How fast are the Intel-based Macs when running a MacOS X and Windows XP version of the same application?

Please note that this Q&A specifically refers to Windows XP running via the beta pre-release version of Apple's Boot Camp. However, the general conclusion still is viable.

The always excellent BareFeats used Boot Camp to install Windows XP Pro on a MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.0 15-Inch with 2.0 GB of RAM. The author then compared the performance of several Windows XP applications and games to "Universal Binary" and non-native MacOS X versions of the same programs.

Although the complete test results should be read in their entirety, BareFeats noted that it took 81 seconds to convert 14 tunes using the Universal MacOS X version of iTunes 6, and 102 seconds to perform the same task with Windows XP.

For games, the Universal MacOS X version of Doom 3 (1440x900 High) delivered 20 FPS and the Windows XP version delivered 30 FPS. However, the also Universal MacOS X version of Quake 3 (1440x900 Max), provided 154 FPS, and the Windows XP version only 127 FPS.

For Mac applications that were written for PowerPC-based Macs and run on the Intel-based systems using the "Rosetta" translator, the results are not nearly as favorable. In an "MP Actions" test, the non-native MacOS X version of Photoshop CS2 completed the task in 69 seconds, and the Windows XP version in 23 seconds.

Regarding the comparable performance of non-native applications, BareFeats concludes that:

The applications that do NOT run "native" (yet) on the Intel Macs (Photoshop CS2 and Halo) get blown away by the native Windows version. If you own an Intel Mac, your Mac edition of Photoshop CS2 will run very sluggishly. After seeing our test results, you're going to be tempted to obtain a Windows edition to run while you are waiting for Adobe to finish their Universal Binary version of the Mac edition.

CreativeMac compared the speed of the MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.16 15-Inch running both MacOS X and Windows XP to a handful of Windows PCs in a suite of Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, and Illustrator performance tests.

The article is extremely comprehensive, and should be read in detail, but the author concludes that:

We've seen now that the MacBook Pro is a viable machine, even when comparing it with high-end desktop systems running either MacOS X or Windows. The tests of Abobe software running under Windows shows the potential that this machine has for the time (whenever it may be) when Adobe gets around to porting its applications to the Mactel platform. This notebook not only holds its own against the titans of creative workstations, but in some cases it even beats them, regardless of which operating system you're running at the time. And it shows that, for those looking for an all-in-one multi-platform system, the MacBook Pro is up to the task like no other machine that's come before it.

Effectively, some native applications run more quickly on MacOS X and others run more quickly on Windows XP. Not surprsingly, Mac OS X applications that are not native for Intel-based systems tend to be slower than the native Windows versions of the same applications.

Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices