Mac faster than PC's?

Hi everybody.
I already have a iMac 21,5" but i'm considering to buy the next Macbook Apple publish.
I hope they make a Macbook Pro inside a Air body, but thats not what this threat is about.
I often her that people say that if a Mac and a PC had the same specs, the Mac would still be faster?
That is also my experience, but why is that? I thougt that a PC that had better specs would run faster than a Mac?
Is specifications all that matters when you buy a computer?
Of course it's individually what you like best when it comes to software, but do the software make you computer run faster?
I think my Mac run a lot faster than my PC, and they have someway the same specs.
That was a lot of questions

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

Similar Messages

Is Mac to Mac faster than Mac to PC?

Someone told me something which doesn't make sense to me, but I could be wrong. Is it true that a website made with my iMac is opened faster than, say Windows PC? This is what the person wrote to me. I don't know how to respond.
She wrote:
*'I know that but when you are working with the same exact equipment it goes faster too doesn't have to convert back and forth. That I know too.”*

Website speed varies by web standards and web browsers used. See my FAQ* on what web standards are, and what web browsers exist:
http://www.macmaps.com/browser.html
Connection speed also varies widely unless you have a dedicated internet line. Not even ADSL is truly dedicated because your upstream is capped and connections on websites are as much a function of upstream as downstream traffic.
- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
Plus the prices ...
CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
>i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

Faster than 2010 Mac Pro?

HI,
I am wondering if anyone can tell me if the new Mac Mini is actually faster than my current Mac Pro Tower?
It's a Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2010/Westmere)
Thanks

based on these:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/creativesuite/production/cs6/ pdfs/adobe-hardware-performance-whitepaper.pdf
http://provideocoalition.com/f/story/adobe-premiere-pro-and-multiple-gpus
You Mac Pro is faster and can likely be improved like adding an SSD boot drive
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6836500
and maybe upgrading the graphics card

PowerMac faster than intel Mac when running video programs?

Hello everyone! Having a question now so wonder if any of you have the same experience?
Recently i have many video works to do. I have a powerbook, which is the lasted 17inch powerbook and an intel imac (early 2008, 2.66GHz). I run the same version of finalcut pro and compressor. But thing become very strange, which is that when i run compressor to make final video files, my powerbook is much faster (about 2 times faster) than intel iMac. When i run XDCAM program to import video clips to finalcut from Sony XDCAM blueray reader, powerbook is also much more faster than intel iMac, and which is about 10time more faster than intel iMac. So it become very strange. I list my configurations below, and any of you can help me to solve the 'problem' or explain the strange fenominal.
Maybe theres anything wrong with software configurations, any one can also help me with that?
Thank you very much!
Powerbook G4 17inch:
CPU: powerpc G4 1,67GHz
RAM: 2GB (two 1GB module)
HDD: 120GB IDE
System: Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8
Program: Final Cut Studio 2
iMac 20inch Early 2008
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,66GHz
RAM: 4GB (two 2GB module)
HDD: Cosair 256GB SSD
System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (tried also on Snow Leopard)
Program: Final Cut Studio 2 (tried also Final Cut Studio 3 on friends imac with the same configuration)
Camera:
Sony XDCAM PDW530 Broadcast Camcorder.
Media:
Sony XDCAM blueray disk
Reader:
Sony XDCAM blueray disc drive
Program:
XDCAM transfer for Final Cut Pro 2.12
XDCAM browser software 1.20

Of course it depends on what you're doing and how well you know how to use available resources... the general rule for Logic is:
>>>Fastest machine with the most RAM you can afford.<<<
That said, someone who knows what they're doing can get an amazing amount of effects and virtual instruments on an old PPC G5 computer running Logic 8.
So, while fast machines will allow more plugins/VI with less overloads... knowing what you're doing will take you further so that the difference between machines would not make a difference in the music.
pancenter-

Is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

No. SATA at its slowest is 1.5 Gb/s while FW800 is 800 Mb/s. SATA is available on some Macs at 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 Gb/s depending on the model and when it was made.

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

IChat video quality better with .Mac subscriber than with AIM?

The quality of my video chats with one brother who also has a .Mac account is noticeably better than my chats with another brother, who uses iChat with an AIM account. I'm in the US, they are both in UK. All of us have almost identical iMacs. The one with the AIM account supposedly has a faster Internet connection. My question: is the video quality of iChat better if both users have .Mac accounts than if one has an AIM account?

The Screen names make no difference.
It is about a combination of Proccessor, Video card in iChat 4, internet Connection and settings and the amount of Bandwidth you get out of that connection.
As Defcom (UK) has said start with those basic Settings.
In iChat 3 and 2 the Quicktime setting when on Automatic is read as a 0 (zero) and this effectively Caps iChat.
In iChat 4 the Automatic setting is seen as 384k which is the MINIMUM for a 4 way chat.
As far as an Internet Connection goes this should be at Least 100k in both Up and Downloads.
Due to some data stream management to cut down on Peer-to-Peer file Sharing it pays to limit iChat in the Video Section Bandwidth Limit section to slip under the Radar as it were. There are two main ISP doing this Comcast and Road Runner in the States.
Verizon offer a FioS fibre service that is not that stable in speeds and jumps all over the place which is then too fast for iChat to keep up and that should use the cap in iChat Preferences as well.
8:08 PM Friday; June 20, 2008

Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
These are the specs for my computer...
ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
Any help would be much apreciated.
Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
*EDIT*
OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
*EDIT*
OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

Mac faster than PC's?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for