I heard that Macs require less hardware because the software/hardware compatibility is much better (one driver for one component). This seems like a valid point but I was wondering if there are any benchmarks that show the magnitude of this idea (so does it have a notable influence).
Things like video-encoding, pi-calculation, games, 3D rendering, boot time. How do they compare to a pc?
[url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/4258725]I googled it and all I got was this bullshit page where they use some shitty tablet pc (which is obviously more expensive) instead of a normal desktop pc.[/url]
It's hard to do that kind of benchmark since even if you say, run one application in Bootcamp and then boot into OSX, the test might be thrown off by a poor port of the software. The components in a Mac are standard components that any manufacturer can use, so the drivers are pretty much the same (Except for the OSX drivers, which Apple sometimes writes)
I don't really know exactly how to say that it's the OS that changes how a computer works with the same components.
Ill leave this open on one condition: Any shitposting or blatant fanboy posts either don't exist, or end in a permaban.
i remember seeing a benchmark floating around that macs have worse performance when it comes to games
I don't know how accurate these would really be, bang/buck wise as to run OSX and Windows natively, you'd need to use more specific parts in a hackintosh while for a purely Windows PC you could focus more on bang/buck.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;21965159]i remember seeing a benchmark floating around that macs have worse performance when it comes to games[/QUOTE]
Right now they are, but in the future they'll probably get better at performance than windows rigs due to the "console" effect. (Easier to optimize games when you know the exact hardware they are going to be used on.)
I really don't think there would be much difference anymore since all Apple machines now use Intel processors. Back when they still used MC680x0/PowerPC/Gx, there would be a valid reason to do benchmarks because of differing processor architectures, but now it's all up to software.
If you have crappily coded/ported software from Windows to Unix, it could be worse on Apple machines due to the OS, but most companies that make software for Macs usually do a pretty good job, so the performance is probably similar.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;21965159]i remember seeing a benchmark floating around that macs have worse performance when it comes to games[/QUOTE]
This is usually because of poorly ported games. Direct X is a big bloated API, and some porting houses opt to just emulate the Direct X API calls in OpenGL instead of recoding the renderer to run native OpenGL code, which is a big performance hit. I have a few games ported by Macsoft (Duke 3D, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3) and they all run well on my G4.
[QUOTE=Noz;21965310]Right now they are, but in the future they'll probably get better at performance than windows rigs due to the "console" effect. (Easier to optimize games when you know the exact hardware they are going to be used on.)[/QUOTE]
The console effect mostly happens because the console has a pipeline optimized for games. Macs wouldn't feel this effect becuase hardware wise they are the same as PCs.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21965332]I really don't think there would be much difference anymore since all Apple machines now use Intel processors. Back when they still used MC680x0/PowerPC/Gx, there would be a valid reason to do benchmarks because of differing processor architectures, but now it's all up to software.
If you have crappily coded/ported software from Windows to Unix, it could be worse on Apple machines due to the OS, but most companies that make software for Macs usually do a pretty good job, so the performance is probably similar.[/QUOTE]
People who make programs on windows normally don't learn objective-c because it's weird, and they write for windows programs, not macs anyways.
But that's besides my point. Objective-C is a weird version of C
[QUOTE=Unreliable;21965421]People who make programs on windows normally don't learn objective-c because it's weird, and they write for windows programs, not macs anyways.
But that's besides my point. Objective-C is a weird version of C[/QUOTE]
You could make the same argument for C++. C++ isn't a natural extension of C either, and Objective-C simply just drops any pretense with syntax.
Object orientation there is simply kept seperate, full stop, and semantics are imported wholesale.
I find calling anything "weird" off the bat rather ignorant, though.
At any rate the available Source Steam games apparently perform worse under OS X than Windows
[editline]07:37PM[/editline]
But as for stuff like boot time it seems to be vastly superior. I know there are PC's out there where the BIOS still checks for a floppy drive at boot, slowing everything down. Since Apple know exactly what hardware each build of an OS is going to use, they can skip all that crap.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;21965524]At any rate the available Source Steam games apparently perform worse under OS X than Windows[/QUOTE]
Yes, they were ported; not designed. At least they run decently.
valve might have a separate team working on ep3 for mac instead of writing windows first then going back and porting it to mac.
[QUOTE=Noz;21965310]Right now they are, but in the future they'll probably get better at performance than windows rigs due to the "console" effect. (Easier to optimize games when you know the exact hardware they are going to be used on.)[/QUOTE]
While it's true that Apple uses more standard hardware, locking down the variety of hardware. The fact is that Windows has about a 91% market share and not many developers will take the time and energy to design games for a smaller market, even if the machines are capable of running it. Steam has just now started doing so, but they've been a large company for some time now and it was up until now that they decided to make this expansion.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;21965524]But as for stuff like boot time it seems to be vastly superior. I know there are PC's out there where the BIOS still checks for a floppy drive at boot, slowing everything down. Since Apple know exactly what hardware each build of an OS is going to use, they can skip all that crap.[/QUOTE]
Apple machines don't have BIOSes, they have EFI, which is why you can't run OS X on a PC without using a loader.
[QUOTE=GWeasel;21965698]and it was up until now that they decided to make this expansion.[/QUOTE]
Valve has been looking for a Linux / Mac developer for years, they didn't think this up a few weeks ago.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21965724]Apple machines don't have BIOSes, they have EFI, which is why you can't run OS X on a PC without using a loader.[/QUOTE]
:bravo:
Would it be a good idea to use Portal for a rough performance benchmark?
IIRC Windows runs OpenGL better than MAC and LINUX
[QUOTE=FlashStock;21967926]IIRC Windows runs OpenGL better than MAC and LINUX[/QUOTE]
So far, I believe this is true. Here's to it changing over the next few years, hopefully less.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21965724]Apple machines don't have BIOSes, they have EFI, which is why you can't run OS X on a PC without using a loader.[/QUOTE]
That seems really ass-backwards. Replacing a system that is supported by most OS's with a different one just to stop people using your OS on a system that you didn't make.
Then again, it is Apple, their design and manufacturing ideas are mostly weird.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;21969176]That seems really ass-backwards. Replacing a system that is supported by most OS's with a different one just to stop people using your OS on a system that you didn't make.
Then again, it is Apple, their design and manufacturing ideas are mostly weird.[/QUOTE]
if you can't take advantages of what is there, you make your own. it's quite smart. seize the day.
on the off-hand. this leads to almost no competition on the mac as far as OS goes. Apple earns and none of the other software houses notice anyway. Win-Win.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;21969176]That seems really ass-backwards. Replacing a system that is supported by most OS's with a different one just to stop people using your OS on a system that you didn't make.
Then again, it is Apple, their design and manufacturing ideas are mostly weird.[/QUOTE]
EFI is the future.
[QUOTE=birkett;21970067]EFI is the future.[/QUOTE]
I do believe it is research time!
If I had time I'd run some benchmarks right now on my Hackintosh running Portal in OSX and Windows 7.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance[/url]
Just one on portal.
Wow they used a shitty tablet? That was done on purpose or cosmetically.
I [B]swear[/B] I'm not a fanboy of either group, or flaming either. I'm assuming you're wanting to buy one or the other, so I'll post as such.
Macs have 5 games. Or at least 80% of the mac market can't run the newer games that are coming out for them. So if you enjoy games, don't go this route. I own both a macbook and a home-built PC and must say, the PC is tenfold better. More open source software, easier compatibility, and everything. Literally every mac app has a counterpart for windows.
Still, if you aren't trying to win any races or get the best bang for your buck. Go with a mac then, they're pretty and they have very nice plug n' play. Just don't expect miracles or anything near the experience you get on a windows machine.
uh, Macs have more than 5 games.
OP, I would say buy what even you want that fits your budget. if you're serious about doing gaming I would say avoid OS X for now, things could change.
[QUOTE=Makol;21973336]uh, Macs have more than 5 games.
OP, I would say buy what even you want that fits your budget. if you're serious about doing gaming I would say avoid OS X for now, things could change.[/QUOTE]
yea macs have way more that 5 games, they have like 8
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;21973362]yea macs have way more that 5 games, they have around 8[/QUOTE]
:downs:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.