Anyone compared Windows vs Mac Hardware?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by twdi, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. twdi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #1
    I have a windows 7 machine with a i7 860 cpu and 12 Gb of ram. Harddrives are in Raid 0 but it's not the speed of an SSD.

    As hobby I mainly do some photo- and videoediting with Lightroom 4 or photshop elements 11 and I also use premiere elements 11.

    Probable next week, I will buy a macbook retina but have no experience with the Mac OS in terms of speed and performance. .

    According the geeckbech browser, the 3 years old i7 in my windows machine scores arround 7500 and the i5 2500 in a 13 inch rMBP arround 6000.

    Is this a hugh difference? On my windows machine, the applications I 've mentioned are running fine and fast enough. Would that also be on the 13 inch rMBP or should I really take a look at the faster (and more expensive) 15 inch?

    Does anyone has experience with such a change from Windows 7 to mac with these hardware?
     
  2. mac8867 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #2
    You are doing a simple hardware comparison, when you should be considering operating system efficiency. MacOS will outperform any windows operating system - hands down. Better memory (page) swapping, more efficient IO cache/buffering. Not tom mention there is no need to waste cpu or memory on virus protection junk in MacOS. You are posting on a Mac forum, so, your answer will 99% of the time already be the one you appear to be hoping for.

    Buy the Mac, if it doesn't work out, take advantage of the return policies.
     
  3. twdi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #3
    Maybe you are right. But.... there will be a great deal soon at a shop in my town which will save me apprixl 250 euro on a 13 inch rMBP 2012. But 2: then I can't take advantage of the return policies.

    If I order one via the apple website, then I can return it but it will cost me a lot more.

    That's why I'm trying to figure out how it will work for me first.
     
  4. Rhinoevans macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #4
    I have had my 2012 cMBP for about 6 months now, and even thought the XOS may be better, not obvious to me. Runs about the same as my 3 year old SOny with an i7 running WIn 8.

    Just a bunch of benchmark that in practical application means nothing! Probably going back to a windows machine with Haswell!
     
  5. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #5
    What's XOS? Don't you mean OSX?

    How do benchmarks mean nothing?
     
  6. skaertus macrumors 68030

    skaertus

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Location:
    Brazil
    #6
    Note that you are comparing two very different machines.

    One is a desktop, powered with a Core i7-860 2.8 GHz, a quad-core Nehalem processor. The other one is a laptop, powered with a Core i5-3210M 2.5 GHz (or something similar, depending on the specs of the retina MacBook Pro you wish to buy), a dual core mobile Ivy Bridge processor. The processor in the retina MacBook Pro is two generations ahead of your desktop processor, but have in mind that it is still a processor for laptops. It consumes less power, which translates into a performance penalty.

    As a result, the i5-3210M is more efficient than the i7-860. However, the i7-860 is faster and more powerful than the i5-3210M, as it has more cores and a higher clock. Ivy Bridge processors are faster than Nehalem at the same clock rates and with the same number of cores, but you are comparing a 4-core 2.8 GHz CPU to a 2-core 2.5 GHz CPU, so the difference between these architectures is not enough to overshadow such gap.

    The 2.4 GHz quad-core i7 that powers the 15-inch model is, on the other hand, probably faster than the 2.8 GHz i7-860. The 2.7 GHz quad-core i7 that powers the top-end 15-inch is certainly faster.
     
  7. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #7
    The 15" would be faster because of the quad-core CPU. If you do a lot of photo editing and video editing, you might notice the slower speed of the dual-core CPU in the 13", as well as the lack of a discrete GPU. Your current setup is quad core, and while there have been some improvements from the 1st to the 3rd generation Core chips, it won't make up for 2 additional cores.

    If you can find a good deal on a clearance 15" rMBP model that might be a better option.

    Regarding Windows vs OS X, I switch back and forth every day and have no real issues. My office PC is Windows 7. Also, with a Mac, if you decide you don't like OS X, there is always the option of installing Windows using Boot Camp (it supports only Windows 7 right now, but Windows 8 support is coming soon). There are even ways of completely deleting OS X and enabling EFI support for Windows, but I don't recommend that as Apple provides firmware updates, etc. only though OS X.
     
  8. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #8
    Buy online, then if it works for you, return it and buy from your local store?

    And if it doesn't work out, return it anyways? :p

    Don't really advocate such a move (as it results in unnecessary wasted manpower and resources on both sides, and I hate doing redundant stuff), but if it will help your decision making...
     
  9. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #9
    The new machine is more likely to be faster in most tasks, because it is faster per core. The only reason why the old laptop gets a higher score is because it has 4 cores compared to 2 cores of the i5 CPU. If you are using a heavily threaded application, the old CPU will be slightly faster, for anything else it will be slower. Per se, there is no difference between Mac and Windows hardware, they all use the same CPUs/RAM etc. Expect Macs to be slightly more efficient, because they are usually optimised to the extreme (especially the new retina models with soldered-on RAM).

    This is nonsense. The memory management of Windows 7/8 is on par if not better than OS X, so is I/O. Where OS X really shines is multiprocessing (due to its BSD roots) - it launches/manages multiple processes and threads more smoothly. In return, OS X graphics drivers are horrible compared to Windows ones. Besides, lots of professional software nowadays works better on Windows (Photoshop comes to mind).
     
  10. throAU, Feb 16, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #10
    Depends what you're doing (whether the app is CPU bound or not). The big reason for that difference will be that you are comparing a quad core machine to a dual core.

    If you compare to a 15" MBP, that will score over 11,000.

    Desktop vs mobile, the desktop machine should be considerably faster for the same age hardware as the thermal and power budget is so much higher.


    Not really, in my experience, comparing OS X 10.5 through 10.8 vs Windows Vista / 7, but it does depend what you're doing and I do prefer OS X to actually use. Windows 7 is generally more stable than OS X for me as well, but Windows does depend highly on you buying hardware with decent driver support - its quite easy to build a very unstable Windows machine if you make poor hardware choices. Not to say OS X crashes heaps, but I've seen more crashes on OS X in the past 5 years than I have on my Windows machine. But i can count both on 1 hand. It's a non-issue. However, to say OS X drastically out performs Windows these days is a bit misleading at best.


    Give both OSes enough memory (which is cheap), and performance is roughly equivalent - Windows having the edge in 3d hardware support and newer/faster drivers. But we're not talking like 50% difference or anything. The gap is small enough between both to not really be an issue IMHO - which one you prefer to actually use is more important.

    I use both OSes daily.


    My suggestion to you is this:
    • work out what applications you want to run
    • work out what hardware you like (i.e., go play with some machines) - this will also determine whether or not you get quad core or not.
    • this will determine your OS selection, or rather rule out / include OS X on apple hardware
    • worry about benchmarks last and if possible, actually test what you're trying to do on the prospective machine. Apple may even let you try something out on one of their in store machines if you ask - I suspect that will be the last push to whether or not you go 13" laptop or 15" laptop


    If a 13" portable machine is a lot more useful to you due to the portability but still "Fast enough" (and I suspect it will be given your proposed usage), maybe giving up some CPU power is worth it.

    I went from a Core 2 Quad desktop to my MBP 15" and have used a few Airs and other dual core machines. I run a dual core i5 (Windows) laptop at work and a Core i7 quad MBP at home. For most of what you want to do a dual core i5 or similar is fine. I don't see s massive degradation in speed when using my work machine in most stuff.

    So long as you have plenty of RAM, I doubt you will see any slow down to speak of. If you have SSD in the new machine it will feel faster most likely, irrespective of what geekbench says.
     
  11. skaertus macrumors 68030

    skaertus

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Location:
    Brazil
    #11
    That's a different issue. Aside from hardware, there is software.

    OS X does not necessarily outperform Windows. They are different operating systems, and each has its own efficiencies and inefficiencies. To say that OS X is better than Windows in any and every aspect is a biased statement, and probably a fanboy opinion.

    In addition to the operating system, there are the applications themselves. Some applications are written for Windows and then ported to OS X, and vice-versa. Ported applications sometimes take a hit on performance, due to not being optimized for the OS, or due to unnecessary code. iTunes, for instance, is better under OS X than under Windows. Microsoft Office, on the other hand, is fast under Windows, but it is a snail under OS X.

    Said that, I don't know about the performance of the specific software you use under OS X and Windows. Notice that, no matter the optimizations that the operating system or the coding may bring to the performance of the software, they will not do miracles, and the power of hardware cannot be underestimated. Even if the OS X version turns out to be faster than the Windows version on the same hardware, the retina 13-inch MacBook Pro will hardly be faster than your more powerful desktop.
     
  12. PinoyAko macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    #12
    Windows and OS X are both great OS's. It boils down to what the individual needs and experiences.
     
  13. el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #13
    RAM, CPU, Hard Drive. Better value goes to Windows machines.

    Build Quality. REAL world battery life. OS efficiency. Customer support. Hat tip to the Macintosh.

    Just depends on which is more important to you. For me, the battery life was key. I have a powerful windows desktop but need a laptop that will last all day every day, and still last all day a year from now. The huge LiPo cell that knocks everything anyone has out of the water, WITHOUT a ton of weight or a huge protruding cyst on the back of the computer, does that. The performance is about the same as Windows machines that around 50-70% the same price, yes. But I didn't pay for the CPU, RAM, and Hard Drive. If that was all I needed, I'd go Windows. But I paid the premium for a solidly built machine I can rely on, the service and support of Apple computer (ever had to mail a computer for repairs only to get it back 6 weeks later still broken?), and the OS itself. It's a big premium to pay, so if those things aren't important to you, it's a lot of money for not a lot of value. But for me, where those things are EXTREMELY important (and performance not necessarily so, any mid-level laptop is 'fast enough' for what I use a laptop for), nothing comes close to the bang-for-the-buck I get with my MBP.

    In my case, the heavy lifting is done with a desktop. That includes gaming, but also a lot of photo and some video editing, where a color accurate calibrated display is needed (so I'm at my desk anyway). So the desktop does that. I need the notebook on the go. If I have to carry a charger with me, it's not portable. My MBP is the first machine I comfortably leave my charger at home, use it all day, and come home and charge it (not unlike my cellphone). So the 13" non-Retina MBP, with an SSD (two actually, in RAID0) is it!
     
  14. Freyqq, Feb 16, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

    Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #14
    Windows and OSX are both great. As far as the OS is concerned, I feel that OSX has a tiny edge due to mission control/spaces and UNIX. But, it really depends on the software you need. I feel that the built-in programs that come with OSX are a bit better than for Windows. For instance, osx mail is way better than windows live mail. At the same time, MS office for windows is way better than MS office for OSX - no onenote = :(

    As far as system performance is concerned across the different OS, they're really about equal. However, for gaming, windows wins handily.

    As far as build quality for the physical device, there is nothing remotely as well designed as a mac. Not even the thinkpads come close. The keyboard is amazing, display is amazing, and trackpad is amazing...all in a package that weighs less than the competition.

    Personally, I own a mbp and boot between OSX and windows 7 based on what I'm doing.
     
  15. kis macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #15
    Windows 7: yes. Windows 8: heck no. I don't really like W8, but it's fast as hell.
     
  16. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #16
    Booting is faster in Windows 8 than Windows 7, but from the albeit limited experience I have with Windows 8, it seems about the same in overall usage.

    That said, Windows has come a long way since the "bad old days" of Windows 95 or even XP. Today, OS X (from 10.6 on) and Windows (7 or 8) are both pretty solid operating systems. It comes down to personal preferences. That said, Apple touchpads are still the best in the business (5 years after they introduced the multitouch touchpad), and the build quality is impeccable. Some ultrabooks come close, but they are just as expensive. And of course, 7 months later, the rMBP is still the only notebook with a PPI so high (although the Surface Pro comes close).
     
  17. ultra7k macrumors 6502

    ultra7k

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    #17
    my old custom rig, that I sold back in november

    intel 2500k
    asus p8z68-v mobo
    8gb g.skill 1333 ram
    1x 60gb ocz vertex 2 ssd
    1x 60gb g.skill phoenix pro ssd
    1x 500gb seagate 7200rpm hdd
    1x 1tb wd green 5400rpm hdd
    creative soundblaster titanium hd soundcard
    sapphire 2gb radeon 6970HD gpu
    corsair 750HX PSU

    running on win7

    this rig powered 4 monitors and had plenty of power to spare while gaming and watching movies.

    in terms of hardware, downgraded to:

    mid 2012 MBP 13"
    16gb corsair vengeance ram
    240gb intel 330 ssd

    running on OSX 10.8

    What's the main difference? I can't play Witcher 2 anymore....

    But all kidding aside (I really can't) it depends what you want out of your machine. Since I won't be gaming nearly as much any more, having a relative monster machine was pretty pointless. Also, the random blue screen of death (even though I like windows 7) was getting annoying. Yes, it was much more solid than previous versions of Windows, but still...that blue screen...or just random crashes.

    Conversely, on the MBP, I can do more or less the same things on a different OS without taking much of a performance hit, at least when I'm not gaming.

    If it's for gaming, hands down you have to go with PC, but for everyday non gaming use I'd rather stick to OSX. In the few months that I've had the MBP, I've had...1 crash. Everything has been rock solid, and worked as advertised. Couple in the fact that at this point I'm pretty invested in the Apple ecosystem made the transition easier.

    I don't have to fandangle drivers, updates or things like that any longer. After being a life long MS user, I'm glad I switched over. I still get my MS fix at work, and I don't doubt that somewhere down the line I might build another PC gaming rig. That being said, most games I want to play are available on Mac, otherwise I have my PS3 to fill the void.

    In terms of everyday use, bench marks don't really mean much in the end. Any differences in experience are pretty much solely related to gaming at this point. Photoshop, indesign etc work just as well on my MBP.

    One downside though, my room is now a lot colder without my PC generating heat. hahaha.
     
  18. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #18
    In this day and age, if you aren't time-dependent, it really doesn't matter anymore. I had a Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro from 2006, a Macbook Air from 2011, and a PC that was most recently upgraded about a year ago, and they all work just as well for web development and photoshop use. In fact, the biggest issue I run into is the video card - my video card in the 2006 MBP was outdated by 2008, while the MBA video card is crap, and my PC video card was great in 2010, not so much anymore.

    So going back to what you said, I'd say go with whatever gives you a better video card :p

    What, what, what? I'm pretty sure the facebook developers who were just hacked on OS X machines would have something to say about that.
     
  19. nobackup macrumors member

    nobackup

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    #19
    €250 is that on the "New" price or against last weeks ?

    Personally I saved €500 by waiting a week as I got the "old" i7 2.9 512 r13 for 2099 ... "new price" is 2099 ... last week €2599!!!

    If I were you go to your nearest Apple store, or buy online with Apple .... best return policy even in the EU or by Amazon ... good prices and full return NO QUESTIONS asked !!

    Just a point on the Hardware .. here the bleeding edge of Windows8

    Ultrabooks designed by intel !!:mad:

    33.8 cm (13.3"), 1600 x 900 Gloss , Touchscreen
    Core i7-3517U 2x 1.90 GHz (3.00 GHz Turbo), 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD
    Intel GMA HD 4000 Shared Memory, no optical drive
    WLAN b/g/n, 1x USB 3.0, 1x USB 2.0, HDMI
    1.0 MP Webcam, Windows 8 64 Bit

    €1499


    33.8 cm (13.3"), 2560 x 1600 Glossy
    Core i7-3520M 2x 2.90 GHz (3.60 GHz Turbo), 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD
    Intel GMA HD 4000 Shared Memory, no optical drive
    WLAN a/b/g/n, 2x USB 3.0, HDMI / Thunderbolt
    1.3 MP Webcam, Mac OS X 64 Bit

    €1699

    So only €200 "premium" for Better Processor + full Metal Case + better screen + camera + battery

    Not to mention the resale value

    just sold my 2012 c13 2.5 500 8GB ... for €850 ... cost last june €1200... now via a re-commerce site ... they will sell it for a profit.. I would have got more selling myself but this is instant ....

    try that with the Lenovo/Sony/Asus/Acer that are being compared all the time... :)

    So removing the OS discussion I can only recommend the 13 or the 15 .. as the old story about the "Hugh premium" has again been corrected now by Apple

    Toshiba Portégé R930

    33.8 cm (13.3"), 1366 x 768 matt
    Core i7-3520M 2x 2.90 GHz (3.60 GHz Turbo), 4 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD
    Intel GMA HD 4000 Shared Memory, no optical drive
    WLAN a/b/g/n, UMTS, 2x USB 3.0, 1x USB 2.0, HDMI
    1.3 MP Webcam, Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit

    €2227

    So the macbook provides a better screen + more memory + better case + better battery

    and you save €528 !! :cool:
     

Share This Page