• Looking for unbiased Mac vs. Pc benchmarks
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sbradford26;21972268][url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance[/url] Just one on portal.[/QUOTE] Since that was a hackintosh running windows and OSX. It just has to do with it being coded poorly on the mac. Hopefully sometime soon in the future all our mac friends can join us in TF2 with equal fps.
There's also the problem of drivers. Hackintosh drivers can't be all that great.
To be honest I've never seen the reason to buy a mac simply because of the cost. For a regular mac you might as well just build a computer or get a high end laptop/notebook. However that being said, it is hard to show benchmarks. Hardware may be the same but it can run differently depending on software. Also depends on capability as well. I've always liked PC more because it doesn't feel as restricted as MAC.
I'd say they're more efficient with their resources. From what I can tell it takes less resources to run the base os with a Mac then with a Windows pc. I don't think there are any official benchmarks. When I used a Mac it seems to run the usual programs maybe a little better then my pc. (My pc had similar specs.) (Vlc launch times, Photo shop, Java, Flash games weren't working very well due to the school proxy and apple's problems with Adobe at the time).
[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] Why should Apple be bound to the backwards nature of the BIOS when they don't have to natively run Windows? Despite our processors being 64 bit, the BIOS code is still mostly written in slow and buggy 8/16 bit code that's been in use for 20+ years. It's basically hacky code piled on top of more hacky code. EFI is bigger in total memory space footprint, but it's much better and much faster.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21977052]Why should Apple be bound to the backwards nature of the BIOS when they don't have to natively run Windows? Despite our processors being 64 bit, the BIOS code is still mostly written in slow and buggy 8/16 bit code that's been in use for 20+ years. It's basically hacky code piled on top of more hacky code. EFI is bigger in total memory space footprint, but it's much better and much faster.[/QUOTE] I love my BIOS in all its simplicity. If it aint broke, why fix it?
If it can be better, fix it
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21977052]Why should Apple be bound to the backwards nature of the BIOS when they don't have to natively run Windows? Despite our processors being 64 bit, the BIOS code is still mostly written in slow and buggy 8/16 bit code that's been in use for 20+ years. It's basically hacky code piled on top of more hacky code. EFI is bigger in total memory space footprint, but it's much better and much faster.[/QUOTE] I would miss my beloved blue BIOS :(
[IMG]http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/linux_windows_part3/1.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/linux_windows_part3/2.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/linux_windows_part3/3.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/linux_windows_part3/4.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/linux_windows_part3/5.png[/IMG] [I](Intel in this case means an Intel on-board GPU, not CPU.)[/I] In short, Macs are overpriced and under perform, while Windows and Linux are just about tied, with Windows taking the overall lead. Go with a PC running Windows/Linux for optimal performance and cheapest price. If you're into Source engine based games, Portal runs 40-50% slower on Mac, and will most likely have similar results on Linux. [URL="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_windows_part3&num=1"]Read the full article here.[/URL]
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21977052]EFI is bigger in total memory space footprint, but it's much better and much faster.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it mean that BIOS runs better on older systems? That extra memory usage probably doesn't matter on newer systems though. [editline]08:50AM[/editline] Also, on a side note, is there any reasoning behind Mac being quite a bit more expensive than a Windows machine? I hear they run more stable, but that can't make up for the rather large price gap, can it?
[QUOTE=Within;21979129]Wouldn't it mean that BIOS runs better on older systems? That extra memory usage probably doesn't matter on newer systems though.[/QUOTE] When I said memory, I meant the medium it was stored on (usually EEPROM or flash.) It doesn't really how old the system it, you can put a pretty big EEPROM / flash chip on them regardless.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;21979414]When I said memory, I meant the medium it was stored on (usually EEPROM or flash.) It doesn't really how old the system it, you can put a pretty big EEPROM / flash chip on them regardless.[/QUOTE] Oh I see, I thought you meant memory as in RAM.
MACs with Windows are almighty!
[QUOTE=daumantas100;21979455]MACs with Windows are almighty![/QUOTE] That's a waste of money. You would be better off making a hackintosh.
Is there any World of Warcraft/Call of Duty 4 benchmarks? As they are both on Mac and PC
[QUOTE=Sgt Pringles;21979730]Is there any World of Warcraft/Call of Duty 4 benchmarks? As they are both on Mac and PC[/QUOTE] I would like to see some CoD4 benchmarks. [editline]02:48AM[/editline] WoW would be good to see too, but I don't play anymore. I would get about 40~50fps on medium/high settings at native resolution on my MacBook when playing Wrath of the Lich King.
[QUOTE=Within;21979129]Wouldn't it mean that BIOS runs better on older systems? That extra memory usage probably doesn't matter on newer systems though. [editline]08:50AM[/editline] Also, on a side note, is there any reasoning behind Mac being quite a bit more expensive than a Windows machine? I hear they run more stable, but that can't make up for the rather large price gap, can it?[/QUOTE] Most likely it can't, one of the reasons they're so expensive is that they're made by Apple.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;21979115] :Benchmarks: In short, Macs are overpriced and under perform, while Windows and Linux are just about tied, with Windows taking the overall lead. Go with a PC running Windows/Linux for optimal performance and cheapest price. If you're into Source engine based games, Portal runs 40-50% slower on Mac, and will most likely have similar results on Linux. [URL="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_windows_part3&num=1"]Read the full article here.[/URL][/QUOTE] I think this settles the "Game" part pretty good... As far as I'm concerned Mac OS's is made to run on the specific hardware built in the Mac, thus getting better performance, while Windows is just a 64-bit OS. Still, Mac's can't use over there maximum bandwidth, which is why a 2.8GHz CPU on windows will still run faster than the 2.6GHz Cpu on the Mac when playing games and such, but when just runing the OS normally the Mac OS will run smoother.
[QUOTE=Lego399;21980027]Most likely it can't, one of the reasons they're so expensive is that they're made by Apple.[/QUOTE] some of it is for the monitor/screen, they're high quality stuff.
When I ran World of Warcraft on a Hackintosh, it seemed to run better than it did on Windows. :S
[QUOTE=Takoto;21980176]When I ran World of Warcraft on a Hackintosh, it seemed to run better than it did on Windows. :S[/QUOTE] yeah I noticed when running WoW under Boot Camp (Windows XP and 7) the fps was slightly high but not by much, maybe like 5fps more. [editline]03:44AM[/editline] that 5fps really helped in raids.
[QUOTE=Within;21979129]Wouldn't it mean that BIOS runs better on older systems? That extra memory usage probably doesn't matter on newer systems though. [editline]08:50AM[/editline] Also, on a side note, is there any reasoning behind Mac being quite a bit more expensive than a Windows machine? I hear they run more stable, but that can't make up for the rather large price gap, can it?[/QUOTE] They're 'design' computers, I guess the hardware might be better quality also.
The hardware parts are exactly the same. The reason for macs being touted as design computers is due to past stuff. They used to have far better colours than windows did, so you had design studios adopt them and a lot of software creators that focused on this more or less followed suit. Windows closed that gap long ago though, the only difference is, that you still have a bunch of people (a quite a lot of them are pros) with the ingrained belief that OSx is just better for this kind of stuff. As to EFI - I thought windows wasn't just limited to bios, and remember an MSI motherboard that offered EFI at some time, or if not EFI then something quite similar.
[QUOTE=Within;21979129]Also, on a side note, is there any reasoning behind Mac being quite a bit more expensive than a Windows machine? I hear they run more stable, but that can't make up for the rather large price gap, can it?[/QUOTE] This will most likely open a can of worms, but the hardware itself it superior is pretty much everyday compared to a PC For an iMac, the footprint of it is far smaller than that of an average PC, while still containing a moderate amount of power, and of course they look far far nicer(personal preference of course, but seems to be widely accepted). They also generally have better than average sound and webcams, and the screen (especially on the 27 inch iMac) is usually top notch. For Macbooks, they tend to be thinner, lighter, smaller and have better battery life than a Windows laptop. I know that on Facepunch a lot of users want a laptop just to play games on a smaller machine with, but a lot of people (myself included) care about the portability of a laptop rather than outright gaming performace. If you look at the current 13 inch Macbook Pro, an awful lot of people just see a C2D for £1000 and say it's shite. It's the little things that make the price up though, like 10 hour battery life. Even most netbooks don't manage that, but Apple can (and do) in a proper full sized/powered laptop. Again it is also thinner, lighter and stronger than pretty much any other laptop which is what I want in a laptop. Basically, with a PC you get some components in a box thrown together, but with Apple you get a complete (fantastic) design of a machine, and that's what you pay for.
How can the hardware be that superior when it's the same pieces of hardware as a normal computer?
[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] They didn't. EFI is more modern, and is pretty much a successor to BIOS. They could, so they did.
[quote] If you look at the current 13 inch Macbook Pro, an awful lot of people just see a C2D for £1000 and say it's shite. It's the little things that make the price up though, like 10 hour battery life. Even most netbooks don't manage that, but Apple can (and do) in a proper full sized/powered laptop. Again it is also thinner, lighter and stronger than pretty much any other laptop which is what I want in a laptop. [/quote] While I do agree that a macbook in the US (the european prices are just plain horrendous with the macbook sometimes costing over 2k$) is a pretty sound investment due to the things you've mentioned, the mac mini and imac are actually still pretty meh from just about any standpoint. Still I've not seen a single macbook that goes up to ten hours. The best I've seen was seven, which is still damn nice but that's it. This goes even double for mac worsktations which to be honest are only worth it if you absolutely need the system for something.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;21986515]While I do agree that a macbook in the US (the european prices are just plain horrendous with the macbook sometimes costing over 2k$) is a pretty sound investment due to the things you've mentioned, the mac mini and imac are actually still pretty meh from just about any standpoint. Still I've not seen a single macbook that goes up to ten hours. The best I've seen was seven, which is still damn nice but that's it. This goes even double for mac worsktations which to be honest are only worth it if you absolutely need the system for something.[/QUOTE] The new ones are good for 10 hours. I have the previous 7 hour model, and it comes pretty darned close to doing that, even now that it's 9 months old.
Ah didn't know that. To be honest I'd still rather get the dell adamo if I had cash to burn and only went for looks. Just love the design of it a tad more. But alas cash doesn't go well with a students life :P
[QUOTE=Number-41;21961439]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][/QUOTE] Re-read your first post. You answered your own question. Macs will always run better on Macs, as OSX is optimized to run on Apple Proprietary hardware. Windows doesn't have a hardware lockdown like Apple does for it's software, so benchmarks will always be biased towards Mac OS, as the hardware between different PCs can be totally different.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.