Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

EMC · Jul 14, 2002, 06:10 AM

Both MacNN and Apple post the following specs on their websites.

Steinberg on Mac vs. PC race
Although some analysts and Mac fans, awaiting Power Mac upgrades, have all but conceded the x86 PC's speed advantage over the latest Macintosh offerings, a recent article by Gene Steinberg suggest the race is still a tight one. In five out of nine Photoshop tests conducted by Mr. Steinberg, the Power Mac G4 dual-1GHz bested the 2.2GHz Sony Vaio desktop by several seconds, in cases where the Power Mac lost, the PC's victory was marginal.

If I were an uniformed reader, I would assume from this study that the G4 is a comparable chip to the Pentium 4. If you read the article, that is what the author implies.

The fact is, the pentium 4 is a MUCH faster chip. However, it lacks a 128-bit vector processing unit which Apple calls the Altivec unit. It turns out that this bit of hardware can help speed up multiple for-loops by processing them simultaneously. The upside is that this can add a significant performance boost to a set of processes. However, only a limited number of software programs can gain appreciably from this.

Adobe Photoshop filters are perhaps one of the few tasks which can actually make use of the Altivec unit for a substantial period of time. Thus in these tests it can surpass the pentium 4. Making the assumption that it is infact comparable to a pentium 4 is false logic. That is like saying a 5 horsepower boat can travel faster than a corvette in a lake, and then concluding that the boat is in fact a faster vehicle.

Graphic professionals who use photoshop regularlspend most of their time editing and only a small fraction of their CPU time applying filters. In these tests though, only the application of filters is timed for benchmark tests.

Don't get me wrong, I like Apple a lot, but their hardware is far inferior to today's PCs and I am sick and tired of people claiming Apple superiority by taking a 40MB picture and appling a crosshatch filter.

Try measuring tasks that occur everyday -- web browsing, 3D games, number crunching, whatever. The PC is faster. Apple makes a great operating system and a pretty box, but speed is lacking big time.

but 10.2! it must be faster! yeah, whatever.

By the time Jaguar will come out, PCs will have DDR-400 SDRAM. That is four generations of RAM bus speed ahead of the current PowerMac G4.

X_RuLeZ · Jul 14, 2002, 06:44 AM

I agree with you. My biggest problem with that comparison was that they were comparing a top of the range mac with dual processors to a pc with only one processor. They should try comparing the Mac with a dual 2100+ Athlon workstation or a dual 2.2Ghz Xeon workstation, see how the G4 comes out then; having two processors in a photoshop test is a big advantage. Also a dual Athlon workstation can be had for alot less than the top of the range powermac, its hard to justify so much extra money for less performance no-matter how great OsX is.

From a different perspective; the Mac should be fast enough for most photoshop users anyway. My family's business has always been the graphic arts and everyone uses macs and not many require any more power.

OreoCookie · Jul 14, 2002, 07:32 AM

Agreed. I am disappointed with my iBooks CPU performance.

On the other hand, OS X feels so smooth and the GUI is simply the best I have ever seen.
This is also true for all other i.apps -- beautiful interface and it gets the job done.

Mister T · Jul 14, 2002, 02:34 PM

if you're going to talk about "everyday" tests, then both windows and macs win

last time i heard critics love the fact that Walmart's selling of 300 dollar Lindows/ 900 mhz was a great idea because it brought "great computing at a unbeatable" price

they're both fast enough in the year 2002 to satisfy most people. if you choose apple, you choose everything:

hardware design, programs, apple peripherals,service, community, gui design, and the fact we're always a slight step behind

X_RuLeZ · Jul 15, 2002, 05:18 AM

I love OSX, it just feels better to use than windows XP. The main problem I have is browsing the web; that extra few seconds or so just browsing starts to annoy me after a while and the pages on my PC seem to snap open- almost no delay.

My main problem with Apple is that they deliver great computing but at expensive prices.

[ 07-15-2002, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: X_RuLeZ ]

Cooter · Jul 15, 2002, 09:19 AM

Well, IMHO....you guys must be using the wrong hardware. I have an 867G4, yeah, yeah, not exactly an iBook or iMac, but I don't find myself "waiting around." I think the problem with Apple's percieved lack of speed is that only the high dollar stuff has any performance. If you have ever used a Dual Gigger you know that there is very little "waiting around" unless you are comparing some real FPU taxing software like Lightwave, Maya, etc.

But, its nearly a year into my 867 and, oh yeah, I think I see the point. Apple does move awfully slow on the Mhz front. Here is to the ever eternal Maccie hope that they release some compelling hardware by mid-August. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

Ken_F2 · Jul 15, 2002, 09:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Well, IMHO....you guys must be using the wrong hardware. I have an 867G4, yeah, yeah, not exactly an iBook or iMac, but I don't find myself "waiting around." I think the problem with Apple's percieved lack of speed is that only the high dollar stuff has any performance. If you have ever used a Dual Gigger you know that there is very little "waiting around" unless you are comparing some real FPU taxing software like Lightwave, Maya, etc.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think you understand...

You've used OS9 right? Are you saying that web browsing is faster under OSX than it was for you under OS9? I have a cable modem, and I can assure you, it isn't (although Chimera gives me hope). And web browsing with modern PCs, using the latest version of Internet Explorer, is noticeably faster than OS9 already. The reasons have been discussed already in other threads, and there's no reason to rehash them here.

In most applications, most people aren't going to care about a second here, or a second there. However, when you are browsing web pages, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between web pages loading in 1/4 second and 1.5 seconds, or between 1.5 seconds and 4.0 seconds. Over time those seconds really add up...and for PC users that are used to those browsing speeds on a daily basis, OSX is going to seem slow to them in the Apple Store.

Graymalkin · Jul 17, 2002, 12:22 AM

It isn't the speed at which pages load for me it is how I can navigate them. In 9 using Mozilla 1.1a pages scroll near realtime. Sometime there is some tearing or skipping but for the most part scrolling is not a problem at all. Under X Mozilla's scrolling is horribly slow and jerky. I have to sit and baby the damn thing just so it doesn't get stuck scrolling over something "tough" like an animated gif or something. Mozilla under LinuxPPC on the same system is about as jerky as it is under X.

The same happens with Quicktime, both 5 and 6. In 9 the video is smooth and runs full screen with no problem. Under X it is lucky to get half of the normal framerate when run at full screen. I tried to watch the "Large" Two Towers trailer this morning on X and was lucky to see every other frame. I rebooted into 9 and I got the full framerate without the sound skipping or anything.

A web browsing rant doesn't have much to do with odd Photoshop testing procedures but it is a good comparison of OSX and Windows XP. I've got Windows XP, Mozilla 1.1a, and now Quicktime 6 on three PCs. They run both programs just fine, even the slowest which is a 350MHz K6-2. My Powerbook under 9 can keep up UI wise with all three systems, under X it just feels painfully slow. I think there's a lot of people who'd be much happier if the hardware they don't need to sell a kidney to buy ran Apple's new OS as fast enough to be comfortable.

bullrat · Jul 18, 2002, 06:16 PM

You guys are freaking me out. I've at the very edge of being a "switcher" but I had no idea Macs were slower on normal daily tasks like browsing the Web. You make it seem really noticable. Got any URLs to comparative charts that directly compare specific Mac vs. PC chips on normal tasks like these? I only use Photoshop occassionally and no big deal, but I'd hate to think I'm going backwards on speed for normal word processing, spreadsheet, browsing, etc.

-bullrat

68k33 · Jul 18, 2002, 07:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graymalkin:
It isn't the speed at which pages load for me it is how I can navigate them. In 9 using Mozilla 1.1a pages scroll near realtime. Sometime there is some tearing or skipping but for the most part scrolling is not a problem at all. Under X Mozilla's scrolling is horribly slow and jerky. I have to sit and baby the damn thing just so it doesn't get stuck scrolling over something "tough" like an animated gif or something. Mozilla under LinuxPPC on the same system is about as jerky as it is under X.

The same happens with Quicktime, both 5 and 6. In 9 the video is smooth and runs full screen with no problem. Under X it is lucky to get half of the normal framerate when run at full screen. I tried to watch the "Large" Two Towers trailer this morning on X and was lucky to see every other frame. I rebooted into 9 and I got the full framerate without the sound skipping or anything.

A web browsing rant doesn't have much to do with odd Photoshop testing procedures but it is a good comparison of OSX and Windows XP. I've got Windows XP, Mozilla 1.1a, and now Quicktime 6 on three PCs. They run both programs just fine, even the slowest which is a 350MHz K6-2. My Powerbook under 9 can keep up UI wise with all three systems, under X it just feels painfully slow. I think there's a lot of people who'd be much happier if the hardware they don't need to sell a kidney to buy ran Apple's new OS as fast enough to be comfortable.<hr /></blockquote>Man, what are you talking about ?

Months ago I have opened on the very first Powerbook G4 with OS 10.1.4 exactly 4 (four) Quicktimemovies, all starting at the same time. While all them were playing, I took one movie and dragged it around the screen. And there was no interruption in any of the four movies. The framerate was only marginal slower.

Intersesting was at that time a Sony Pentium IV 1,7 GHz with WinXP. I opened Acrobat reader, and guess, it took the same amount of time to launch it like on that powerbook.

Now, what is this "daily use" first impression telling me ?

retroneo · Jul 18, 2002, 08:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EMC:

The fact is, the pentium 4 is a MUCH faster chip. However, it lacks a 128-bit vector processing unit which Apple calls the Altivec unit.
<hr /></blockquote>The Pentium 4 has two 64-bit vector processing units (MMX and SSE) and one 128-bit (SSE2).

PowerCube · Jul 18, 2002, 10:17 PM

I myself am a bit baffled by all the rants here and elsewhere against OSX in "daily use". I have a 500mhz Cube running OSX.1.5, and am, while not ecstatic about the overall performance, I am certainly more than happy with it.
I have tried Mozilla under OSX, and yeah, it sucks big time, as it does under Linux, as was posted earlier, and I have tried others to no avail. I now use IE5.2 exclusively because it seems the most responsive (!) to me. And it is the only browser I have used under OSX that will load all the features on the web without giving me any grief. As much as I dislike microsoft

, their web browser works for me. (BTW I am set up on a cable modem connected through a Cisco 806 router)
iTunes works great, Office v X work great for me without any of the hiccups reported by others, Virtual PC sucks under OSX, but runs fine under 9 (v 5.0.4). I love being able to use the iSub now under OSX. Bonus! iMovie is fine, Quicken is fine, Toast is great. I have no ploblems playing back full screen Quicktime trialers or video downloads. I like being able to save a document natively as a PDF file. How cool is that !
Geez! with all this stuff that works great for me, I cannot wait to see how unbelievable the performance will be under X.2 with a new 1Ghz upgrade and my gF3 card. I for one am happy to make the transition to OSX, and see very few problems with the tenth of a second lag here and there. I can only speculate that the problems report by others are on older, slower or non G4 systems. That is not what OSX was designed to run best on, and this is a known fact.
Now mind you I don't run any professional apps on my system, (I have Adobe Design Collection for OS9 (Photoshop 6, Illustrator 9 etc) that I don't use, if anyone is interested!) I just haven't upgraded as of yet. I will, eventually.
You gotta move to the future people. You can't expect to slap a modern fuel injection system on a 89 Camaro without any other modifications, and expect it to perform like a 99 Camaro.
This is an advanced operating system that has been constantly evolving, there are to be some expected annoyances. Yes, the hardware is lagging, but it will get there sooner, now that OSX nearly where it should be.
It seems to me that we are getting all we asked for and more, in a OS that is far more stable and attractive than anything else out there. BUT, I suppose that it is not fast enough for alot of individuals out there, for whatever reason.
I don't blindly support everthing Apple does, but I do feel they are going in the right direction, and the hardware will come around. I guess going Moto was a mistake that has been a low priority to get away from. Who knows? It isn't the end of the world, nor is it the death knell for Apple.
I guess if people are dying for speed in web browsers, you should own a PC. I personally don't see a big diference between the performance of various machines in daily use. I use a Dell at work with a P4 1.4 and XP, and it seems like any other windows machine I have ever used, bland and buggy. The same with the machines at school, my wifes old IBM with win 98 etc etc. Maybe it is all a matter of perception? Objectivity is hard to come by when you are expecting more than is offered.
I like Apple, I love my Cube, I really enjoy OSX, tenths of a second and all, and I really can't wait to get X.2.

Fyre4ce · Jul 18, 2002, 11:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bullrat:
You guys are freaking me out. I've at the very edge of being a "switcher" but I had no idea Macs were slower on normal daily tasks like browsing the Web. You make it seem really noticable. Got any URLs to comparative charts that directly compare specific Mac vs. PC chips on normal tasks like these? I only use Photoshop occassionally and no big deal, but I'd hate to think I'm going backwards on speed for normal word processing, spreadsheet, browsing, etc.

-bullrat<hr /></blockquote>Here is a no-bullsh*t reply from a long-time loyal Mac user.

First of all, what matters to most people is not how fast the fastest Mac is compared to the fastest PC, but the price-to-performance ratio of Macs and PC's that are in most people's price ranges. And if you look at price/performance ratio of a consumer machine, the PC is the clear winner. You can get more digital horsepower for your money if you buy a PC. I hate to admit it, but it's true. So if you're looking to get the most frames per second on your 3D games as you can for your $2000, don't get a Mac.

BUT, that's not the whole picture. I think of my computer's "performance" (I own a 2-year-old PowerBook laptop) in a broader sense. I don't care a whole lot if my machine takes 2 seconds or 5 to do some complicated task I rarely perform. What matters to me is how fast I get my work done, and this goes way beyond just hardware performance. This measure of performance includes how easily I can use the operating system to get to the files and apps I need and how much time I spend learning features and doing maintenence and repairs. And in this sense, even my 400 MHz PowerBook destroys ANY PC, no matter how many GHz it has. My hardware, while a lot slower than current PC's or Macs, still gets the job done. I don't find myself "waiting around" for my meager G3 processor to perform every day tasks. Sure, I have to run Unreal Tournament at the lowest resolution setting, but that's not important to me. For the most part, I'm very satisfied with my machine's performance, and frankly I think it's irresponsible for computer salesmen to sell consumers 2.0+ GHz machines when they have no use for that kind of power.

To me, at least, a computer is a tool, and my PowerBook is a very effective tool. I can do everything I need to do quickly and efficiently. It had a wide range of features that I use (DVD, AirPort, infrared, VGA and S-video out, modem, ethernet, USB, FireWire, microphone, and others). I occationally do some preventative maintainence, and I can't remember the last time it had a problem that required more than a restart to fix. (It actually froze up yesterday, for the first time in about a month.)

So, think very carefully about what you need out of your computer. In truth, there are some people who should not get a Mac. Most of these people are either hardcore gamers, or those use applications that have no Mac counterpart. For everyone else, which is a surprisingly large fraction of computer users, the Mac would likely be a great machine. Most people just need a computer which will do web surfing, email, word processing, and multimedia, with the occational heavy-duty job here and there (like Photoshop). Maybe the Mac will be 3/4 seconds behind its PC counterpart doing some Photoshop task. But weigh that againt the extra half hour you'll spend trying to install an extra hard drive, or the time it takes to type in sets of IP addresses every time you switch between networks. Bottom line: there is more than one way to measure performance. Think about which one is post important to you.

--

I've been a Mac user for nine years, and haven't ever looked back. I love my Mac dearly; that's why I took the time to type the response above. If you want to talk to me about what I said, I promise you a BS-free discussion: cdd25@cornell.edu. That's all for now.

mdcarter1 · Jul 19, 2002, 01:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
Here is a no-bullsh*t reply from a long-time loyal Mac user.
<hr /></blockquote>Finally someone around here who isn't under a spell. I switched over back in February and I was beyond upset that I spent 3000 dollars on something that is slower in many ways to my old 400 mhz pII. However, i eventually like most people have come to appreciate how awesome OS X is and now i am happy. Macs are slow and Win XP is lame. Pick your poison i guess. Thanks for not trying to swindle this guy like most others around here do.

Fyre4ce · Jul 19, 2002, 11:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />originally posted by mdcarter1:
I switched over back in February and I was beyond upset that I spent 3000 dollars on something that is slower in many ways to my old 400 mhz pII.<hr /></blockquote>While I will acknowledge that Macs are generally more expensive than PC's for the same level of performance, your $3000 should have bought you a machine that's far superior to a P-II 400 MHz, in both raw hardware performance and features. What do you own?

mdcarter1 · Jul 19, 2002, 01:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />originally posted by mdcarter1:
I switched over back in February and I was beyond upset that I spent 3000 dollars on something that is slower in many ways to my old 400 mhz pII.<hr /></blockquote>While I will acknowledge that Macs are generally more expensive than PC's for the same level of performance, your $3000 should have bought you a machine that's far superior to a P-II 400 MHz, in both raw hardware performance and features. What do you own?<hr /></blockquote>800 Mhz PMac. When I said 3000 dollars i meant for the monitor and everything. Obviously that has nothing to do with performance. What I mean was that I was buying a brand new PowerMac model and I just thought that a new machine in a company's "Power" desktop series should let me browse files without 5 second pauses, etc. Regardless, like I said the software and OS have made me happy.

bullrat · Jul 20, 2002, 09:45 AM

Fyre4ce, et al...

Thanks for the lengthy post with your viewpoint. Much appreciated. I agree that the total experience is the thing, not simply stop clocking tasks -- but speed is important to me. Weird thing -- even though I live in a college town that has 40,000 students, there is not a single store here that actually carries a Mac -- so I couldn't even see one in real life. But went to a local Mac User Group last Thursday and it was held at a high school Mac Lab with dozens of iMacs, ibooks, PowerBooks, etc. Very nice and a good bunch of folks. Seems we have a lot new Macs in the county school system, just no local dealers. Thanks again...

-bullrat

thepickledegg · Jul 20, 2002, 11:18 AM

Hey all

as for IE it is slow all around, try using OMNIWEB

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/</a>

this browser from what I have seen is much faster than them all IE, Netscape, Mozilla, only one thing it just came out of beta so the javascript is a little tweeky sometimes, but that should be fixed in a month with new service release. You can pay or use the unregistered version.

As for apple Speed, if they cant get a faster chip upgrade everything else RAM, bus, Hard Drives....it is annoying that Apple thinks the can continue to produce machines with inferior parts at a higher cost. I use a dual G4 450 and I am not planning on buying for a while I have even looked a PC because I am getting so annoyed.

And now I have to pay for another $129 for Jaguar even though I bought OS X at the first of the year. People say well you got .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 all for free!? they were are BUG fixes, and I say all those people who bought OSX and used it, helped Apple for FREE make the OSX system a usable consumer operating system. 10.2 is a bug FIX, yea it has new features, but how soon will they have 10.2.1 out to fix all the NEW features. This is still a very young in operating system with much to be worked out.

thepickledegg · Jul 20, 2002, 12:06 PM

also with Omniweb has a nice Javascript debugger, helped me work out some problems.

Fyre4ce · Jul 20, 2002, 12:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />originally posted by thepickledegg:
[b]As for apple Speed, if they cant get a faster chip upgrade everything else RAM, bus, Hard Drives....it is annoying that Apple thinks the can continue to produce machines with inferior parts at a higher cost. I use a dual G4 450 and I am not planning on buying for a while I have even looked a PC because I am getting so annoyed. [b]<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, seriously, you're absolutely right. Of all the system components, the hard drive is by far the slowest. Most of the tasks people do with their computers that take a long time are limited by the hard disk, like starting up, launching applications, and copying files. So adding a really fast HD can really make the comupter a lot faster for every day use. And most people I talk to are completely lost on this fact. That's why, when I get a desktop, I'm investing in a RAID 0 array, which will get me close to 100 MB/s continuous read and write speed, or close to 150 if I use three drives. So actually, most people here don't have a right to bitch about how slow their computers are when it's probably not even the CPU's fault.

Good point thepickledegg!

Hi I'm Ben · Jul 20, 2002, 02:27 PM

I dunno.
I got a Mac and PC, i just bought the PC not to long ago. It's very nice. Flies.

Just recently I lost my job and ran out of money. I am being forced to sell one.

I sold my PC, even though it's faster, and.. a little easier to find programs for I just got a thing for this cube here. Besides the fact that people are always coming over and going "what's that thing on your desk"... I don't do much gaming, it runs all my everyday tasks the way I want them run. and Hell my computer is quiet! But if I hadn't got a 800$ discount on my mac system, i would have never bought it.

plus OS X is fun OS, it's different, new and has a lot of potential, I'm a little bored with all the "new versions" of windows that are dressed up in more graphics and the same concept.

thepickledegg · Jul 20, 2002, 07:18 PM

Seriously everyone check out Omniweb browser, really nice features, and fassssttt. At least what I can see, I would like to what other people think about it.If it runs as well as it does on my system. It beats Nutscrape and IE.

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/</a>

mdcarter1 · Jul 20, 2002, 11:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by thepickledegg:
Seriously everyone check out Omniweb browser, really nice features, and fassssttt. At least what I can see, I would like to what other people think about it.If it runs as well as it does on my system. It beats Nutscrape and IE.

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/</a><hr /></blockquote>I wouldn't say it's "fasssstt" but it's not bad. Chimera is the fastest by far, but it doesnt have a lot of features that Omniweb does. So i use Omniweb because it falls somewhere in the middle of the piece of garbage IE and Chimera.

Scotttheking · Jul 21, 2002, 01:07 AM

This thread is completely off topic.

I'm locking it, since there are plenty of speed arguments in the lounge.