Is CPU speed / spec comparable between Mac and PC

[bl0at3r]

Been going backwards and forwards between mac and pc for years...

Have used Mac OS (Lion and Snow Leopard) at work on a MBP and iMac recently but prefer (due to getting old and being comfortable with windows) Windows 7 to Mac OS.

I love iOS devices and have several, but the full blown desktop OS leaves me a bit meh.

I currently have a Shuttle with an i5 2400 (quad core 3.1Ghz) and 16gb ram with a 128gb SSD as the main drive - the thing flies running Windows 7.

I just can't shake this Mac OS thing, the integration between ios and mac os for example - i want to like mac os and feel I am missing out on the full experience by pairing my ios devices to windows. I also would prefer not to spend £1500 on an iMac only to hate it.

So am considering a Mac mini instead. But my concern is that the available CPU options and ram and SATA spinning drives all appear to be well below what I am currently running.

Is Mac OS likely to be running as fast or faster on a Mac mini as windows 7 does on my current build - are the newest i5 or i7 more powerful than the last gen?

Is Mac OS more streamlined and lean than win7? More efficient perhaps?

I don't want to be disappointed and find it is slower than my shuttle.

 

[neil_g]

they use the same CPUs, one wont run magically faster in a different OS

its all swings and roundabouts, on good spec machines boot speeds are roughly the same, processing times are roughly the same on like for like hardware.

youre not missing much running OSX with your iOS devices.

 

[arad85]

If the CPUs are the same, they will feel to be the same speed. When processing, the OS is not involved. Clearly, the UI is different code and will be written differently. You may well see a speed difference, but it may well be the Windows machine is more efficiently written than OS-X in certain areas.

£ for £ you will get a better/faster processor with a Windows system.

 

[bl0at3r]

Thanks - think I'm going to stay with my trusty pc and windows 7 for a while longer.

The spec of my shuttle is more than sufficient for iTunes, Lightroom and Picasa with a bit of MS Office and web/email.

Saved myself £700 there too

 

[Amp34]

On the other hand if you are interested in an All in One the iMacs are still the best product out there, at least the 27" version. I think there are now one or two machines that are finally competing like for like (27" screen WITH 2560x1440 resolution, not 1920x1080 like most) but as an overall package the iMac is better... Then you stick windows on it...

 

[Studi0488]

On the other hand if you are interested in an All in One the iMacs are still the best product out there, at least the 27" version. I think there are now one or two machines that are finally competing like for like (27" screen WITH 2560x1440 resolution, not 1920x1080 like most) but as an overall package the iMac is better... Then you stick windows on it...

Lots of pc people forget the screen, I priced up a 27in screen equivalent and it was £800 at the time, so pound for pound the iMac isn't bad, for an extra £50 stick in 16gb of third party ram and I see no difference.

I have tested video with an iMac and my dell xps which is a beast and they are pretty close.

 

[arad85]

Lots of pc people forget the screen, I priced up a 27in screen equivalent and it was £800 at the time, so pound for pound the iMac isn't bad, for an extra £50 stick in 16gb of third party ram and I see no difference.

Yuyp, around £800 for a decent 27" - if that is what you want - although a decent 27" will be matte

Even including the screen, you get more for your money... Plus you don't have to buy a new screen every time you upgrade your PC.

On the other hand, Apple residuals are higher....

 

[neil_g]

depends if you like working on a 27" mirror i guess..

 

[Amp34]

Lots of pc people forget the screen, I priced up a 27in screen equivalent and it was £800 at the time, so pound for pound the iMac isn't bad, for an extra £50 stick in 16gb of third party ram and I see no difference.

What you on about...? £500-600 is the domain of the decent 2560x1440 27" screens nowadays (Dell, Samsung, Viewsonic, ASUS and one or two others). You can then move "up" (or more precisely down - shiny screen with the same panel as the mat/satin finish ones) to Apples screen at around £800 (is a thunderbolt port really worth £200-300 more?!) and then the NEC screens start at around £1k.

That has reduced the value for money of the iMacs, but not much. I did wonder about one but then thought about it in the way Arad85 did so got a separate mITX build (Ivybridge i5, 16GB RAM and 2 SSD's) that runs silently (passively cooled, no fans at all).

 

[Les McLean]

It's swings and roundabouts for me, running win7 and macOS on two identical machines, generally they are on a par for efficiency, but some things stand out, for example macOS boots up PS far quicker than Win7, but runs around as quick when processing, although some plug-ins run slower on the mac.
The search function (say for an image on an internal drive) is quicker on a mac.

But these differences are generally minor, and even themselves out. So I don't think you will see a degradation (or increased efficiency) running mac OS on a similar specced win7 machine.

 

[bl0at3r]

It's swings and roundabouts for me, running win7 and macOS on two identical machines, generally they are on a par for efficiency, but some things stand out, for example macOS boots up PS far quicker than Win7, but runs around as quick when processing, although some plug-ins run slower on the mac.
The search function (say for an image on an internal drive) is quicker on a mac.

But these differences are generally minor, and even themselves out. So I don't think you will see a degradation (or increased efficiency) running mac OS on a similar specced win7 machine.

Thanks Les - useful info

 

[Tulipone]

depends if you like working on a 27" mirror i guess..

I don't think that is fair. I understand that the screen is reflective - it was in the Apple Store and it still was when I got it home. With any PC screen you need to consider lighting and I am sure that you either do - or at least someone should - complete a display screen assessment. Changing the position of the workstation, adding blinds and/or changing the work light are all effective.

 

[neil_g]

I don't think that is fair. I understand that the screen is reflective - it was in the Apple Store and it still was when I got it home. With any PC screen you need to consider lighting and I am sure that you either do - or at least someone should - complete a display screen assessment. Changing the position of the workstation, adding blinds and/or changing the work light are all effective.

if i take a glossy screen (any glossy, not targeting macs in particular) and put it in the same place as a matte the glossy can be completely unworkable whereas the matte was fine.

 

[Tulipone]

if i take a glossy screen (any glossy, not targeting macs in particular) and put it in the same place as a matte the glossy can be completely unworkable whereas the matte was fine.

I can live with that

I find reading a newspaper outside in the rain makes the whole idea of newspapers unworkable. :razz: