# mac processor speed vs PC processor speed Q



## frompc2mac (Oct 25, 2003)

Hey....I've gotten the general idea that an apple processor is faster than those of PC companies. But how much faster? Right now Im on a PC that's at 850mhz (UghHhhhh...*shudder*) and looking into an ibook at 1ghz or 900mhz...do you guys think it'd be significantly faster than this piece o' junk? (I have 320megs of SD ram in here if that makes a diff.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It probably depends on what sort of apps you are running. Some are quite a bit faster on a Mac...and a one gig or 900mhz Mac is probably the functional equivalent of an P3 or P4 Intel. AMD is probably a better comparison (and is, by all accounts, a MUCH better chip)

Part of the problem with the direct comparison is that MicroSoft stuff is bloatware and is...as you may have heard...rather buggy. Most Apple software just works a lot smoother, so that's factor.

Then there's the Velocity Engine (aka AltiVec). If the program is written for AltiVec then the processor can split the problem and work on several parts of it at once. Naturally this is faster.

If GordGuide chooses to reply to this thread, he will have the definitive word on all of this for you. 

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Short answer... The one gig Mac will blow your 850 PC right out of the water. No question.

And it won't get any viruses. Ever.


----------



## frompc2mac (Oct 25, 2003)

lol thanks. and good..about the no viruses. i'll be glad to be rid of this antivirus software. stupid garbage doesnt work half the time i swear....and it just seems to freeze and crash whenever i want to scan something. Oh...such an invaluble tool. Let it burn.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

More good news for you there. Macs don't really crash much. Mine hasn't done anything like that since...hmmm...well, since I got it.

The previous one did crash on OS9 a couple of times but I never lost any data when it did.

It's a whole different world over here in the light, is it not?


----------



## frompc2mac (Oct 25, 2003)

It sure seems that way.  I can't wait to get my first Mac. I can spend WAY too long just looking at pictures and specs and stuff....like a kid at christmas or something. This town is too small and entirely PC so there's no mac retailer here or anywhere within a 4 hour drive of here so I've never been on one or got to handle one. I can't wait!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Reminds me of when I switched.

I was working as an oilfield mobile lab technician and we had to use PC laptops for twelve hours per day, seven days a week, for as much as sixty days straight.

( No time off for good behavior-but that's why the pay is so darned good)

Anyway...I knew nothing about Macs, except that they weren't PC's. And I'd had about enough of them. I also knew that Macs were supposed to be particularly good for graphics, video and photography which are all major interests of mine.

So, on a rare day away from the rig, I went into town (Dickenson, North Dakota was the closest town to our wellsite) and used the public library computer to bid for a Mac Powerbook on ebay.

When it arrived at my hotel in Billings, Montana a week later it was the very first Mac I had ever seen up close. And I had no idea how to run it. Not a single clue.No one I could call for help, either.

So I just plunged in and started playing. Within fifteen minutes I was on the net and by the next day I was totally committed. It's just wayyyy better!

I can't imagine owning a garden variety PC anymore.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

You buy a PC and Windows.
You upgrade the PC every year just to keep things running the same speed.
Every five years you buy a Windows upgrade that (you hope) will fix all the bugs of the previous version.

Or you buy a Mac.
You upgrade Mac OS X every year to double the features and increase the speed.
Every five years you buy a new Mac that will positively dramatically change your cyberlife.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

Every time I have to use a PC, be it my friend's 1.6 ghz P4 or the 800mhz P3 at work---I am so glad to come home to my mac. All they have is stress from downloaded bloat-spy-adware what have you
I thought WinXP was nice at first, but now I see lots of issues with it. No thanks.
My work offered me a free 400mhzP2, but I can't think of what I would do with it , except play games, and I just can't justify the space for that.
The new G4 iBooks look pretty sweet, get the fastes machine you can afford in my opinion, unless you will never use it for video or games.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I just spend 7 hours last night, and 4 hours tonight fixing a friend's PC. XP is trash. Security exploits, instability and vulnerability to hacks, viruses and software corruption just make me want to puke all over the people who made this OS. 

OSX is ROCK SOLID. And yes, the 1ghz is gonna be blazin' compared to that P3 850..


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

For some info more-or-less related to your question, I have a Quicksilver 867G4 and an AMD Athlon 950. They're pretty similar in very general terms to the computers you're comparing.

The Mac is usually faster OSX vs XP; OS9 is faster still. The more demanding the task, the more the Mac takes a lead, usually.

Some applications are close and occasionally the PC even wins. About 90% of those applications have Microsoft on the box, though.

For example if you can use Safari, no problem, the Mac has it hands-down. If you must use Internet Explorer, the Windows version wins.

Also, keep in mind these are both up, running and stable installations where the comparison is done by simply working the application. The Windows box is easily 5x more work and that work takes probably 20x more time to keep in a good running state.

If you did a comparison where, say, you popped in a CD, found the files you wanted, copied them to the hard drive, launched and worked on them in PhotoShop, then sent them out as compressed images for the web, you would find the PC was way behind.

Similarly, the browser comparison is really just how long it takes to load a window for a given URL. If you throw in the time it takes to load popups, screw with endless dialogs that are necessary in Windows if you want any hope of keeping the computer reasonably clean of evil, Windows doesn't do so well even with IE.

Multitasking (running more than 1 program at a time) is painfully slow on Windows; you're always waiting for one process to end before the other starts.

Try this one: launch eMail, a browser, and pop a CD into the drive and play it through the hifi. Now update your software, while checking your mail and browsing a bit. Even when the Mac requires attention, you can ignore the installer till you're ready, and most of the time you don't need to kill your running programs to install at all. Even the restart, if required, can wait till you're good and ready.

Compared to having everything ready and taking out the stopwatch to do filter X on file Y, which is how most Mac vs. PC benchmarks are done, it's a big difference.

[ October 28, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> You buy a PC and Windows.
> You upgrade the PC every year just to keep things running the same speed.
> Every five years you buy a Windows upgrade that (you hope) will fix all the bugs of the previous version.


I disagree with this, right now I upgrade my PC once a year yes but it allways get's faster, what I don't do is buy the bloatware that Microsoft sells I keep chugging along with Win98SE it runs 99% of the software out there and it fits into 100mb of hard drive space. The computer is extremely quick with this configuration I can boot the computer, launch IE, launch Word and launch Photoshop in less than 30secs


----------



## sansabelt (Oct 10, 2003)

frompc2mac,

http://www.apple.com/ca/g4/myth/

I don't know if this is still valid with the new G5's but it definately answered my question when I was looking at the G4 line.

-sb


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

sansabelt - Personally I prefer this one:

http://www.apple.com/myths/


----------



## sansabelt (Oct 10, 2003)

Chealion,

Great link but too much clutter. I posted the mhz myth link because I felt it directly answered his question.

-sb


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I really got to say that people who think that browsing on a Mac is faster than browsing on a Windows machine are biased. (I can say other things but won't.)

I use a G4 933 at home and use a Pentium II box at work running Windows NT 5.0. There is absolutely no comparison when surfing the web. Windows with IE has it hands down over Mac OS X with OmniWeb, Communicator, IE and Camillo (sp?). I have yet to try with Safari but given the bugginess of that program I am reluctant to do so.

This is not only my experience but also a lot of others over at DealChat.

As for crashing the system, the Windows box does crash more often...maybe once every few weeks...but, then, I usually have the following programs open in MULTIPLE windows...I now have 10 windows open for the following programs...IE (7), Word (1), Excel (1), Lotus Notes (1). Over the course of the workday (I research and write reports), I can have as many as 12-18 different windows open along with Adobe Reader and Powerpoint.

I rarely have to restart and I don't have any issues with updating software because the Windows box simply works well enough.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Speaking of Safari...I loaded this program into my Mac
and enhanced Safari with it...It runs fairly smoothly now.
Click on the link in this article:

Link to article on Safari 

Dave


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Don't know what build of Safari you've tried, but I have zero issues.

I use my G4 just as intently as you; probably more, because I might have audio applications open while multitasking with standard desktop applications.

It is now just over 2 years since I bought it, and i'm still waiting for the very first crash to happen.

Win98SE on a reasonably fast system (P4 1G or so) is a very snappy OS. If it has what you need, use it. The Government of Canada is yet to switch to XP.

A trick that I used with my Windows box to stop some (not all) of the spyware and overall general sneaky applications is to format the first drive as D: not C:. You do have to spend a moment correcting the path on installers, but much of the stuff you don't want or know about will have configured the installer look for a C drive only, and fail.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just a note, MS is moving swiftly and quietly along with their plans to discontinue support for Win98.

And any properly configured and well maintained computer will run stable, it's just that OS X doesn't necessarily require as much of either.

--PB


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

> There is absolutely no comparison when surfing the web. Windows with IE has it hands down over Mac OS X with OmniWeb


I agree. But it finally dawned on me OS X was the problem, not the hardware. When I first tested the G5s ("the world's fastest personal computer") I was miffed at how slow they were (i.e. opening applications) compared with my puny pc with 128 MB RAM. How could this be? I still have to test Panther but, in terms of snappy speeds, OS 9 is the clear winner in the Mac world.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Klaatu, what apps are you trying to launch? Our G5 demo machines at work launches Photoshop faster than any machine I have ever worked with. Pretty much every app I have tried launches in two bounces or less.

--PB


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

> Pretty much every app I have tried launches in two bounces or less.


That's what I mean. The low-end pc at my work can open apps faster. OS 9 definitely. If you go into OS 9... oh yeah, you can't. You're on a G5... but I could open iMovie in a G3 333 faster than I could in a G5. That's nuts. It makes me wonder what else is slowed by this os.

I figure until OS X reaches the "Cheetah" version will it catch up with the speed of OS 9.


----------



## Terry Sebastian (Apr 30, 2003)

I agree - I just test drove a G5 and was unimpressed with the "snappyness" of it, slow loading apps, and even slower quiting apps what the !. Sure OSX looks great, and has many features, but My G4/400 in os9 fells sooooo good (even when it freezes, and with extensions), but I am forced to use OSX, like many others.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I figure until OS X reaches the "Cheetah" version will it catch up with the speed of OS 9.*

On my iBook 600 PS bounces in the dock 10 times, and then it takes to the count of almost 30 to load all the necessary files to actually be open and useable.

In OS 9 it takes only a fraction less time.

On the G5 1.6 at work it bounces twice and I can't count past 5, maybe 10 _at the most_ before it is open and useable.

But if this isn't fast enough for you, open Photoshop, GoLive, Safari, Entourage, and any other apps you wantall at the same time. Do the same on your PC or older Mac, and then start running some complex operations in each app on each machine, all at the same time and see which one feels snappy.

--PB


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Just a note, MS is moving swiftly and quietly along with their plans to discontinue support for Win98.
> And any properly configured and well maintained computer will run stable, it's just that OS X doesn't necessarily require as much of either.
> --PB


my point is that people install the latest operating system on a computer that's 3 years old and expect that old computer to behave like a brand spankin new comp, forget it. 


> But if this isn't fast enough for you, open Photoshop, GoLive, Safari, Entourage, and any other apps you wantall at the same time. Do the same on your PC or older Mac, and then start running some complex operations in each app on each machine, all at the same time and see which one feels snappy.
> --PB


Right now I'm testing a P4 3GHz with the Hyper threading 800mhz FSB with Win2K and I installed a few Adobe apps on it along with the Office suite and for the hell of it I launched Seti as well, there all running pretty smoothly and no noticeable drop in poerformance. As much as I like Mac OSX and Apple's hardware we've got to come to the conclusion that we all use Windows or Mac for specific reasons, mine are that I can't afford a Mac right now but I can build a pretty solid PC for under a 1000.00









PB, you've got allot of valid points and I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

K_OS, I notice you're in Toronto too...if you're downtown, which stores would you recommend to buy the parts for building a PC? I'm considering something like this:

PIV 2.4C GHz
512 MB
MB with 800 FSB
ATI 9600 or the new nVidia 5700 (basically has to handle Doom III when it comes out)
CDRW
Smallish HD

and a couple more bits and pieces. Basically, the system will be used for gaming, gaming, gaming, and network and operating system security work. I'm the gamer...my g/f is the network security guru and so she wants a system to beat up on.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

> start running some complex operations in each app on each machine, all at the same time and see which one feels snappy.


There's a difference between speed and power. Once apps are open a lot depends on the power of the machine. Bus speed for example (67 Mhz on a G3 vs 1000 on a G5). At that stage a G3 could never compete with a G5. On the other hand I often have multiple apps open and churning data on my work pc and it handles them quite effeciently. If you could get OS 9 running natively on a G5 you would truly have the fastest overall computer in the world. 



> which stores would you recommend to buy the parts for building a PC?


I always use Sonnam for my Mac parts (drives, monitors, etc) but they cater to pcs. Very grungy hole-in-the-wall place but if you want great prices you're unlikely to find a better deal elsewhere. You can see their prices at their web site


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

Oh, and just to illustrate the difference between Mac dealers and pc dealers...

Look at the price list at Cpused for a Western Digital 120 GB drive with 8 MB cache. They list it as $269

Now look up the same item at Sonnam. They sell for $159 -- a difference of $110, almost half the price!

That's why I never buy my parts from Mac dealers. Never.


----------



## Mantat (Aug 22, 2003)

Guys, the loading times of applications is mostly related to the speed of the HD and the bus speed. So comparison between PCs and Mac arent very relevant since they both use very diferent architecture. And anyways, how many times during a day to you open an application? 

What is important is the process time. I wouldnt mind waiting 10mins for photoshop to starts if once its ready it could do any filters in less than 1sec... 

Also, on windows, if you open/close/open an application, it will load way faster the second time. So when you test something, you have to be carefull. 

In my mind, the mac is faster because I never waste time to do something. It always work on the first try (except finding a DVD ripper :-S) so saving 1 hour of searching for a patch ofset waiting 2-3 more second once in a while. Dont forget that when you are working on anything, the computer will be waiting for you way more often than the other way arround.


----------



## frompc2mac (Oct 25, 2003)

wow...this was all really informative! Thanks for the info and links







I think i will be satisfied with my mac purchase...they just seem like wicked machines.....despite the protests of my PC using friends. (who, by the way, don't know the first thing about a mac.) There's a chance I might be picking up one of those iBook 900s...for what i plan to use it for, I'm sure I will be satisfied.


----------



## Mantat (Aug 22, 2003)

The new iBooks are an very good value, probably the portable equivalent of the eMac. The real chalenge now is going to be to find a case for it...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> ey....I've gotten the general idea that an apple processor is faster than those of PC companies. But how much faster?


Apple is the fastest...with the software made for Apple
computers that is.

If you are going to use 3D Studio Max...
Then by all means use a PC that is made for 3D Studio Max.

It's really relative to the computer and the software that is running on the computer.

I just got the latest Tiger Direct catalog btw and the listings
for PC motherboards are really cheap...Wish Apple allowed
people to buy motherboards that they could custom build
themselves into an ATX box.

When I was looking into computers in 1993...I was seriously
considering building my own PC from scratch at Throne
computers....But then Apple just looked so nice and simple.

Maybe someday Apple will allow people to build their own
boxes instead of just having custom orders.

I'd love to build my own Apple into an ATX box.

Dave


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Apple could open it's proprietary designs, for no renumeration, and allow 3rd party manufacturers to sell motherboards. And they would be as cheap as the PC motherboards to make (they already do cost essentially the same to manufacture).

But, they wouldn't be as cheap as the motherboards you're looking at. They would be priced more like these ones because that's what the parts/chipsets in Apple boards would add to the manufacturing cost.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If I was going to build a PC nowadays...I'd be more interested in this motherboard.

Asus Motherboard 

(The above link is troublesome in Safari, If the link doesn't
work...Then empty your caches in the debug menu and try
it again, Otherwise you may receive a server error in Safari.)

I was never an Intel fan.

Dave 

[ October 31, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> K_OS, I notice you're in Toronto too...if you're downtown, which stores would you recommend to buy the parts for building a PC? I'm considering something like this:
> 
> PIV 2.4C GHz
> 512 MB
> ...


I buy parts at 2 computer stores Canada Computers or Dytech Computers either of these stores ussually have good prices Sonnam mentioned above is also a good choice.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Maybe someday Apple will allow people to build their own
> boxes instead of just having custom orders.
> 
> I'd love to build my own Apple into an ATX box.
> ...


I've looked into this before the closest you can come to a ATX compatible motherboard on a Apple product is in the old beige G3 computers. The ATX plug on the power supply plugs right into the motherboard and all you have to do after that is set a jumper on top of the last PCI slot from Apple to ATX and you're off and running


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> which stores would you recommend to buy the parts for building a PC?


Canada Computers is the best bet...
That's if I was going to start building again,
But...Lately...Visa makes more than I do  

I think I'll be putting off building my dream box for awhile.

Dave


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Your Dytech link doesn't work that well in Safari...
Here's a better link:

Better Dytech link 

Tell em off about it on their message board  

Dave


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've bought from Canada Computers before and it was a good experience but was a bit leery about their ratings on resellersratings.com.

Have yet to check out Dytech but been to Sonnam before.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The other place to go if you don't mind the drive is Pacific Mall up at Steele and Kennedy, there are several computer shops in there including Canada Computers that way it gives you a chance to compare prices.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I've looked into this before the closest you can come to a ATX compatible motherboard on a Apple product is in the old beige G3 computers. The ATX plug on the power supply plugs right into the motherboard and all you have to do after that is set a jumper on top of the last PCI slot from Apple to ATX and you're off and running. ..."

The IBM and Motorola PPC processors use completely different voltage/currents than x86 so even if they came in ATX form factors, an off-the shelf PC power supply won't work. Not sure about the G3, but I would be careful in case it results in a lot of smoke and another, very expensive trip to the store.


----------

