I ran the touch through a battery of performance tests before and after the OS upgrade from 2.2 to 3.0, and compared the results with those for the iPhone 3G and 3GS.
| | iPod Touch/OS 2.2.1 | iPod touch/OS 3.0 | iPhone 3G/OS 2.2.1 | iPhone 3G/OS 3.0 | iPhone 3GS/OS 3.0 |
| Boot time from start | 19 seconds | 29 | 34 | 47 | 20 |
| Load weather app and refresh weather | 1.7 | 3.3 | 7 | 4 | 1 |
| Download the 99 cent app "Benchmark" by Matt Matteson and run it | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 489 |
| Load Twitterfon and refresh Tweets | 5 | 6 | 16 | 18 | 6 |
| Load NYTimes app and refresh articles | 7.5 | 8 | 13 | 22 | 8 |
| Load expedia.com (Wi-Fi, no 3G | 12 | 13.2 | 15 | 17 | 8.7 |
| Load Bejewelled 2 to menu | 7.5 | 8.2 | Not tested | 11.7 | 4.4 |
| SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark 0.9 | 103.6 | 37.4 | Not tested | 42 | 16.7 |
Though JavaScript performance has tripled, the new OS 3.0 adds a good chunk of time to startup the devices. And despite the much faster JavaScript performance, web pages load slightly slower in OS 3.0 than in 2.2. Mobile analyst Sascha Segan and I consider that it's clearly to do with graphics and layout rendering rather than JavaScript. I'm surprised the browser isn't faster in general, the way Safari 4 is on the desktop.
The takeaway from this is that you probably shouldn't bother handing over ten bucks to Apple for OS 3.0 if you're a touch user who wants faster performance. If, on the other hand, cut-and-paste, Spotlight search, and streaming video apps like MLB At Bat are things you can't live with, you have no option other than to by the new operating system. You should also feel good if you're a second-gen touch user who likes to run apps: you're in better shape, performance-wise, than iPhone 3G owners!
