Having Fun with tests

[thebeetalls]

didn't some of the old g5s have liquid cooling? anyway, watercooling is definitely more effective, but also more expensive and leaks could be a problem if your not careful...Everything is a trade off.

[AppleSoldier]

If you HAD to get rid of one of your machines, what would it be? The pc or mac? Not considering your JOB. AGAIN, YOUR COMPARING CUSTOM BUILT INTERCOOLED PC TO AN OEM MAC PRO. Even you said it yourself you cant compare oem to custom. and QTX is WAY FASTER than 7, an OVERCLOCKED liquid cooled 3.2 vs OEM? the complete job was faster on the OEM? Obviously, the mac pro has better multithreading support cause on several jobs it wins.

QT7 IS NOT MULTI THREADED, AVS is. QTX may be faster than VH.

[LeodimeII]

Eric, calm down. You're getting so worked up over something not even that serious. You're about to bust a nut because the Mac Pro was faster. Keep in mind that the MP had an advantage because it's a quad-core machine and the PC is dual core.

[mrbit10]

dude this was for fun macwardd was along with sunnz wanting to test out machines, it says it very clearly if you read. I expected the pro to beat the pc, the pc is an e6400, however if i had overclocked it, it would have likely done far better. QT is a task which was shared among the threads.

[iBashApple]

C2D dual vs a Xeon Stfu emook

[DrSunnz]

Then do the test with QTX if you can HAHA!!

And for the given tasks I honestly don't believe multithreading is going to help, it is already overloading the machine unless you have >5 cores.

[AppleSoldier]

liquid cooling is a joke because why do you need it. The mac pro on fans is only 20 degrees warmer, lol. If teh mac pro had WATER cooling it, it would dust the pc. You dont get it do you. YOU DONT NEED LIQUID COOLING IN A PC, not for what you do mrbit. The cooling the mac is all that was needed so apple didnt waste time or money with water cooling, its not needed. looks to me like it takes a custom build judt to hang with a mac pro. lol.

[mrbit10]

liquid cooling is efficient, why bash it, it beats air anytime.

[mrbit10]

In the heat tests I overclocked the PC to 3.2 just to show that from 2.1GHZ to 3.2 GHZ overclocked that more heat would be given off and that the liquid cooled system even overclocked cooled far better. This is normal, why fight a technology that clearly is better than air to cool, why because PCs have it. "Do not need it!" If I could OC my pro you better believe I would, why are you content with standard x86 performance when you can make it better?

[zonexll]

@mrbit10

"why fight a technology that clearly is better than air to cool"

Technology is more than just about what's technically best, it also needs to be interesting from a commercial perspective, but you fail to understand that.

[DrSunnz]

Yup this is all intended for mainly fun, not to be taken as flamebait or "prove" certain computers are better!! :D

Anyway I noticed that the audio settings on your Vista PC is exporting to mp2, now I am not familiar with that program so is it actually doing AAC?

[HolidayNova]

great test! everyone has to watch to the end, interesting final result.

[Philc7753]

this was super loud i had it on 25% on the youtube input and every video i watched was low but this one was super loud

[BorkGonsam]

how did the mac not catch fire at 150'F lol, thats insane

[masterd151]

Holy bonfire...68c????

[GlockNinja]

Super Geek, super geek, super geekyyyyy....

[svtcontour]

BTW that software (AVS encoder) looks nice. I might tinker with that one.

[svtcontour]

Great video. So I'm starting to wonder if with all the different software encoding the same settings, if the resulting video would have much of a quality difference, or do they achieve the same video result with the only difference being encoding speed.

Also the water cooling would definitely be the way to go to tame high temps. mrbit10's next system should be one of those mineral oil submersed ones :) Its pretty crazy to see parts in non conductive oil.

Maybe that would be my next :)

[mrbit10]

we all went for speed, encoding is about preserving the quality we would all have different quality output. Quicktime does do a better job of quality than does visualhub.

[thebsdguy]

i wouldn't submerge thousands of dollars in mineral oil, dude. a prepackaged liquid cooling solution would be more cost effective.

[svtcontour]

Ya I was kinda throwing ideas around. I saw lots of vids on oil submerged cooling and it seems neat but if I did do it, maybe I'd test it with something old first :)

[theapple0ne]

Great Video!

[blacksteel25]

differences between converting software can determine how fast or slow it encodes, sure processor speed makes a difference too.

[NuLLx42]

xmedia recode is free and has lots of features

[macward66]

what are those loud fans? :)

[zoulkyud]

Must be his mac pro. His pc is water cooled your doof.

[zoulkyud]

*you doof

[mrbit10]

my mac pro and my windows server behind me, that thing is up all the time but the camera is closest to the mac pro although my server is a steady humm to it.

[ASCII808]

lol I got the same time as your mac pro on my laptop, I was using winff.

[macward66]

congrats, your laptop is as powerful as a mac pro

[ASCII808]

no, just winff is better than quicktime.

[macward66]

seriously doubt that, its like Eric sad, the output of QT is a lot better than visual hub, visual hub has files that are like 23mb vs. Qt 33mb. they are totally different. I have played some visual hub files lately and they are not near the quality. those free encoders like ffmpeg etc really are not that good. fast, maybe but not something i would use

[ASCII808]

too impatient to wait for something like quick time, they always looked good to me, no artifacts, and clear picture. adobe media encoder is better though especially with a 4850 with ati steam. not sure of any other GPU acceleration encoders out yet.

[mrbit10]

this is true, QT may not be fast but encoding is not supposed to be, its about preserving as much quality form what format to the other.

[ASCII808]

yes this true, but I have an emac, it takes many hours to convert a dvd in mpeg4, takes about 6 hours or more. this one of the reasons why I built a PC. I can't stand waiting six hours for a video encode, and once had the application crash at 99%. it rips movies in 45-53 minutes, my self-build PC takes 6 minutes. my self-built pc is obsolete by todays standard an e6300 from 2006.

[macnerd93]

an eMac is ancient. Its not even an intel based Mac,

[ASCII808]

its only 5 years old, I don't consider it old. Old is a pentium II. or my other mac, an imac g3 running a mac os that is worse than Vista and M.E. combined. So bad I have to force quit to get into Finder. Probably should put 10.2, or 10.3. it probably shit out of its ears if it could run leopard.

[macnerd93]

dude as soon as you buy technology its outdated by a new model already planned for launch and the next version after that probably half way through the design stage. Now I buy a new MacBook every 2 years or so I got my MacBook in november 2007 & am upgrading to a 13'' Macbook Pro

for the nicer design and speed etc. I own 6 Macs including an eMac 1.42Ghz Model 1GB RAM, that runs leopard great its a last gen 2005 model

[ASCII808]

of course my mac is obsolete, but it sure did not hold its time like you mac fanboys proclaim. you still have buy a new one because its barely upgradable. my emac runs flash like its prime95. I have the 2003 model repackaged edu model in 2004. 2007 macs sucked as well. apple can never put a decent video card in their low end models gma x3100? their is no way it could outperform my laptop form late 2008. you must fork out 2000$ for it in a laptop. Macs suck for value, and are slow for the price.

[macnerd93]

I'm getting tired of the annoyances and people like yourself. A Mac laptop can be upgraded Exactly the same as a PC Laptop, which on 90% at least of PC laptops is the RAM & Hard Drive only

[macnerd93]

cost isn't really much an issue for me

[macnerd93]

My MacBook was heavily upgrade I added 4GB RAM, 500GB Hard Drive & I also swapped motherboards back last year from a 2.4Ghz MacBook, The white MacBook now currently has a NVIDIA 9400M. The 13'' MacBook pro your paying extra for the unibody case, DDR3 ram, better design, better display, new ports, SD Card slot etc

[ASCII808]

my laptop has an all in one sd card reader, 9600m gt, faster ddr 2 ram, esata, vga, hdmi, and a mini dv port. 2.4GHZ processor, but it costs much less, although its damaged from heavy use, and it was an ebay fuckup. its faster than your macbook at gaming, cuda,etc I don't care how much its messed up, it costed 700$ and I think it was worth it because it has 1680x1050 resolution. I do regret it a little, but its good overall. if I had a macbook pro I would regret the 1300$ premium.

[macnerd93]

Like I said cost isn't an issue for me its the overall quality and the actual operating system & software for me

[ASCII808]

The Os, and hardware still appears very flawed, the tiger Ui was less functional than Xp, and Leopard is just a big fat cat that is slow. it kernel panic'd in Photoshop on imacs, and happen about 2 or 3 times, one from what I remember was from running vanishing point. Macs don't feel more stable than Windows, although Windows 7 RC has some issues with crappy software like Divx,etc. Rtm is great, no crashes so far. the hardware is too crappy to consider, its like choosing a pentium 4 over an i7

[sc0pl355]

' Leopard is just a big fat cat that is slow'

Compared to what?

snipurl. c o m / skd1e

'it kernel panic'd in Photoshop on imacs,'

I use photoshop all of the time. NEVER had a KP while using it.

[sc0pl355]

here, a comparison between Leopard and Vista by IT comparison.

snipurl. c o m / skd34

Just saying. Calling leopard slow is a inaccuracy. It is actually a bit faster than Tiger.

'the tiger Ui was less functional than Xp'

ubtrollin lol

[ASCII808]

Leopard from the benchmarks I found was slower in most 32bit apps than tiger, it did pwn 64bit tiger though. the site has bs on it.

I am over emphasizing how broken Tiger open file dialog is. I can't not delete an item in the open dialog box. i can make a new folder, pisses me off because if I accidently make a new a folder, I have to go into finder to delete it. its a really big hassle, xp has no issues doing the same task. I hate explorer but it was more functional than finder.

[sc0pl355]

Cnet has BS on it? How so? They tested both OSes on the same computer.

dude, I NEVER feel the urge to delete a file from the open-file window. And making a new folder is foolproof. it asks you what you want to name the folder first.

Also, where's your built-in, universal, search in XP? Customizable/universal sidebar? 'Where' popup menu that shows me the most popular folders that may not be in my sidebar?

[ASCII808]

the tests are biased.

1. Quicktime on Windows is shit because Apple ported it terribly, not a good indicator for an Os benchmark

2. Call duty 4? out of all games call of duty 4 which probably is a cider port btw.

3. a fast laptop does not take 46 seconds to boot, on a netbook it does, but a fast laptop is 25-35 seconds.

4. running Windows in bootcamp for battery life tests is complete epic fail.

5. cinebench is the only benchmark suite used?

6. WTF was going on in the media multitasking test.

[sc0pl355]

1) Quicktime is multiplatform. i suppose they could have used VLC, but oh well. Point is, same programs on different oses on the exact same machine, limit the overall different factors involved.

2) Windows did a little BETTER in call of duty 4. I thought you'd be happy.

3) Um, boot time for windows was 42 seconds, not 46

4) WHY is it fail? You do know that bootcamp is just partitioning software right?

5) Windows did better with cinebench. WHY are you complaining???

[ASCII808]

continued

okay the delete a file not working in open file dialog is a big flaw.

Xp has a little doggie that helps you search things, you can change him to a wizard if you want to. it does not have something similar to spotlight which was in longhorn before spotlight was released in tiger. also the sidebar was in longhorn as well before dashboard came along. Besides the glory of Windows is not mainly its 1st party apps, its the third party apps.

[sc0pl355]

1) How so? I've used both platforms and have never needed that.

2) Not the same as being able to type it into a box in the corner of every window.

3) I'm talking about the sidebar on the side of your open file window. If you want to argue about who made widgets first, I'll just say Desk Accessories in the 1980's to you.

4) If you want to talk about who had a spotlight-like search feature first, I'll say SHERLOCK to you.

5) This ain't 1994 anymore. OSX has plenty of third party support too.

[ASCII808]

1. its very inconvenient not being able to delete.

2. spotlight is slow on ide drives. turned it off

3. i see yes it can't be done

4. I have not used that in awhile, so old.

5. yes, but its not easy to find some types freeware on it, Windows has more freeware. I could not find a wma to mp3 converter because damn itunes. converting in itunes would not work. Windows has it in iTunes, or google it and its there, google failed searching for a mac version.

onward to Cnet.

[sc0pl355]

1) I wouldn't know. I never had a use for that in either windows or OSX

2) um, no. Spotlight runs just fine on all my Macs.

3) Just use Switch. snipurl . c o m / skmm6

[ASCII808]

1. its usually an issue when you are downloading stuff, and want it to be organized without having to do it later.

2. slow is what I said, it does lock up at times.

3. its pretty modern, seem to be published a year after I went back to using Windows

[ASCII808]

Cnet benchmarks are wrong.

1. quicktime is multi-platform however its ported terribly to Windows

2. could have used more than one game, not a cider port.

3. should not take that long for the specs.

4. Apple has a different approach to power management, and Windows or Linux does not work well with it.

5. it does not matter that Windows did better, the comparison between SL and 7 is incomplete. to be complete it needs more benches from I/O speed to networking, and bang for buck ratio.

[sc0pl355]

1) So? Using totally different software would be even less accurate.

2) Like what?

3) if you say so

4) No

5) Snow Leopard costs $25. Windows 7 costs $120. There's your bang for your buck ratio right there. BOTH OSes were on the same system. SAME hardware. Each had their OWN hard drive. You do know that his was a OS comparison right?

[sc0pl355]

OR if you got the preorder discount on WIN 7, it costs $49.99, which is twice as much as SL.

[ASCII808]

1. No, using the crappy quicktime port as benchmark is biased, apple purposely makes it shitty so you will buy a mac.

2. Bioshock, command and conquer 3, quake wars. Apple advertises the Mac pro for the ultimate gamer, what a bunch of idiots.

4. yes they do, bad drivers is also a factor

5. yes but to run the Os you have to buy a intel mac, hackintoshs suck. a core i7 can be build for half the cost of the base line mac pro with superior specs. Just admit its overpriced.

[sc0pl355]

1) That's interesting logic there. You're saying that they should make a poor port of quicktime ON PURPOSE for a platform that has a wide variety of players, to get people to buy Macs. Why hell, Internet Explorer for the Mac didn't convince me to switch to PC!

2) I'm 50% sure Bioshock is CIDER. C&C 3 is CIDER. Quake wars maybe. Not interested in what you think of the PRO.

4) Yawn

5) What's up with the attack on the Mac Pro? We are talking about OSX vs Win 7 in case you forgot.

[ASCII808]

1, its a rule of thumb to make your software on the opposing platform worse than on your platform.

2. its hard to name a demanding game on a mac that is a native port, sad really. quake 4 is the last intensive game I played on a mac..

4. get some sleep

5. Macs are a full package, Windows is just an OS. all the other macs are weak so i choose the mac pro vs the core i7. if you had not noticed neither my imac or emac can run SL lol

[sc0pl355]

1) Maybe, but NOT in hopes of a Halo effect. Halo effects don't work that way.

2) Does it matter if the game is Cider or not? Cider doesn't make it EASIER to run the game. Cider makes it HARD.

4) Don't bore me.

5) OSX is an OS. The test was comparing Snow leopard to Windows 7 on the same hardware. Considering their SIZE, I would say that Macs are powerful at their form factors. All the tests we are talking about are possible on a Mac Mini. Your argument is nullified.

[ASCII808]

1. stop talking bullshit, QT on the mac is superior to the Windows version. stop it stop it.

2. its emulation, that is why its unfair to use in a bench.

5. OSX is not set free, and you can't build your own mac. I don't care about the Size, I don't want a mac mini, i want an i7. Windows Pc's are more optimized to run Windows than macs are to run Windows. they have better drivers than those crappy bootcamp drivers. 3 finger right click must be fantastic.

[sc0pl355]

1) Where did I say it wasn't? I just said that there is no halo effect involved.

2) Not emulation. A compatibility wrapper. Not emulating anything.

5) What does being set free have to do with anything? Especially this test?

"Windows Pc's are more optimized to run Windows than macs are to run Windows."

OMG LOL Are you serious???

"3 finger right click must be fantastic"

TWO fingers. TWO fingers are used to right click.

[ASCII808]

2. Wine emulates the Windows Api, it tries to act like the Windows Api therefore it is an emulator.

5. you have to buy a mac to get OSx, I can run Windows on practically anything x86 from intel and amd.

Bootcamp drivers sucks, are you seriously saying they are good? you must have a separate PC for the test that runs Windows well with good drivers.

there was a 3 finger right click bug in bootcamp.

[sc0pl355]

2) WINE= Wine Is Not an Emulator. Look it up.

5) Give it up. the test was between two OSes. the same computer was used in the test. If you want to talk about hardware. we can talk about initial cost vs cost of ownership.

6) BC drivers are ok. but nothing stops you from getting drivers yourself. On top of that, the Mac side of things was handicapped too. Do you hear me complaining? Nope

[ASCII808]

2. I got this wrong before awhile ago, and the acronym is misleading.

5. I can't say the total cost of ownership, both my emac and hp still run like a champ, both my p2 now and imac g3 run like crap. well my laptop is kinda fail, but its 1680x1050 lovelyness on my desk. mostly my fault, and lesson learned form buying stolen items.

6. Don't complain because I want a better comparison of two new os's. I don't see any conclusive evidence that "mac is the best and Windows is the Worst Os ever.

[sc0pl355]

2) I see

5) My Apple //e, Powermac 5260, Blue and White G3, Lombard, iMac and Macbook are all in great working condition.

6) you don't get any better comparison of OSes than running them on the EXACT SAME computer.

7) Who said anything was the best or worst? I posted the link in response to you saying that Leopard was slow. You can plainly see that it is not slow.

[sc0pl355]

2a) The acronym is not misleading, btw. Wine doesn't emulate anything. It translates. There's a difference. Cider doesn't emulate, it translates.

[ASCII808]

2. when the developers wrote the program, they called it not an emulator because it does not emulate the cpu like dosbox or a virtual machine.

6.Macs don't run Windows well, and bootcamp is not 100% functional and probably never will be until later.

7. I did not see one benchmark on the page, just a reviewer. bitlocker has encryption. how could anyone miss something as trivial as that?

[sc0pl355]

2) That's right, it doesn't emulate

6) Orly? snipurl. c o m / sl60v Popular Mechanics calls you a liar.

7) You didn't see a benchmark? Gee, all those bars with numbers comparing OSX to Windows 7... those are benchmarks

[sc0pl355]

Why is bitlocker relevant at all?

[ASCII808]

the it comparison website said bitlocker has no encryption.

2. it emulates the Windows api using hacked libraries (DLLS) in a compatibility layer. the name is very misleading, not surprised you got it wrong. 6. the specs of the machines were not the same, and bloatware slows down Windows. it was not an equal comparison.

7. which site? the it comparison site only compared features.

[sc0pl355]

2) Calling wine an emulator is the same as calling windows vista a XP emulator.

6) Look again. there were several tests with numerous computers. Including a PC laptop with more ram and the same specs as the Mac Laptop. Also, look at how badly the gateway got whooped. Seriously, the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 is not THAT big. Also, the GW had MORE RAM.

7) READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. they have benchmarks, not only on the page I posted but throughout the whole damn thing.

[ASCII808]

2. Wine is an emulator because it emulates the Windows API.

6. the bench is fail, the macs had better hardware than the Pc's, and the vista machines had really bad drivers from the look of it.

[ASCII808]

seems like bull for an x3100 to get a much higher score in cinebench, and get the same scores in open gl games in mac and Windows, bunch of bullshit. cinebench is a crappy benchmark, or bad drivers were used.

[sc0pl355]

2) no, it isn't an emulator. it is translating the calls into something Apple's API's can understand.

6) Macs had better hardware? What report did you read? Gateway ONE had far more ram, the same videocard and so on. The Asus had more ram, a better videocard THE SAME processor speed and so on.

Sure, the ONE had a slightly slower processor, but not THAT slow.

[sc0pl355]

oop, asus had slightly less ram. but still. those are the results that you get when you test on separate machines.

So which is it? Different machines or the same machine?

[ASCII808]

I don't know, cinebench seems inconclusive, it seems to favor certain hardware configurations in each Os. only way to know for sure are productivity tests, in a large number of apps, and observe the Os's like I/O management. another part are ports. some ports suck more than others. Firefox on Windows uses tons of ram. and not so much on OSX.

Oh and yeah, why can't I delete in Leopard, not fixed? why can't apple fix it? its pretty lame like explorer not being able to open over 80 windows.

[sc0pl355]

you can delete in leopard dude. stop being silly.

Stop being angry because OSX is different from windows.

[ASCII808]

6. better motherboard perhaps, faster ram perhaps, some other factors as well like how each Vista install was set up. If you want to do benchmarks against your macbook again sure, I don't care if I lose.

about processors, the processor itself is not much faster, but freeing up the bottleneck its caused on all the other components will increase speed dramatically. like how SSd increases speed of opening applications, and responsiveness. the processor is a very important component + motherboard

[sc0pl355]

6) The ram on the macbook was 667 mhz. stop making excuses.

'If you want to do benchmarks against your macbook again sure,'

Sure, go get a PC laptop with the same hardware setup as my macbook. Same processor speed. Same ram speed and type, same videocard and so on.

6a) oh, come on. first you complain when they are tested on the SAME hardware, using the SAME software, now you complain when the OS isn't using bootcamp drivers...

Here's an idea. Perhaps Leopard isn't as slow as you thought.

[ASCII808]

6. I don't trust bootcamp, all I see is issues with it. I never said the ram was faster, I said perhaps. Pc laptops, or Vista was bloated. I don't own Vista, but when I did use it with trial software galore it was extremely slow and unbearable. I Vlited and reinstalled it and it was much faster than before.

6. Quicktime is optimized on the Mac Os, its cheating.

I don't have the exact the same hardware, so I can't really bench you fairly unless you have a 9600m gt it would be close.

[sc0pl355]

6) Trusting and capability are two different things.

6a) So? Like cinebench and COD4 aren't optimized for windows. Give me a break man

6b) Nope, i have a 9400m

[ASCII808]

6a) Cod4 is emulated with Wine/Cider, their is no native port. Don't run cinebench.

6b) yeah I know a macbook has a 9400m. Weird though, I guess its 12 second shutdown, the Rtm seems to run more smoothly but the boottime, and shutdown time seems to be longer, can be tweaked with regedit. other than that the test is inconclusive, you should try sunnz test.

[sc0pl355]

6a) Cider is a implemented compatibility layer, not an emulator. if it WERE an emulator, than the scores would be a huge embarrassment for windows because emulators routinely take a HUGE performance hit.

6b) Good that you know.

lol at you having to tweak this and nudge that. May as well hand vista a pair of crutches while you're at it. you can tweak OSX to get better boot times and shut down too. a proper test shows out of the box performance.

[ASCII808]

I also can get windows 7 upgrade for 30$

[sc0pl355]

I can get a stand alone copy of SL at NORMAL RETAIL PRICE for less than $30

Also this

snipurl. c o m / sl8i8

snipurl. c o m / sl8j8

snipurl. c o m / sl8k7

[sc0pl355]

OH, also you can set up the trackpad so that the LOWER RIGHT corner area is right click too.

Pleas stop complaining about trivialities

[sc0pl355]

'yes but to run the Os you have to buy a intel mac'

THE TEST WAS DONE ON THE SAME HARDWARE!

It was a TEST to see which operating performed better at WHAT.

I ALREADY HAVE a few Macs that can run snow leopard. SL costs $25. Live with it.

[sc0pl355]

1) Organize your stuff while you download.

2) As I recall, you used a emac. The red-headed step-child of the mac family. Works fine on all my macs.

3) No.

[AppleSoldier]

lol your crazy dude. your using tiger and XP? lolol both are 5 years old and xp is older than that. HOW ABOUT WE CONCENTRATE ON MODERN OS'S? lol. XP cant use over 4gb of RAM and xp64 was AWFUL. you guys comparing xp and tiger? lol its a waste. Compare vista and SL. but you dont want to do that do you? why? CAUSE VISTA SUCKS!!

[ASCII808]

I don't own Vista or SL.

[techguy1995]

lol old for me is 486 XD.

[ASCII808]

That is pretty old :)

[commodore256]

What program are you using to convert those videos?