are PC faster than Macs?

[knifemyglitter]

so i know theres tons of debate over this, but PC hardware is advancing a lot faster than Mac and i was wondering if PCs are faster than Macs yet? I know gaming is way better on a PC, but for things like photoshop etc... people always say mac mac mac, but i tend to think that they just say it because they dont know any better and they like it because theyre "pre-built" pcs that look flashy. How would an X2 4800+ compete against a dual G5, or quad PC CPUS (iwill boards) against quad G5's? anyone?

 

[Furen]

PCs have been faster than Macs for many many years. People who claim that Macs are faster are normally people who read benchmarks at Apple's site. A two dual-core Opteron system will probably completely obliterate a Mac with two dual-core G5s.

 

[lopri]

Depending on Apps the PowerPC can be faster or slower than similarly rated Intel/AMD chips. But OS X is definitely slower than Windows BY FAR. I've tried to *convert* myself and couldn't stand the slugginish of the OS.
But there are still people getting psuado-orgasimc state of mind by just looking at the OS X desktop, so it all boils down to personal taste, I guess.

 

[Cerb]

PC hardware has been faster for a long time. The current G5s can just keep up, but only just. Previously, some apps were faster, due to using Altivec. That has been fading in the last few years, as platform portability is becoming more of a concern than raw performance.

Apple will only finally match normal PC hardware when they use normal PC hardware (which they will be doing soon).

 

[carlosd]

Yes, PC hasrdware have been faster for a while, in fact MAC will be converting to regular PC hardwre in the near future,so that asnwer the question.

 

[Griswold]

Speaking of fast, anyone seen that new quad G5 in action yet? Dual socket dual core 2.5GHz.

 

[NewBlackDak]

I have a Quad 2.5 sitting on my desk at work with 4GB of Ram. It is an extremely fast machine. I installed Gentoo on it just to compare it to the X2 3800+ right beside it. It's not exactly a fair comparison since it's top of the line mac against semi-fast PC. The Mac pounds the crapout of the PC in anything I can run on it.

 

[DeadMilkman]

They are simular...Power4 "used" to be able to wipe the floor with an AMD.

IBM started however catering to a different market (See the next gen systems)...and Apple decide to take its ball and go elsewhere.

For all intents and purposes both should run simularly if common ground is used. (IE Linux) otherwise all bets are off and its completely how the application is implimented.

Personally I'm waiting for intel macs....Tri-OS booting, Hell thinking about it gives me a geekgasm.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: DeadMilkman
They are simular...Power4 "used" to be able to wipe the floor with an AMD.

You mean G5, since Power4 is a server/HPC processor and the PPC970 is derived from it.

 

[Topweasel]

The G5 is Apples name for the CPU not IBMs. Just as the old Motorola CPU was called a G4.

 

[Griswold]

And? The Power4 is still not the very same as the G5/PPC970.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: NewBlackDak
I have a Quad 2.5 sitting on my desk at work with 4GB of Ram. It is an extremely fast machine. I installed Gentoo on it just to compare it to the X2 3800+ right beside it. It's not exactly a fair comparison since it's top of the line mac against semi-fast PC. The Mac pounds the crapout of the PC in anything I can run on it.

but take a dual board and stick two opty 280s in there with 4GB of RAM, and I bet they'd be similar, if the opty's didn't pwn the mac.

 

[NewBlackDak]

We're building a couple DC-DP optys for our RIPs. I'll test them out to see when I get them built.

 

[secretanchitman]

heh...just run doom 3 on a mac and compare it to a similarly powerful PC. you'll see which is faster.

i know, its a very bad test, as games are *mostly* not optimized for macs. i honestly think that mactels will catch up in terms of speed next year.

for now though, most macs (sans quad G5) are kinda slow compared to PCs.

 

[tribbles]

To each his own. But I doubt that half the people on here who think that PCs "wipe the floor" with Macintosh hardware have actually used Macs extensively.

I'm currently using a 2.3 GHz Dual-Core PowerMac G5 with 2.5 GB of RAM in our sound studio. The owner decided that he wanted to go completely Mac-based, so we bought this system to replace my ADK Dual Opteron workstation (2.4 GHz, I believe) with 3 GB of RAM. The comparison isn't 100% fair - I used Cubase on the Opteron, but I'm transitioning to Logic on the Mac. However, I use most of the same plugs and pretty much identical sample libraries. Most of the time, I can't feel any speed difference between the two systems, but when I can, I'd have to give the edge to the Mac. And in terms of smooth workflow, the Mac will always win, which in a production environment is huge in itself.

With two cores each at 2.3 GHz, a 1.15 GHz bus, DDR2 RAM, PCI-Express and the exact same GPU options that are available on the Windows platform, I don't understand where this myth comes from that Macs, in general, are slower. The only area where I can agree is the PowerBooks and iBooks, since IBM has never managed to make a portable version of the G5. But Mac laptops will most likely be shipping with Yonah as soon as January, so it's not exactly the end of the world.

And if you think Mac OS is slow, you probably haven't used 10.4 (Tiger). It flies. The last time I used an OS X-based system was running 10.1, and I have to agree it was rather sluggish. I'm amazed at how responsive 10.4 is, and by most accounts every iteration of the OS has been significantly faster than the previous one, even on legacy hardware. I wish I could say the same about my Windows and RedHat boxes.

What it comes down to is that you either need a Mac, or you don't. But finding a fast Mac shouldn't be a problem at all. In fact, the two fastest self-made supercomputers in the world (they rank 15th and 20th overall on the TOP500 SuperComputer list) were built with Apple hardware. If that's too slow for you, well, even the quantum computer won't make you happy.

 

[Commodus]

So, so many people here are going on myths and speculation that it's funny.

Yes, Apple uses a lot of marketing hyperbole. But there's a big difference between that and being irrelevant. Roughly speaking, a G5 is about as fast as a Pentium 4 with a 50% higher clock speed. It can be more or less depending on how well the app is optimized. I have the current 2.1 GHz iMac G5, and it does feel fast in many tasks. The only real limiting factor for most uses is the X600 XT video in it.

Also, Apple's only real reason to switch to Intel is the laptop. Apple has managed to squeeze quite a bit out of G5s on the desktop, because it can afford to use airflow and larger cooling units to its advantage. You can't do that in a laptop, and IBM hasn't made a mobile G5. This would also prevent Apple from ever using a G5 in a Mac mini. Intel, on the other hand, is promising dramatically lower power consumption while still going dual-core and improving overall performance. That's significant, and without a G5 in the PowerBook there's no point to staying with PowerPC.

I'll finish off by suggesting that dual Opterons (please don't call them "Optys") aren't necessarily faster, and are often more expensive. Any dual-core Opteron rated for use in a dual-socket system (the Opteron 2xx series) is going to be absurdly expensive; the cheapest I've seen is the 265 at $909 Canadian ($786 US at last check), and that's for one chip which likely won't beat a dual-core 2.5 GHz G5; you're more likely to buy a 275 at $1400! Apple may be stingy on RAM, but anyone buying memory from the computer maker is going to be overcharged versus installing 3rd-party memory themselves. So long as the app I need will run properly on the Mac, I'd rather have a quad G5 than a dual dual-core Opteron in terms of pricing.

 

[harobikes333]

lol good thing I don't have that much money to spend I don't have to worry about even thinking about them!

 

[Targon]

The reason that Mac was chosen AGES ago for graphics work was because initially the Macintosh had several advantages in graphics over the PC. The Mac uses square pixels compared to the 4:3 ratio you see on the PC. As a result, it took some extra CPU power to draw objects. Because resolutions in those days also were quite a bit lower on the PC, the Mac also had a good advantage.

Those days are long gone. Graphics hardware came out that would take care of the things that gave the Macintosh an advantage. At the same time, the speed of PC hardware has been advancing faster due to the "war" between AMD and Intel. Apple went with the PowerPC chip, and on PCs we had Intel, AMD, and for a while Cyrix(who was bought out by VIA), and Transmeta(who never got very far in mainstream computers).

At this point, the only reason to go with a Mac is if you are working in a Macintosh dominated industry and you need to exchange work with people who use a Macintosh. Apple has decided to switch from IBM PowerPC to Intel processors which will happen in 2006. This should put an end to a lot of confusion about which is faster, and will probably hurt Apple in the process. The only reason is the laptop market, but that's for another discussion.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: lopri
Depending on Apps the PowerPC can be faster or slower than similarly rated Intel/AMD chips. But OS X is definitely slower than Windows BY FAR. I've tried to *convert* myself and couldn't stand the slugginish of the OS.
But there are still people getting psuado-orgasimc state of mind by just looking at the OS X desktop, so it all boils down to personal taste, I guess.

Wait for Vista, LOL. Should have some of the pretties and most of the slowness.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Commodus
So, so many people here are going on myths and speculation that it's funny.

Yes, Apple uses a lot of marketing hyperbole. But there's a big difference between that and being irrelevant. Roughly speaking, a G5 is about as fast as a Pentium 4 with a 50% higher clock speed. It can be more or less depending on how well the app is optimized. I have the current 2.1 GHz iMac G5, and it does feel fast in many tasks. The only real limiting factor for most uses is the X600 XT video in it.

Also, Apple's only real reason to switch to Intel is the laptop. Apple has managed to squeeze quite a bit out of G5s on the desktop, because it can afford to use airflow and larger cooling units to its advantage. You can't do that in a laptop, and IBM hasn't made a mobile G5. This would also prevent Apple from ever using a G5 in a Mac mini. Intel, on the other hand, is promising dramatically lower power consumption while still going dual-core and improving overall performance. That's significant, and without a G5 in the PowerBook there's no point to staying with PowerPC.

I'll finish off by suggesting that dual Opterons (please don't call them "Optys") aren't necessarily faster, and are often more expensive. Any dual-core Opteron rated for use in a dual-socket system (the Opteron 2xx series) is going to be absurdly expensive; the cheapest I've seen is the 265 at $909 Canadian ($786 US at last check), and that's for one chip which likely won't beat a dual-core 2.5 GHz G5; you're more likely to buy a 275 at $1400! Apple may be stingy on RAM, but anyone buying memory from the computer maker is going to be overcharged versus installing 3rd-party memory themselves. So long as the app I need will run properly on the Mac, I'd rather have a quad G5 than a dual dual-core Opteron in terms of pricing.

More expensive?! LOL you've got to be joking me. Apple is the king of uber-expensive hardware, a ds-dc G5 is probably upwards of 6K+, and a decent Opty system is probably about the same, but incredibly more verstile.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Actually, the following is less than $5,000...

two dual core G5s @ 2.5 GHz (four cores total)
2GB (2x1GB) DDR2-533 SDRAM
1.0TB hard disk space (2x500GB)
GeForce 6600 w/256MB
DVD burner

You'd be hard pressed to find an Opteron setup rivaling that PowerMac for under $5,000.

 

[Commodus]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

More expensive?! LOL you've got to be joking me. Apple is the king of uber-expensive hardware, a ds-dc G5 is probably upwards of 6K+, and a decent Opty system is probably about the same, but incredibly more verstile.

Did you read what I just said about going on myth and speculation? You've just made a blanket assumption about Apple hardware without proving it.

But let's do an even comparison. Let's compare a dual-dual Opteron 275 workstation with specs that match Apple's as closely as possible, in US dollars. The Opteron rig here comes from GamePC's custom configuration unless noted:

* 2x Opteron 275 processors ($2360)
* 2x Zalman 7700-series AlCu CPU coolers ($98)
* Asus K8N-DL nForce 4 Pro dual-socket mainboard ($250)
* 2x Kingston ValueRAM 1 GB DDR2/533 ECC RAM from newegg.com ($175.50)
* Seagate 250 GB hard drive ($139)
* Sony DW-Q30A 16X dual-layer DVD writer ($70)
* Gigabyte GeForce 6600 256 MB PCI Express card ($135)
* Adaptec Firewire 800 kit ($78; the mainboard doesn't have FW800)
* Lian-Li V1000 aluminum mid-tower case ($220)
* Enermax Liberty 620W power supply ($198)
* Logitech Clavier Internet Pro keyboard ($20)
* Logitech MX310 mouse ($35)
* Windows XP Professional ($185)
* 1 year warranty
* "CPU kit assembly" ($25; consider it built into Apple's price already)

Total price: $3988.50

Now compare it to its approximate performance equal, the Power Mac G5 Quad (with 3rd-party RAM):

* 2x 2.5 GHz dual-core G5s
* custom water-cooling/heatsink/fan unit
* 2x Kingston ValueRAM 1 GB DDR2/533 ECC RAM from newegg.com ($175.50)
* 250 GB hard drive (Apple usually uses Seagate or Western Digital)
* 16X dual-layer DVD writer (Apple uses a Pioneer drive)
* GeForce 6600 256 MB PCI Express card
* Firewire 800 built on the mainboard
* custom aluminum mid-tower case
* 1000W power supply (it's true; they even use an industrial-grade power cord!)
* Apple keyboard and Mighty Mouse
* MacOS X (standard client supports dual processors)
* 1 year warranty
* assembly included

Total price: $3299

That's a $689.50 difference between the two. The Power Mac buyer could upgrade to a GeForce 7800 GT and pick up another hard drive before he equals the Opteron box's price. Even cutting back on non-essentials in the Windows box (a cheaper case, a weaker power supply, etc.) would still make for a noticeable difference.

So who's the overpriced one here?

Where Apple struggles is in the home user performance market. Many home apps don't even get close to using quad processor cores, and only some can use two processor cores. This means you can spend a lot less for similar performance with some apps, such as games. It's in the workstation market that Apple's Power Mac pricing becomes reasonable - very much so, in fact.

 

[Leper Messiah]

okay, I serverly underestimated the cost of 275s.

*eats his crow*

 

[HurleyBird]

Commodus:

Yeah, those dual dual core macs are actually a great value for the power that you get. If gaming performance was better on macs I would snap one up in a secound.

Also, you used DDR2 memory on your opteron...

 

[aka1nas]

That price comparison is a bit flawed if you are going to charge retail price for XP. An OEM will not pay nearly this much for an OS license. Moreover, you used high-end heatsinks when stock opteron heatsinks would be fine with an OEM system. Firewire adapters are like $20 if you don't buy overpriced crap like adaptec.

You pretty much picked the most expensive example for each component you could find. An OEM would be paying a fraction of these costs for similarly-peforming components.