Why do macs have slower processors

gizmoleeds

I am looking at getting a laptop and while I do not like using macs very much (although I am vain and think they look sooooooo good :rolleyes:) I have been checking out their website. I have always known Macs have lower clock speeds, but have never known why.

An £850 iBook would come with a 1.4GHz processor and a similarly priced iMac a 1.8GHz? I would expect 3GHz for desktop PC of the same price.

So what's the deal?

smcicr

oh boy - can, worms, open.

my (very) limited understanding of this is that macs and windows pc's use a different architecture for the way in which they process and deal with instructions - as a result the two sides measure things differently. hence the apparent difference in speeds based purely on CPU speed. (told you it was limited )

see here for info on the power pc architecture that macs currently use http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/newto.html#1 and here http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/index.php for info on the big new shake up that means all of this will soon be history (well if it all goes really smoothly and there are no hitches along the way...)

gizmoleeds

smcicr wrote:

oh boy - can, worms, open.

my (very) limited understanding of this is that macs and windows pc's use a different architecture for the way in which they process and deal with instructions - as a result the two sides measure things differently. hence the apparent difference in speeds based purely on CPU speed. (told you it was limited )

see here for info on the power pc architecture that macs currently use http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/newto.html#1 and here http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/index.php for info on the big new shake up that means all of this will soon be history (well if it all goes really smoothly and there are no hitches along the way...)

Thanks for the links, although they're both very long and complicated.

I suppose what I really want to know is will a 1.4GHz Mac work at the same speed as a 1.4GHz PC or would it actually be quicker (equivalent to, say, a 2GHz PC)?

Rave

Depends on the PC- 1.4GHz tells you nothing about the processor's power, it's nowhere near that simple. An Intel Pentium M at 1.4GHz would be a bit faster than an AMD Athlon XP at 1.4GHz- but both would be loads faster than a Pentium 4 at 1.4GHz.

gizmoleeds

Rave wrote:

Depends on the PC- 1.4GHz tells you nothing about the processor's power, it's nowhere near that simple. An Intel Pentium M at 1.4GHz would be a bit faster than an AMD Athlon XP at 1.4GHz- but both would be loads faster than a Pentium 4 at 1.4GHz.

Now I'm even more confused! Thanks, anyway though

Oh, well, I wouldn't have got a mac anyway. Perhaps this is just one of those things I'm not supposed to understand (like how to operate our microwave )

patflanel

The megahertz myth...... I won't go into CISC vs RISC architecture
Try a mac, see how fast it feels, see how fast you can get things done without having to run scandisk, norton, adaware, defrag etc etc
Macs just work.......

BlueVinney

Yep, the processor clock speed question is far from straightforward but just think in terms of buying a car. When you are camparing performance then the rpm of different engines doesn't tell you which car is the most powerful. 6000rpm from 1 litre petrol engine could easily give a lot less power than, say, 3000rpm from a 2 litre turbo diesel. Then, of course, how each car actually performs depends on weight, suspension, steering, etc. as well as engine performance.

So it is with computers. Different processor types and models are like different types and models of engine. Higher clock speeds only give a guide as to how different versions of THAT EXACT model of processor will perform. How different computers systems will perform depends on speed of data bus, peripherals, etc. + the efficiency of the Operating System in doing its job.

The best way to compare systems unless you are a real techie is to read product reviews on the web or in magazines to get a feel for which model of computer will suit you best.

gizmoleeds

patflanel wrote:

The megahertz myth...... I won't go into CISC vs RISC architecture
Try a mac, see how fast it feels, see how fast you can get things done without having to run scandisk, norton, adaware, defrag etc etc
Macs just work.......

I'd like to try one for a while but I don't really have the opportunity. I used one for a while at a place I worked at a few years ago, but only for certain design-related programs so never got a real feel for it. Where I work now just uses PCs and I have two at home so I am very used to them - I also have quite a bit of software for them (Corel Draw, Paint Shop Pro, Microsoft Office etc. and I wouldn't like the cost of getting Mac versions too).

blinky

patflanel wrote:

The megahertz myth...... I won't go into CISC vs RISC architecture
Try a mac, see how fast it feels, see how fast you can get things done without having to run scandisk, norton, adaware, defrag etc etc
Macs just work.......

2 Myths there:

Megahertz Myth: Peddled by Intel and it's even started catching them out so they've started using model numbers.

Mac Myth: Peddled by Mac owners who believe the Mac's are the saviour of the universe. They're not - it's a computer. They still crash, need defragging and are susceptible to viruses as are all computers.

OS X appears to be a big improvement over previous versions of MacOS which were bug ridden, although Apple does seem to have to regularly release security fixes, just like Microsoft.

Mac's do tend to be a bit more expensive for what you get. There's also been some concern about Apple's build quality ever since the first iMac's were released.

The choice ultimately between the two isn't that great but switching between the two systems can be a pain for many people.

dataloss

blinky wrote:

Mac Myth: Peddled by Mac owners who believe the Mac's are the saviour of the universe. They're not - it's a computer. They still crash, need defragging and are susceptible to viruses as are all computers.

OS X appears to be a big improvement over previous versions of MacOS which were bug ridden, although Apple does seem to have to regularly release security fixes, just like Microsoft.

Mac's do tend to be a bit more expensive for what you get. There's also been some concern about Apple's build quality ever since the first iMac's were released.

The choice ultimately between the two isn't that great but switching between the two systems can be a pain for many people.

OS X handles disk fragmentation a different way. Any file over a certain size I think its 20 or 30 meg chunks gets auto optimised by the system on the fly, you certainly don't need to defrag the thing every 5 minutes though.

in the end though you pay your money and take your choice I own 2 PC's desktop and notebook and also a ibook G4 I use the ibook for video work and the PC's for mixing music and general use... it all comes down to software in the end.