My results would have been from a sample of one; anecdotal and somewhat subjective. Still though, these two "random" loops are what I ended up with, so it surely would prove something
to me. If I was going to do a Six Sigma-type analysis on these chains, my sample size would have to be much larger and the variables watched very carefully to avoid skewed data. What I had in mind, if my sample wasn't ruined during the first cut, was to provide some feedback based on my experience with the two "out of the box" products. Being that the testing was purely anecdotal, I could make a timed cut with the Oregon and declare that one the winner since the PS hit an obstruction which certainly destroyed the cut time.
I do respect your experience, and I know that you prefer Oregon. Keep in mind that doing what I highlighted in bold below is an action that negates any "out of the box" comparison. At that point, the performance of the chain is on the merits of the one who sharpens the chain and the inherent quality of the chain itself. Hardly what I had in mind, but not at all dismissible. If both chains were quantifiably sharp, then a proper test could be made for first-cut speed and edge retention (longevity). But, who would believe that I sharpened both chains the same? I wouldn't.
The PS cuts very well. I haven't tried the Oregon yet. Last couple weekends have been devoted to splitting and stacking. Sadly, not much saw time lately....
How sharp "out of the box" chain is will vary, among other factors with how it has been treated during transport etc - random loops don't really prove anything.
Regardless, all chain needs to be filed when new, to perform their best, and the raker settings need to be checked.