Having Fun with tests

this video is a response to sunnz who asked for some tests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNqz9D8mDI

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• liquid
• cooled
• vs
• air
• e6400
• pc
• apple
• mac
• pro

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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) 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.

[sc0pl355]

you can delete in leopard dude. stop being silly.

Stop being angry because OSX is different from windows.

[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.

[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