I don't know if any of you get the Maximum PC magizine, but in the new issue (The Speed Issue is printed on the cover), there is a showdown between the dual processor G4, and the dual processor machines from AMD and Intel. I will now quote the first line line of the Results.<br><span style="color:yellow;font-size:medium;"><blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">We came to one conclusion very quickly after reviewing the numbers: Mac people who scream that their Apples are faster than PCs are simply so full of crap, they could double as septic tanks.</blockquote></span> <br>The numbers show that the Mac is really slow at games, almost half the speed of the Intel machine. The big surprise for me was that the Mac was also nearly half as fast in the Adobe Photoshop 7.0 MPC script that was performed on the machines. The numbers were:<br>Apple: 60 seconds<br>AMD: 35 seconds<br>Intel: 34 seconds<br>where the faster the test is performed, the better the score. <br>Sorry Mac folks, I know that the responses will be "Wow, you mean that they kept the PCs running for more than 60 seconds without crashing." but I believe that these numbers tell the story. My PC may crash, but I can reboot it and still get the job done faster than a dual G-4.<br><br>Trolling is fun *wink wink* <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

Your right Jarg I am going to use the old crash excuse because when your system crashes or freezes because your running Winblows not only will you have to reboot but you will also lose what you were working on and have to start over. Even if the intel chip is faster, it stills works with a seriously flawed OS. I personally don't believe too much of what magazines print these days (PC or Mac) because for the most part they set those tests up so that the platform they cover in their Zine perform better. As a matter of fact there was an article not too long ago about how superior PC's were in gaming. They played Quake Arena on a PC runnin' XP and a Mac runnin' OSX. Of course the PC smoked the Mac. But here is the kicker. At the time Quake Arena would only run in Classic mode(OS9) on the Mac. So therefore the Mac was running 2 operating systems in order to run the game. I'm fairly certain that would affect game play on the Mac. So whenever you read these tasty little tidbits about one platform beating up on the other be sure to check the footnotes. Lots of times the playing fields aren't all that even. Ram and things of that sort are usually the culprits. And no I'm not pointing fingers at the PC side. I'm sure Mac magazines are just as guilty. Hey jarg I'm just curios as to what test they performed in photshop?<br> <p></p><i></i>

LOL. Somehow, I thought you'd be the first to take the bait. First, I will tell you about the systems tested.<br>Power PC G-4<br>Clock speed=1.25 GHz<br>Ram speed=DDR266<br>Ram amount=2GB<br>Bus speed=167MHz<br><br>AMD Athlon XP<br>Clock speed=2.0 GHz<br>Ram speed=DDR266<br>Ram amount=2GB<br>Bus speed=266MHz<br><br>Intel Xeon XP<br>Clock speed=2.8 GHz<br>Ram speed=DDR266<br>Ram amount=2GB<br>Bus speed=533MHz<br>So you see, all things being equal, these are the top of the line for all systems.<br>As for the Adobe test, I really have no idea what it consist of. <br>Remember, I'm just fishing for flames here. I will say that Win XP is 1000 times more stable than any other OS that Microsoft has ever put out (except maybe NT, which I use at my job). Too bad XP is a big spyware program that keeps track of EVERYTHING that the user does. <br> <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

Nice find there jarg......I will have to say I was pretty stunned after reading the first part of the post.....then I read the one right above this with the stats off each computer.<br><br>Lets see......the PC's both have it beat pretty bad in the Mhz departments when it comes to both CPU speed and Bus speeds. Guess that would explain why both of them are able to do the same task twice as fast. Looks like Apple needs to get some better hardware otherwise the PC guys are gonna run away with the whole market.<br><br>As for the OS stuff and reboot stuff.......who cares. My home computer running XP has given me many countless hours of enjoyment without any rebooting because of lock-ups. My mac at work has been a bit more anal lately.....locking up usually after I had just closed Internet Explorer or Outlook (both MS products). I can hear it now....."why don't you use netscape instead?" Well the answer would have to be I hate nutscrape with a passion. No matter what kind of machine I've ever run that program on, it has always given me grief.<br><br>There is my personal experience with the lot.......now its back to the bleachers with my popcorn to watch the fun.<br><br>Can't wait till metalman jumps in the mix. This could get really interesting.<br><br>Glad to be watching from the sidelines |<idcapri<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

I was gonna mention the MHz thing but figured I would here "Why doesn't Apple make a faster processor" response. I still would like to know what tests they ran in Photoshop though. It does make a difference. I'd like to see a test run on the top of the line systems doing almost everything that designers do on a regular basis with their machines. <p></p><i></i>

It's also interresting to point out that the Intel maching only barely beat the AMD machine. Of course, the AMD machine would be significantly cheaper. Just thought I'd point that out. <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

I don't know how many of you guys get TechTV with your cable or satellite service but it's a great show for anyone who uses computers. Today on the show, much to my enjoyment, they had someone write in asking how they could make XP run faster and make the operating system more stable. The answer the guy gave was priceless. "Leave it alone. Don't do anything to it, don't add any third party software and it will be fne." I almost pissed my pants. And this was a PC guy. <p></p><i></i>

Kidcapri has come to the darkside! Yes! <br><br>Of course the Mac was faster! But the 128 bits and the 15 second difference makes up for the lower Mhz rating... <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Great find Jarg!!! <br><br>PC Solidarity Forever!<br><br>M <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

Just posting this because you all should know by now its the video cards that make PCs good gaming machines and they are not made by Inschmel or Microsluts.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>Now If only Wimblows could ever get out of the BETA stage of developement, then all that nice hardware could be put to use.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html">www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

I saw those extra big extra wide monitors at the Apple store here in Houston in the Galleria. They are awesome. Mac certainly makes a better looking product. i wish I ahd one of those monitors. I can only imagine how great the DVD movies would look on it with a ATI 9700 powering that sweet monitor. Mmmmm!<br><br>Hermskii <p></p><i></i>

Hey Herm, the beauty of it is they just discontinued the 22" so the price dropped from $2499 to $1499 and the 23" High Definition was also dropped from $3499 to $2000. Wish I had the cash. Wouldn't have a need for the dual displays anymore. <p>Naughtius Maximus</p><i></i>