pc vs mac hardware (TECHNICAL ONLY)

wolfric

Does anyone have any links of the specifications and hardware (or benchmarks) of pc vs mac? Let's assume they both have the same operating system (either windows 7 or linux) i want to find out what the shortcomings are of BOTH systems.

Here's what i don't want:

• Witty comments
• youtube clips of pc vs mac
• Unreferenced speculation (ie macs/pcs crash less or are faster) links or gtfo
• Advise on which to buy (that's not the question being asked)

Farcear

CPU-wise, there is no longer a difference. A few years ago apple used the PowerPC RISC Architecture (better performance at lower clock speeds) but have since jumped on board the Intel x86 bandwagon. This is what allows you to now run XP with little problems on a MAC -- and validates your assumption that they're both running the same OS. Interestingly, the new Snow Leopard OS is the first OS to completely remove all support for PowerPC.

I'm sure there are mobo differences too but I'm not too well up on them.

For technical specs, you need only visit the Apple website. Technical specs of a "PC"? That depends entirely on what components you want to put in it.

Random wiki link for reference but you should be able to find more about this with a bit more research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC

snappieT

Mac hardware is the same as PC hardware, packaged in a neat little box. You can, of course, get a PC with a 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, with the same memory (and the same FSB frequency). Will that PC be cheaper? Probably.

Mac hardware isn't anything special. It's put together well, with high quality batteries, trackpads, screens and case design, but the guts are the same.

And I say this as an avid Mac user.

Farcear

So does Mac's better video editing fit into this? Is it purely a feature of the lighter OS then?

wolfric

What about price comparisons. Can you truly say then that the mac is the same hardware just packaged in a "neat little box"? Not that i'm trying to put down either mac or pc but is the hardware 100% transferable or available in both pc and mac? If so i hardly see any point in fighting between the two if they're both just 2 different brand names (with different os of course) with the same internals.

Cuddlesworth

Like this? or this.

I think personally with the advent of Windows 7 performance on similar hardware is close enough to make some aspects of the MAC experience(gaming, price) unjustifiable. I'm currently trying to get OSX 10.6 up on my desktop at home to do similar tests myself.

marco_polo

Farcear wrote: »

So does Mac's better video editing fit into this? Is it purely a feature of the lighter OS then?

Purely because of better editing packages out of the box with OSX IMO.

asdasd

If so i hardly see any point in fighting between the two if they're both just 2 different brand names (with different os of course) with the same internals.

The fighting is on the OS - the experience is the OS, not the CPU. And how, either OS handles multi core and 64 bit is the real issue from now on.

Bob_Harris

Farcear wrote: »

So does Mac's better video editing fit into this? Is it purely a feature of the lighter OS then?

The concept of a Mac being better for design, photo editing and video editing is purely marketing guff.

What makes a PC or Mac good at anything, is solely down to the software packages installed.

All major design / photo editing / video editing software are available on both Windows and OSx

wolfric

so really they should be on about windows vs osx fair enough.

asdasd

What makes a PC or Mac good at anything, is solely down to the software packages installed.

Not quite. The OS contains API - the methods by which higher level developers use functions of the OS - and some of those API may be faster on OS X rather than Windows, or vice versa.

Or have better colour managements, for instance, which was true of the Mac for years but isnt now.

At the moment the differences are slight. The future though depends on how well either OS, and Linux, scales to multi-core processors.

gamer

Macs are designed constructed to a high standard with a great os ,theres no glitches with drivers because everything is made by apple.
BUT they are more expensive,theres a wider range of programs for pc and windows 7 is just as good as the mac os.
WITH most people using the web why pay an extra 500 euros for a computer which uses the same cpu .IF I want any device i can just open my pc and install it.PCS are like lego you can add more pieces ,upgrade as time goes by
without spending a fortune,and pcs are easier to fix.
Total cost of ownership is lower.
And the pc is the most powerful gaming device we have ,ie you can play pc games at very high resolution on a lcd or hdtv with vga/hdi input.
For example for web acess you can buy 2 p4 laptops 150euros secondhand ,even secondhand macs are expensive.

Capt'n Midnight

How does a hackintosh compare to a real MAC for stability ?

Another comparison may be the supercomputers made from MAC's how reliable they were against ones made from PC's.

side note Snow Tiger upgrade is way cheaper than Windows upgrade. Mac's cost more but there may be significant savings on OS and especially Server / Client licenses

Is windows running on MACs more stable than on PCs ?

Do MAC's hold their value better than PC's

There is no question that OSX is more secure than windows , and it's certainly a big enough segment of the market to attract malware writers

How does OSX compare to the different flavours of BSD ?

Voodu Child

wolfric wrote: »

Does anyone have any links of the specifications and hardware (or benchmarks) of pc vs mac?

15" Macbook Pro starts(!) at €1649 :Link
-2.53GHz Dual Core,
-250GB HDD,
-4GB ram,
-9400M,
-1440x900 LED
-Firewire
-2xUSB
-Mini-displayport (adaptors are optional paid extra)

15" Dell Studio 15, €899 currently Link
i7-720QM Quadcore,
-320GB,
-4GB ram,
-ATI 4570
-1366x768 LED (can be upgraded to full HD for €70)
-HDMI
-VGA
-2xUSB (+1)
-E-Sata
-ExpressCard slot.

For non-techies, i7-720QM is a very fast (as far as mobile CPUs go) and efficient quadcore, and the ATI 4570 benches around twice as high as the 9400M.

Overheal

Ive heard whispers that Intel is planning to support a Mac-dedicated CPU in the future but theres no telling how long it would be before that happens, or what kind of benefit it would offer a Mac versus a PC.

Cuddlesworth

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How does a hackintosh compare to a real MAC for stability ?

Exact same in my experiance. I have access to both top end desktops and laptops. I have also installed MAC Osx on a few top spec work machines which have similar hard-ware or have one or two parts with available third party drivers.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another comparison may be the supercomputers made from MAC's how reliable they were against ones made from PC's.

Super computers made from Mac's? Using a modified OSX kernel? Because nearly every supercomputer I can think of use's a custom kernel with either a x86 chip or similar variation(IBM cell, powerPC etc.). Not a easy comparison when unlike a Home OS every single part of the kernel has to be rock solid. Unix would seem to be the popular flavour there.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

side note Snow Tiger upgrade is way cheaper than Windows upgrade. Mac's cost more but there may be significant savings on OS and especially Server / Client licenses

Ever try to deal with Apple as a business customer? Expect to get VAT off. Even if your dropping 100k+ in a single purchase. Unlike Windows.....

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Is windows running on MACs more stable than on PCs ?

I don't know about anybody else but I think in a comparison people are holding to the old Windows staple of a reboot a day. My work Vista pc(which I'm remote desktop into) has a uptime now of two weeks. I have a windows 7 pc at home running for about a month with constant use. Neither have bluescreened on me yet and I'm a heavy user.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do MAC's hold their value better than PC's

I would say slightly better. But pc hardware depreciates so fast that its a bit of a moot point for either.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is no question that OSX is more secure than windows , and it's certainly a big enough segment of the market to attract malware writers

I think there is a question that OSX is more secure then windows. The market share and a perceived branding are what make people believe it is more secure. If the percentage was higher OSX would be crucified by Malware writers but the money is currently in Windows and will be for the foreseeable future.

Link

"Mac OS X doesn't stand out as particularly more secure than the competition, according to Secunia. Of the 36 advisories issued in 2003-2004, 61 percent could be exploited across the Internet and 32 percent enabled attackers to take over the system. The proportion of critical bugs was also comparable with other software: 33 percent of the OS X vulnerabilities were "highly" or "extremely" critical by Secunia's reckoning, compared with 30 percent for XP Professional and 27 percent for SLES 8 and just 12 percent for Advanced Server 3. OS X had the highest proportion of "extremely critical" bugs at 19 percent."

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How does OSX compare to the different flavours of BSD ?

Its definitely more user friendly I'll give it that. Other then that I'm not as well versed in Linux/unix as I would like to be.

wolfric

Guys much applicate the feedback so far but please try stay off software side. I asked specifically to stick to hardware as software and hardware comparisons have too much of a habit of turning into an ugly speculation fest and then a fight over which one is better.

Such as which os is more secure.

asdasd

Well the hardware side has been answered. there is no difference.

The Apple Mac uses no proprietary format at all, no unique chipset, interface, videocard, nothing. Used to. Doesnt anymore.

Since a Mac can run Windows, and a Windows machine can be hacked to run a Mac, thats all you need to know. There is a premium for Macs based on the design to a certain extent, the OS and well a snob factor.

But the hardware question was answered way back in this thread.

swirlser

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Link

"Mac OS X doesn't stand out as particularly more secure than the competition, according to Secunia. Of the 36 advisories issued in 2003-2004, 61 percent could be exploited across the Internet and 32 percent enabled attackers to take over the system. The proportion of critical bugs was also comparable with other software: 33 percent of the OS X vulnerabilities were "highly" or "extremely" critical by Secunia's reckoning, compared with 30 percent for XP Professional and 27 percent for SLES 8 and just 12 percent for Advanced Server 3. OS X had the highest proportion of "extremely critical" bugs at 19 percent."

I hate quotes like this from these types of sources. Its biased sensationalistic "journalism". Its a bit like MS quoting it had the highest sales of MP3 players with their wonderful Zoom for the month of Oct '08 (read the small print - sales data based on volumes sold of brown coloured mp3 units) (FYI, thats a true story >_<!)

So do I believe this article "Mac OS X security myth exposed"? No.
The last comment left on this article from a working Joe however does hold more truth -
"tman | Published: 20:59 GMT, 23 November 2009 In an organization with about 1300 macs and 1500 pc's, the truth is, we have never seen a mac virus within 10 years of having them, but we fight pc viruses all the time. I am not saying the we are invulnerable, just blessed."


Its easy to make anything sound bad if you put the right spin on it. That figure of 19% of bugs classified as "extremely critical" for OS X versus a smaller figure for Windows is a fine example. Windows goes through thousands of the damn bugs and its patting itself on the back because overall "only" 12% may be deemed "extremely critical"!


So if you believed the article, OS X is an utter cesspool :eek:


Who knows, maybe Jesus did bless all of Tman's Macs... :rolleyes:

Sry if thats considered OT


As for the laptop comparison... Apple are known to be dearer, just as Dell are known for their cheap'n'cheerful offers. I bet if you were blindfolded and had a vtech/fisherprice thing in front of you along with a Dell laptop - you might have trouble telling them apart - it would at least take some examination Im sure... But when you pick up a Macbook, you know your holding quality immediately.

Directly speaking on the hardware end, I dont honestly know how Macs squeeze the performance out of their products. I can tell you that despite Apple's use of last years GPU solutions, its nothing short of amazing what they do with it. For eg > http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=166921&cat=8 This guy here is looking for 100 quid for pretty old gpu's, yet he speaks the truth - they will perform remarkably well. BUT take a similarly spec'd/priced/aged Win desktop from '06/'07 and try running Dragons age: origins on it... it'll run, but Id be happy to bet the Mac runs it smoother ^^

Voodu Child

swirlser wrote: »

Directly speaking on the hardware end, I dont honestly know how Macs squeeze the performance out of their products. I can tell you that despite Apple's use of last years GPU solutions, its nothing short of amazing what they do with it. For eg > http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=166921&cat=8 This guy here is looking for 100 quid for pretty old gpu's, yet he speaks the truth - they will perform remarkably well. BUT take a similarly spec'd/priced/aged Win desktop from '06/'07 and try running Dragons age: origins on it... it'll run, but Id be happy to bet the Mac runs it smoother ^^

He's referring to running the game under Windows in that link.

swirlser

Voodu Child wrote: »

He's referring to running the game under Windows in that link.

Quite right, this does kinda backfire however...

Trying to find a particular article, which I cant... basically there was a joke going around a few years ago that if you wanted the best performance from Vista, buy an Apple! However, I did find pretty handily enough other articles regarding this...

"A few days ago I bought a top-of-the-line model of Apple’s new iMac line, and installed Boot Camp and Vista. I then tested the machine using Vista’s built-in Windows Experience Index, a rating system that goes from 1 to 5.9, with scores above 3.0 generally required for full, quick performance. My iMac scored a 5.0, the best score of any consumer Vista machine I have tested. Obviously, a tricked-out high end Dell or HP box might do as well or better, and a lesser Mac might do worse. But the score was very impressive for a computer that wasn’t designed with Vista in mind." Source

And actually an earlier dated article, Feb '07, a Mac scoring just shy of perfect for running Vista.

EDIT: Just to clarify here (because its a lot of talk of OS's), that Apple were managing to run the traditional/popular PC OS on their own hardware, better than the standard PC's were doing.

(And also wanted to highlight the fact that the iMac isnt even their party piece, it is in fact an 'all-in-one' solution - ie no case)
Todays iMac ->

leninbenjamin

swirlser wrote: »

But when you pick up a Macbook, you know your holding quality immediately.

Depends what you mean by quality. Was a survey of laptop reliability published recently enough (30,000 units surveyed), Apple were only marginally ahead of Dell in terms of failure rates (like 1%). So while the build quality of the Apple chassis is so much more superior to Dells, the actual laptop itself has about the same likelihood of failure (which pretty much backs up everyone's assertion that it's the same workings underpinning a PC and a MAC these days). So it isn't necessarily any more quality, just that it uses more expensive materials for the chassis.

Cuddlesworth

wolfric wrote: »

Guys much applicate the feedback so far but please try stay off software side. I asked specifically to stick to hardware as software and hardware comparisons have too much of a habit of turning into an ugly speculation fest and then a fight over which one is better.

Such as which os is more secure.

The thing is you can't separate the hardware from the software any more. Its the same hardware in the Macs, just twice the price and locked down to very specific parts. These are available in normal pcs/laptops but not always in the exact same configuration. The OS is the defining part now, how it uses the hardware and how the software running on it uses these optimisations is how you compare the two.

The build quality of the unit as a whole is also debatable, since they source similar parts. When you start picking up Dell/HP/IBM laptops which come closer to the price range of Mac books you begin to see a huge difference in performance as the money is spent on better parts rather then a perceived image.

Currently as well the professional workstations are quite behind the times in terms of raw power compared to the windows market as they still don't have the option of I5 or I7 processors.

Just to point out, I would happily buy a Mac book if the price was at least 30% cheaper then the current market. I wouldn't touch a MAC pro desktop unless it was over 50% cheaper.

Cuddlesworth

swirlser wrote: »

However, I did finachine using Vista’s built-in Windows Experience Index, a rating system that goes from 1 to 5.9, with scores above 3.0 generally required for full, quick performance.

I stopped reading at that point. Its not much of a argument.

swirlser

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Currently as well the professional workstations are quite behind the times in terms of raw power compared to the windows market

I stopped reading there tbh, since my bf's fairly ancient (roughly 3 year old) Mac pro 8-core can still crunch up the most cpu intensive tasks and leave them for dead. Also with the 12-core i9 option coming in spring, I have no idea what your talking about! ... I mean, its not much of an argument

Cuddlesworth

swirlser wrote: »

I stopped reading there tbh, since my bf's fairly ancient (roughly 3 year old) Mac pro 8-core can still crunch up the most cpu intensive tasks and leave them for dead. Also with the 12-core i9 option coming in spring, I have no idea what your talking about! ... I mean, its not much of an argument

So they ignore a whole generation of cpus and your happy?

swirlser

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So they ignore a whole generation of cpus and your happy?

Again, your level of ignorance is proving second to none.

My happiness is irrelevant, I dont use Macs nor am I particularly a fan (despite what Ive posted - Im simply making some points no one else bothered to make).

No, they did not skip any generation of chipset (*Any* chance that you can do a tap of research rather than spit out unfounded tripe?!). Their current line up for professional workstations have the server grade Nahalem processor.

You're impossible to even attempt further communication with. From not reading factual articles because you dont like what you read (by all means google to your hearts content, there is no end to the amount of research data out there, they all point to the same conclusion). To your remark about Apple's workstations being so far behind the windows market - which btw was hands down the single most ridiculous statement Ive read - congrats.

I think Ill leave your head, your back-side and the sand to its funky threesome, its all a bit too much for me ^^

marco_polo

http://store.apple.com/ie/configure/MB871B/A?mco=MTM4MTI3NzA

2300 is pricey for what is essentially a i7-920 with 3G of ram and a GT 120.

Look at those upgrade prices as well :eek:

+ ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB 180 Euro :eek:

XPS 8000 is about 1,1000 (Which is still on the pricey side)

http://ireland.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/emea/segments/dhs/minicat/services_D00SX803?c=ie&cs=iedhs1&l=en&s=dhs

asdasd

You should look at how much extra ram costs in a MacBook.

I like Apple stuff, if they really wanted to go large they could use the iPhone and iPod profits to lower margins on the rest.

swirlser

No denying they are pricey! And even tho its shocking what they offer in terms of gpu solutions, it is difficult to compare them like for like against a PC - even tho its been said a number of times already that they are pretty much the same underneath.

The fact is, they do alot more computation on their cpu's rather than relying on the gpu. So with that said, you wouldnt expect anything from a GT210 in a PC (I wouldnt touch um if you paid me!), but they would honestly shock you if you saw one running and what it manages to achieve, so its difficult to just compare them directly to what PC's tend to get out of them.

They arent after the gaming market, however. And judging by their profits they dont need to change a thing.

marco_polo

swirlser wrote: »

No denying they are pricey! And even tho its shocking what they offer in terms of gpu solutions, it is difficult to compare them like for like against a PC - even tho its been said a number of times already that they are pretty much the same underneath.

The fact is, they do alot more computation on their cpu's rather than relying on the gpu. So with that said, you wouldnt expect anything from a GT210 in a PC (I wouldnt touch um if you paid me!), but they would honestly shock you if you saw one running and what it manages to achieve, so its difficult to just compare them directly to what PC's tend to get out of them.

They arent after the gaming market, however. And judging by their profits they dont need to change a thing.

But that is all down to OSx and the software then isn't it? That is my gripe with them really, that you are tied into grossly overpriced hardware that almost impossible to upgrade without going through apple (For no good reason other than improving their profit margins).

But you can't deny it is a business strategy that is working. Just not for me personally thanks .

Cuddlesworth

swirlser wrote: »

Again, your level of ignorance is proving second to none.

My happiness is irrelevant, I dont use Macs nor am I particularly a fan (despite what Ive posted - Im simply making some points no one else bothered to make).

No, they did not skip any generation of chipset (*Any* chance that you can do a tap of research rather than spit out unfounded tripe?!). Their current line up for professional workstations have the server grade Nahalem processor.

You're impossible to even attempt further communication with. From not reading factual articles because you dont like what you read (by all means google to your hearts content, there is no end to the amount of research data out there, they all point to the same conclusion). To your remark about Apple's workstations being so far behind the windows market - which btw was hands down the single most ridiculous statement Ive read - congrats.

I think Ill leave your head, your back-side and the sand to its funky threesome, its all a bit too much for me ^^

Did a bit of digging and your right, they are offering Nahalem procs in their pc's. When I went digging last March we were told they were not going to be available for months. Seems we were lied to.

ethernet

asdasd wrote: »

You should look at how much extra ram costs in a MacBook.

I like Apple stuff, if they really wanted to go large they could use the iPhone and iPod profits to lower margins on the rest.

Don't the newer models use DDR3 RAM? That's way more expensive than DDR2.

Has EFI over BIOS been mentioned.

AlmightyCushion

swirlser wrote: »

Quite right, this does kinda backfire however...

Trying to find a particular article, which I cant... basically there was a joke going around a few years ago that if you wanted the best performance from Vista, buy an Apple!

Yes I remember that article. If I remember correctly the macbook had a minimal gain over the vista based laptops (a couple of percent) and even then they weren't using similarly specced machines. The macbook was a slightly higher spec. I may be wrong though as it was a few years ago.

swirlser wrote: »

"A few days ago I bought a top-of-the-line model of Apple’s new iMac line, and installed Boot Camp and Vista. I then tested the machine using Vista’s built-in Windows Experience Index, a rating system that goes from 1 to 5.9, with scores above 3.0 generally required for full, quick performance. My iMac scored a 5.0, the best score of any consumer Vista machine I have tested. Obviously, a tricked-out high end Dell or HP box might do as well or better, and a lesser Mac might do worse. But the score was very impressive for a computer that wasn’t designed with Vista in mind."

Computers aren't really designed to run vista they just run vista. Two different machines with the exact same spec will get the same score on the EI regardless of if it originally ran windows, linux or osx. So it's a pretty moot point that it scores quite highly on it. Saying that the vista experience index is a terrible benchmark tool compared to the many brilliant ones out there.

@ethernet - DDR3 prices have really come down a lot and aren't as ridiculously priced. Saying that they seem to be fluctuating pretty wildly over the past few months so it's expensive one day and cheap the next. Apple do charge through the ass for ram and other upgrades but they aren't the only ones. Dell can be particularly bad at times. On one of their machines the wanted €200 to upgrade from an integrated graphics card to a 4570. The next laptop up pricewise which was identical to the first one bar having the 4570 as standard was only 30 or 40 euro dearer.

asdasd

They - all of them - can do this because they assume we trade time ( get a machine with enough RAM in time), and packaging, for money. Rahter than wait for crucial to deliver and do it ourselves ( and then, is a normal user going to do this?)

I suppose some people just want it all in one.

AlmightyCushion

asdasd wrote: »

They - all of them - can do this because they assume we trade time ( get a machine with enough RAM in time), and packaging, for money. Rahter than wait for crucial to deliver and do it ourselves ( and then, is a normal user going to do this?)

I suppose some people just want it all in one.

Dell used to be horribly bad for it though. Luckily enough they've come down to what others are charging. Still over priced but not as bad/

Dublin_Gunner

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another comparison may be the supercomputers made from MAC's how reliable they were against ones made from PC's.

?? That makes no sense. The difference between a Mac & a PC is the OS - of which a supercomputer runs neither. (though most likely a Unix variant, as OSX is).

There is little or no difference in the hardware for both these days, the main difference is price. And PC's are FAR cheaper to purchase and maintain / upgrade.

So for hardware, PC's & Mac's use the same hardware (basically), but PC's are FAR more customisable.

You can use AMD CPU's in a PC, you cannot purchase an AMD based Mac.

You have a far higher variety of components available for a PC, CPU's, motherboards, RAM, Video Cards etc etc that you cannot even purchase for a Mac.

As far as power wise goes, they're much of a muchness, but you can build a FAR faster PC than any mac you can buy.

For video / image / audio editing, there are slight differences, but thats only down to the software - you cannot get Final Cup Pro for the PC for instance.

I work on an 8 core Mac Pro every day in work, and I love it. But I wouldn't trade it for my dual core PC at home. I do like the new iMac's though they're nice and compact, I love the Mac screens etc but they are expensive for what you get.

In the end, its really up to the end user. If you're in PC land, and you have all PC software, buy a PC.

The opposite is true also.