Can someone prove to me (with benchmarks) that a Mac is faster than a PC??

[zippy]

G4's and G3's b!tch slap P3's/Athlons in programs such as Photoshop...it really isn't close. I wouldn't say 3x as fast as a p3 1GHz, but a G4 450 could prolly do about 1.5x faster than a P3 1GHz in Photoshop. The Macs will start to do nicely in 3d games and 3d programs once the Radeon 32MB DDR for the mac comes out shortly and once 3dfx releases a new mac card and once Matrox does their work on da mac. Oh...and also once the GeForce2MX is released for the mac.

 

[RSI]

Considering that a G3 can only run Windows at the speed of a 486/50MHz (approximately), running Windows on a Mac is out of the question.

The operating system may be "simple" as some put it, but really it isn't any easier to use than Windows - the interface is very similar! So if you know one, you can use the other.

The G3 and G4 processors are powerful, in certain areas, but just because you have a "G3" or a "G4", does not mean you will be getting 3x the framerate of someone else's 1GHz P3. In fact, you'd probably get a tenth of their framerate.

Some reasons I wouldn't buy a Mac:
1) Proprietary hardware design
2) Because of above, no upgradability
3) Plain Mac operating system
4) One button mouse unless you buy another one
5) Small keyboards (iMac line) - very annoying
6) Very small video card support
7) Much more expensive than an equivalent PC

Reasons why I would buy a Mac: There is no reason why I would buy a Mac.

x86 based computers are at an advantage in many areas, mainly where the Mac is lacking. The thing that catches me most is the upgradability and functionality.

I can tweak things, change settings, alter anything I want. Complete control. Plus, if I want to play 3d games, I CAN. Hell, even my p83 plays UT (even if it's at 10fps, shut up, probably as fast as a G3 would play it!! ).

Take a $5000 Mac and a $5000 x86-based system as examples. Now what would you have as far as system components goes on each system?

I am willing to bet the PC ('x86' system) will have about double the hard drive space, and the hard drive will also be twice as fast. Unless the Mac gets SCSI.

The CPU on the PC will be clocked much higher and be much more overclockable. The Mac may crack RC5 faster. SO WHAT? First of all, things like that aren't important.

There is no reason for most people to buy a Mac - unless they are using something like Photoshop with Mac-optimized filters.

Case closed.

-RSI

 

[apoppin]

Are we still comparing Apples to oranges?

To answer the topic question - No. Not generally.


EDIT: You want benchmarks?
http://www.apple.com/creative/resources/g4benchmarks/
Jobs: "We don't need no stinking benchmarks." (Thats Blo, not Steve)

 

[ElFenix]

if we shot steve jobs the computer world would be a much more boring place... hes about the only guy in silicon valley with any charisma. of course, if we went back in time and shot him, the imac would never have come out, and it's influence on industrial design (seen the multicolor tvs yet) would not have happened. a good thing.

eventually os x will come out and will be able to run pretty much every mac app... there are a lot of them, so it may not be able to run all your apps, but is will be the unix dist that can run the most.

 

[NFS4]

<< G4's and G3's b!tch slap P3's/Athlons in programs such as Photoshop...it really isn't close. I wouldn't say 3x as fast as a p3 1GHz, but a G4 450 could prolly do about 1.5x faster than a P3 1GHz in Photoshop. The Macs will start to do nicely in 3d games and 3d programs once the Radeon 32MB DDR for the mac comes out shortly and once 3dfx releases a new mac card and once Matrox does their work on da mac. Oh...and also once the GeForce2MX is released for the mac. >>


Steve Jobbs is a fricken broken record. Photoshop is NOT the only computer program in the world.

 

[zippy]

NFS4, of course. I agree completely! However, they really are starting to get some nice stuff going for them...Radeon, 3dfx making cards, Matrox making cards for them, the GeForce2MX, the G4 being a really nice CPU, the buttonless mouse...that thing is really cool.

I say, more power to them! Hell, if they weren't so proprietary and I could upgrade easier and if I could build my own and have a nice video card (coming soon to a mac near you...) and they weren't as expensive and they had more support (coming to a mac near you...) I would get one in a heartbeat.

 

[apoppin]

<<Photoshop is NOT the only computer program in the world.>>

It is to Mac users. Oh wait, don't forget Quark Xpress - the only OTHER computer program in the (Mac) world.

 

[prontospyder]

RC5 crunching rates:

Athlon 1 Ghz - 3.1 Million keys/sec
Pentium III 1 Ghz - 2.8 Million keys/sec
G4 500 Mhz - 4.3 Million keys/sec

Speaking of RC5, Team Anandtech still needs as many PC's as possible to take #1 from Slashdot and keep the Macs behind us.

 

[Remedy]

I don't know if this helps but this was all i can find on the subject.

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html

 

[Prodigy^]

&quot;G4 500 Mhz - 4.3 Million keys/sec&quot;

whoa :Q

anyway, I agree with all the arguements in this post, macs are too ridiculous for this world. And the way they hustle their benchmarks are simply so incredible - have you ever seen a PC user trying to convince a Mac user that their PC is superior? nope, cus we don't need to

 

[Erasmus-X]

Here's my take on Macs vs. PCs....

1) You'll never be able to convince a MacHead that Photoshop isn't the only program that exists. This seems to be the only benchmark they know of, because it's really the only benchmark that they're not ashamed of posting. But remember, MacHeads live in totally different worlds. This is the world were stylish-looking operating systems and Gen-X case designs flourish.

2) Ok, so a G4 can out-crack a PC with 3 times the clock speed. Big deal. I just sit there and laugh at how much they spend just to get a machine that will let them fiercily compete for prize money that they have like 1/1,000,000 chance of actually getting. Yeah man, my $5000 G4 is on a mission! When I get home, I think I'm going to mess with some Photoshop filters

3) Benchmarks aside, Macs are also very flawed at value for the dollar. Compare how many things you can do with a Mac in comparison to a PC. Not much. And before MacHeads jump and talk about their wonderful Windows emulators, this doesn't count. A performance-killing emulator isn't the thing that's going to bring them out of th pits. More support from software developers are going to do this. And this isn't going to happen until Macs start becoming more open to other manufacturers developing hardware for them. The &quot;closed-box&quot; platform Macs have been using for years isn't getting them anywhere. Need proof at how expensive a Mac is for what you're getting? Just go to their store on their website and see for yourself.

Now don't get more wrong, Macs are GOOD platforms. It's just the marketing that makes so much worse than they could be. I'd have a hard time sleeping at night being Steve Jobs. There's only so much BSing you can do before customer morale starts going downhill.

 

[prontospyder]

Why waste time and say that macs are inferior to PC's while we can instead do it by smacking them in RC5, the True Anandtech way of showing that PC's rule!

Just my 2 cents.

 

[jaydee]

<< The Mac OS is the only good thing about the Mac. It's stable... >>



You've never used a Mac have you?

 

[Oreo]

Zippy - The G4 isnt anywhere near as fast as you seem to think in Photoshop. It´s about 1.5 times faster than a PIII per clock so a G4 500 is equal to a PIII 750-800, not a 1.5GHz as you seem to think.

 

[Soccerman]

the OS for macs has consistently been ahead of MS's OS's until recently. feature wise of course. as for bloatware wise? they both suck ass. Windows 3.1 for me!!!

hehe... Better yet DOS!

I had to comment on that Linux weenies thing..

NFS4, have you ever tried Linux? I have. truly, it's got a future. I feel that people like u are being dumbed down with all of these windows programs getting rid of important stuff. If I had enough rooom on my Puny harddrive, I'd be running Dual boot, Windows for games, Linux for everything else (surfing the net, listening to MP3's etc). Linux is good, you get a real feeling of satisfaction once u begin to understand things.

I've crashed Linux ONCE. that was with my customary 7 Netscape Windows open.

BTW, have you ever considered that Netscape is supposedly unstable, becuase MS is bullying it's way around, and has forced everyone to use certain tools that work best (of course) with IE, but of course Netscape doesn't do very well. That IMHO, is the only disadvantage of Netscape. It's fast, and has lots of good features. (yes it's as fast as IE, I've used both extensively), the features I like about IE are the way they do favourites, and the integration is pretty cool sometimes. and of course almost a guarantee for webpages to look the way they were meant to.

 

[BoberFett]

Soccerman

By &quot;recently&quot;, do you 5 years? As soon as Win95 came out there was nothing superior about MacOS. Protected mode? What's that? Virtual memory? Never heard of it. True multi-threaded multi-tasking? Not on your life.

Oh, and Netscape was crap long before there was a hint of MS bullying. I used NS 3.0, that an excellent piece of software. As soon as they released 4.0 that made it into my book as the crappiest, slowest, crash-prone browser that I've ever had the displeasure of using.

 

[dszd0g]

<< The fact still remains...... I'd take an orange over a Mac any day >>



Nah, if someone was offering me either one for free I'd take the Mac, sell it, build myself a PC, and buy a few oranges with the money.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

As a web designer, I have to say that I really do dislike Netscape. Up until IE 4.0, it (NS) was the very bost out there, but at this point, things started to take a downward turn. If I start to design a website, and spend 2-3 hours making the page itself, I will end up spending a good 5-8 hours on top of that just making the site look right in Netscape. It just doesn't have the ease that MS has given (by whatever means...) to us with IE.

 

[Bagheera]

I don['t think it's actually 3 times faster, but Mac does seem to outrun PCs even with a slower processor... I think doing graphic benchmark tests are kind of unfair tho. Mac IS better at graphics. Other office applications Macs are often slower than PCs.

 

[Celoverclock]

there is way way way too many variables...you need to put the closet ati video cards into a pc and mach..same scsi harddrives..and then we will see steve crawl back into his whole like he did last time

 

[Celoverclock]

btw..zdtv is the shlt

 

[Huma]

The &quot;ease&quot; that IE has given web designers is the ability to write sloppy code and get away with it. but since I've always used Netscape, I had to learn from the beginning how to write cross-browser html and now I can do it without batting an eye. Doesn't take any more time if you learn to do it right in the first place.

What IE is doing though, is slowly killing the idea of a browser/platform independant internet. It'll be a sad day when we're forced to use IE to browse the net.

 

[Captain Ginyu]

Linux can run many windows apps. With the windows emualator wine. Actually its not even an emulator it translates window calls. The funny thing is that starcraft ran faster in wine than in windows!

 

[NFS4]

<< If I had enough rooom on my Puny harddrive, I'd be running Dual boot, Windows for games, Linux for everything else (surfing the net, listening to MP3's etc). >>


But why??? I'm not even gonna waste hard drive space to put on that OS when Win2k does EVERYTHING I need it too.

 

[NFS4]

I don't run old stuff And what about USB??