MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Unit 5302 · 08-25-2002, 04:24 AM

Building the Mac.

You can't build that machine, srv1. You'll never get the Macintosh to perform like the PC in memory. The fastest (read latest) version of the Mac features a ridiculous SDRAM with a 167MHz FSB. It's 2MB of L3 Cache runs at up to 500MHz which may increase that processing speed. Still a problem that the processor speed is incapable of taking care of memory enhancements. That's one of the main reasons Mac has stuck with the older SDRAM. Their processors simply do not have the clock speed to utilize the new, faster bus speeds. As I said before. A given processor against the same processor running a faster clock speed is a mismatch. The faster clock will win. Clock speed is extremely important. The new P4's have been built with super high clock speeds, and the chip itself has been overclocked to the point where the ram was actually restricting the processor performance. That's with much improved 400MHz RDRAM. Now that Intel has advanced it's memory interface even further, up to 1066MHz, the RDRAM is no longer holding the system performance back. PKRWUD is right about processors being faster than applications. They were, for a long time. Which is why Mac kept on making advances and the PC's stayed about the same. It took Mac YEARS to catch up with system performance. Now with CD burning, DVD burning, media encoding, and other system taxing processes, the faster processor is being utilized again. Guess what? All those years of catching up were erased in just a few months by the PC's. They're now way faster than the Mac again (even with the Mac in a dual processor configuration vs the PC single).

Unfortunately, to get the pure application speed, you'll need a dual processor setup. To compete with the PC setup like you want, you'll need to spend at least $3000.

PKRWUD even the dual processor G4 1.0GHz running OS X is slower than the single processor 2.4GHz P4 with the older 400MHz FSB in application speed. The only benchmarks the Mac has EVER won was in pure processor capability (not directly related to system speed), and running a specific part of a program designed for enhanced speed on the Mac. When you run the whole program, the P4 beats the Mac down, even in a program designed for the Mac. Your comments on higher up more processor intense industries using the Mac is also skewed. I haven't seen many Oracle databases on Mac's. Talk about system stretching.

The $2800 Dell Machine in the benchmark tests can be built for under $1000, easy. Don't know why Dell is so overpriced.

By the way. Of the few Mac users I know, they have WAY more problems with their Mac's crashing and freezing up than they do with their PCs. I'm talking several times less stable with the Mac.

As far as older Mac systems being superior, they've been inferior (read vastly) since I can remember. I've been working on PC's and Mac's since 1992. My high school had only Macs. The performance of the Mac systems at the time "LC II" was horrible. The O/S was unstable, the hardware was unreliable, and the software available for it was inferior.

You need a much better, diverse, source to get your information from. Getting it all from the Apple site isn't reliable.

Adriauna is doing very well. She's back to 100%! Thanks for asking!

08-25-2002, 04:24 AM	#45
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Building the Mac. You can't build that machine, srv1. You'll never get the Macintosh to perform like the PC in memory. The fastest (read latest) version of the Mac features a ridiculous SDRAM with a 167MHz FSB. It's 2MB of L3 Cache runs at up to 500MHz which may increase that processing speed. Still a problem that the processor speed is incapable of taking care of memory enhancements. That's one of the main reasons Mac has stuck with the older SDRAM. Their processors simply do not have the clock speed to utilize the new, faster bus speeds. As I said before. A given processor against the same processor running a faster clock speed is a mismatch. The faster clock will win. Clock speed is extremely important. The new P4's have been built with super high clock speeds, and the chip itself has been overclocked to the point where the ram was actually restricting the processor performance. That's with much improved 400MHz RDRAM. Now that Intel has advanced it's memory interface even further, up to 1066MHz, the RDRAM is no longer holding the system performance back. PKRWUD is right about processors being faster than applications. They were, for a long time. Which is why Mac kept on making advances and the PC's stayed about the same. It took Mac YEARS to catch up with system performance. Now with CD burning, DVD burning, media encoding, and other system taxing processes, the faster processor is being utilized again. Guess what? All those years of catching up were erased in just a few months by the PC's. They're now way faster than the Mac again (even with the Mac in a dual processor configuration vs the PC single). Unfortunately, to get the pure application speed, you'll need a dual processor setup. To compete with the PC setup like you want, you'll need to spend at least $3000. PKRWUD even the dual processor G4 1.0GHz running OS X is slower than the single processor 2.4GHz P4 with the older 400MHz FSB in application speed. The only benchmarks the Mac has EVER won was in pure processor capability (not directly related to system speed), and running a specific part of a program designed for enhanced speed on the Mac. When you run the whole program, the P4 beats the Mac down, even in a program designed for the Mac. Your comments on higher up more processor intense industries using the Mac is also skewed. I haven't seen many Oracle databases on Mac's. Talk about system stretching. The $2800 Dell Machine in the benchmark tests can be built for under $1000, easy. Don't know why Dell is so overpriced. By the way. Of the few Mac users I know, they have WAY more problems with their Mac's crashing and freezing up than they do with their PCs. I'm talking several times less stable with the Mac. As far as older Mac systems being superior, they've been inferior (read vastly) since I can remember. I've been working on PC's and Mac's since 1992. My high school had only Macs. The performance of the Mac systems at the time "LC II" was horrible. The O/S was unstable, the hardware was unreliable, and the software available for it was inferior. You need a much better, diverse, source to get your information from. Getting it all from the Apple site isn't reliable. Adriauna is doing very well. She's back to 100%! Thanks for asking!