Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Apr 7, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    Microsoft's response to Apple's release of Boot Camp with a positive statement:

    Meanwhile, Apple explains that the release of Boot Camp addresses some requests from different users and is intended to encourage PC users to switch:

    Brian Croll, senior director for Mac OS X product marketing, clarifies that Apple will not preinstall or sell Windows, so users must provide their own copy.

    A number of early benchmarks are starting to appear comparing the speed of Windows XP to Mac OS X as well as Windows XP on the Mac compared to other PCs:

    - Cinebench 9.8 scores WinXP vs Mac OS X (Bootcamp)
    - Adobe Photoshop CS Windows vs Mac (Bootcamp) - note: Mac Photoshop on Intel Core Duo is emulated
    - PCMark '04 MacBook Pro 1.83 vs HP 309F 1.83GHz (Bootcamp)
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    realityisterror

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Location:
    Snellville, GA
    #2
    "Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

    Translation: Oh crap, son! Those fools are getting too much money!
     
  3. mig
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #3
    Do I understand the benchmark right, that windows is generally faster on a mac than the OS?

    Isn't that terrible news for our beloved OS?
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #4
    *sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    #5
    Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.
     
  6. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #6
    The Intel Mac's Photoshop is emulated. It's running PowerPC Photoshop on an Intel Mac. There is no Intel-native version of Photoshop for the Mac yet.

    arn
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #7
    Photoshop is not x86 yet. It's PPC. Emulating is always slower than native instruction, no butts about it ;)
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    #8
    Because Photoshop is not universal binary and hence you need to run rosetta which emulates and there by drop in performance. After adobe releases the new photoshop, the results should be comparable.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    #9
    Looking at the scores and seeing that Windows looks to be quicker the OSX, is this a case of Apple shooting themselves in the foot and does this mean that Leopard is likely to be a much quicker and more streamlined OS so Jobs can say look at these scores and shows graph compared to XP??

    Dan
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    #10
    OpenGL hasn't really been optimized for the Intel processor yet so this will bring the scores down for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Once Apple get those issues dealt with and ATI get their drivers refined I think you'll see those scores improve. :cool:
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    MrCrowbar

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #11
    Windows is indeed a bit more snappy on a fresh install. But once you install all the programs you need, it is on par with OSX. AntiVirus is mandatory on a windows mashine and it eats quite some power and makes I/O way slower if you enable live virus testing.

    Where OSX shines is multitasking. Run Photoshop, Word and iTunes on a PC and it is just painful on Windows. On OSX you can run a bunch of applications without noticable slowdowns. It's limited on 512MB RAM but when you upgrade to 1GB or more OSX beats XP to death.

    PS: You might want to do these benchmarks again with reasonable RAM. Put 2GB in there like every sane MBP owner would.
     
  12. mig
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
    Honestly, when I do memory intensive operations, I don't multitask anyway. So what's the point? But I do appreciate, that at least the rendering on OS outperforms the windows (slightly only but it does). But open GL is quite important for me and I am concern about the advantage of windows. I thought GL used to be better in OS?
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #13
    See druggedonions's reply above.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    #14
    But is this because you're using Windows?;)
     
  15. mig
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #15
    Of course not. I am using Mac from day one of my computer literacy. And I will continue, because I also need some beauty around me for work and in private (unlike pc and that awful windows - I am superficial, you know). But I am just concern, that this time, there can be a real competition, and Mac will really loose.

    I am using software (e.g. Maxwell), which is more advanced/working on windows than on Mac, and I am mostly concerned, that these developers stop producing for Mac based on some benchmarks and I have to switch finally. I am already taking quite some trouble to work around the absence of ACAD for Mac for years.

    I just don't want to use a software (windows), which is so uninspiring and mainstream, just because OS looses to it...
     
  16. macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #16
    The Cinebench total score must be viewed in the light that the different tests have different weight. If you normalise the scores and give each test the same weight, you get:

    Cinema Shading
    OSX: 100
    WinXP: 76

    OpenGL SW
    OSX: 100
    WinXP: 126

    OpenGL HW
    OSX: 100
    WinXP: 140

    Rendering:
    OSX: 100
    WinXP: 93

    Rendering MP
    OSX: 100
    WinXP: 94

    Total
    OSX: 500
    WinXP: 529

    WinXP is 5.8% faster. That's not much, especially when you consider the short time Apple has had to optimise their OpenGL drivers for Intel.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    The Moon
    #17
    Ah. Now the mac community is seen as "excited about running Windows". Like, we like Os X, but we are sooooo excited to run Windows. :eek:

    I'd say, there's a tiny bit of sarcasm in MS' statement...
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    yippy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #18
    Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.
     
  19. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #19
    Well, the reality of the situation is "Mac users are excited to be able to run Windows as infrequently as necessary, but we at Microsoft are excited they are still willing to pay for a copy of our OS"
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    1macker1

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Location:
    A Higher Level
    #20
    It is a big difference when u are getting ur ass handed to you on your own hardware. I find this to be very funny.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    #21
    PEOPLE.....RTFA(s)!

    If you've been under a ROCK, Photoshop is NOT NATIVE on the x86 Macs.

    Also, in the PC Mark'04 test, why did the idiot reviewer leave 2GB in the HP? I just don't get it!? However, it looks like good news, as the MBP is pretty much neck and neck except those ones where RAM overwhelmingly makes the entire difference.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #22
    Yep, in the same way that Windows 98 beats Windows XP on speed, but not on stability, security and functionality.
     
  23. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    #23
    That's funny.

    Apple customers are NOT excited about running XP - believe me, I just made the switch and I am never going back.

    How f'ed up is Microsoft? If customers wanted to run Windows they would buy an HP. They're cheaper for a start.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    VanNess

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #24
    Cnet's "benchmark" article was just plain absurd.

    Comparing a resource-intensive program such as Photoshop running in emulation in OS X against it's fully native counterpart in Windows is only interesting to the extent that a major technology publication would stoop to such a stunt and publish such a patently misleading result.

    A fair (and more informative) comparison would have been XP-based Photoshop performance results on Intel Macs compared with other XP based hardware such as Dell - which the article did cover - but throwing in Photoshop on Rosetta results into the mix was, quite simply, pointless.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    ImAlwaysRight

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    #25
    Maybe you stopped drinking the Koolaid? Drink up, son!

    That's cnet for ya. That's why I gave that cnet reporter grief in the other thread when he posted asking for negative responses to boot camp.

    In other words you mean Vista will be much slower, because that's the way the OS's normally work, right?
     

Share This Page