PC vs MAC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

fatalerror101

macrumors newbie
Oct 8, 2002
29
0
San Jose
uh oh

this article is very disturbing, but the point has to be made that your not buying a pc for it's speed it for it's software, otherwise thier wouldn't be mac platform, for me at least. Well what's nice about this report is that the Mac is almost as fast a hyperthreaded 2.5 ghz machine while our clock speed is at 1.25, so maybe when we get our PM upgrade in MWSF we can compeate on an almost even level. I hope that our future chip the New 970 from IBM will extingush our slipping clock speeds and help us gain some more ground in the workstation area.

First post?


PowerBook G4 1ghz
 

fatalerror101

macrumors newbie
Oct 8, 2002
29
0
San Jose
to true

Your right they don't, but they both have maya, and i am sure that out beloved PM's aren't as fast as thier huge powersucking Pentium 4's w/ HT


PowerBook G4 1ghz
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
1
downtown
Wow, that is absolutely horrible. I feel very passionate about using a mac, but goddamn.... we're getting raped right now.
 

Mr_Goblin

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 2, 2002
3
0
fatalerror101, you make a very good point here:

>>>>Well what's nice about this report is that the Mac is almost as fast a hyperthreaded 2.5 ghz machine while our clock speed is at 1.25, so maybe when we get our PM upgrade in MWSF we can compeate on an almost even level.<<<<

i feel better now :)
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,123
12
Lancashire
Wow, that is absolutely horrible. I feel very passionate about using a mac, but goddamn.... we're getting raped right now.
You should see how much the powermac is destroyed by 1Ghz+ Athlon and 2Ghz+ Pentium 4 PCs. The dual Ghz G4 is about on a par with a 1Ghz Pentium III while 2.2Ghz Pentium 4 and Athlon 2200XP+ systems are easily 80% faster than the average performance people with 1Ghz G4s are getting.

That will change a bit when protools goes OS X native 'cos it can use 100% of 1 cpu for plug-ins and 100% of the other cpu for everything else and the OS. At present it's only using 85% of 1 cpu for everything and 15% of the same cpu for the OS.

There's also a limit to the amount of applications than can truly take advantage of dual cpus, audio software is very black and white when it comes to performance, you either CAN run X amount of plug-ins and tracks or you can't.
 

FattyMembrane

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2002
966
129
bat country
i just close my eyes and keep telling myself that the 970 will make it all better. lets just hope that in the time it takes for a 970 to make it into a powermac amd does not have a 4ghz clawhammer or something else to put the last nail in apple's coffin.
 

Mr_Goblin

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 2, 2002
3
0
>>>>no offense but this is repost #3 for that article.<<<<

my bad, failed to use search engine
 
Originally posted by Mr_Goblin
fatalerror101, you make a very good point here:

>>>>Well what's nice about this report is that the Mac is almost as fast a hyperthreaded 2.5 ghz machine while our clock speed is at 1.25, so maybe when we get our PM upgrade in MWSF we can compeate on an almost even level.<<<<

i feel better now :)
Even level? Did you even read that article. 3.06 GHz P4 is MURDERING dual G4 1.25. Dude, that's a SINGLE Pentium 4 system.

Now, Dual 3.06 GHz P4 Xeon w/ Hyperthreading... oh my gosh, I can't imagine how sucidial the Power Mac would appear against that machine.
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
Pentium 4s....

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Even level? Did you even read that article. 3.06 GHz P4 is MURDERING dual G4 1.25. Dude, that's a SINGLE Pentium 4 system.

Now, Dual 3.06 GHz P4 Xeon w/ Hyperthreading... oh my gosh, I can't imagine how sucidial the Power Mac would appear against that machine.
...don't support dual processors... :) Dual Xeon, perhaps, but that would be upwards of $2000 for the processors alone. Anyway, I'm hardly surpised it's losing. I mean: 1.25GHz with a 167MHz bus and about 2.3IPC vs. 3.06GHz a 533MHz bus and about 1.8IPC (maybe higher with multithreaded apps and hyperthreading). I would guess it would be on an even level against a 2.4GHz NorthwoodA when running multithreaded apps. With Altivec and multithreading (Photoshop, Final Cut) it would do better. With most crappy PC ports, it would do worse. A dual 970 on multithreaded Altivec optimized code would beat both of them by so much that it wouldn't even be funny (heck, it would beat them both combined). Actually, on second thought, it would be pretty funny, but only if I owned the dual 970 :).
 
Re: Pentium 4s....

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
A dual 970 on multithreaded Altivec optimized code would beat both of them by so much that it wouldn't even be funny (heck, it would beat them both combined). Actually, on second thought, it would be pretty funny, but only if I owned the dual 970 :).
You don't know that, yet. Sources indicate that the estimated SPEC numbers for PowerPC 970 is slightly lower than the Hammer.

No one knows for certain. 2003 will be a FUN year, no? :D
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Catfish_Man:

Dual Xeon, perhaps, but that would be upwards of $2000 for the processors alone.
You are confusing the big-cache Xeons with the small-cache Xeons. The type of Xeon that runs at 2.8ghz and goes into most dual-processor machines costs only a little more than a P4 of the same clock speed. Big-cache Xeons top out at 2ghz, but can sport 2mb of on-die L3 at that speed. :) ($4000 a pop, a think.)
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,400
1,663
Please do not reply to posts that are incorrectly posted in the wrong area.

arn
 

Status
Not open for further replies.