Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why is my new iMac 2.16 Core 2 slower than my eMac 1.25?

SBleed@mchsi.co said:
yeah my PC isn't exactly the highest end you can get.
I suck at spelling, and I couldn't remember if it was an FX or not. the Macs here at work say they're a 6600 LE, but I know mine's not an LE.

Is Athlon better?
Click to expand...

Athlons WERE better. Until Core Duos came out. And now Core 2 Duos are whooping all Athlons.

Oh and another comment on the FX matter. FX stopped at the Geforce 5000 series. Didn't I say that there was never an FX 6600? Please read. You might have a standard 6600, or a 6600 GT. Which is a little better than a Radeon 9800 Pro, which are both dated.
 
Most all of the hardware in my computer is dated. Thats not the issue. Like I said I know my PC isn't the fastest out there. And the Quad core Macs have 2 Dual-core proccessors. PowerPC chips, not Intel, you need to read up a little more before you start being a prick. I'm not trying to be specific or split hairs, and that's what you're doing. I obviously struck a nerve with you, and now you're trying to nitpick every little typo.

Caught me. ooooohhhh
 
SBleed@mchsi.co said:
Most all of the hardware in my computer is dated. Thats not the issue. Like I said I know my PC isn't the fastest out there. And the Quad core Macs have 2 Dual-core proccessors. PowerPC chips, not Intel, you need to read up a little more before you start being a prick. I'm not trying to be specific or split hairs, and that's what you're doing. I obviously struck a nerve with you, and now you're trying to nitpick every little typo.

Caught me. ooooohhhh
Click to expand...

I know they're PowerPC G5 chips. YOU said that they're Core Duo Quad core G5s. It's alright that YOU can't read. If you read and type correctly, then you wouldn't have someone "nitpick" on your typos. You typed in, "Ok. At work we have 2Ghz Core Duo Quad core G5s right?" Go figure. :p
 
But obviously you like trolls, so I'll nitpick at everything you come back at. Especially since you don't know your processors. :rolleyes:
 
Sorry I only truly follow AMD.
IBM and Intel can't suck it. Intel overcharged for far too long with their Pentium series. And the PowerPC has always been a joke of a proccessor in my opinion. I will say though, we got a Dell here recently that has a 3Ghz Xeon, and it's fast as hell.

oh and when I said, "Is Athlon better?" I was refering to the spelling...Ass
 
SBleed@mchsi.co said:
Sorry I only truly follow AMD.
IBM and Intel can't suck it. Intel overcharged for far too long with their Pentium series. And the PowerPC has always been a joke of a proccessor in my opinion. I will say though, we got a Dell here recently that has a 3Ghz Xeon, and it's fast as hell.
Click to expand...

It's cuz you're an AMD fanboy! I use processors of all kinds. I don't care what company it's made by, as long as it does what I want it to do. ALL AMD, Intel, and IBM make great processors. PowerPC isn't a joke of a processor. In fact, it's extremely great for gaming. Why do you think Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo have shifted to using PowerPC processors in their next-gen gaming consoles? Because they're efficient for gaming. Anyway, let's end the troll here. Adios. :rolleyes:
 
Actually I was fairly surprised to see that the new consoles were made using PowerPC chips.
Was Microsoft going with nVidia for their graphics again?
I know Nintendo stayed with ATI
 
I've already seen the specs for the comparison against Intel and AMD. The Duo 2 Core is much faster than the fastest AMD chip, but this is the first proccessor in a long time that Intel has made that even compared to AMDs line up.

And going WAY back. I've always ignored overclocking. You run too much of a risk for instability or just plain frying something.

I do have a question though. Is the Duo 2 Core a true 64-bit chip?
Because I've noticed over the years that companies like to mislead people and say two 32-bit proccessors make it a 64-bit machine, because that's not true. No matter how many chips you have, if it's based on 32-bit technology, then it's 32-bit. Right?
 
SBleed@mchsi.co said:
No matter how many chips you have, if it's based on 32-bit technology, then it's 32-bit. Right?
Click to expand...
You're really keen on making the wrong generalizations.

Here's another generalization, but one based in verifiable facts.

Once upon a time there were CISC processors that were hardwired to do complex tasks and RISC processors that only knew how to do a few things. Now a days all current processors are essentially RISC cores that expose a CISC instruction set. Thus, you can have lots of processors that use a 64 bit RISC-like core, but look for all intents and purposes like a 32 bit CISC processor on the outside. Essentially the difference between processor instruction sets is largely a matter of "programming" of the simple instructions into more complicated ones. CPUs with a 32 bit instruction set will be 32 bit, while the innards could be identical to its 64 bit counterpart.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_design

Note that this is not a new phenomenon. The earliest Intel processors that gave us the PC in the first place were strange 8/16 bit hybrids. 16 bit processors, used for all intents and purposes as 8 bit.

Wikipedia said:
The 8086 is a 16-bit microprocessor chip designed by Intel in 1976, which gave rise to the x86 architecture. It has 29,000 transistors. The Intel 8088 (released shortly afterwards) was essentially the same chip, but with an external 8-bit data bus, allowing the use of cheaper and fewer supporting logic chips[1]. That 8088 processor is notable as the processor used in the original IBM PC.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

And yes, to answer the question Core 2 Duo processors present themselves as 64 bit CPUs.

B
 
balamw said:
You're really keen on making the wrong generalizations.

Here's another generalization, but one based in verifiable facts.

Once upon a time there were CISC processors that were hardwired to do complex tasks and RISC processors that only knew how to do a few things. Now a days all current processors are essentially RISC cores that expose a CISC instruction set. Thus, you can have lots of processors that use a 64 bit RISC-like core, but look for all intents and purposes like a 32 bit CISC processor on the outside. Essentially the difference between processor instruction sets is largely a matter of "programming" of the simple instructions into more complicated ones. CPUs with a 32 bit instruction set will be 32 bit, while the innards could be identical to its 64 bit counterpart.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_design

Note that this is not a new phenomenon. The earliest Intel processors that gave us the PC in the first place were strange 8/16 bit hybrids. 16 bit processors, used for all intents and purposes as 8 bit.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

And yes, to answer the question Core 2 Duo processors present themselves as 64 bit CPUs.

B
Click to expand...

Sweeeet I'm glad another person here knows what they're talking about. :D Simply put, Core 2 Duo knocks out the Athlon FX-62.
 
SBleed@mchsi.co, look, you have to understand that Mac users don't buy them for the same reason you buy a PC, it's just a different computer philosophy and you should leave us as we want. For my experience at work (I've worked with both PC and Mac) I can tell you that I prefer Windows over Mac OS 9.2.2, however, OSX kicks XP arse any day of the week. It's not meant for gaming IMO, so enough of showing framerates to people who (generally) could care less about gaming, if we do want to play, we install bootcamp and run Windows natively, then we'll compare frame rates.

You're saying that your always cleaning up the adware and spyware your friend downloads, well... if he had a Mac you wouldn't have to :)
And don't compare G5's to the Core 2 Duo, nor Native running applications to the ones who still run under emulation! Why do you say Adobe is turning over to PC, because CS2 is not Universal yet? that's just not true.
When CS3 comes out, we'll see which OS behaves better with it.
And of course, the main reason why people buy Mac's is simply: Mac OSX :)
and that you can't get in a PC (don't throw Hackintosh stuff at me, that's illegal) and by the way, I would race my Windows against yours with my 24" iMac, it's fast as hell running it, faster than my PC ever was :)
 
Thnx for the CISC, and RISC explination, very insightful. I always was wondering exactly what was the basis for labeling a chip 8/16/32/64-bit.

And yes I do realize that Macs are purchased by people for different reasons, than a PC. They are both superior in their own right.

Like I said I learned how to use a computer on a Mac. But I like the free will you have with Windows. Apple locks you out of a lot of things for security reasons, which is a good idea, but at the same time it really limits how far you can customize, and edit the way your mac performs. Well, until they made it Unix. But I'm not familiar with Unix, I've heard for years that it was better than Windows, and the Mac OS, but I never knew where to find it.

Oh and the Hacintosh comment. No one has been able to make a decent OS X emulator, trust me I've looked.

I guess that's my problem. I'm a gamer, when I look at computer hardware, I look at benchmarks, and graphics performance. I buy computers for gaming. Design apps come in second place.

From using InDesign CS2 at work on a Mac, and InDesign CS on my PC at home, there really is no difference aside from the launch screen. So when people say Mac is better for designers, it's b.s. The programs run the same on either OS, and I've bean able to cross platform from Mac to PC and haven't had any compatibility problems. As for speed. The only real difference I've noticed is that the launch screen hangs around a little longer on the Mac, about 30sec longer.

They just need to start making all apps Universal, you buy one box, and it works on either OS, like every Blizzard game ever made. People shouldn't have to buy two different computers just because one's good for media, and the other is good for gaming. Thats' where I sway towards the PC. Multimedia works just as well on either OS, and games run faster on WinXP. Ok? neither is better cause we've all got our opinions. **** Microsoft, and **** Apple, they both suck actually.

Oh and uh, computers can't race. If you want to race I've got a car for that. And it is fast.
 
SBleed@mchsi.co said:
Thnx for the CISC, and RISC explination, very insightful. I always was wondering exactly what was the basis for labeling a chip 8/16/32/64-bit.

And yes I do realize that Macs are purchased by people for different reasons, than a PC. They are both superior in their own right.

Like I said I learned how to use a computer on a Mac. But I like the free will you have with Windows. Apple locks you out of a lot of things for security reasons, which is a good idea, but at the same time it really limits how far you can customize, and edit the way your mac performs. Well, until they made it Unix. But I'm not familiar with Unix, I've heard for years that it was better than Windows, and the Mac OS, but I never knew where to find it.

Oh and the Hacintosh comment. No one has been able to make a decent OS X emulator, trust me I've looked.

I guess that's my problem. I'm a gamer, when I look at computer hardware, I look at benchmarks, and graphics performance. I buy computers for gaming. Design apps come in second place.

From using InDesign CS2 at work on a Mac, and InDesign CS on my PC at home, there really is no difference aside from the launch screen. So when people say Mac is better for designers, it's b.s. The programs run the same on either OS, and I've bean able to cross platform from Mac to PC and haven't had any compatibility problems. As for speed. The only real difference I've noticed is that the launch screen hangs around a little longer on the Mac, about 30sec longer.

They just need to start making all apps Universal, you buy one box, and it works on either OS, like every Blizzard game ever made. People shouldn't have to buy two different computers just because one's good for media, and the other is good for gaming. Thats' where I sway towards the PC. Multimedia works just as well on either OS, and games run faster on WinXP. Ok? neither is better cause we've all got our opinions. **** Microsoft, and **** Apple, they both suck actually.

Oh and uh, computers can't race. If you want to race I've got a car for that. And it is fast.
Click to expand...

Well if you know that people have their own opinions, then don't come to another forum trying to sway people towards buying a PC. If they want to get a Mac, let them get a Mac.

Apple doesn't "lock" people out. Security is good, and that's another reason why there isn't any spyware or viruses out on the Mac platform. Windows Vista is following the same scheme, whether you like it or not. It's much more annoying in Windows, because in fact, it's still Windows.

As for design apps, the "work environment" is different for each OS. The great thing about a Mac is that each program isn't in its own window. It's much easier to navigate through several windows on a Mac than it is on Windows. Your taskbar gets cluttered, while in OS X you can use Expose, etc. And alt + tab does get much more annoying when you have a lot of windows opened in Windows. Windows also has a few problems with font management, especially if you're using Flash. These are just a few quirks, but nonetheless, they're all just quirks. It's not "BS" that Macs are for designers, because there's a lot more hotkeys and not as many "quirks" to deal with. This helps with productivity. But aside from those facts, yes programs do work the same on both platforms. They're made to be that way for cross-platform compatibility, aside from the OS environment. Who cares if a program "hangs" for 30 secs. It's all about the work environment.

As for universal apps, some companies do it, some companies don't. It's according to their business model, and how much of a demand there is for the market type. And people don't have to buy two types of computers. Because now you can get one, an Apple computer. :eek: And even that, if you don't need OS X, then you can get a PC. It's a computer. :rolleyes:

What kind of car do you have? :p
 
fiercetiger224 said:
Well if you know that people have their own opinions, then don't come to another forum trying to sway people towards buying a PC. If they want to get a Mac, let them get a Mac.

Apple doesn't "lock" people out. Security is good, and that's another reason why there isn't any spyware or viruses out on the Mac platform. Windows Vista is following the same scheme, whether you like it or not. It's much more annoying in Windows, because in fact, it's still Windows.

As for design apps, the "work environment" is different for each OS. The great thing about a Mac is that each program isn't in its own window. It's much easier to navigate through several windows on a Mac than it is on Windows. Your taskbar gets cluttered, while in OS X you can use Expose, etc. And alt + tab does get much more annoying when you have a lot of windows opened in Windows. Windows also has a few problems with font management, especially if you're using Flash. These are just a few quirks, but nonetheless, they're all just quirks. It's not "BS" that Macs are for designers, because there's a lot more hotkeys and not as many "quirks" to deal with. This helps with productivity. But aside from those facts, yes programs do work the same on both platforms. They're made to be that way for cross-platform compatibility, aside from the OS environment. Who cares if a program "hangs" for 30 secs. It's all about the work environment.

As for universal apps, some companies do it, some companies don't. It's according to their business model, and how much of a demand there is for the market type. And people don't have to buy two types of computers. Because now you can get one, an Apple computer. :eek: And even that, if you don't need OS X, then you can get a PC. It's a computer. :rolleyes:

What kind of car do you have? :p
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------
Ok! Fonts are a WAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger problem on the Mac OS X. Windows places fonts in ONE folder the Mac OS places fonts in so many different directories that it's hard to track down which font was used for what document. I deal with that **** every day at work. People don't do a propper collect, and they end up with corrupt fonts. All this can be avoided if people just outlined their fonts.
MasterJuggler helps though.

I won't comment on the start-up times because nothing can be done about that.

I am not concerned with flash. the few times I have run into macromedia programs in the printing industry it was not pretty. Flash is for web authoring, not printing. You can build a beautiful vector image in freehand then try to run it through RAMpage, & run into ********s of problems.

And that last comment. Yes, this is why I feel Apple should losen up a little. Let the Mac OS run on any hardware. Let the Mac OS become just as universal as WinXP. Stop them from forcing people to buy their overpriced systems.

I don't hate apple, just frustrated with them. I want you to all understand that.
 
SBleed@mchsi.co said:
-----------------------------------------------
Ok! Fonts are a WAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger problem on the Mac OS X. Windows places fonts in ONE folder the Mac OS places fonts in so many different directories that it's hard to track down which font was used for what document. I deal with that **** every day at work. People don't do a propper collect, and they end up with corrupt fonts. All this can be avoided if people just outlined their fonts.
MasterJuggler helps though.
Click to expand...

Yes OSX does put fonts in a few locations but if you manage them all through FontBook then you wont have a problem at all. Its like iTunes if you look in your music folder its a complete mess but because you are managing your music through iTunes you never notice it.

As for collecting fonts as long as FontBook knows which font is which then it will collect the right one.

Im a graphic designer and have had no problems at all with fonts in OSX.

EDIT: Not aimed at anyone in particular but I hate it when people needlessly install Suitcase or something similar to manage fonts in OSX. They never give FontBook a try. Then they piss and moan that Fonts dont work in OSX. The reason why they dont work is because installing Suitcase just adds more things that can go wrong in the equation.

Fonts work flawlessly with FontBook. It comes free with OSX what more do people want?
 
Of course you haven't had problems, your a designer, not a printer. Things look great on screen, but don't always come out on paper the same way. Fontbook wont do **** for you in a printshop.

And MasterJuggler does a better job of managing fonts than Fontbook.

I didn't know this till recenetly, but RAMpage is very particular as to what files are being used.
 
You're missing the point :( Apple probably will never take the step towards having Mac OSX run on every hardware, and if it did, most of us would probably stop buying from them. The truth is that Apple is a strong company, with a very powerful brand and identity (if you work in graphic design you know what corporate identity is I presume), they sell you a package, for ex:

Apple's iMac, beautiful, unique and breakthrough design, quality hardware (not the fastest, but the most reliable and inter-compatible), the built-in iSight, the remote for enjoying FrontRow and all your media, the applications that most people would need to manage music, photos, videos, create dvd's, publish content to the web etc...
It operates seamlessly with every iPod and external hardware that they themselves sell (carrying the same breakthrough design and brand), you get home, see the unbelievable packaging, remove the iMac, plug it in, and Tiger is running perfectly, it even prompts you to take your user account picture with the iSight all in a beautiful 3D cube animation, you enter the OS and goddamn! it's like the extension of what the hardware looks like! No other company in the world offers you this kind of strong branding and they really believe in their products and identity, I respect that, as a company I like their philosophy. They're unique in their way of doing thing, by only giving you the option to run OSX on a Mac they're making sure that you see their OS as it's supposed to be and freeing you of all the Viruses that flood the web. You wanna customize it? like visually? or on a hardware level? if visually, get shapeshifter and candybar, if hardware, get a Mac Pro :)

Truth is, in my mac, I have both XP and OSX, and only this advantage is enough for me to choose for a mac. And games look great in a 24" display, F.E.A.R plays 100% fluid and it's awesome, and it only takes me 15 seconds to boot back to OSX.

PS - I work in a Design company, and we have only 1 PC for the odd file that appears, the rest are all Macs, and we never had a problem with fonts, sharing Internet and Folders, none of us has Anti-virus or firewall, the only time we lost work because of a computer shutdown was when the lights went off. Before I forget, "racing" serves for everything, even dog's and horses can race, and they're not cars.
 
fiercetiger224 said:
Uhh, no. There was NEVER any 2 Ghz Quad Core G5 Power Macs. There was ONLY 2.5 Ghz Quads. By the way, you mixed up Core Duo in it. A G5 is a G5. A Core Duo is a Core Duo. Get your processors right.

And I'd like to ask, what OS are these games running on? C'mon, ports are never going to run as fast as natively developed games. By the way, F.E.A.R. was NEVER and NEVER will be, ported to Mac. So if you're saying that you ran F.E.A.R. on a G5, you're still wrong. Because you can't run Windows on a PowerPC based system. Halo was ported to Mac, and yes it does run slower than the PC version.

Looks like YOU don't know anything about computers. YOU should take the time to learn about computers and how to manipulate them. :p Can I ask if you know how to use Linux? :rolleyes:

Please stop your silly troll. :p
Click to expand...

And the winner is...:rolleyes: ;)
 
Disregarding the shooting match that goes on here for a moment -- given all that has been said, am I right in understanding that you think that people who are not into design but, rather, number crunching, should consider other options?
 
I could call various people out on being silly in this thread but it would just add to the flames. but let me say this, I have four computers, one with an IBM G3, one with a motorola G4 one with an athlon 64 one with a core duo. Each was the best buy at the time, you choose your budget, then you choose your OS then you buy what's best for the money it's simple as.

Being an AMD fanboy or an intel fanboy or a RISC freak is stupid it's what does the job best for the money spent and right now apple is firmly in the right camp.
 
Nym said:
IMO, Mac's are good and suited for everything and anyone :)
Click to expand...

Not true. The only group of people IMO Macs are not suited for is gamers.

Oh and BTW, as I've seen in someones signature, some people deserve the torures of Windows!
 
Each OS is good, K I like using either one, and yes we have 1PC also in our lab for the occational PC File, which since Quark 7 came out PC files have been more and more common.

As for packaging. The designs Apple comes up with are (Aside from the G5s) very feminine in design. And I'm not a girl or gay, so it doesn't really appeal to me at least.

No more bashing ok? Not from me or anyone else, this argument is going nowhere. I apologize to you & it just keeps going.

The only reason I feel the way I do is because of loyalty. I'm loyal to AMD because they gave Intel a run for their money for a long time. I like microsoft because their OS runs games and emulators perfectly. I'm really into oldschool gaming so having SNES emulators, and Genesis emulators is important. And don't suggest any Mac emulators, I've looked long and hard, their all really buggy ports of older PC versions of the emulators. Also Nintendo. Rather off subject a bit, but I've supported Nintendo, and only Nintendo since I was like 5years old. My loyalties run deep, and a pretty box or pretty OS isn't gonna change the way any of us feel. You Mac guys are touchy you know that? I said a couple of things wrong and it's just snowballing. Drop it, & let it go. I think the origional question was answered already. Let's let this thread die K?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back