IF anything it should run slower, if the PC as its bios optimized to the best performance as the mac rely on its firmware. Not many OEM box shifters have all the bios features available for tweaking, but a self built one will do.
Does windows run faster on a mac?!
- Thread starter Cleeecooo
- Start date
Interesting, I didn't think of that!
Then again, macs that have been designed to work with windows will also have configured BIOS'
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I doubt there's anything of significance you can do in the BIOS to have an effect on speed. Certainly, my MBP with SSD in Windows is just as snappy and responsive as my desktop PC.
No, there's no such thing as a bios on a mac, they have a firmware with fixed settings as per version of firmware. Yes it can be hacked but far too much effort for such little reward.
I don't know, without overclocking the machine, the right memory timing settings and video card settings can still make a difference. Maybe it wont be notable in real life use but when it comes to bench marking.
Last edited:
Ah right.
On a side not, would an macs be as good as y PC for a similar price?
Specs:
i7 3930K
Asus Rampage 4 mobob
120GB SSD
GTX 570 2.5GB SLI
TJ11
Blu ray
Custom water
16GB RAM
Cost circa £3k
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Well the consumer iMac comes with a screen and the prosumer Mac Pro uses Xeon processors so there's no machine that's directly comparable.
I have it all at stock... for now
I heard you could get some pro's with SBE's
I'll have a look later, just thought it'd be faster asking the pros
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I have it all at stock... for now
I heard you could get some pro's with SBE's
I'll have a look later, just thought it'd be faster asking the pros
The nearest I can get to £3K is a fully loaded 27" iMac which gets you:
3.4Ghz Core i7
16GB RAM
2TB + 256GB SSD
Radeon 6970 2GB
Keyboard & Mouse
for £2612.40
Have you seen the specs of the mac pros and servers? lol..
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
But at the end it would cost more, and I can't understand why anyone would what to run windows as the main os on a mac when they can build the same spec machine for cheaper.
Certain programs just runs faster on an OSx machine than windows of the same spec, but that's more program dependent to OS than hardware or manufacture of machine.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
But at the end it would cost more, and I can't understand why anyone would what to run windows as the main os on a mac when they can build the same spec machine for cheaper.
Certain programs just runs faster on an OSx machine than windows of the same spec, but that's more program dependent to OS than hardware or manufacture of machine.
That's not too bad. Forgot to mention I also have another 240gb SSD and a 1TB HDD
But only 1 6970?!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Don't forget you're getting approx £600+ worth of screen for that price too
I doubt the iMac's have enough room to house 2 GPUs.
Don't forget you're getting approx £600+ worth of screen for that price too
I doubt the iMac's have enough room to house 2 GPUs.
Ah yes, that is true. Don't the iMacs use mobile grpahics or is it a full 6970?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
It's the mobile version.
It uses mobile graphics. So it isn't anywhere near the power of the desktop GPU, and the mobile components put the price up more than what it's desktop equivalent is.
It isn't exactly a fair comparison, really, the iMac is the way it is because it is supposed to be a higher end consumer device, not an enthusiast machine with graphics capabilities that are beyond it's need or really what could be used on the OS.
It's there for the form factor + the screen, mostly, which is a shame. I'd like a regular tower that isn't supposed to be a workstation like the Mac Pro, but something more comparable to the i7 machines today. Basically, the iMac with a desktop GPU in a tower.
Heavy graphics work done in the professional part of the market would be done on a Mac Pro.
It isn't exactly a fair comparison, really, the iMac is the way it is because it is supposed to be a higher end consumer device, not an enthusiast machine with graphics capabilities that are beyond it's need or really what could be used on the OS.
It's there for the form factor + the screen, mostly, which is a shame. I'd like a regular tower that isn't supposed to be a workstation like the Mac Pro, but something more comparable to the i7 machines today. Basically, the iMac with a desktop GPU in a tower.
Heavy graphics work done in the professional part of the market would be done on a Mac Pro.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
That's pretty much the exact market that Apple aren't interested in competing in. There is a vast array of alternative products you can buy in this category to satisfy that demand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Not really because they're either consumer or prosumer machines. None fit the 'enthusiast' bill as that'd typically mean building it yourself, which means a Windows PC (or a flavour of Linux of course).
Apple don't make PCs for that part of the market. Because the type of enthusiasts you're talking about are gamers, and we know the state of gaming on OSX..
Mac Pros have a serious amount of CPU power in the Xeons (multiple CPUs configurable, 4 - 6 Core - so 4 to 12 physical cores in a machine + hyperthreading), and they haven't been updated yet. The Mac Pros are the macs that get the full desktop cards, and the 7970 looks to be one of the cards that'll be in the next machine as references to it was found in the beta version of the operating system.