![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Macs Faster Than PCs?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
emailthatguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 4, 2002
- Messages
- 503
i bet if brent reads this hes going "aww crap i dont wanna have another system review squeezed into my schedule this month!!!"
lol
lol
emailthatguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 4, 2002
- Messages
- 503
Some Llama
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 379
emailthatguy said:
So you're saying the MAC blows chunks because it was only a hair faster than a windows machine bloated with 30 pieces of spyware?
Just clarifying...
Haha spelling "MAC" like that will get the zealots fired up.
And I have a feeling the CS2 whooping is b/c Adobe won't release a universal binary for CS2...needless to say, probably going to have to wait for CS3 or later for a fairer comparison.
And I have a feeling the CS2 whooping is b/c Adobe won't release a universal binary for CS2...needless to say, probably going to have to wait for CS3 or later for a fairer comparison.
emailthatguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 4, 2002
- Messages
- 503
Some Llama said:
no im not saying anything just stating my observations.
to be honest i love the mac more than anything else but facts are facts. the WOW implementation of opengl sucks donkey nuts.
dude you really need to lighten up, some people arent trying to SAY anything just present facts, as i am. lighten up dude, theres no men in black, no hidden ufo's in roswell, and i think different, just like you do, and dispite all that i still think your comment was kinda lame.
Why is it surprising the iMac runs faster? The Core Duo at 2.16 is just a flat out flatter processer than the X2 3800+. The Core Duo is faster clock for clock than the X2, plus much much more efficient (leading to apple being able to build it into the form factor they did). So, both running Windows XP, you are comparing a PC with slower hardware to one with faster hardware, which would you expect to win?
Going Intel is one of the smartest decisions Apple ever made. They could arguable sort of keep up here and there before, but now they iMac and the Macbook Pro are very solid buys for a home computer that will perform very well. The new Mini is great for a budget solution. The G5 based computers still hold their own, but due to the low yields on those they are still extremely overpriced for what they offer, and the G4 just needs to die already.
Going Intel is one of the smartest decisions Apple ever made. They could arguable sort of keep up here and there before, but now they iMac and the Macbook Pro are very solid buys for a home computer that will perform very well. The new Mini is great for a budget solution. The G5 based computers still hold their own, but due to the low yields on those they are still extremely overpriced for what they offer, and the G4 just needs to die already.
r0t0man said:A little off topic but do you think Apple computers will be the first to use Conroe or Woodcrest? I am thinking of the new PowerMac or whatever they will call it. Perhapse one with dual CPU sockets?
No way in hell. Apple is a very small slice of Intel's pie. If any OEM gets first dibs on Conroe it will be Dell.
Some Llama's comment was pretty lite in comparison. He mearly said it in a sarcastic tone asking for clarification and you took offense to it and told him to calm down. Ah well.emailthatguy said:
Anyways, Steve, when can we see a REAL test from the [H] using real world games with an apples (pun intended) to apples (or Dells, HPs) comparison?
-E
pixelbender
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 162
Faster? You can make either faster or slower.
Better? Yes.
Better? Yes.
Spetsnaz Op
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,873
half of the macs that these guys are talking about are made by companies like Asus.....once you install windows on a macbook in essence it is just an asus laptop...the lines between PC's and Mac's have been blurred with the whole x86 switch and of course the use of a unix base for "OS X" (which some might argue was the main difference between the two)
so to say that a "Mac is better than a PC" is essentially saying that rebadged x86 hardware that comes preinstalled with OS X and one mouse button is better than other configurations without the mac logo and OS X.....an interesting assertion to say the least
so to say that a "Mac is better than a PC" is essentially saying that rebadged x86 hardware that comes preinstalled with OS X and one mouse button is better than other configurations without the mac logo and OS X.....an interesting assertion to say the least
Spetsnaz Op said:
At least they still have the form factor going for them. Of course it depends on individual tastes though
Correct me if I'm wrong. Does Apple design the formfactor and electrical parts, then send off the plans to Asus to mass produce them? Or does Asus do all the internal designing?
I recall Apple hired Sony engineers a while ago to help further design their notebook line.
It depends on how much Intel can build and how much the OEM orders. If there's only 10,000 chips, they may go to Apple to build 10,000 machines. Dell's order for a million may sit until next month. Who knows what kind of money and deals Intel slipped under the table to get Apple on board; it was a massive propganda coup for Intel.NulloModo said:
Woohoo!!! Finally a computer that can run Office faster.....I have been looking for one of those.
How about taking the same cash that Mac costs and build as much PC as possible around it, then run the two...then we'd see where the value is. I suspect however that the 20"LCD may be the deal breaker....
That being said...anytime we see comparos like these, we get system models and maybe the proc (like the HP) instead of configs. Lets compare apples to apples here.
Kyle, PLEASE, it ever there was a call for someone standup to run the benchmarks on a couple of rigs, the time is now. Take the cash, build one to the specs of the Intel/Mac (am I the only one who finds that right up there with "military intelligence"?) and lets see it. And do a full OEM review, Like you did with Gateway, ect. Lets SEE if the MAC !!!!!!s are right in every respect, like tech support, as well. Build two PCs, one with a hardware config as close to the Macs as possible, and one that is based on how much money the Mac costs (to see how much extra the "design" and OS are costing in the Mac)
I like OSX, and Id really love to dual boot my SLI rig with it, but I like the design of my PC better than Macs, and its cheaper as well. But look at that Office fly!!
How about taking the same cash that Mac costs and build as much PC as possible around it, then run the two...then we'd see where the value is. I suspect however that the 20"LCD may be the deal breaker....
That being said...anytime we see comparos like these, we get system models and maybe the proc (like the HP) instead of configs. Lets compare apples to apples here.
Kyle, PLEASE, it ever there was a call for someone standup to run the benchmarks on a couple of rigs, the time is now. Take the cash, build one to the specs of the Intel/Mac (am I the only one who finds that right up there with "military intelligence"?) and lets see it. And do a full OEM review, Like you did with Gateway, ect. Lets SEE if the MAC !!!!!!s are right in every respect, like tech support, as well. Build two PCs, one with a hardware config as close to the Macs as possible, and one that is based on how much money the Mac costs (to see how much extra the "design" and OS are costing in the Mac)
I like OSX, and Id really love to dual boot my SLI rig with it, but I like the design of my PC better than Macs, and its cheaper as well. But look at that Office fly!!
That report does little to show the performance of two comparable systems. If I pay $2100(+) or more for a Intel Apple rig, it better have all the optimizations on. As for the AMD rig, who knows the latency, 1t, 2t, memory etc not to mention that it was running 8% slower in raw mhz.
Somebody post the same benchmarks with their X2 running @ 2.2 Mhz with all optimizations on and the performance will probably be identical. Next someone overclock (need clockgen and volt tweaks for apple intel rigs) both systems to max stable and see how they perform.
Still, but the time it is said and done, the price to performance will clearly fall into the AMD camp for now.
Somebody post the same benchmarks with their X2 running @ 2.2 Mhz with all optimizations on and the performance will probably be identical. Next someone overclock (need clockgen and volt tweaks for apple intel rigs) both systems to max stable and see how they perform.
Still, but the time it is said and done, the price to performance will clearly fall into the AMD camp for now.
Black Morty Rackham
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,728
So why haven't they? The iMac is the only computer I've seen with that form factor.SharpieFiend said:
That's not the truth. That's the most bullshit post I've ever seen. Apple are raking in money selling their computers and iPods. The Mac user base is growing. How is it dead?Dyre said:
More bullshit. I am very much capable of building my own computer and installing Windows on it. Why don't I? Because I think Windows fucking sucks, that's why! I like Mac OS X more, so I use that instead. It has nothing to do with me being "lazy or stupid," because you can bet your ass I'm not.Frosteh said:
Pardon my asking, but why the heck do you think we have an Apple forum on [H]? Obviously there are quite a few Mac tech-heads.
Again, bullshit. Compare the quad-core Power Mac against a similar Dell workstation and see which comes out the cheapest. Or don't bother. Here are some numbers:
Dell Precision 670
Two dual-core Xeons at 2.8GHz
0.5 gigabytes of RAM
250 gig hard drive
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
Total price: $5,506
Apple Power Mac G5
Two dual-core G5s at 2.5GHz
0.5 gigabytes of RAM
250 gig hard drive
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
Total price: $4,949
Boxx 7400
Two Opteron 265s (dual-core, 1.8GHz)
1.0 gigabytes of RAM
250 gig hard drive
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
Total price: $5,530
Out of these three computers, the Power Mac is the fastest (The Opterons are great, but 2.5GHz vs 1.8GHz? They ain't THAT good!) and the cheapest. Even if we bump the Power Mac to the same 1 gig of RAM, it's a lot cheaper than the Boxx. Oh, I priced out a similar Alienware workstation as well, just for the hell of it. With similar parts as the Boxx (albeit faster CPUs), it came in at almost $7000. What's this about Macs being more expensive? And before you ask, I priced out a similar home-built system at Newegg. It came in a little bit cheaper than the Mac, but with a Quadro FX 4000 instead of the 4500 (and no liquid cooling) so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
The iMac is one of the best-selling computer models in history. I guess Dell Dimensions or something might have it beat, but that's about it. A LOT of people buy iMacs. Hell, I even have one myself (the original 1998 model).Frosteh said:
VikingBlade
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 109
Just wondering. What else did you configure?
I can't get the Boxx 7400 to get to that price unless I switch to a Quadro FX 4500G instead of 4500, or upgrade from Opteron 2x265 to 2x280.
If I just spec out the listed parts I get: $4368 at Boxx
at Xi:
http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure.asp?model=mtoweropmp&configid=
I get just $3536.
I can't get the Boxx 7400 to get to that price unless I switch to a Quadro FX 4500G instead of 4500, or upgrade from Opteron 2x265 to 2x280.
If I just spec out the listed parts I get: $4368 at Boxx
at Xi:
http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure.asp?model=mtoweropmp&configid=
I get just $3536.
What we need is for [H] to verify this. I call for our wonderfull hosts to get an iMac, run boot camp on it, and bench it next to a comparable PC. Only then will we know the full truth.
That or spend X amount on an Mac with bootcamp, then spend the same amount on a pc and see who has the better price to performance ratio.
That or spend X amount on an Mac with bootcamp, then spend the same amount on a pc and see who has the better price to performance ratio.
Banshee164
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 109
Anand @ Anandtech has a review up, here's a link to the comparison part: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=15
Black Morty Rackham
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,728
I saved my Boxxtech page as a PDF. Look at it here. I'm pretty sure I didn't configure it incorrectly. Feel free to check for errors.VikingBlade said:
That wouldn't exactly be an apples-to-apples comparison, either. At least not until the "Pro" Macs are released. Of the Intel Macs released so far, one is a laptop, one is an extremely small system and one is a highly designed all-in-one system. None of them are computers you can compare to a home-built tower.
These tests are inherantly flawed and mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Here's why. First, anyone who knows about operating systems, operating system design, and image design knows that anything worth comparing has to be compared on the same level. The machines that were running these tests were NOT running the same operating systems. All the Intel boxes were running copies of Windows XP SP2, while the AMD machine was running a copy of Microsoft Media Center Edtion. While the difference between the two is fairly minor, what is not minor is the fact that they are not the same. MCE utilizes more memory than pure XP SP2 due to the extra services and programs that are running. This automatically biases the results. You wouldn't strap an anchor to a car at the drag strip and call the test fair.
Second, the store bought machines were running out-of-the-box operating systems. Anyone here can tell you why this is mind numbingly retarded. Any HP, Dell, Sony, Compaq, configured system is absolutely loaded with poorly designed third party software which will slow the system down to nearly painful levels. The last HP consumer operating system Image I looked at used over 500 MB of RAM. Processes would hog CPU resources when the system was sitting idle.
The Intel Mac's were benchmarked with clean, hand built and tuned images. They are automatically going to be using less resources than any other system tested here.
This publication and it's authors really have no clue what they are doing. In order for this to be a proper benchmark, all systems need to be built from the ground up with fresh operating systems, and the latest sets of drivers installed. All variables need to be as tightly controlled as possible. It's obvious that this test has met none of these requirements, and means absolutely nothing to any end user.
For years, any Mac user I've spoken to has spewed garbage like this. Biased, groundless testing on obscure products that have no applicability in the real world. If you want to run yourself a Mac, great. Have fun. I don't care what kind of system you want to run. Just don't try to tell me it's better than I what choose to run by blowing smoke up my ass.
This article is actually worse than nothing to read. At least when you don't read it, you're not getting any dumber.
Matt.
Here's why. First, anyone who knows about operating systems, operating system design, and image design knows that anything worth comparing has to be compared on the same level. The machines that were running these tests were NOT running the same operating systems. All the Intel boxes were running copies of Windows XP SP2, while the AMD machine was running a copy of Microsoft Media Center Edtion. While the difference between the two is fairly minor, what is not minor is the fact that they are not the same. MCE utilizes more memory than pure XP SP2 due to the extra services and programs that are running. This automatically biases the results. You wouldn't strap an anchor to a car at the drag strip and call the test fair.
Second, the store bought machines were running out-of-the-box operating systems. Anyone here can tell you why this is mind numbingly retarded. Any HP, Dell, Sony, Compaq, configured system is absolutely loaded with poorly designed third party software which will slow the system down to nearly painful levels. The last HP consumer operating system Image I looked at used over 500 MB of RAM. Processes would hog CPU resources when the system was sitting idle.
The Intel Mac's were benchmarked with clean, hand built and tuned images. They are automatically going to be using less resources than any other system tested here.
This publication and it's authors really have no clue what they are doing. In order for this to be a proper benchmark, all systems need to be built from the ground up with fresh operating systems, and the latest sets of drivers installed. All variables need to be as tightly controlled as possible. It's obvious that this test has met none of these requirements, and means absolutely nothing to any end user.
For years, any Mac user I've spoken to has spewed garbage like this. Biased, groundless testing on obscure products that have no applicability in the real world. If you want to run yourself a Mac, great. Have fun. I don't care what kind of system you want to run. Just don't try to tell me it's better than I what choose to run by blowing smoke up my ass.
This article is actually worse than nothing to read. At least when you don't read it, you're not getting any dumber.
Matt.
ROFL, giving PC's a run for their money? What? Ummm, ok.
Looks to me like A PC counterpart won just as many of the tests as the Macs for the most part. They make it sound like the Macs totally kicked the PC's arse.
They should do the math, the differences between top spots either way are only 2-5%, expected from the same damn chip. Oh, but how much does the Mac cost? 25% more! They try too hard, who gives a crap. Even with Intel chips, Macs cost more with no major advantage other than they look cute. And I don't know who ever came up with the idea Mac OS is more user friendly, hah!
Looks to me like A PC counterpart won just as many of the tests as the Macs for the most part. They make it sound like the Macs totally kicked the PC's arse.
They should do the math, the differences between top spots either way are only 2-5%, expected from the same damn chip. Oh, but how much does the Mac cost? 25% more! They try too hard, who gives a crap. Even with Intel chips, Macs cost more with no major advantage other than they look cute. And I don't know who ever came up with the idea Mac OS is more user friendly, hah!
emailthatguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 4, 2002
- Messages
- 503
wesblake said:
Theyre the only machines in the world that can natively run macos, linux, and windowsxp, mce, or vista. Thats a huge advantage and no other pc can make such a claim.
It absolute is more friendly. Front row's interface (stock software included w/ the os) is way more intuitive an interface than mce's for digital media, not to mention, its much much cooler looking. The iLife suite (also software that comes w/ all new macs) is easier than any web dev software on the pc (iWeb), the easiest interface for music and podcast production (garageband), video editing (idvd and imovie), i could go on and on.
smart ass for the sake of "net cool" was old 3 years ago. Time to move on. Maybe come up with a REAL argument (And there are some real viable arguments against the mac out there, ill admit that) but lemme tell you something, your arguments werent even close to being one of them.
Ah, that was a real argument with an opinion at the end. I used math and numbers to prove a point, that their test didn't prove a point. Sorry I don't have time for a better argument, if you want that, look to enraged78's post before mine, he's right too. I followed it with my own opinion about Mac OS. Every Mac owner I have met thought Mac OS was easier, and every time it was because they refused to even try a PC. The ones I finally talked into trying one never went back to a Mac.
I've worked with them for many years until as of late, so I can't say much about OS X, perhaps they have come up with a good product. However, I have worked with all past versions setting up office networks and they are horrible in that respect. A co-worker tried to get me to use one back when I was a web designer/programmer and it was horribly complicated to use for that as well. She is one of the persons who is now using a Windows PC instead.
I've worked with them for many years until as of late, so I can't say much about OS X, perhaps they have come up with a good product. However, I have worked with all past versions setting up office networks and they are horrible in that respect. A co-worker tried to get me to use one back when I was a web designer/programmer and it was horribly complicated to use for that as well. She is one of the persons who is now using a Windows PC instead.
Black Morty Rackham
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,728
Wesblake, the test wasn't Windows vs Mac OS X. It was one computer vs some other computer. The number of people you've managed to convert to "your platform" doesn't mean squat. Please note that I do agree with enraged78 about the test being useless, but you're completely off-base in your assertion that Macs offer no advantage what-so-ever over other computers. Macs can run Mac OS X, something no other computer can at this time (at least not in a practical manner). I work more efficiently in Mac OS X (empirical fact). I prefer it (personal opinion). Who the hell are you to say my personal preferences and personal experiences are incorrect?
Next, you're going to tell me that modo offers no advantage over Wings3D except looking better...
Next, you're going to tell me that modo offers no advantage over Wings3D except looking better...
This thing annoyed me somewhat. Mac OS X has been around since 2000. You have no real experience with it, by your own admission. Are you suggesting that I should mention my experiences with Windows ME when I compare the latest version of Mac OS X to Windows?
Damn, some of you really have selective hearing(reading) don't you. I said it was MY OPINION!
And the opinion, AS I SAID IN MY LAST POST, was separate from the few calculated numbers I posted, those were not based on anything other than the given numbers in the article.
Sheesh, I'm done arguing with people who don't listen(read).
And the opinion, AS I SAID IN MY LAST POST, was separate from the few calculated numbers I posted, those were not based on anything other than the given numbers in the article.
Sheesh, I'm done arguing with people who don't listen(read).
emailthatguy said:
That being said, I have been using 10.3 on my iBook for the last few years. However, since my desktop is always more powerful, I barely even touch my iBook. Sure, it's more friendly to Joe Schmoe, but having used it for so many years, it's just "different" to me.
Different is not always better. If you are on [H], you are probably an egg head. And an egg head doesn't need a silver platter (OSX) for everything. Given, a silver platter is certainly necessary for relatives/uncles/aunts who are helpless, but if you're an egg head, you'd like to replace the silver platter with a regular plate so you can also afford the steak.
You get my drift?
Black Morty Rackham
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,728
I think you're missing the point of OS X. It's not that it's easier to use for the total newbie (because it's not). It's that it's more efficient for the more experienced user. At least in my case. Exposé, none of those silly workspace windows à la Photoshop, etc etc etc. All the tiny things in the user interface means I work a whole lot faster in Mac OS X than I do in Windows.Mav451 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=15
This may have been posted already...
OMG, it uses the same components as every other intel based product! ASUS makes fast machines!
Actually, read the whole article, it is really good. Virtualization is amazingly fast, I can't wait until they work the bugs out.
To Mav451: Fighting with windows isn't my purpose in owning a computer. Sure, I can do it, but I don't want to do it. Unfortunately, it happens all too often. OSX is by no means perfect, but the fact that it is a top down software/hardware integration is nice. And it is a whole lot nicer to multi-task than in Windows. Building a computer is fun and cheap, but it never seems to work 100% and I don't have time for it anymore. Now that I can game and have OSX, I have no reason (besides monetary) not to get some sort of Mac.
I'm hoping for some kind of merom powered laptop later this year.
This may have been posted already...
OMG, it uses the same components as every other intel based product! ASUS makes fast machines!
Actually, read the whole article, it is really good. Virtualization is amazingly fast, I can't wait until they work the bugs out.
To Mav451: Fighting with windows isn't my purpose in owning a computer. Sure, I can do it, but I don't want to do it. Unfortunately, it happens all too often. OSX is by no means perfect, but the fact that it is a top down software/hardware integration is nice. And it is a whole lot nicer to multi-task than in Windows. Building a computer is fun and cheap, but it never seems to work 100% and I don't have time for it anymore. Now that I can game and have OSX, I have no reason (besides monetary) not to get some sort of Mac.
I'm hoping for some kind of merom powered laptop later this year.