Test Shows Snow Leopard is Faster Than Win 7
By this time next week, both the PC and Mac camps will have new operating systems set for the foreseeable future. Apple's Snow Leopard has been here since late August, but it won't really meet its match until October 22 when Windows 7 releases.
While most users won't be confused as to which operating system he or she wishes to run on a Mac or PC, it's interesting to see how each operating system performs on identical hardware.
CNet's Dong Ngo took a late-2008 model 15-inch MacBook Pro and used it to compare Snow Leopard 10.6.1 and Windows 7 64-bit RTM (with native drivers from Boot Camp 3.0). The machine was equipped with a 2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, and a 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT video card – things that you could also find in a PC notebook.
Ngo found that Snow Leopard outperformed Windows 7 in nearly all areas except for graphics (likely due to better drivers from Nvidia). Some results are:
- Snow Leopard booted and shut down around six seconds faster than Windows 7.
- Snow Leopard took 149.9 seconds to convert 17 songs from the MP3 format to the AAC format. Windows needed 12 seconds more for the same job.
- Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds vs. Windows 7's 723 seconds to convert a movie file from the MP4 format into the iPod format while having iTunes converting songs in the background the job (versions of QuickTime were different, however).
- In a battery test, Windows 7 lasted 78 minutes, while Snow Leopard managed to stay on for 111 minutes.
- Windows 7's Cinebench R10 score was 5,777 vs. 5,437 for the OS X.
- Windows 7 in Call of Duty 4 scored 26.3 frames per second while Snow Leopard got only 21.2 fps.
Although this may be as fair a test we have yet with identical hardware, drivers clearly play a noticeable role here. Snow Leopard also has to contend with fewer system configurations than Windows 7 does, so Apple has the advantage in optimizations. Apple is also behind the Boot Camp 3.0 drivers, which can also be a source for conspiracy theories.
In the end, most MacBook Pro owners will have bought their machines to run OS X, not Windows 7, but it's still an interesting test nonetheless. Now if only Apple would allow official installs of OS X to PCs – then we'd be able to test from the other side.
- snow ,
- leopard ,
- windows ,
- 7 ,
- comparison
- Acer's Android/XP Dual Boot Netbook Out Now
- Patriot Memory Brings Box Office To Your HDTV
- Dell Criticizes Netbooks, Praises Windows 7
- Apple: People Will Upgrade to Macs, Not Win 7
- Logitech's New Keyboard Has Red, Blue LEDs
- MSFT: We've Got Most of the Sidekick Data Back
- Of Course: Lawsuits Filed Over Sidekick Fiasco
- Acer Reveals First 3D Laptop
- Wi-Fi Direct Coming, Could Wipe Out Bluetooth
- Microsoft Store to Open Alongside Win 7 Launch
- Atom Pine Trail Machines Show Up on KND Wesbite
- Mass Effect 2 Next Year, Says BioWare
- Sidekick Fiasco Could Be Costing Microsoft Millions
- Samsung OLED is Virtually Indestructible
- Hitachi's New HDDs A Blazing 15,000 RPM Fast
- Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4
- VIDEO: Sneak Peek at Win 7 Family Guy Show
- Sigh of Relief: Modern Warfare 2 PC Not Delayed
Its worth noting that the media conversion codecs were both native apple ones - interesting to know how quick snow leapard coverts to wmv... hang on....
I have a dual boot running apple machine too, and I can tell you that on my slower 1gig RAM, 2.0GHz (single core!) x600 graphics card PC is running win 7 RTM faster than on my MacBook 13 inch 2.13GHz, 2 gigs RAM and 9400gt (mobile). To me, this has to do with the system. Run windows on a windows only notebook with the same specs and I am pretty sure that the tests won't be as shocking as is stated here. I always encounter slowness on the macbook whilst running win7 as opposed to MacOSX. Is it not true that the dual boot system on the mac acutally boots up the mac half and then the windows half? I heard that from someone and that it caused slow down. Also, don't quote me on this; These are my expectations.
Mac hardware is a much, much smaller ecosystem than PC hardware. As a result it's easier for Apple to optimise their code to run on a choice pick of 2 or 3 CPUs and a couple of GPUs. If Windows was written purely for 3 flavours of Core 2 Duo and 1 Nehalem=based Xeon I'm sure we'd see these minor time deficits removed.
+1 to will for pointing out the native Apple codecs, and in that spirit let's do some gaming benches...oh hang on
to run windows on a Mac with bootcamp doesnt that require bootcamp to load for windows to boot ?
i would imagine this would slow down load times as there is resources that are in use by software other then the OS not to mention the amount of time to load bootcamp
Hmmm. OS X Leopard hackintosh does run extremely well in comparison to Windows Vista, even with cobbled together drivers. But then so does my grandma. I can't believe I haven't done a proper comparison with Windows 7.
To be fair to OS X, this could well be true. I personally don't think the difference is devastating though. A good comparison would be to see which is quicker between having to reboot your Mac to use a Windows only program or just using Windows in the first place. Reckon that would be a fucking awesome benchmark. We'll call it ukgooey's Macs are Wank benchmark.
I've got a better test: Run the same benchmarks, but compare a brand new £200 windows PC with a £200 pound apple ma.... oh, er... yeah...Okay how about this... The very best Mac money can buy, against the very best windows 7 PC money could buy...
Holy shit! You know someone who can AFFORD the best Mac money can buy?!
Look, even if the mac is like jesus and his second coming... or a holy grail or whatever else even god himself, right, if it can't run some of my software that, i've gotten used to and like very much........... and your bolicks mac does not have equivalent software as a substitute.
I will look at windows 7, and if it tries to refuse to run my apps. i will have to either patch it to make it more compatible (if possible) or i'll will just ghost my system back to good old and functional XP PRO.
Ghosting takes about 5min and restores the system back to the point where i updated xp to the full and ready without the system clog that takes place. I even end up using software, the months demo for ever legally! As for the games that leave a lot of trash, even after uninstall, well it don't matter as all my user data is in the other HDD.
I'm still not seeing the point of a new windows though, if XP does everything i want it to why bother upgrading?! .... But as i am forced by the retards at MS i will try their newer cow with infinite milk, only, because most people out there seems to agree it's much better than the horrible VISTA (hated that name, it run as dumb as it sounds).
They ran comparisons using Quicktime AND iTunes... both horrific programmes in Windows... why not use some CUDA enabled nvidia conversion software (or the fastest conversion software available on both platforms) using Apple's so called software on a Windows PC is like trying to run through treacle...
I don't think anyone would dispute OSX is a fast slick operating system, but it is inflexible, tied to expensive hardware and just will not run MOST software... ridiculous comparison.
Horribly biased tests are horrible and biased.
Holy shit! You know someone who can AFFORD the best Mac money can buy?!
Only if they take out a second mortgage first I would imagine, but then they'd have the problem with the OS eating data...