I have people telling me all the time that Mac processors are better than Intel or AMD processors. Pardon my ignorance, but why are they better ? And are they really better graphics ? If so, why ?

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

oh and BTW, they are better for people who do graphics. in other words a mac doesn't offer more shapes and colors than a pc, but for the graphic designer it is the way to go.

<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.

and also, alot of graphics programs are made primarliy for the MAC. alot of Corels stuff, and alot of 3D graphics apps

plus, people say macs are more user friendly. alot of people who take Digital Arts or Graphics college degrees know nothing about computers, and alot of colleges TRAIN on macs..

like my cusin.. he is takin a graphics course... all digital media.. web sites... etc. but he can barely click a mouse

so you can see why he tinks macs are better

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>

Sadly the truth, I took a one day visit as a student in College, in the class I am going into, multimedia integration, and saw how they worked only with Macs for anything graphics (used PCs for sound, and yeah, check P4 1.4 Wilamettes on WinXP). Noticed they were not that fast, and yeah it proves no one knows much of the PC power.
In fact the teacher said the college has budget problems. *hint hint* in my head was said...
Seriously even a supreme 3.06GHZ with a GeForce FX (god forbid the infernal racket) with 1GB RDRAM would cost less than each Mac with the lovely 20" LCD. (one of the best IMO)

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

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.

mmmm, potatoes.

my computer is so fast, it completes an endless loop in less than 4 seconds!

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

i like potatoes the best chip out there is the via chip take my word it rocks lol

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.

svol's mom looks like a potato! OOOO! Dissed!

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

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>

MAC is close to chapter 11

[-peep-] french

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.

It would seem if your here at Tom's you should know the answer to that. But, alas, not eveyone is an "oldhand". Mac's do what they do well, but so does a bicycle. Why ride a bike when one can fly? Mac's are in fact quite reliable, however, the-
cost, speed, upgradablity, and means of available software makes the Mac generally unapealing to most consumers. If one bases their choice on speed alone the Mac stands no chance. PC's are leaps and bounds ahead of Mac's in this area, as well in most other areas too. Sadly, Apple screwed themselves by producing a computer that generally has to be replaced rather than upgraded. To me this equates to greed of, and from, the manufacturer and to an over all sence that consumers are ignorant. Hence the reason of Mac's low consumer choice as compared to the PC platform of today. As for software, certain companies at one time produced software that was designed to run only on Mac's, however, with the advent of the popularity of home computing this no longer remains to be the case. Universities and state agencies tend to use Mac's (at least in my area) but one must remember that those choices are made in the long term, not in the present day and as of late I see more and more PC's in this area. So in answer to your question "Is a Mac better than a PC?" the answer is a definate no and esp. by todays standards of comparison.

Oh and BTW as to graphics? Lucas Arts ILM uses PC's

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by alpha_03 on 03/09/03 05:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

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.

http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=s [...] allery2010

Get one of those instead; it can be used on a PC



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by captainNemo on 03/10/03 08:29 AM.</EM></FONT></P>