Why is apple so slow?

[0 Kilz:M:]

Why the hell can I get a pc laptop with a 2gig processor, and with apple's new imac and such is only 800, or 1.25 with the fastest dual g4....

Seems Apple can't keep up or wtf? This can only mean that game developers will run with higher processor speeds to keep up with pc gamers high demands, and when or if ported to mac, we get screwed with a shitty port, or a computer that is too slow

[†FiRE Infection]

Kilzo, no offense but are you seriously that dumb?  I mean come on man, our 800mhz processer is so much faster than their pentium four 2.5ghz processer.  Haven't you ever heard of the megahertz myth?  Maybe you should check it out at apple.com.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Infection,  no offense but are you seriously that dumb? Do you really believe everything Apple says, bah they aren't better in anyway. Macs are slower especially when it comes to gaming. for videoproductions and photoshop things it doesn't matter that much thanks to dual processors and Altivec. They are also faster in several points but when it comes to games...

In reply to Kilzo one reason why Apple is that far behind is because Apple uses another processor architecture. RISC contrary to Intel and AMD chips that are CISC processors.

I can't explain you whats the differences between RISC and CISC, mabye someone else!?

At all I have to say that Apple is far away from being perfect. The MacOS rules but why the hell have they removed the startbutton at the keyboard, why doesn't we have a 2 button mouse, why adds Apple expensive and fast DDR Ram but doesn't change the other hardware components so we can use it. Apple makes the same faults as the PC industry when they introduced DDR RAM. Bah that sucks.

If I buy an Apple I expect a very well product where all components fit together.- Currently you only pay a lot but don't get anything equal back. That sucks and I hope they gonna change this situation soon.

[†FiRE Infection]

Well I dislike how a lot of games run on pc like RS for example  Yes I do believe them too, because it makes sense what they are saying.  I just don't like how pc's break and stuff....

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Infection, you dislike how RS runs on a PC because it is better, has less lag, and a better game flow?

As for the techinical stuff, no comment except for the mhx/ghz are exactly equaly 1 to 1. A Mac mhz/ghz is slightly faster than an Intel/AMD one, but not even close to the proportions Infection blew it out to be.

[†FiRE Infection]

Infection, you dislike how RS runs on a PC because it is better, has less lag, and a better game flow?

Yes, that must be why.

As for the techinical stuff, no comment except for the mhx/ghz are exactly equaly 1 to 1. A Mac mhz/ghz is slightly faster than an Intel/AMD one, but not even close to the proportions Infection blew it out to be.

Yeah, sorry about those numbers,  I just knew it was faster, but I pushed the number a little because I didn't remember what they were .

I win =P

Infection,  no offense but are you seriously that dumb?

Mauti, you're just figuring this out..?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

It should read "aren't 1 to 1". Just picked that up after seeing infect quote me.  

As for RS, why do you think it sucks on PC? It is far superior to the RS on Mac consdering the shitty port job that happened.

[†FiRE Infection]

I don't know, maybe it's not the game actually, but there are just so many things that I hate about playing with pc's.  The constant cheating and I've seen some crazy mods that like give you perfect aim so your reticule is always right in the middle.  Besides I tend to get into fight with pc players, it's just not enjoyable for me.

[Brain]

a basic risc/cisc explanation

cisc stands for complex instruction set computing. these chips process smaller bits of information than risc processors. to process a gven amount of data in a given time, these ghips must run at fairly high clock cycle rates.

risc stands for reduced instruction set computing. these chips process information in larger chunks than other need processors(like say 128 bit chunks) they would use a slower clock speed to process a given amount of data in a given amount of time this is your basic apple/motorola/ibm chip

as an example of how each chip would process it's info.
let's take that task of standing up and opening a door.

cisc processor:
stand up
rotate to face door
take a step foreword
(repeated until door is reached)
grab door knob
turn knob
pull door open

risc processor:
stand up and face door
walk to door
open door

now, even though the cisc chip is faster, it has to carry out many more calculations to achieve the same result as a risc chip running at a slower cycle.


most high end computers(think super computers) are measured in flops (megaflops, gigaflops, terraflops, etc.) which is a measure of how many calculations are preformed per second. this way of measurement is not affected by chip architecture and is a far more accurate way to judge processor speed

[†FiRE Infection]

now, even though the cisc chip is faster, it has to carry out many more calculations to achieve the same result as a risc chip running at a slower cycle.

So what does this mean?  Who cares as long as it's faster?

[Jeb]

correct me if i'm wrong,
but i thought ibm top end server chips Power4s ect are Risc.

The Speed problem lies more with Motorolla who hasn't been able to boost the speed. For instance the current 1.25ghz G4 chips are not much different than the chips from last year.

[if i only had a ...]

Brain must have been reading the December issue of Mac Addict.

Comparing Apple to Intel numbers really is like comparing apples to oranges.  There are so many factors you have to take into account.  If you look only at the clock cycles, it looks like a P4 2.5 should be 3 times faster then a G4 800, right?  Not true.  MhZ and GhZ is just the frequency that the chip processes instructions.  So, if everything else were the same, yeah, it would be about 3 times faster.  But not everything else is the same.  RISC and CISC is a good place to start.  Brains basic up there is good enough.  Just suffice it to say that a RISC chip can do many things in much fewer instructions then a CISC, IF it's getting the right instructions.  Programs and the OS need to be tailored to the RISC instruction set.  Then you talk about BUS Speed and other architectural little twists.  Cycles on the cpu don't mean shit if it isn't getting data fast enough.  This is why you see 533MhZ BUS speeds on the new P4's.  Apple doesn't need them that high yet, and they also use Level 2 and Level 3 Cashe to boost performance (which Intel doesn't do, it costs more).  RISC chips also take much better advantage of the Level 2 and Level 3 cashe, so it's a bigger bang for the buck.  Then you can bring up data paths.  16bit, 32 bit, and now 64bit.  That means more data actually gets processed every cycle too.  

There are all kinds of ways to measure performance, byte mark tests, interger tests, floating point operations test.  They give you a realistic idea of what the whole computer can do performance wise.  But that's ideal.  Not real world.  Real world is setting the two computers down with their OS's and doing the same tasks.  If you do that, you'll find that an 800MhZ iMac worth about $1600 keeps up and sometimes passes a 1.8Ghz Gateway worth $2100.  And it's not just doing tests like rendering a Photoshop image where the Mac is obviously better, or Q3 frame rates where the PC is obviously better.  It's doing things like ripping MP3's, scrolling through Word docs and graphing in Excel.  It's things like how long you have to wait for apps to launch.  In the real world applications, the top end Macs are performing as well as the top end PC's.  Mac's do some things better.  PC's do other things better.  Games run better on PC's because that's what they are designed and coded to run on.  You can never port a program and have it be as good.  You have to design it and code it from scratch on each platform.  Also, you have to look at games that are Carbon or Cocoa on the Mac.  Carbon will always be slower and have more bugs.  If all you want is a gaming machine, PC's are better and have more options.  If all you are doing is image or video work, get a SGI.  ok, get a Mac.  If you are like most people, and doing a lot of shit on your computer.  Get the one that fits you better.  The real speed bottleneck in using a computer is the user anyway.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Very well said

Infection I just repeated yourself because your statement wasn't much better than Kilzo's?

That's all  ,

Mauti

[Ace]

Brain and our anonymous poster pretty much covered everything, but let me point out that the G4's being at their current speed and not faster is 100% Motorola's fault. Apple does not do the chip design; they have been victim of having to wait on Motorola. That is one big reason why they are going to IBM for the 970.

[tasty]

I know Motorola wants to get out of the chip business and concentrate more on phones. Too bad for them, I have a Motorola phone and it sucks ass. Anyway, I don't know that many people who buy a computer for PC gaming and nothing else. That's why we have macs? so quit whining about them.

[0 Kilz:M:]

Well infect, Im seriously not that dumb. I just don't know a whole lot about this stuff so I figured I'd ask. Sorry if Im not smart enough for you

Anyways, thanks for the answers, I somewhat understand what this all means now...

Over, Kilzo

[Jeb]

I've been hearing that intel is suffering even when they can make 3ghz processors, the reason being is that no one really wants anything that fast. Even with a 3ghz processor you'd still be lagged by the usual 7600 rpm hd in most computers.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Yup Jeb, that is why if you are willing to shell the money out for a fast processor like that, you should also invest in SCSI drives.

Added on: It is 7200 rpm.

[Agent Wallabie]

   Hey Kilzo, its the 8th, im just wondering, did u get the new Mac yet...  

[Ace]

Yup Jeb, that is why if you are willing to shell the money out for a fast processor like that, you should also invest in SCSI drives.

Added on: It is 7200 rpm.

First, if you are buying multiple drives, almost all consumers would be better off buying 2 relatively inexpensive IDE drives and creating a RAID 0 array rather than buying a single SCSI drive. It will cost less, give you more storage, and give you about the same performance.

Second, this is mostly irrelevant as it is not the hard drive speed that causes a bottleneck on your system unless you have very little memory and need to do a lot of swapping. With a processor like the new 3.06 ghz Pentium, you are going to be limited more by the lack of an L3 cache and the relatively slow system bus.