exmacuser said:
It's not a 3.2ghz G5. At best you're looking speed equivilent to a 1.6ghz single core G5.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not a 3.2ghz G5. At best you're looking speed equivilent to a 1.6ghz single core G5.
druggedonions said: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.
Ok so I was wrong about this. It looks like CineBench wasn't optimized to take advantage of the latest implementation of OpenGL in the Intel release of Mac OS10.4. Found this on http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ by way of HardMac
check out the scores using the latest tests.
exmacuser said:
There are more things to speed and CPUs, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
kainjow said:*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
So basically, windows is faster so long as it's not doing anything?
Ya I'm sure windows just sucks at multitasking
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce1.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce2.jpg
-Doom3 in a window at high detail
-burning a DVD
-ripping a DVD (I've got two optical drives)
-playing music (mp3)
-running the horse radial blur benchmark
-outlook and messenger in the background (idle but sucking up some ram)
The computer is a one year old dual 3Ghz Xeon with a couple 36gig SCSI drives and an X800XT-PE for a video card. Yes its pretty good stuff but its no longer bleeding edge but still, doom3 framerates are playable and benchmark score for photoshop decent for doing all that at once....so I'd say it multitasks just fine.Oh also not even a hiccup on the music playback either.
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce1.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce2.jpg
-Doom3 in a window at high detail
-burning a DVD
-ripping a DVD (I've got two optical drives)
-playing music (mp3)
-running the horse radial blur benchmark
-outlook and messenger in the background (idle but sucking up some ram)
The computer is a one year old dual 3Ghz Xeon with a couple 36gig SCSI drives and an X800XT-PE for a video card. Yes its pretty good stuff but its no longer bleeding edge but still, doom3 framerates are playable and benchmark score for photoshop decent for doing all that at once....so I'd say it multitasks just fine.Oh also not even a hiccup on the music playback either.
contoursvt said:Ya I'm sure windows just sucks at multitasking
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce1.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce2.jpg
-Doom3 in a window at high detail
-burning a DVD
-ripping a DVD (I've got two optical drives)
-playing music (mp3)
-running the horse radial blur benchmark
-outlook and messenger in the background (idle but sucking up some ram)
The computer is a one year old dual 3Ghz Xeon with a couple 36gig SCSI drives and an X800XT-PE for a video card. Yes its pretty good stuff but its no longer bleeding edge but still, doom3 framerates are playable and benchmark score for photoshop decent for doing all that at once....so I'd say it multitasks just fine.Oh also not even a hiccup on the music playback either.
I don't see what the point of this post is? Apple is now Intel so what's the big deal? They suck just as bad as your windows machine. There is no longer any hardware advantage. OS 10 is crap on x86.
exmacuser said:
Point was that I was showing that windows multitasks just fine and IMO just as well as OSX would have.
PS. If you're basing you're "Apple sucks now because they are using intel" then you're living in the dark ages. The machines have more power, longer battery life (in the laptops) and will probably have much more aftermarket support. The OS is still OSX and when more applications run native on these boxes, then how could you even tell them apart during use. Oh wait, you'll know which is which because one box will be faster
contoursvt said:Point was that I was showing that windows multitasks just fine and IMO just as well as OSX would have.
PS. If you're basing you're "Apple sucks now because they are using intel" then you're living in the dark ages. The machines have more power, longer battery life (in the laptops) and will probably have much more aftermarket support. The OS is still OSX and when more applications run native on these boxes, then how could you even tell them apart during use. Oh wait, you'll know which is which because one box will be faster
Speed is relative. It is impossible for an x86 processor to process as much information as a RISC processor. So far, OS 10 is slower on the Intels. Enjoy the hiccups and viruses that come with x86.
So what you're saying is you have no idea what you're talking about. Both anecdotal evidence and benchmarks are proving you wrong. It looks as if the mobile Core Duo chip is pretty comparable to an equally clocked G5. So how exactly is the PPC doing better? You can find the benchmarks all over, but for anecdotal evidence, my MacBook encodes video faster than my PowerBook with Toast even though Toast is running in Rosetta. Yes, yes, I know perfectly well that RISC is more elegant than CISC but you know what? It really doesn't matter in the desktop arena because CISC/x86 gets a lot more development than RISC/PPC.exmacuser said:
You do realize that running OS X on x86 isn't less secure than running OS X on PPC, right? No? Well that's par for the course, eh?
exmacuser said:
can't process as much information as a risc processor? you may want to point out which ones.
exmacuser said:
you do realize that "risc" and "cisc" are now meaningless, right? btw, the fact that the ultrasparc t1 can execute 32 threads has nothing to do with it being a "risc" processor and everything to do with design and implementation. you could do the same with a processor that uses the x86 instruction set.
exmacuser said:
What the hell are rambling about? Ya the fast machine is relatively fast compared to the slow one. That means that the new macbooks are relatively fast against your older powerbook
Oh by the way, can you tell me how exactly the OSX operating system is comprimised by it being X86? Thats a stupid statement. Thats like someone running freebsd on a PC being worried about windows viruses and worms.
PS you're not some hippie that drives around in an old VW Fox with a giant apple sticker...preaching powerPC to everyone are you? If you are, then you were probably like the antichrist to the 68K crowd. God I am so glad I am not narrow minded anymore. I used to be long ago when I was an OS/2 guy hating on Microsoft. Sure I still think OS/2 was a great OS and could have had potential but it came a time (that would be NT4) that it just had no more advantages and even if it did, the other platform far outweighed it so no point to resist. You could but you'd only be limiting yourself.
With apple going X86, I believe there is going to be more hardware compatability, more software selection, the ability to run windows for things like games and certain multimedia that may not have been there as well as financial programs that were previously unavailable. The only negative (in the eyes of some) is that it might seem less 'special' because its using more readily available hardware - in theory. Oh and you cant go ranting about altivec. LOL.
contoursvt said:
That's not entirely true, because of the change to x86, writing a virus will be easier. This doesn't mean that someone will, it just means the 'barries to entry' so to speak have been lowered.
However, the benefits outweigh the negatives. IBM and Moto/Freescale both dropped the ball with PPC and Intel is eating their lunch even with the relatively inefficient x86 code. However, one of the great things, is the Universal Binary, which allows for a possible transition back and forth between PPC and x86 and Apple gets to choose the best processor. This is in practice difficult, but maybe the future.
How so? I doubt that most viruses are written in assembly. And of course the script viruses couldn't be. Would you also say that the change to x86 will suddenly make non-viral Mac software easier to write?hulugu said:
'Dropped the ball?'
Didn't Apple account for about 4% of the revenues from IBM's PPC output? Not really that much. And having 'dropped the ball' with Apple, IBM picked deals with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Sony alone is expected to shift 100 million PS3s in the next five years.
IBM should drop the ball more often ....
Didn't Apple account for about 4% of the revenues from IBM's PPC output? Not really that much. And having 'dropped the ball' with Apple, IBM picked deals with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Sony alone is expected to shift 100 million PS3s in the next five years.
IBM should drop the ball more often ....
hulugu said:
While that might be true in the sense that x86 based viruses have been around a long time and probably more 'experts' writing them, but its now for a different platform so viruses would have to be re-written. The ones out now will have no affect on OSX. Although the secure nature of OSX will make it harder to penetrate so I think it should be fine.
contoursvt said:
This sounds like the computer virus somehow operates on the CPU independently of the operating system. It doesn't work that way.
A computer virus is a piece of software that uses services offered by the operating system, just like every other application out there. The difference is that a piece of software we call "virus" does things that are simply wrong or at least unexpected, plus it makes copies of itself without asking the user who executed the code.
The virus problem of the Windows world only shows how Microsoft's software security sucks, it's not an indication of "bad x86" platform. If a virus wants to do something without the user knowing it, the Windows operating system just says: sure, go ahead. That's not acceptable, and it won't happen that easily with UNIX(-based) systems. Whether PPC or x86 platform, for sure UNIX is safer than Windows.
JFreak said:
Umm, thats exactly what I wrote. I basically said that there are a lot of X86 programmers which CAN re-write viruses for OSX if they wanted, however the current PC viruses out right now cannot affect OSX. Also OSX being more secure will make it more difficult for something to execute.
rayz said:
A bit OT but considering all the delays Sony has made on the PS3 they'll be lucky they're not betamaxed out of existence by the XSux and Revolution. The "100 million" if Sony's president has his way with pricing at close to a grand a unit (can't find the link) AND that almost $1,000 a unit due to development overruns would STILL be at a loss for Sony per console sold. Sony dug themselves a giant hole filled with turd. I'm not sure how Microsuck did it and I hate to give the biggest rip off company with lackluster junk in the history of technology any credit (Microsuck that is) but they PWNed Sony and the console market. As it is we may not even see a PS3 until 2007. Bye Sony, it was nice knowing you as a game console, you'll be in the museum next to the (arguably at it's time superior) Dreamcast boxes.
rayz said:
IBM didn't have a choice between Apple and the consoles, they failed in one market and did well in another. IBM has been unable to make a good laptop chip and that is a serious market to falter at. IBM is not in danger of going away, but someone certainly screwed up.
contoursvt said:
The transition simply lowered one of the barriers for former Wintel virus writers. That's it.