Are Mac processors better thanPC ?

no, its just a different technology. do you remember RISK boards? its very similar to those. just like 1 MHz on a tbred does more than 1 MHz on a p4, 1 MHz on a Motorola does more.

well as far as cpu quality goes, they are all about the same. and yes they are still the preferred pc in the graphics segment.


<font color=orange><b>Crying Stripper</b> - I can make all of your fantasies come true

They use to be. During the time of the 300MHz P2's, the Motorola G3 hit 300MHz before the P2 did and had a significantly higher average IPC, so, at one point, it really was twice as fast. Since then, the processors from both Intel and AMD have gotten significantly faster while the Motorola processors have not as much. The G4+ design was much like a half-assed move even worse than that of the P4 Willamette. It extended the PPC pipeline design from 4 to 7 stages integer and didn't even include better branch prediction algorithms to compensate like the P4 did. In the end, there are many things that a 533MHz PPC G4 (original) can match a 1 GHz PPC G4+. That's a little bit more than twice the performance since the days of the 300MHz G3.
Now look at Intel's processors. A 3.06 P4 or 2.25 Athlon is easily almost 10 times more powerful than a 300MHz P2 especially factoring in the fact that modern software utilize to some degree, SSE.

So nowadays, instead of being twice as fast, even the most powerful PowerMac dual 1.25 may indeed be twice as slow as their x86 counterparts. DigitalVideoEditing.com did these benchmarks:
<A HREF="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm" target="_new">Part 1</A>
<A HREF="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_new">Part 2</A>
<A HREF="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm" target="_new">Part 3</A>

Now, I'm sure that people in Graphics and 3D animation are very talented people but they do not keep up with the developement of technology. Most of the ones who tell you that "Macs are better for graphics" are still clinging onto the olden days where the 300MHz PPC G3 dominated the Pentiums from Intel in such areas. Times have changed, Intel and AMD have pumped billions into their x86 designs. Motorola has since shyed away from developing their PPC line much.

If you were looking for more technical reasons, I can provide them, but the benchmarks speak for themselves.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

Not anymore. They are still the preferred choice. It will take a while for PC's to take over (hard to convince graphics designers of the power of a PC).

The Men Behind the GUNS!

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=327&s=8ae8909977d596e59e0ac8260313c4d0" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>

imgod2u has an excellent post right here... my sentiments exactly. If the software you want to run can be found for the PC, then there is no question in my mind you should go for the PC. From a pure power standpoint, the Macs are embarrasingly far behind.

Mhz for Mhz, I'd give the mac about a 4:3. Advantage at most. Why? Because that is how software designers spec it out. If you look at their requirements printed on the software box, they will usually say something like "400mhz Pentium or 300mhz PowerPC (Mac) or higher" required to run this program.

So a 1.25ghz Mac processor is at best equivalent to about a 1.6ghz Pentium III. A 3.0ghz P4 will send the Mac home packing way worse than the Bucaneers did to the Raiders last night.

4-5 years ago, Macs were expensive, but worth it to some people for different reasons. Now they are simply over-priced, underpowered and trying to make it on external cosmetics.

I personally keep my PC cpu's in a closet, so the thing could look like a bag of potatoes for all I care. And the extra $3000 I'll save from buying a PC will buy me a whole lot of potatoes. And my machine will be twice as powerful.

Plus WIndows dominates the software market, but that's another topic entirely.

A lot of pro apps are also written for PC. Take a looky <A HREF="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii2.htm" target="_new">here</A>. Macs do get slaughtered in terms of performance, and the reasons graphics people use em as mentioned earlier is b/c they stick to the old school. I personally think they're morons, cause I speaking with some guy about his troubles and how much time it takes to render some video on mac...using my pc the same thing took very little time. Also, it's quite true they have no idea what they're talking about....go to the mac forums and start stating technical stuff- people will think you're the devil. It's funny how I argue and they have absolutely no idea. With that said, I think I'm gonna go hammer some G3's and what not...always a fun activiy

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

Personally I am tired plain and simple of Mac vs PC topics, the answer has become so obvious, there is little to debate anymore (not like Intel and AMD), whenever we get these threads I feel like deleting them because it's become overly evident.

PCs are better, Macs are no longer, period.

Now let us talk more about this interesting developping potato story!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

Quote:
"so you can see why he tinks macs are better"

And you sound so intelligent yourself.

It's a personal preference. I have one of each and I love to hate each one. The problem is when the people on Mac sites say that PC's suck and that Mac's rule and when the people on PC sites say that Mac's suck.

<Brendini>

No, IMO the problem is one side is now finally right, and the other still refuses to believe it!

That wasn't the case before and I'd agree it was stupid fighting, but now, it's a clear win for the PC.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

Apples also are not renowned for their backward compatibility.


EDEN: re: the Mac LCD Display...Isn't it incredible? Blows everything else, even high-end Sonys and Mitsubishis, right outta the water. I wonder how they are for playing 3D games? Is there ghosting? There MUST be a way to use it on a PC! Ha! Wishful thinking, I know.


<-----Insert witty sig line here.

The one I tried is similar to that, but has a more straight down body, and whiter colored than silver.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

Right. Explain why'd u buy that POS? Their newest uber 20.1 is junk imo. First off it has a 35ms response time, so purely black to white it cannot display 30fps sharply. Next is the fact that it uses MVA (Multiple Vertical Alignment) tech which is really really bad in response time when it comes to grays (and any intermediary color therefore!!). A 25 ms mva lcd has a max rt of 56ms just one way with certain grays- now imagine a 35ms- that thing will ghost most certainly. You can get much better (soon other companies will have 16ms and even 12ms lcd's with nice specs (176º viewing angles w/ the 16" coming from LG.Philips!!).

Hilbert space is a big place.

Raaawr! Soldiers at attention!!! LG.Philips also got a 52" LCD- 1920x1080 for use as an HDTV. Should I get it? Looks very nice...

Hilbert space is a big place.

It´s sad, actually. Ignorance at this level, I mean. I have yet to meet any mac-over-pc-anytime defender who doesn´t say UNBELIEVABLE technical crap. Really.

Anyway, the damned things cost so much that you could buy yourself a KILLER PC with much - VERY MUCH - less than what you´d pay for a "good" mac. Come on, no mac CPU could ever challenge a 3Ghz P4! You can get the very best graphics card on the PC as well!! You can easily get more and better memory, the same hdd tech, etc... It´s like other people here said: there is NO rational discussion here, because none is possible!!!

I guess it has turned into one of those "fight the system" issue. mac is a religion. it´s not very rational, really.

52" LCD screen hehe. I'll spend up to 25K on it if it's good enuf

Hilbert space is a big place.

I'm aware of the limitations of that LCD, but I would quite happily swap it for the hunking 21" CRT that is taking up most of my desk. I don't play games that often, so refresh rates are not my highest priority...

Anyway, the reason why I posted that link was the annoying number of Mac owners who go on about the cinema displays being a reason to buy a Mac etc. when there IS an equivalent screen available for PCs.

I agree with the religion comments too - most Macs are bought by autistic computer users who just want to give the finger to Bill Gates.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by captainNemo on 03/11/03 07:43 AM.</EM></FONT></P>