PC Faster than Mac ???

mgearmgear
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Heard many times from the stormtroppers of the darkside that PC is faster than Mac.......



I am also a believer that Mac is faster in Digital Image/Video Processing.







Any Comments on the article below?



<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm"; target="_blank">www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm</a>





<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm"; target="_blank">web page</a>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    jonathan brisbyjonathan brisby Posts: 318member
    I'd rather not embarass myself by defending the Mac in the tests. I think we can all agree we need some new hardware to 'level the playing field'. So isn't that enough said?
  • Reply 2 of 14
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Mac users should be suprised that the tests are as close as they are. We're giving up alot of performance because we're not using DDR memory yet. The article incorrectly states that the Athlon chip is quicker but this test does not solely test the CPU. I believe it has more to do with memory throughput which is why the P4 does well..expecially if it's using an 850 chipset with RDRAM.



    Look at Xserve benchmarks to see what potential DDR can make even when not implemented fully.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    applewormappleworm Posts: 93member
    Steve,



    It's time for new PMs (faster bus and CPU).





    PS: It will be interesting to see a benchmark with the XServe.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    Some have said that the XServe benchmarks benefited heavily from independent ATA channels. If we're talking about operations that aren't disk heavy, might DDR not be the PM's savior?
  • Reply 5 of 14
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    [quote]Originally posted by frawgz:

    <strong>Some have said that the XServe benchmarks benefited heavily from independent ATA channels. If we're talking about operations that aren't disk heavy, might DDR not be the PM's savior?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I would see independant ATA channels as leveling the playing field with the competition using SCSI. I do think that the Xserve ATA system helps and it'd be great to see something like that in the next Powermacs.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    o iborgo iborg Posts: 14member
    Hm, I DO find DDR might give us a decent speed push, I mean, its obvious the two G4 on the recent Dual PowerMac cant be satisfied with data from the bus!



    Since ATA draw a little CPU power, it is crucial for a server to have this independent, also for other reasons.



    But I also dont think getting DDR creates a "wonder" here!



    Apple should at least start to add the maximum of supported L3 cache, and here I dont care if this costs a little. If I compare my Ti800 to my QS867 (no L3), the Ti "seems" faster, despite the fact its a Lowpower G4 version of trhe 7455 used in the QuickSilver.



    The upcoming MPC7470 is supposed to support 4 MB DDR Cache, and I urge Apple to fill it up with 4 MB.



    I certainly dont udnerstand why they stopped making such beasts like the Mac IIfx or the Quadra 840av. It least here in Switzerland these machines sold very well, althought they were, uhm, quite expensive.



    Why dont they do this anymore? Just mainstream Macs, a few singles, a top end dual, slightly more Mhz if at all. No fast harddrives, etc.



    Its time Apple shows they can design Hardware. Many commercial agencies and design studios will buy the last bit of performance!



    At least the TiBook kicks most PC laptops ass, if not, take in the price as well *ggg*
  • Reply 7 of 14
    brianmacosbrianmacos Posts: 548member
    I agree for the professional LVL Apple needs to get some new hardware out but for consumer LVL products they are fine, but more speed would be better. Currently any thing I run works perferct on my G3 700mhz, in till I start producing movies and animation I don't think I will need to upgrade not like I plan on it or any thing! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 8 of 14
    bluejekyllbluejekyll Posts: 103member
    I would not put too much faith into that sites benchmark tests.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    beavbeav Posts: 7member
    Being the owner of both PC's and a mac, i can definately say that PC's are much faster. I just bought a mac for it's novelty.



    I'm really worried about how much of an effect DDR will have on the G4. RISC proccessors don't necessarily need that kind of memory bandwidth that x86 processors use. Also, without a faster memory bus, it won't do much good. For example, i have a P3 DDR system and a P3 SDR system. Both of them perform about equally in real world applications. The p3 is based off of a 100 and 133mhz bus, and doesn't need/can't make good use of the added memory bandwidth.



    We shall see however, when comprehensive benchmarks are made between the SDR and DDR platforms
  • Reply 10 of 14
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    Ditto that.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    Comparing the importance of DDR etc on different platforms is very questionable.



    Back in the pentium days Toms Hardwareguide showed that 166 MHz Pentiums ( with a 83 MHz bus) were faster than 200 MHz pentiums with a 66 MHz bus. On the Mac side the 601 and 604 scaled better with busratios of 1:3 and even higher



    So if a 133 MHz bus strangle a AMD or a Intel CPU running on a 20X bus multiplier that does not mean that a G4 133 MHz Bus and 7.5 multiplier is strangled.



    Perhaps it is even affected my the OS?

    Is there any test made on Linux and Win to see if the performance hits are the same on different OSes?
  • Reply 12 of 14
    trailmaster308trailmaster308 Posts: 699member
    [quote]Originally posted by mgear:

    <strong>.......PC is faster than Mac.......

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    True
  • Reply 13 of 14
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    The current Powermacs are indeed bottlenecked by the memory subsystem. I agree the Athlon and the P4 require fast memory busses but so does the G4. We haven't seen what the G4 can do without limitations. I'm looking forward to finding out.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>The current Powermacs are indeed bottlenecked by the memory subsystem. I agree the Athlon and the P4 require fast memory busses but so does the G4. We haven't seen what the G4 can do without limitations. I'm looking forward to finding out.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    hear! hear! I'll drink to that.



    Now if Motorola would only do their part....



    ting5
Sign In or Register to comment.