On Oct 15, 2006, at 10:35 PM, new.morning wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> >> On Oct 15, 2006, at 9:15 PM, new.morning wrote: >> >> >> >>> OK, thanks. The mac pro is less expensive than a similar Dell. >>> Surprising, I want to study it more. >>> But still, in the benchmarks, other aticle, a two core gateway >>> killed >>> the four core Mac running windows apps. Still not a contest yet. >>> >>> >> >> I've not seen that and it sounds incongruous with benchmarks and >> articles I've read--or you're most likely reading or misinterpeting >> something. New Mac systems, running XP, run apps as fast or faster >> than a comparable wintel machine. In Mac OS X, similar operations run >> faster in Mac OS X in Universal Apps. Non universal apps will take a >> performance cut. >> >> In fact the first article I sent had the following quote: >> >> > > I am drawing from the first article you sent me. > > The gateway apears to be one dual core right? Thats what I see from > reading the Dell spec page. Am i missing something. It does seem odd > to run a benchmark of a 2-core vs 4 core machine buit that appears to > be wht they did. > > The AMC pro is two dual cores right? > I'm not at home right now, but I do believe one of the PC's was a dual core IIRC. > > So even if the performance is equal, a two core PC is as good as a > 4-core MAC running the came Win aps under windows. That is no contest > then. An equivalent test of a 4 core PC would thusly kill a 4 core MAC > running win apps under windows. > > And in this > http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macpro.ars/7 > > It shows a bout a 10-20% hit when a MAC pro runs a program under its > OS vs under windows. So presumably, there is some overhead in the > windows "emulator". > A couple of things, first of all, this is NOT emulation. With emulation there is no contest, as emulation is VERY slow. Secondly, in the June edition of Macworld, they test equivalent PC systems running XP Pro with Macs of the same config booted for XP Pro. The results are nearly identical, although some prcoesses in Microsoft Office were slightly faster on the Mac. So the real answer seems to be, that XP on equivalent systems run about the same. Also note these were on the very initial release of Boot Camp and the very first Mac Intel LAPTOPS (not desktops). As an example a 2.16 GHZ T2600 dual core Macbook laptop ran Windows Media Encoder at a score of 280, an HP Pavillion 2.16 GHZ T2600 dual core scores with a DESKTOP (with probably a faster hard drive) scores at 279 (smaller being better). > > Sowhile I might consider a mac if similarly priced and if it gave > similar peformance for 2x2 MAc against a 2x2 PC, both running windows > apps under windows, that seems far from the current case. > > And as I said, the real questions is a 2x2 comparision of 64 bit, > multi-processor optimized win apps running under Vista. I keep my mind > open, but if the MAC PRO is so far behind now that a single dual core > PC can equal its performance, I have small hopes that it can catch up, > particularly in the 64-bit mutilprocessor optimized software / vista > environment. But I am sure in your True-Believer MAC ways, you will > find some logic to graps to to see MAC as breaking ahead from so far > behind. :) > As I pointed out above, they run the same. Keep in mind on native Mac- intel apps, these will and do run faster than XP in almost all cases. What I am interested in --and really have no data-- is how fast are Windows apps running in WINE?, that is, Windows apps with no Windows and just a small "compatibility layer". To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
