Truth about Apple performance (OS+hardware)

Dehuti

Dehuti

Electric whale
Click here and you'll find out all the truth about performance of Apple computers. Don't get me wrong - I'm hardcore PC geek but still I own Mac being fascinated of it as well as you fellows, but I think switching to AMD is the only solution for yet - very poor situation Apple is in.
Gap is definitely too big! And to say more - I know quite a lot PC guys who would buy Mac next day when it would be released with for e.x. Clawhammer chip.
 
Benchmark-schmench-mark.

I have seen these things for the past 15 years. They are all bunk. There are just too many dependencies to make these things at all truthful.

1) Type of computations
2) Supported hardware -altivec, multi-processor
3) Background tasks -why 9 is often faster than 10
4) Compilers and optimization levels
5) Style of code (design versus optimization)
6) IO latency
etc, etc, etc

Use the machine that makes you most productive, whether its a Mac, Windows, or a Timex Sinclair. Benchmarks give the numbers the financial supporter wants.

Benchmark producers are guilty, intentiionally or not, giving a platform a bonus; too many variables to put on equal footing.

Thank You
 
I'm sorry, but you will need to direct me to the "who-gives-a-flying-rat's-@$$" website.

The majority of people who use Macs don't really care how fast their machine is, as long as it runs all the applications it needs to without taking 5 minutes to load. I don't know many Mac users who bought their machines for the speed of the processor. I sure as heck didn't.

Mac users buy their machines because of the Operating System and integrated software. I'll gladly give up processor speed to have an OS like Jaguar. I'll gladly give up speed to have iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iCal...

Sorry man, the time when people cared a lot about processor speed ended 2 years ago. Software and how well it works with your OS is the important thing.

So, you can quit trying to be the PC-guy who thinks he has finally outsmarted all of the Mac people. It won't work. Come up with all the processor speed articles you can find. It doesn't make a difference. Nothing you can say will make a difference. You know why? Because you use an inferior product (Windows) that you think is so great. That only shows ignorance on your part.

Go post your articles on PC discussion boards. They might care there.

Magnolia1240
 
Dehuti,

I would like to apologize for magnolia1240's tone. I assume he means well :)
I think, in a somewhat derogatory fashion, he stated that the effectiveness of the OS and its tools is a lot more important than raw speed; unless you are doing molecular simulations and killing your best friend in the best-simulated carnage money can buy.

Seeing how us Mac-users have been traditionally the underdogs with slower but better integrated machines, we are very quick to react about the whole speed issue.
 
Anyone that argues that Mac hardware is faster is crazy.. Photoshop tests be damned. However, as several people pointed out, the speed of the hardware tends to have little to do with one's productivity. I've been using PC's since '87 (as well as Apple //'s, Amiga's, C64, etc etc. before that) and I have to admit, I'm more productive on the Mac than any type of computer previously.

There's alot to be said for good UI, a stable OS, and cleanly thought out apps.

Now, if your a gamer on the other hand, well, then PC horsepower means everything.. but I save gaming for dedicated game consoles. :D
 
I bought a g4 450 cube "downgrading" from a 1.2 gig athlon. I don't really see the difference in speed besides the mp3 encoding (down to 6x from 12x) but then again i have not tried my external firewire dvd burner. Also my mac is faster for me because it will actually go to sleep and come out of it in a useable state without a reboot. That saves me 2 minutes there. I don't see what the speed difference is for a home machine used for digicam pics, mp3s, and surfing the net.


Heath Pitts
www.heathpitts.com
heath@heathpitts.com
 
Unless your running molecular orbital calculations on some new molecule that's going to reverse ozone depletion or computing celestial mechanics to determine which planet you want the next Voyager spacecraft to be slingshot from, I don't think it's going to matter THAT much. We're talking about CONSUMER DESKTOP machines here. The majority of computers that are sold are used for wordprocessing, cruising the internet, and playing an occasional game. A computer spends most of its time waiting for keyboard or mouse input, the rest is all WASTED cycles. Besides, x86 is dead, and the rat race that intel and AMD are in, trying to release a *faster*, ehem, higher clock rate chips, is going to fail. EVERY SINGLE succeeding Intel processor is LESS EFFICIENT than the previous model cycle for cycle. That's why those companies have to ramp up the clock rates. Megahurts sells, and the public is B$'d about CPU performance.
 
Thank you all for your opinions (including 'magnolia1240' to which I would like to remind that I own a MAC and I enjoy it, but still I'm cross-platform guy). The thing is there's nothing more frustrating that watching better solutions being "far behind". I agree with you - we are talking about 'customer machines', but on the other hand would it be great if Apple owns - let's say, half of the market, not just 5% (here in Poland not more than 1% - can you imagine!). Think about all frustrations you have to go through to - for ex.. compress your CD to mp3 files using – PC (it’s a joke on Apple, on PC you need more that two additional pieces of software), if only Apple could gain more market share - more people would live their lives better. That's what counts, and a way to it is not to isolate Apple's solution but to gain new people, let's say - from PC side, and I'm thinking about - how to do that more easily.
 
I am not sure what SPEC get upto, disregarding MacoSX for the moment, when you run Eclipse (Oil & Gas res management number crunching package) on a 1024 cluster of PPCs and then run the same thing on Pentium cluster - albeit under Linux with kernel extensions to handle the environment - the oposite is seen. I can probably get documented proof of the latter statement.

I found the same with SETI stuff as well, ok PC people pooh-pooh anything thats not MicroSoft or Intel not - so much the AMD lot, maybe its becasue they think for a living - I ran 100 cycles on a G3 450, it was weeks faster than the Pentium III running at nearly double the clock rate. Wheres the sense in that given the above remarks. I ran the G3 450 from home using a modem and ran the Gateway P111 933 at work on a high speed LAN.

I manager SUN, SGI, IBM, Linux, Mac machines mostly but also HP, Dec and VMS stuff so I am pretty cross platform as well, but I don't find the same results, I find it to be much more varied than that.

My guess is, what you really "understand" is nothing more than what you WANT to believe in.

Tiger Woods is not be the fastest player on the PGA, but he is the best.

I don't consider market penetration to be a good benchmark for how good a machine or operating system is, probably how cheap its is. The latter point is easy to illustrate, just open one.

I run quite a lot of different stuff at home, PCs (W2k and Linux of different flavours)), Sun kit and its no contest the machine I prefer using at the end of the day is always the Mac, by miles...........

For me Aqua ontop of UNIX is the a solid move, whatever hardware its eventually runs on, well for me anyway I work with UNIX for my living.
 
I am not sure what SPEC get upto, disregarding MacoSX for the moment, when you run Eclipse (Oil & Gas res management number crunching package) on a 1024 cluster of PPCs and then run the same thing on Pentium cluster - albeit under Linux with kernel extensions to handle the environment - the oposite is seen. I can probably get documented proof of the latter statement.

I found the same with SETI stuff as well, ok PC people pooh-pooh anything thats not MicroSoft or Intel - not so much the AMD lot, maybe its becasue they think for a living - I ran 100 cycles on a G3 450, it was weeks faster than the Pentium III running at nearly double the clock rate. Wheres the sense in that given the above remarks. I ran the G3 450 from home using a modem and ran the Gateway P111 933 at work on a high speed LAN.

I manage SUN, SGI, IBM, Linux, Mac machines mostly but also HP, Dec and VMS stuff so I am pretty cross platform as well, but I don't find the same results, I find it to be much more varied than that.

My guess is, what you really "understand" is nothing more than what you truley WANT to believe in.

Tiger Woods is not be the fastest player on the PGA, but he is the best.

I don't consider market penetration to be a good benchmark for how good a machine or operating system is, probably how cheap its is maybe. The latter point is easy to illustrate, just open one.

For me Aqua ontop of UNIX is the a solid move, whatever hardware its eventually runs on, well for me anyway I work with UNIX for my living.

I run quite a lot of different stuff at home, PCs (W2k and Linux of different flavours)), Sun kit and its no contest the machine I prefer using at the end of the day is always the Mac, by miles...........

Intel got its speed bump as a result of DEC's work on Alpha.
 
thank you for linking us to Yet Another Benchmark... and I must say, the only reason you came here was obviously to stir up some discomfort. Do you think we have never realized that Macs are not the kings of speed? Yes, we are all well aware. And what you should realize, peeceeboy, is that Macs are not about getting gazillions of gigahertz, its about having the best operating system, the best software, the best style, and the best attitude. Therefore, stop trolling and posting up more benchmarks which we've all seen a million times before.
 
I care how fast my machine is. For the simple fact that it results in less system waiting time, better P2P searches ect. Sure, they OS is made of solid gold, but its not the only thing I'm looking for. And when it really comes down to it, wouldn't you all like to cram a nice G5 benchmark down PC user's throats, or would you still be claiming that speed is absolutely inconsequential?
 
Clock rate is'nt the anything like the whole story, disregarding the G4 for the moment, the top end Ultra Sparc III only runs at 933Mhz and outperforms the Intel (running at 1.7 Mhz)chip in "real world" number crunching. Same goes for the G3 & G4 as stated above.

Apple makes superb machines, take a look inside nobody does it as nice as that, and a great environment to work in, that always been why I get drawn back to using them.
 
I absolutely agree with these benchmarks. They seem correct about Apple. Speed is important, including CPU speed. However, other bottlenecks are more important than CPU speed like bandwith, HDD, VRAM, and RAM.

Apple users need to be more impatient with Apple regarding hardware. Don't simply buy this absolute garbage that they think will "buy" them time. Like these wind tunnel desktops. What a joke. I will not buy these POSs; I can tell they are POSs simply by looking at their design, which looks as if someone blasted the back with a shotgun and some designer forgot that PCI cards go on the BOTTOM. Top end 1.25 GHz overclocked to death G4s? Ohhhhhh....who cares man?

Apple has become to me like some relationships I remember as a young man. The girl is gorgeous but she's got nothing else besides her looks.

This mediocrity that Apple users seem to be content with will only lead to further mediocrity. Demand better computers or else.
 
And another thing about G4s: if they are so efficient and low voltage, how come you have to park a 7 pound heatsink on top and 3 jet engine fans inside and literally make swiss cheese out of the back??? Hmmmm....it seems to me that these chips are literally burning up in their normal state. I guess you need to take Apple's word for it, because if they say the G4 is more efficient it must be true!

Does the "G" in G4 stand for "Grill?" Let's make up some Grill Cheese Sandwiches since we're getting so much Swiss Cheese and heat from Apple!
 
Originally posted by übermac®™
And another thing about G4s: if they are so efficient and low voltage, how come you have to park a 7 pound heatsink on top and 3 jet engine fans inside and literally make swiss cheese out of the back??? Hmmmm....it seems to me that these chips are literally burning up in their normal state. I guess you need to take Apple's word for it, because if they say the G4 is more efficient it must be true!
Click to expand...


The really strange thing about this, is that the iMacs are silent - very silent, sporting the same G4 as in the PowerMacs. I find this very strange indeed.

While we speak of PC vs. Mac, an interresting review is found here.
 
Heatsinks - take a look at any PC - Intel and more so for AMD that runs over 1Ghz- and you will see extraction fans siiting on top of the GRILL as you put it. My friend can heat his flat with his PC. Usually that kind of heat is a result of overclocking the CPU.

I have a G3 thats overclocked and still doesn't need a fan, not even warm.

The heat sink on my 933Mhz G4 isn't even warm again, maybe its "belt and Brasers" but thats why its a better built machine.

Turn the fan off for 5 seconds or so and the CPU is burnt out - we bought a consignment of Athlons, about 20% had dud or cheap fans and so the thing would get as far as loading the BIOS and then futt - send it back again.

Got plenty of RAM and I can mix 64,128, 256 on the same machine. Got GeoForce 4, got a big disks, i.e more than 2. Yes they do make a difference but after you get to a certain size they have no more effect.

The things that make the G4 fast'sh is the multiple short (in terms of P3 and P4) piplelines, not one long high speed but ineffcient one.

Its a bit like a checkout, if you have one fast checkoput and a customers start messin around, things get really slow. Multiple checkouts are better, at least a couple of checkouts are always on the go.

Did you read any of the "real world" stuff above, we're not making it up.
 
I read some of the article above, so what they are saying is that matcing up a top of the Range Gatway running a P4 at 2.4 Ghz with an iMac running a G4 at 800Mhz is a fair test. Anway it still came out really well in the end as being as good.

Why didn't they set up a Desktop .vs. Desktop style test. The top end Desktop machines have better graphics cards etc....etc....
 
I'm all for benchmarks. I'm very data-driven and love to calculate and track lists of benchmarking data in spreadsheets and stuff. My gripe with typical benchmarks, this one included (I think) is that I can't tell what the real world speeds are. Please advise if this benchmark showed charts of things like:

Quake FPS
Lightwave 3D render
Photoshop filter processing
application launch
Final Cut Pro render
MP3 rip

etc.

Those are things I do daily. I don't monitor I/O or bus speeds, I monitor the progress bar in Photoshop. Give me data I cxan understand and apply to my daily workflow.

As for Mac speed. I've got two high end Macs and they both are just hanging in there as far as speeds goes. I am very demanding of the machines, so I expect them to perform. There is a long way to go. The main reason I stick with my Macs is because every time I have to use a PC something bad happens. In the end, even with CPU gap, I am always more productive on my Mac. If it gets too much worse over the next year though, I may reconsider my thinking.
 
On the cooling note. G4's and G3's run much cooler than a PC. My AthlonXP 2100 machine has a 5lb Copper Heatsink with a 5k rpm fan on it, then it has 5 case fans. The thing still runs at 43c Idle. I own a lot of pcs and build them daily at work, and well...they are getting hotter and hotter every clock jump they take. P4's run cooler than Amds...but even then, they run very hot compared to PPCs. Pickup a high end p4 mobile notebook and run a game on it for a while, i guarentee you won't want it on your lap for very long, because the things get HOT. Anyhow, that's all I have for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top