New to Mac, how does it compare to PC

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by ggariepy, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. ggariepy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    #1
    I have been consdiering switching to MAC's for a little while and the new iMac has just about pushed me over the edge. However, I am concerned that the iMac is underpowered compared to PC's.

    What does an iMac 1.8 GHz compare to on the PC side in terms of relative performance?

    Thanks
    GG
     
  2. rozwell macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    #2
    my experiences with mac, mostly with web design(flash and dreamweaver), and visual stuff(photoshop, illustrator, and quark) has been a good one. its a g4 running at 1.33 ghz, so its much slower than the machine in question. i also play some games like Unrela Tournament 2004 and the Sims. this powerbook can handle it all. anything i throw at it, it does with grace, and like i said its technically slower than the one you are looking at.

    now i dont know pc land anymore, but i would say the g5 imac is like a high end pc, granted its not a powermac which would be a fine pc with some dual xeons i think, but like i sad im not a pc man by any means so correct me if im wrong. what i say is go try out an iMac. you'll love and buy one soon after.
     
  3. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #3
    I have a P4 2.4 Ghz with a 533Mhz bus. I'd say the G5 iMac blows the doors off of my P4. I used the 17" 1.6 Ghz machine. I was very impressed, even with stock ram. Now... If I had tried gaming, I'm sure my PeeCee would be faster.
     
  4. JLaFrance macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
  5. Capt Underpants macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #5
    Think what you will...

    I say that, in the gaming arena, an iMac G5 will be blown away by most PCs based on it's graphics card. I'm guessing that, in everyday apps, a 1.8 g5 = a 2.4-2.8 Ghz P4. Just a guess.
     
  6. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #6
    Also, Macs = worse. It all depends on your criteria for comparison.

    If you're looking for a multi-language system that does everything pretty nicely but doesn't have the wealth of games or viruses or spyware x86 machines has, a Macintosh is a good choice.
     
  7. Mechcozmo macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #7
    The iMac will kick any PCs butt. However, IT IS NOT A GAMING COMPUTER.

    Period. The Video Card, BTW, will not affect video editing nor photoshop. Games, well. Yknow.
     
  8. Champale macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
    #8
    Real world

    Instead of throwing numbers around, let me give you my real world experience.

    I prefer to think of this in terms of how you'll use the computer. What applications will you be running?

    We have two PCs and an iBook and a Powerbook (my wife thinks I'm nuts.)

    In terms of games, I prefer the PC hands down for breadth of software as well as my graphics card. Sad to say, the best games still come out first on PC and as Mac owners, we have to hope and pray they'll get ported over. It's gotten better, true, but it ain't great yet.

    But that's okay because for everything else, there's no contest. It's the mac all the way.

    OS X is a far friendlier, elegant, and stable operating system for day to day usage.

    The integration of iLife means photo organizing is a snap. iTunes music is without peer. Office means I can run Word and Excel and be compatible with my PC peers. Photoshop and Illustrator are great for graphics. As for editing movies, iMovie, iDVD, and Final Cut Express are invaluable, not to mention relatively easy to learn (well, ok I'm still working on Final Cut but the other programs are truly intuitive!)

    So instead of numbers, go with applications. I think with a few exceptions, Macs truly are just plain easier and more fun to work with!
     
  9. dsharits macrumors 68000

    dsharits

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Location:
    The People's Republic of America
    #9
  10. macaddictann macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    #10
    Wow, thanks for that clip, although darn my dial-up. :) I kept thinking man, if this is true for G4s, imagine how true it must be for G5s. Golly, a dual 2.5 GHz is really going to leave a PC in the dust, then turn around, jump on it a few times, kick it in the head, and run off laughing. And top it off with a more stable OS while you're at it. All the Intel processors in the world won't help you if your computer crashes. Although maybe they'll send that BSOD down the pipeline at a decent clip all the same. :)

    I'm typing this on a 3-year-old (almost 4?) Powerbook with 550 MHz. Despite the myths, I still feel the less-than-stellar speed of this computer, which is why I'm buying a G5, but I know I wouldn't trade even this slow Powerbook for even the highest-end, most tricked-out PC.

    I'm not a heavy gamer, fortunately, or even much of a gamer at all. And I occasionally run into troubles in a world that wasn't designed for Macs, yes. But it's all very much worth it. How many of my online friends have gone MIA on me for weeks or months at a time because their computer "died"? I don't know. Several, anyway. And knock knock, I'm still here.
     
  11. virividox macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #11
    like the previous posters mentioned depends what you want to do with it

    i like my macs because i dont have to worry about viruses and maintenance and spyware and getting bogged down

    plus ilife integration makes things so simpe
     
  12. munkle macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #12
    Check out this article just posted on MacBytes, link, along with the comments.
     
  13. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #13
    the iMac isnt a gaming machine... thats what xboxs are for. however saying macs are not gaming machines is a bit shallow really.... try the new powermac g5 with a gf6800 in it..... that should play games like pacman at nearly full frame rate.... (yes i am joking)

    its just a case of apple dont seem to want to put great cards in there machines all the time...

    i mean the new powerbooks are not bad 9700 with 128mb vram and the the g5 powermacs are good as they can have some good cards in there
     
  14. afehrenbach macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    The Heart of America
    #14
    In general, I'd say that PCs with the same or close processor speeds to Macs often have no comparison, depending on the kind of work you do with them. I own a Dell Dimension 2300 2GHz and it is definitely noticeably slower than the iMac G5 1.8GHz that I have worked on very little. Even just working very little on the iMac, though, I can see and feel the difference between the two machines: iMac ran much smoother, applications ran without any problems whatsoever, no popups (I have google toolbar and WXP SP2 and still get annoying popups on my Dell), and in general for the average use (email, internet, music, picture sharing, basic web editing and design) the iMac is just speedier and more user-friendly.

    As far as games go, the Mac offers many compatible and beautifully-displayed games, like The Sims, the Sim City series, 3D pinball games, etc. Even Halo runs pretty well from the little I've played with it on the Mac... The comparison between what a Mac and a Windows PC can do really depends on what you want to do with it... If you want a computer that handles viruses without the necessity for additional virus software, get a Mac. If you want a computer that you may frequently get viruses on but want to be more overall compatible with the computer-business world, then get a PC. But know that Apple is really working its butt off to become more compatible with the rest of the world! ;)
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    I have to chime in since iam a long time Mac user and a new PC user. Pc's arent as elegant or simple if you will. The fact that Macs have for the most part no viruses is a great plus. On the otherside my new AMD powered machine leaves my Mac in the dust in gaming, it sleeps great, wakes up great and iam growing more fond of Xp all the time though its not as sweet as Mac OS it still gets the job done and i can walk into anystore and buy software for it. If you arent a gamer a Mac cannot be beat, if you are a gamer then a PC cant be beat. A 1.8 G5 i would say is about equal to a 2.4 Intel chip since the dual G5 2.0 was about equal to the single P4 at 3.0 or 3.2 in most tests i have seen. If its all about work perhaps the Mac is the way to go but if you enjoy those newer titles and games then i would say forget the Mac. my 2 cents.
     
  16. XIII macrumors 68040

    XIII

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #16
    I would say:

    1.8ghz G5 => 3.0ghz P4... (roughly)
     
  17. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #17
    The problem with that video is that the result was always going to be glossed over by Apple. I mean, Steve Jobbs says that the 867MHz G4 is 80% faster AT A CERTAIN TEST than the 1.7GHz P4 but doesn't give any details about what that test actually is - you can guess you bottom dollar that it's the one in which the G4 excels the best (whether it's relevant to real-world applications or not). If I recall, this video was an attempt to explain why the G4 had been stuck at 500MHz for 2 years and how it was still a force to be reckoned with.

    However, the video does demonstrate well the difference between the two processors and explains why Macs are as powerful as PCs in a lot of respects (i.e. that 1GHz G4 does is much better performance than 1GHz Pentium III/4). I'm not sure how many pipelines the G5 has, but I don't think it's as efficient as the G4 and therefore not as fast, clock for clock, as the G4. (It is still more powerful than the P4 though, which explains why a dual 2.5GHz is better than a 3.6GHz P4).
     
  18. ggariepy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    #18
    Thanks everyone, great answers. While I am (almost) convinced that I will buy an iMac, I think I will wait to see if they introduce a faster CPU and/or a better graphics card.
     
  19. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #19
    the G5 is actually a little faster clock for clock than the G4
    and a dual 2.5 will eat a p4@3.6 ghz...
     
  20. V.A.Toss macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #20
    Mac.

    clock for clock the G5 eats a P4. Infact it eats a P4 regardless of clock speed at the moment anyway.

    The only CPU that comes close is the opteron. But put up against a dual 2.5Ghz G5? Sorry AMD, the G5 leaves it in the dust.

    PCs begin to go wrong when you use the intensely, when you put the system under pressure windows confuses itself (to put it very simply). but if its just word processing or gaming ur doing then a PC is fine generally. Infact its better for gaming, full stop.

    Macs are better for as they call it "content creation", they are simpler to use, and they are designed so the components work in harmony, they just dont have niggly little bugs like windows has.

    I have both an athlonXP box and an ibook.

    I would advise a mac to any1 with enough money to buy one.

    But please give it 2 months minimum to get completely comfortable with them, some users give them 3 weeks and then cast them off as "being too hard to use" or "look that mouse only has one button, macs must be ****". Actually they are simpler, it just takes time to get used to a new OS.
    It depends on the individual, some take to them quicker than others. Most take a month.

    New imac huh?. Either ive contracted VD, or im just green with envy.
     
  21. V.A.Toss macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #21
    The G5 is faster than the G4 clock for clock, i understand its not by much though. But the biggest factor is the G5s FSB, its stunningly quick.
    Certainly not the bottleneck like the G4s is.
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    Well i know one thing this new AMD Athlon 3500+ with BFG6800GT rocks, has a Asus motherboard. i would put it up against a dual 1.8 or 2.0 in any gaming bench. and it runs at 2.2 ghz. 1 cpu vs 2 cpu's See MacAddict or MacWorld for more info. they both ran the then new dual 2.0 against a bunch of stuff in the real world. Anyways Intel has p4s at 4.0 coming. :eek:
     
  23. V.A.Toss macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #23
    Yeah agreed, gaming wise AMD are generally the best to go for. They beat the G5.
    But then thats not what apples about, they never have been gaming orientated and never will be.

    The pentium 4 at 4.0 Ghz doesnt suprise, shock, or even force me to raise an eyebrow. Clock speed isnt why intel are so damn crap. Their processor design is the laughing stock of the CS world, have u seen how many stages in a pipeline they have? sorry, but no branch prediction can compensate for that.
    After using several P4 systems i have been utterly dissapointed. Doesnt do what it says on the tin.
    Apple shouldnt be worried about the pentium.
     
  24. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    I'm new to AMDs world but at least its coming out of the same factory as the G5 :cool: so far it seems to be allright .i have gamed the heck out of it with Doom3 and IL2. Nascar will be next. I Play with everything on. :D its sweet. but i miss OSX.
     

Share This Page