PC VS MAC On Photoshop

[Skyman]

Now we all know MHZ dont matter, AMD and Apple have pushed this subject throughly.

So what we need to compare is dollar for dollar performance.

Here is an independant test of a MAC VS PC in Apples favorite software, Adobe Photoshop!

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...w_macvspc2.htm

Skyler

[PKRWUD]

That's cute Sky. What's the matter, couldn't find anything with the new G4, or just didn't want to share the results? Please, if you're going to sling mud, do it while it's still wet.

Take care,
~Chris

[PKRWUD]

BTW, the $1699 G4 tested faster than your $2800 PC, so I guess Mac wins the dollar for dollar arguement, too.

As far as the megahertz myth, Intel proved to me that the numbers are virtually meaningless. In that PC repair and networking class I took, they had four identical computers, except one had a PII chip, one had a Pro chip, and one had an MMX chip, and I don't remember the 4th one. They were all 400MHz chips, and were all made by Intel, yet each computer performed tasks at very different speeds.

Intel proved it, Apple and AMD just helped others realize it.



Take care,
~Chris

[Skyman]

Well we could also compare it to intels newest P4 2800 chip.

Or how about a overclocked P4 running at 3.5ghz? :-D.

I know i will never convince you Chris, but its fun to always kep the debate going. hehe

Skyler

[PKRWUD]

Originally posted by Skyman
I know i will never convince you Chris, but its fun to always kep the debate going. hehe

Likewise.



Take care,
~Chris

[Unit 5302]

Don't know what the heck you were reading Chris? The dual G4 Mac got killed in all 10 benchmarks by the single processor P4. The Mac was also a $3000 machine (not $1600??), and the P4 was a $2875 machine.

So the P4 annihilated the Mac in every test (running Mac software no less), cost less, has cheaper software, was running on an extremely reliable platform, is easier to find parts for, and is just all around a far superior purchase.

As far as clock speed, your theory is flawed. You're talking about different processors built on totally different frameworks. Clock speed DOES matter. That's why AMD is actually going to start listing their processors in real speed. They've been misleading until now. Clock speed is kinda like engine rpm. In itself, it doesn't mean anything because you could have different gears. When you're comparing on a same chip basis, it's very important, exactly like a sprint car. A PIII 733MHz chip is going to get smoked by a PIII 1.13GHz chip. It's not debatable. Comparing a PIII 1.4GHz Tualatin processor vs a 1.4GHz P4 processor would result in the "older" PIII chip kicking P4 in the nads. They are on totally different platforms, and PIII would do it dispite having a tremendous disadvantage in memory speed because of the structure of the chip. The PIII would have .13 micron technology vs the P4's .18. That and P4 tends to bog down because the chipset cycles so deep. Bottom line, a P4 2.53GHz processor has a tremendous amount of advantage in clock speed vs the G4. Even over a dual processor G4. That means if the chipsets are equals, which I'd have to say it looks like P4 is probably faster chip vs chip anyway, P4 would kill the Mac.

[PKRWUD]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
Don't know what the heck you were reading Chris? The dual G4 Mac got killed in all 10 benchmarks by the single processor P4. The Mac was also a $3000 machine (not $1600??), and the P4 was a $2875 machine.

So the P4 annihilated the Mac in every test (running Mac software no less), cost less, has cheaper software, was running on an extremely reliable platform, is easier to find parts for, and is just all around a far superior purchase.

As far as clock speed, your theory is flawed. You're talking about different processors built on totally different frameworks. Clock speed DOES matter. That's why AMD is actually going to start listing their processors in real speed. They've been misleading until now. Clock speed is kinda like engine rpm. In itself, it doesn't mean anything because you could have different gears. When you're comparing on a same chip basis, it's very important, exactly like a sprint car. A PIII 733MHz chip is going to get smoked by a PIII 1.13GHz chip. It's not debatable. Comparing a PIII 1.4GHz Tualatin processor vs a 1.4GHz P4 processor would result in the "older" PIII chip kicking P4 in the nads. They are on totally different platforms, and PIII would do it dispite having a tremendous disadvantage in memory speed because of the structure of the chip. The PIII would have .13 micron technology vs the P4's .18. That and P4 tends to bog down because the chipset cycles so deep. Bottom line, a P4 2.53GHz processor has a tremendous amount of advantage in clock speed vs the G4. Even over a dual processor G4. That means if the chipsets are equals, which I'd have to say it looks like P4 is probably faster chip vs chip anyway, P4 would kill the Mac.

Then they must be pretty embarrassed at having had the dual 867 G4 smoke it. Not sure what you're reading, Kell, but the new dual processor G4's, ALL of them, smoked the 2.53 P4. Keep trying, guys.



Take care,
~Chris

[PKRWUD]

BTW, the dual 867 is the slowest of the new G4's.



Take care,
~Chris

[shadowblue89]

Damn I love these debates. For starters lets just say once and for all the Macintsh G4 is the best .

Yes you will find advantages from both Apple and PeeCee chips. Overall Apple does beat the crap out of just about all PC's. Now you get a PC chip that is equal in speed and you will soon realize that the MAC will win. The company that makes the chips for Apple is Motorola. Motorola also uses these same chips in some of the best servers out on the market(SUN micro systems). Don't forget guy's the big thing that slowed down the MAC was the OS. Most of these bench marks you see done are running the old MAC OS. The new OS for the MAC is running a varient of BSD *nix. This OS will out perform the PC easily especially if each machine is running at the same speed. Skyler's link to the bench mark test is bad. Trying to do a bench mark test using applications is not a real bench mark test(no offence Sky). The Applications are written completely different for each machine. I would like to see a real test using the main OS, windoze using the there ancient Dos prompt and the MAC using a terminal window and running commands from there. Doing this you will get a huge difference and how well the G4 chips really are.

I agree with Skyler that the MHZ is all nothing more than a marketing scheme to sell newer machines.

Kell, I like your point of view, But a 2.54 P4 beating a MAC????

[RBatson]

Well, I'm about convinced to get a Mac. This cpu I got in April is giving me a headache. I bought a scanner in Jan and it won't work with XP. I've got some kinda virus that only PC-cillin can detect(can only quarantine or delete). I've tried Norton and McAfee and neither of those 2 can even detect it. I can't shut down my CPU, only power it off. This DVD burner requires some expensive software to actually burn a DVD and roxio doesn't work even with the patch! Not to mention the darn CPU freezing up on me!! I thought this one would last me a good long while! DVD player, DVD burner, 1.6 P4, 512 ddram, 80 gigs.. Chris has had no problems with his Mac, hmmm.. either that or I need to go back to a P2 where I can atleast get GLQuake to work.

[shadowblue89]

Originally posted by Skyman
Now we all know MHZ dont matter, AMD and Apple have pushed this subject throughly.

So what we need to compare is dollar for dollar performance.

Skyler

Now you guys really got me thinking about this debate. Dollar for dollar the MAC is best.
For instance:
1. When was the last time you had to restart your machine due to problems? I bet at most a week or two ago and thats stretching it.
Me on a MAC? If it wasn't for upgrading my OS I would have been up and running for about a month and half now.

2. Lets say you want to put in a new graphics card. You need to go through the daunting task of installing drivers so it will work correctly.
The MAC? You just pull the old card out and put the new one in and start the machine that is it.

3. Number 2 applies to everything you plug in to your machine.

4. Worries of getting a virus, trojan horse and so on. All PC owners.
Me? I have been using Macs since 1993 and have not once had a virus.

Also if you really think about it the MAC actually comes standard with a cd-rw on the base model and the others come with a super drive(cd-rw/dvd-rw). They also come standard(depending on which model) with 256mb to 2.0 gb of ram in them.
What does your PC come with? Then we will see which is best dollar for dollar.

[shadowblue89]

Originally posted by RBatson
Well, I'm about convinced to get a Mac. This cpu I got in April is giving me a headache. I bought a scanner in Jan and it won't work with XP. I've got some kinda virus that only PC-cillin can detect(can only quarantine or delete). I've tried Norton and McAfee and neither of those 2 can even detect it. I can't shut down my CPU, only power it off. This DVD burner requires some expensive software to actually burn a DVD and roxio doesn't work even with the patch! Not to mention the darn CPU freezing up on me!! I thought this one would last me a good long while! DVD player, DVD burner, 1.6 P4, 512 ddram, 80 gigs.. Chris has had no problems with his Mac, hmmm.. either that or I need to go back to a P2 where I can atleast get GLQuake to work.

Come on over to the bright side of computing .

Virus problems on a MAC? Nope you have that problem.

Trying to burn a DVD? The MAC has great cd/dvd burning software built right into the OS or you could use Roxio(I use both) without a problem.

[Skyman]

Are you guys missing this link I posted completely?

The 2.54GHZ P4 from Dell (Grossly over priced) beat the crap out of the MAC on all kinds of photoshop tests.

People complaining about PC's freezing and having problems have low quality components. There is so much competition in the PC market you can buy junk. Apple is the only one making their stuff.

If you would look at that bench mark it was running OSX 10, and Windows XP, both the newest OS's for both platforms.

Yeah theres less virus's for macs out there, but theres a lot less software and stuff to do on them as well. Get PC Cillin, let it update automatically and you will never have a problem. As far as cleaning that virus rick Im sure I can help you out.

If real world tests like photoshop filters and actions arent good performance tests then what is? How about gameing performance? Everyone knows a PC Chip will THRASH a G4. The G4's claim to fame is its Adobe performance.

The positive things on the mac are that is slightly more user friendly. Dont take this the wrong way, but they are made so an idiot can use. Athough windows xp is just as good now. The UNIX based OS is a step in the right direction as well.

I have had a properly build Pentium 4 system, recently threw in a 2.4GHZ CPU and I have had no ONE crash or blue screen error in 9 months.

Is the mac a good system? Does it have a few advantages here and there? YES. Is it faster than the PC dollar for dollar? NOT A CHANCE.

Skyler

[Skyman]

Oh, BTW I was using a brand new, just out of the box Dual 1GHZ G4 the other day and it hung up on me in about 5 min of use.

Skyler

[Unit 5302]

Applications are the PERFECT benchmark. Granted, the benchmarks do not give you pure processor performance, which is totally irrevelent. It's the equivilent of doing a 1/4 mile run. Even if the G4 processor is faster (more horsepower), which it's not even close, it's like you've saddled it into a 1967 Full size station wagon vs a 1967 Mustang is what you're saying. I don't care how fast the processor is, I want to know how fast the system runs. You can have the fastest processor in the world, and it'll still run slow if the rest of your system isn't right, just like a car. Using tier one parts, the PC was WAY faster than the Mac. The benchmarks are there. If you guys would bother to read them, the Mac got slaughtered. Once the application is loaded and running, the OS should not make a huge difference, unfortunately, Mac O/S's are so insanely terrible at multitasking it shows as extremely poor performance. Since the dual processor Mac is the slowest of the Mac dual processors, I guess I'll just say, these systems were priced somewhat near each other. If you want to get a faster dual processor Mac to compare, that's fine. I really doubt it'll close the gap when compared to the much much faster P4 2.8GHz with even further enhanced memory speeds. It's not like the PC was the quickest PC used to test, either. Maybe you'd like to run the test heads up against the older PIII chip? Maybe you think your G4 would stand a better shot going against a dual PIII Tualatin system? My best guess, even with a very slow 133MHz FSB the dual 1.4GHz Tualatin PIII would smoke the dual G4.

Even if you are right about the processor, it makes no difference. Your processor is housed in a POS box with no performance potential, so in the real world, the PC has always, and always will be faster to use. End of story. The performance tests that show the Mac as being faster are based on running certain codec fragments from a Macintosh program which the Mac is specifically designed to enhance performance on. It's a joke. Like comparing a 1/4 mile race where the lane the PC is driving on is at a 30* incline, and the Mac is at a 30* decline. Jeez, which is going to run faster (barely I might add). Same thing as AMD did back in the AMD K6-2 vs PII days. They would pick and choose their performance tests to find a way their processor could beat Intel's lol. Sad. From a 32-43mph punch, my Mac is quicker than your PC.

My PC, even running Windows ME gets rebooted maybe once every 1-2 weeks. XP is extremely stable, and Dan has had his servers that operate this site in new Windows platforms that are incredibly stable. In short, you Mac guys know just about nothing when it comes to newer PC's, and you refuse to acknowledge the facts. I've worked with Mac's. I hate them. They are slow, inefficent, ugly, expensive, and difficult to fix if they do develop a problem (read reformat).

Ever hear of plug 'n play? It's been around since Windows 95. Enhanced significantly in 98, and every package after that. It's now basically just a matter of plugging the "less expensive" PC card into a slot and the system will auto detect it and load the software for it. Normally, there isn't even a reboot associated with it.

It's not the PC that's bad. It's ultra cheap, poorly contructed systems. My system was relatively inexpensive, and I've had VERY few problems with it while expanding it a great deal. If something goes wrong on a Mac, there is only ONE way to fix it. Format the hard drive and re-install everything.

I disagree strongly about Mac being a superior product for the inexperienced user. Why pay way way more for a computer when you can have something nearly as user friendly, with a great deal more growth potential, that's less expensive.

As far as software not working with XP, lol, there are ways to set XP up to run like previous versions. Might want to talk to Skyler, whos been able to get anything to run on XP that he has tried.

http://www.glenrhodes.com/macvspc.html

Pretty much sums it up. Mac uses asinine benchmarks to skew the truth, has a horrible O/S, and slow memory interfacing. All that adds up to a poor performing system, regardless of how fast the processor is. Maybe Apple should spend some money developing the important parts of their junkers, and come out with a "system" that works, not just a processor.

[PKRWUD]

OMG. XP as good as OS X. LOL!!!! That's a good one. MS has been trying for 11 years now to copy the Mac OS, but they're always a step behind. Plug and play, that's another good joke. You guys are funny. Sorry Kell, I know how you feel, but you're letting your feelings cloud your judgement. YOU are the one who is obviously not familiar with the newer Macs. Your loss.

Take care,
~Chris

[Unit 5302]

Oh I don't know, I guess we must win already, Skyler. PKRWUD can't support his position with a single fact at all while we've thrown benchmarks, and technical analysis at the Mac guru's.

XP isn't OS-X. It is FAR FAR superior to OS-X in almost every way, shape, and form. It's so much faster it's not even funny, it multitasks like new computers are used for, it has enhancements for burning DVD's and upgraded plug and play (apparently you've never used a proper plug 'n play O/S or else you'd know there is no joke about it). The Mac software you love so much is much more like server software in the way it runs it's programs, but it's so narrow minded, and old fashioned it's unable to keep up in the PC dominated market. It's like COBAL 85. Works great compared to COBOL 77, but it's totally inadaquate to do what people are doing with programs now-a-days.

Sorry, but just because you think your Mac processors are faster (might be faster because you can't actually test the processor with the O/S being so poor you can't have flattering or accurate results), doesn't mean the system is any better. Mac users are kinda like ricers. Their engine is really really fast, but they never want to race the domestics, and when they lose, they just talk about how much more hp per liter they have. In the end, it's run what ya brung, and the winner wins, the loser loses. No excuses, the Mac is just plain slow.

[shadowblue89]

Originally posted by Skyman
Are you guys missing this link I posted completely?

Maybe so but it's very fun to have these debates between a pc and a MAC.

The 2.54GHZ P4 from Dell (Grossly over priced) beat the crap out of the MAC on all kinds of photoshop tests.

Yeah maybe it did in that one test. Adobe just recently had to rebuild Photoshop from the ground up to run on the new OS 10 for the mac. They did an OK job but they are still not taking full advantage of the CPU as Photoshop did in the old OS 9.

People complaining about PC's freezing and having problems have low quality components. There is so much competition in the PC market you can buy junk. Apple is the only one making their stuff.

Very true. Apple is very strict and hard headed when it comes to this. That is why you don't realy have any problems on the MAC.

If you would look at that bench mark it was running OSX 10, and Windows XP, both the newest OS's for both platforms.

Sorry but the latest OS for the MAC they did not use. They used OSX 10.1.5 and the latest is 10.2(massive difference).

Yeah theres less virus's for macs out there, but theres a lot less software and stuff to do on them as well. Get PC Cillin, let it update automatically and you will never have a problem.

MAC's having less software? I doubt it unless you are talking about games. The games are starting come in very fast since Apple switched to the new OSX. Other then that they have just about the same. You just have to order it through a catalog or online for most stuff. Not to mention there is a great place called sourceforge that 95% of the stuff on the site will run on the MAC.

If real world tests like photoshop filters and actions arent good performance tests then what is? How about gameing performance? Everyone knows a PC Chip will THRASH a G4. The G4's claim to fame is its Adobe performance.

This subject goes away from the whole subject. As you should know this mainly depends on your graphics card.

The positive things on the mac are that is slightly more user friendly. Dont take this the wrong way, but they are made so an idiot can use. Athough windows xp is just as good now. The UNIX based OS is a step in the right direction as well.

Thats a good boy Skyler. We will convince you yet to get a MAC and keep it for every day use.
XP as good as the MAC? never

I have had a properly build Pentium 4 system, recently threw in a 2.4GHZ CPU and I have had no ONE crash or blue screen error in 9 months.

Look at what you do for a living. Take that same machine and let a friend use it for a week. You will have problems with it afterwards.

Is the mac a good system?

Thats a no brainer. HELL YEAH IT IS

Does it have a few advantages here and there? YES. Is it faster than the PC dollar for dollar? NOT A CHANCE.

I think you should get some more rest. Your judgments have been impaired.

[shadowblue89]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
Mac users are kinda like ricers.

All right Kell this is just plain wrong to put the word ricers in this.

[Skyman]

I can build a P4 2.53GHZ system w/ a quality Intel board for under $600.

Tell me how that is not a dollar for dollar winner over the Mac? I think you need new glasses.

Skyler