Have not yet seen objective proof of: “What’s an Intel chip doing in a Mac? A whole lot more than it’s ever done in a PC.â€
However this is great because the “Apples” are becoming more like “Oranges” and the so we can compare “Oranges to Oranges”!
Also, it seems Apple terminated because IBM was not keeping up with the performance of the other processor makers (Intel, AMD, etc). However, the interesting thing is that Intel is 5 years behind AMD in performance even with the release of the Duo Core (previous to this I was reading 7 to 11 years behind).
I would like to see benchmark performance comparisons on the following:
Intel Duo Core Mac with Intel Duo Core PC
and
Intel Duo Core PC with latest AMD dual core technology PC
From this we could possibly extrapolate what a AMD powered Mac could have done. Also remember that hardware between the Mac and the PC would have to be similar since Mac users are limited to their HW selection. Another comparison that would be fun is a Mac with a PC that has optimized hardware.
Some older reviews on dual cores of Intel vs AMD in the PC:
“In the end, AMD’s implementation of x86-64 seems to be more robust than Intel’s, although the results are definitely mixed. We’ll need to revisit the issue as more real 64-bit applications become available. But for now, if you want to move to 64-bit Windows on dual-core processors, AMD may be the better overall solution.” – full review here
“If you still want the fastest in dual-core, AMD does have that locked up, but you’ll pay for it.” – full review here
Looks like AMD is the way to go for gamers and probably other high end graphics work.
Let me know if there are objective comparisons of the Intel Mac and the Intel PC.
Thought I would do a little experiment and check out a Duo Core Dell. Here is what I got: an Inspiron 9400 with everything for just under $3000. Ok so I am a bit greedy but don’t you think that everyone needs 2Gig of RAM and the 2GHz Duo Core and SATA hardrive? Oops, Macs don’t come with those. Ok, so to be more reasonable it looks that a comparable I9400 would cost me around $2000 and Dell will not let me lower the HD standard to the Mac’s serial ATA and I cant reduce the screen size to 15.4″. Oh, well. BTW, the Mac laptop is about $2500. I hear that I could lower the PC cost/performance ratio if I used some one else beside Dell. I do not think there is a choice with the Mac.
I am not bashing Macs, just dissapointed with the lower hardware performance with a higher expence. I must say that in general the MAC OS is much better for regular users than XP but does leave much to be desired for more complex task. Its saving grace is that if you can’t do it in the GUI, you can do it in the terminal. But then might as well use Linux which could reduce the laptop price by another $200 or so.
If I could choose between a Mac and a Windows machine with comparable hardware with comparable price (same performance/cost ratio) I would go for a Mac but I do not think that the OS is worth the extra $500 (especially when it is Unix based anyway).