How fast is PearPC: Benchmarks

[Ribtorus]

A few more small tests comparing BartPE with Windows XP as hosts:

Boot time for OSX : 1min 30 sec for XP, 1 min 28 sec for bartPE

iTunes startup time : 7 seconds for XP, 12 seconds for bartPE

Safari startup time : 7 seconds for XP, 7 seconds for BartPE

Photoshop CS startup time: 61 seconds XP, 58 seconds BartPE

Pi Calculator running 1,000,000 iterations, but without graphics update enabled (the first checkbox) : 2 min 2 sec. XP, 2 min 29 sec BartPE.

With this small test, I still see no compelling reason to use BartPE as the host OS instead of Windows XP.

[Guest]

New benchmarking utility called "speedx" ,it is calculates results in MIPS

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/darryl.pa ... .hqx[/url]

[Guest]

The link have error

new link

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/darryl.pa ... edxv12.hqx

[Ribtorus]

Thanks for the link.



I like the fact that it does its own timing.

I used it to compare BartPE with Windows XP again. Both systems as usual showing a 1.06GHz G3 with 512 MB ram.

SpeedVX12 Windows XP : [b:569b0024eb]33.25[/b:569b0024eb] seconds, [b:569b0024eb]300.8[/b:569b0024eb] MIPS @ 10 billion

SpeedVX12 BartPE : [b:569b0024eb]35.28[/b:569b0024eb] seconds, [b:569b0024eb]283.4[/b:569b0024eb] MIPS @ 10 billion

I averaged 3 runs to get the score.


Again, BartPE ran PearPC consistantly slower than XP.

[User]

At PowerPC G4 450 SpeedX calculates CPU performance equaly 440 mips

[User]

To Ribtorus

I want to know :how the subjective perfomance for you

[Ribtorus]

[quote="User":c368f105e1]
To Ribtorus

I want to know :how the subjective perfomance for you
[/quote:c368f105e1]

Subjectively, I find the GUI/user interface of PearPC with OS 10.3.5 to be too slow to be practical for everyday use. And at this stage too glitchy as well, with occasional mouse or keyboard issues.

I'm running PearPC/OSX on a dual 2GHz Opteron with 1GB ram and ultra320 SCSI drives, so I cannot really point to my host hardware as too much of a bottleneck.

That being said, I am exceedingly impressed with PearPC and the amazing work that the developers have done. I am blown away that I can actually do anything with it.

[Ribtorus]

[quote="User":7c4b498837]
At PowerPC G4 450 SpeedX calculates CPU performance equaly 440 mips
[/quote:7c4b498837]

I asked some people with macs to submit some times:
Each run was done with 10 billion operations.

G4 933: 14.2 seconds, 704.2 MIPS

G3 400: 33.67 seconds, 297 MIPS

G3 400 imac DV: 40 seconds, 250 MIPS

PowerBook 867: 38.83 seconds, 257.5 MIPS

G4 800: 17.13 seconds, 583.7 MIPS

Now I know that there are few, if any (possibly the exception of Stuffit) applications that show my PearPC/OSX system as performing at the level of a 400MHz G3.

So perhaps SpeedX is a convenient way to judge speed [i:7c4b498837]within PearPC builds[/i:7c4b498837], but not a good way to judge useful speed in comparison with actual macs. I am certainly not running OSX as well as a G3 400.

[User]

To Rib torus

Can you post the launch time of the applications such how :System Preferences,Quicktime,Safari and other

[rogabean]

as someone who runs OS 10.3.2 on a G3 333 iMac and 10.3.5 on PearPC, gonna pop in a here and say a few things.

Overall the current .4 build and the iMac operate about the same speed in terms of things opening up, web browsing, etc.

Heck, Abiword actually opens faster on PearPC!

So why the "slowness"? It's all GUI. PearPC is having the hardest time with the GUI itself. The GPU does work on my iMac for the rendering of the GUI and it's clearly seen when I run the two side by side.

I can get apps to launch at the same speed, but PearPC feels unresponsive at times due to the GUI refreshing itself.

Right now I would say that PearPC is on par with the early G3's (say 233-400) based on my own usage and comparison, but lacks the GPU power to have it really truly seen by the end user.