit the Bare Feats site.

Bare Feats finds iMacs compare to Mac Pros running Final Cut Pro X originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source

Macworld publishes first round of benchmark results for new iMac

Macworld posted the results of its first benchmark tests for the newly updated family of iMacs this morning. The publication's tests found Apple's latest iMacs to be generally faster than previous iMacs, although certain build-to-order (BTO) models from 2010 still outperformed the new family of iMacs in some tests.

The new top-of-the-line, quad-core 3.1 GHz i5 iMac bested the previous high-end model, a quad-core 2.8 GHz i5 iMac, in every test. Notably, the 3.1 GHz iMac performed 16% faster in the Speedmark 6.5 test and 22% faster in Macworld's iTunes encode test.

The results were mixed when comparing the new iMac to powerfully configured BTO models from last year. When pitted against a quad-core 2.93 GHz Core i7 BTO iMac from 2010, the new 3.1 GHz iMac performed about equivalently in the Speedmark test but fell short in applications like Cinebench and MathematicaMark. The older, i7-based iMac offered Hyper Threading, a technology that virtually doubled the number of processor cores seen by the operating system; apps that took advantage of this technology worked better on the older machine.

When compared to a dual-core 3.6 GHz i5 BTO iMac from 2010, the current 3.1 Ghz iMac edged out its older relative by 14% in overall performance and finished tasks in Mathematica, an app that makes use of multiple processing cores, up to 67% faster. In many cases, however, the faster clock speed of the older machine helped it complete certain tasks more quickly.

Overall, the new iMacs seem to offer generally better performance in a more affordable package. But, if you frequently use software optimized for fast clock speeds or Hyper Threading technology and don't need any of the new gadgetry in the newest machines, it may be worth tracking down a 2010 BTO iMac with a 3.6 GHz i5 or 2.93 GHz i7 inside.

Macworld publishes first round of benchmark results for new iMac originally appeared on TUAW on Wed, 04 May 2011 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

A5 beats Tegra 2 in benchmark tests, thanks to larger size

GLBenchmark pitted a few tablet processors against each other in a speed showdown, and Apple's custom-designed A5 chip in the iPad 2 handily beats NVIDIA's Tegra 2 processor, used in competing tablets like the Motorola Xoom. A few analysts are saying that it's the size that matters in this case -- Apple's chip is more than twice the size of the Tegra 2, and that allows Apple to pull off some better benchmarks, even though the two chips are relatively the same in terms of specifications. Usually, of course, a bigger chip would mess with the design of the overall hardware, but since Apple is doing everything itself, it can afford the extra space and the larger components.

Of course, NVIDIA is set to introduce a Tegra 3 chip later on this year, and that will undoubtedly introduce a new wrinkle to the tablet lineup. Apple no doubt also has its engineers working on faster chips, which means the speed of tablet computing likely still has a long way to progress.

[via 9to5Mac]

A5 beats Tegra 2 in benchmark tests, thanks to larger size originally appeared on TUAW on Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Android vs. iPhone in ‘flawed’ mobile browser performance test

Android loads pages in 2.1 seconds, iPhone in 3.2 seconds (median)

Post edited to clarify that the browser testing is not representative of Safari performance, and included Blaze response to CNET. -Ed.

Blaze Software, a Canadian software company, today released the results of what it calls a "definitive" research effort to discover "which [mobile] browser is really faster from a user's point of view." The study concluded that Android's browser is 52% faster than the iPhone's.

Before you trade in your iPhone for a device powered by Android, The Loop suggests Blaze's study is "flawed." According to its report, Blaze's testing methodology relied on "custom apps, which use the platform's embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone."

As we've been hearing from developers of iPhone web apps over the past few weeks, Apple's improvements to the Mobile Safari JavaScript engine and other rendering speedups have not been extended to the internal browser tool used by apps, nor to standalone web apps that are pinned as icons to the home screen. It's not yet completely clear if or when the Safari performance boost will make it to the embedded browser view; John Gruber cites some security-related concerns that may be involved.

The tests don't reflect performance of the official web browsers included with each platform. UIWebView did not include this performance boost; it may be "disingenuous" to conclude Android beat Safari, according to The Loop. Using an embedded browser is not the same as using the official browser where customers spend the most time interacting with websites.

"Obviously someone is looking to make a mountain out of a molehill," Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg told The Loop. "It's not an apples to apples test." Apple's Natalie Kerris was equally dismissive, speaking to CNET: "Their testing is flawed. They didn't actually test the Safari browser on the iPhone. Instead they only tested their own proprietary app, which uses an embedded Web viewer that doesn't actually take advantage of Safari's Web performance optimizations." Kerris also noted that even without the true Safari match-up, the testing only showed about a second of difference browsing pages.

Blaze's CTO Guy Podjarny admitted to CNET that the testing methodology made an invalid assumption that the embedded browsers would work as fast as Safari: "This test leveraged the embedded browser which is the only available option for iPhone applications. Blaze was under the assumption that Apple would apply the same updates to their embedded browser as they would their regular browser. If this is not the case and according to Apple's response, it's certainly possible the embedded browser might produce different results. If Apple decides to apply their optimizations across their embedded browser as well, then we would be more than willing to create a new report with the new performance results."

Even so, the results of Blaze's research should still disappoint Apple's fans. Apple touted significant web technology performance gains in its latest iOS release. It seems reasonable to expect these gains to appear simultaneously in both the Safari browser and the underlying UIWebView framework used in nearly any app that relies on web technologies like JavaScript.

Blaze's researchers built custom apps to compare the iPhone 4 and Google Nexus S using websites from Fortune 1000 companies. Each site included in the test was loaded multiple times over several days using a Wi-Fi connection. The final results reflect a median benchmark from over 45,000 page loads.

"Android 2.3 was 52% faster than iPhone 4.3, with a median load time of 2.144 seconds vs. iPhone's median load time of 3.254 seconds," Blaze reports on its blog, adding, "Android was faster than iPhone in 84% of the tested websites, and iPhone beat Android in 16% of the races. Android...provided a faster browsing experience 4 times out of 5."

Android vs. iPhone in 'flawed' mobile browser performance test originally appeared on TUAW on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

iPad 2 benchmarks show impressive gains over original model

One of the first things many iPad 2 upgraders noticed was that the new device seemed very fast in comparison to the original iPad. Over at GigaOM, blogger Geoffrey Goetz ran benchmarks on an iPhone 4, an iPad and an iPad 2 (all running iOS 4.3) to show how speedy the new iPad really is.

As you can see in the chart above, the iPad 2 consistently outperformed the Apple A4-powered iPad and iPhone 4 in every test. Using the Geekbench tests from Primate Labs, the iPad 2 was about 64 percent faster than its predecessor in overall results. Likewise, the Gague benchmarks showed an overall performance gain of about 56 percent, while BenchTest clocked in with a 63 percent improvement.

Goetz noted that he personally believed that his iPhone 4 was faster than his original iPad, a belief that the benchmarks proved to be incorrect. He also compared iOS 4.3 benchmarks submitted by a large sampling of Geekbench users, all of which supported his assertion that the iPad 2 performance gains are "stunning."

The Geekbench numbers show the iPad 2 to be roughly as powerful as a G4-based 15" PowerBook or Mac mini, but as Goetz summarizes in his post, "I really don't think that raw performance alone is where the focus needs to be anymore."

iPad 2 benchmarks show impressive gains over original model originally appeared on TUAW on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

AnandTech benchmarks the iPad 2, shows huge graphics gains

AnandTech is in the midst of a lengthy analysis of the iPad 2's hardware. The results so far confirm what most of us already knew: the iPad 2's display is virtually identical to the original iPad, the cameras are nothing to write home about, and the CPU is slightly more powerful.

What's most revealing in AnandTech's testing is how greatly improved the iPad 2's graphics are compared to the original iPad. AnandTech tested the iPad 2's PowerVR SGX 543MP2 GPU against the original iPad and the Motorola Xoom, and the iPad 2 outperformed both of them significantly. More than that, actually -- in terms of performance on AnandTech's benchmarks, the iPad 2 destroyed both the original iPad and the Xoom. Neither device was even close to replicating the iPad 2's graphical performance.

A handful of developers have already pushed out updated apps that take advantage of the iPad 2's graphics hardware, including Firemint's Real Racing 2 HD and Chair's Infinity Blade. While the iPad 2's screen resolution is unchanged from the original iPad, its more powerful GPU has allowed developers to increase the level of detail and lighting effects in their games. AnandTech has a mouseover pic comparing Infinity Blade's appearance on the original iPad versus the iPad 2-optimized graphics, and the difference is easy to see.

As more developers begin tailoring their apps' graphics to the iPad 2's impressive hardware, it's entirely possible that gaming might see a new surge on the iOS platform. Meanwhile, if you're interested in a deep dive into the iPad 2's hardware, definitely check out AnandTech's review.

AnandTech benchmarks the iPad 2, shows huge graphics gains originally appeared on TUAW on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

iOS 4.3 gold master benchmarks from WIRED show speedier Safari browsing

In case you're wondering how that iOS 4.3 update is going to work out for you, WIRED has released results of benchmarks they performed using the gold master (release) version of the software.

What they found was that the update provides major improvements in Safari's ability to run JavaScript. iOS 4.3 uses the new Nitro JavaScript engine for JavaScript rendering, and WIRED's tests showed that Safari was able to pull a SunSpider time of 4340.1 ms compared to 10626.4 ms for iOS 4.2.1. That's over twice as fast!

The iOS 4.3 update is available right now in iTunes, so if you'd like to see sites like Google Voice, Google Docs, and Google Reader running faster on your iPhone or iPad, or browse your Facebook page at light speed, get the update loaded ASAP. The update also adds AirPlay functionality to more apps, including Safari and YouTube.

iOS 4.3 gold master benchmarks from WIRED show speedier Safari browsing originally appeared on TUAW on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

USB 3.0 for Mac benchmarks and review

Don't let Apple's lack of USB 3.0 support get you down. LaCie has you covered with the 2big USB 3.0 RAID drive, and Engadget has run benchmarks on it.

The gang used a "relatively new" Mac Pro with the following specs:

  • Apple Mac Pro (2009)
  • 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Xeon 'Nehalem' CPU
  • 6GB (2 x 3GB) DDR3-1066 ECC memory
  • NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 (512MB) GPU
  • 18x SuperDrive
  • Mac OS X 10.6.5
  • Bluetooth 2.1+EDR
  • LaCie USB 3.0 PCIe expansion card
In addition, they used a 2big USB 3.0 drive, a 500GB Iomega Skin (for USB 2.0 work), a 500GB Seagate FreeAgent Go FW (for FireWire 800) and a 160GB G-Technology Combo (for FireWire 400 performance testing). Finally, a series of nested folders and various files, (big, small and plentiful) set the stage. Here's what happened.

In the write test, the 2big clearly out performed its peers. It was twice as fast when transferring the smaller files, and 33% faster than its older brother, USB 2.0, when transferring a 9.4 GB file.

The story was similar with Engadget's read test. The 2big managed 45MB/sec - 61MB/sec, compared to 29MB/sec -37MB/sec from USB 2.0.

There's much more to read, and we suggest checking out Engadget's article in full. The LaCie solution is quite appealing. You listening, Apple?

USB 3.0 for Mac benchmarks and review originally appeared on TUAW on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments