Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Mac OS X 10.6.3 Packs Some Regressions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,359

    Default Mac OS X 10.6.3 Packs Some Regressions

    Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.6.3 Packs Some Regressions

    Yesterday we published Mac OS X 10.6.2 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 benchmarks. Overall, both the latest Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux operating systems were competitive with one another, but there were a few strong points to each OS. As luck would have it, Apple finally introduced the Mac OS X 10.6.3 update that brought a variety of maintenance updates to Snow Leopard. There were a few rumored performance-related changes as well as addressing "compatibility issues with OpenGL-based applications" that was supposed to mean graphics driver updates, so we decided to run our automated tests atop Mac OS X 10.6.3 to look for any differences.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14724

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    I've got another question: I was told Mac OS X only does support OpenGL 2.1 with some pieces of OpenGL 3.0. How is that possible when the OpenGL code between Linux, Windows and Mac are shared within the proprietary graphics drivers?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    I've got another question: I was told Mac OS X only does support OpenGL 2.1 with some pieces of OpenGL 3.0. How is that possible when the OpenGL code between Linux, Windows and Mac are shared within the proprietary graphics drivers?
    Because Apple supplies a single, common OpenGL state tracker, written by themselves. IHVs only provide the lower, hardware-specific parts of the stack which can, indeed, be shared among OSs.

    Microsoft does almost exactly the same thing with Direct3D.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    apple? waht are you doing??

    macos 10.5,8 is faster than 10.6-..

    macos 10.6,2 is faster than 10.6,3...


    apple are fully stubit?

    apple lost more and more performance on every version..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    apple? waht are you doing??
    Huh?! Like what they have always been doing. Putting lipstick on a pig.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar
    Because Apple supplies a single, common OpenGL state tracker, written by themselves. IHVs only provide the lower, hardware-specific parts of the stack which can, indeed, be shared among OSs.

    Microsoft does almost exactly the same thing with Direct3D.
    Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    apple? waht are you doing??

    macos 10.5,8 is faster than 10.6-..

    macos 10.6,2 is faster than 10.6,3...


    apple are fully stubit?

    apple lost more and more performance on every version..
    Yeah to be honest I also don't get it. OpenGL performance was said to have regressed with 10.6 and I think it was supposed to be fixed with this update and it has gotten even worse.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Because Apple supplies a single, common OpenGL state tracker, written by themselves. IHVs only provide the lower, hardware-specific parts of the stack which can, indeed, be shared among OSs.
    Yeah, the way Apple does it is very interesting. Part of the stack is bytecode that is compiled with LLVM. This means that on a good graphics card, all the graphics code runs on the GPU, but on hardware that lacks certain hardware features (like the crappy Intel graphics chips) it can be run on the CPU, which is far faster than normal software rendering.

    As for the regressions, I'm sure they'll be fixed soon - especially with Steam coming to Mac OS this month.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    Yeah, the way Apple does it is very interesting. Part of the stack is bytecode that is compiled with LLVM. This means that on a good graphics card, all the graphics code runs on the GPU, but on hardware that lacks certain hardware features (like the crappy Intel graphics chips) it can be run on the CPU, which is far faster than normal software rendering.

    As for the regressions, I'm sure they'll be fixed soon - especially with Steam coming to Mac OS this month.
    Or do like they always do. Convince everyone that it's a feature.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lithorus View Post
    Or do like they always do. Convince everyone that it's a feature.
    So sad but so true... There are people on opengl.org who are trying to argue that the lack of OpenGL 3.x on Mac OS X is actually a good thing!

    How has Apple managed to brainwash people to this extent?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Update: it seems that the Phoronix test doesn't tell the whole picture. Ben commented on the X-Plane blog:

    Phoronix reported a performance penalty with the new update; I do not know the cause of this or whether the fps_test=3 bug could be causing it. But their test setup is very different than mine - a GeForce 9400 on a big screen, which really tests shading power. My setup (an 8800 on a small screen) tests vertex throughput, since that has been my main concern with NV drivers.

    My suggestion is to use --fps_test=2 if you want to differential 10.6.2 vs. 10.6.3. I'll try to run some additional bench-marks soon!

    EDIT: Follow-up. I set the X-Plane 945 time demo to 2560 x 1024, 16x FSAA, and all shaders on (e.g. let's use some fill rate). I put the Cirrus jet on runway 8 at LOWI, then set paused forward full screen no HUD. In this configuration, I see these results:
    Objects 10.5.8 10.6.3
    none 85 fps 100 fps
    a lot 46 fps 61 fps
    tons 37 fps 42 fps
    Note that in the "no objects" case the sim is fill-rate bound - in the other two it is vertex bound. So it looks to me like 10.6.3 is faster than 10.5.8 for both CPU use/object throughput and perhaps fill rate (or at least, fill-rate heavy cases don't appear to be worse).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •