Apple’s Summary. NSTL performed application benchmarks comparing the Macintosh IIci and Portable with competitive machines. NSTL found the Macintosh IIci was overall about 50% faster than IBM’s and Compaq’s 25-MHz machines. NSTL found that the overall performance of the Macintosh Portable was above the 286 portables but below the Zenith 386 portable.
Introduction
National Software Testing Laboratories (NSTL), a third party testing organization, performed benchmarks comparing the Macintosh IIci and Portable with competitive machines. NSTL ran many different tests for three applications, and then summarized the results for each application by totaling the individual times. The three applications tested are available in both Macintosh and Windows versions. This document lists NSTL’s results, and then concludes with Apple’s analysis of these results.
Macintosh IIci—Not All 25-MHz Systems Created Equal
The Macintosh IIci was faster than the 25-MHz IBM PS/2 Model 70 A21 for every application that NSTL benchmarked.
Even though both machines offer 25-MHz processors, the Macintosh IIci was consistently faster than the comparable IBM system.
NSTL also benchmarked the IIci using Apple’s IIci Cache Card and 8bit Video Card. NSTL's benchmarks showed that adding the Cache Card to the IIci increased its speed by an average of 23%, a very significant performance boost for power users. NSTL also found that adding the Video Card increased speed by 7%.
Macintosh Portable—Performance Beat 286 Portables
The competitive portable that has received the most publicity lately is the Compaq SLT/286.
The Macintosh Portable easily beat the SLT/286 in the Excel and Illustrator benchmarks (it was almost twice as fast). Both were nearly equal in the PageMaker benchmark.
Apple’s Summary
Positioning of the IIci. NSTL compared the performance of the IIci with the PS/2 Model 70 and the Compaq 386/25. Averaging the results of all three applications shows that the IIci was about 50% faster than each of these other 25-MHz machines. Adding the cache card to the IIci makes it about 80% faster than each of the other systems. This demonstrates that factors other than clock speed help determine performance, such as the optimization of system software for running a graphical environment.
Positioning of the Portable. Along with the Compaq, NSTL also ran benchmarks on other leading 286 portables (Zenith’s SupersPort 286 and Toshiba’s T1600) as well as Zenith’s TurbosPort 386. When all three benchmarks are averaged, the performance of the Macintosh Portable was above the 286 portables but below the Zenith 386 portable. Therefore, the Macintosh Portable should be positioned as offering performance (in a graphical environment) between 286 and 386 portables.
Macintosh optimized for graphical environments. When computers run in a graphics environment, they experience overhead such as windows management and handling various fonts. The Macintosh was designed from the start to give optimum performance in a graphics environment. When PC compatibles run a graphics environment, such as Windows, they are usually slower than Macintosh systems (when both are using comparable processors). This is borne out by NSTL’s results. The Macintosh IIci and Portable were overall faster than comparable competitors when both were running the same graphics-based applications. Since graphical environments are the industry trend, we believe that this Macintosh advantage will become increasingly important.
