Macworld Forums: Speedmark 6.5 - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Speedmark 6.5 here

I've always wondered how MacOS would compare to Windows on multi-tasking tests. I always got the impression (fair or not) that Windows was better suited for letting one program hog all of the resources, which would give it better results on most review tests.

archtoday, on 07 October 2010 - 06:03 AM, said:

Interesting point. Though I'm an Apple customer, I'm a huge Apple critic. I use mostly Win7 machines and I like them, but it would be very interesting to see if OSX's Unix underpinnings give it a multitasking advantage over Win7. OSX may very well have an advantage.

I don't find this very useful. Where is the big disclaimer that "Your performance may vary..." Its also misleading because every time you run this article it uses the latest of everything Parallels, CS5.... how does that help me compare?

Mac OS needs a benchmark application, like the old XBench, that lets me compare my results to MacWorld's or my results before an upgrade or with some other app running in the background. Or let me compare my MBP and my daughters MB at 2.54Mghz.

That would be a useful utility for all of us. Macworld, please spend the money getting an app written, put your name and adverts all over it, link to a database on your website..... show us historical comparisons (i.e. this computer got a 93.4 with 10.5.7 and a 95.6 with 10.6.4)

If you can't do that, put YOUR 50 pictures for Aperture on your website, so I can see if my Aperture loads them as fast as yours. Same with the other "standardized" data sets.

JF

digitaflack, on 07 October 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Wow...you are missing something here or just don't understand standardized testing. You said, "Its also misleading because every time you run this article it uses the latest of everything Parallels, CS5....". Not sure what you mean by "every time you run this article". If you mean the rare times they update the whole Test Suite, then yes. But then they re-test ALL machines using the new standard. If you mean every time a new version of an app comes out or every time they run a new test, you are wrong. They use the same versions of everything until they update the whole set (usually with Mac OSX releases).

Standardized testing is a way to compare one "clean" Mac model to another. It is NOT to tell you how your Mac compares to mine, etc. They set a baseline (in this case a Mac Mini), and compare everything else to it. It gives you the relative speed differences, in close to real-world usage scenarios, so you can make an informed purchasing decision. For example, "Is that 0.6 GHz processor bump really worth the extra $200?"

If you are using a Mac that is a few years old, it is a pretty safe bet that even the new base models are almost as fast, if not faster, than what you are currently running.

digitaflack, on 07 October 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Ya know, you are connected to the internet: a few seconds can find you the information you want. Here's one piece of info I found in the third link in my first google search.

http://www.marketing....com/Speedmark/

But remember - using your brain may result in you experiencing different results. please do not try this at home. professional on a closed circuit.

I should note that the Compressor test was one of the only individual Speedmark tests I routinely looked at, other than the overall score. We do a lot of video transcoding and Compressor performance makes or breaks deadlines.

One aspect never considered on the desktop side of Macs is the power consumption. From my perspective, this could also be important, not only from an environmental perspective, but also for long time costs of a new Mac.

Would it be possible to also note the power consumption of each Mac speedmarked, in idle mode and while the test is running? I know it is not fair for iMacs, as they come with a screen, but one could include the consumption of a standard Apple screen for the non-iMac.

Just a thought...

Wow, I came to this page expecting a LINK to Speedmark 6.5. Why is there none?