11 ms·
$1600 Ryzen PC has double performance in Photoshop than $5200 Mac Pro
- daenney 9y ago> But how does Apple’s flagship desktop system compare to new, much less expensive, AMD Ryzen based systems? Well, according to this test from Tech Guy, extremely well. That statement doesn't seem to follow the rest of the article. The Mac Pro doesn't compare that well at all. In the test provided it performs significantly worse while being 3.5x more expensive.
- Flammy 9y agoThis probably shouldn't be too surprising given: 1) Apple's pricing model ('high margin' is an understatement) 2) The Mac Pro GPU was released in late 2013. The 1080 is a much more recent GPU. This is all before looking at CPU differences.
- HorizonXP 9y agoIn the video in the link, it was concluded that the GPU did not affect the test, and it seemed to be CPU-bound. Actually, to me, the issue is more so that it's not truly verifiable that Photoshop is running the same instructions on Mac vs. PC. A better test would be to use GIMP, and use strace to confirm that the same code branches are being executed. That said, your statement is correct. A 2017 CPU vs. a 2013 CPU isn't going to fare well, clock-for-clock, given that IPC usually get better. That difference in performance will be exacerbated if the software takes advantage of the newer instruction sets too.
- microcolonel 9y agoIf this filter is written in C/C++, then LLVM would probably have the advantage over MSVC. If this filter is written with Halide, then they should be running nearly identical code. Also, strace is only really going to show you system calls, which should not be relevant to straight-line code.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jimmies 9y agoAlthough having performance is nice, I don't think people buy Mac computers for performance. It's known that Mac computers are a couple of times more expensive than PCs running Windows for the same performance. I can understand that: I personally wouldn't care if I have to wait 15 seconds or 8 seconds to get an effect in PS rendered. I would care much more if my computer crashes or gets infected with malware or has its hard drive crashed, or wouldn't be able to get support if something happens to it. Windows users have to be much more careful about those issues than Mac users. Those are the things that Apple computers excel at. And that's from the mouth of someone that uses GNU+Linux.
- TTPrograms 9y agoThis model of Apple/Microsoft comparison is approximately 5-10 years out of date. MacOs has become a sweeter malware target, and Windows has hardened up since XP. Similarly, OS stability is not clearly dominated by one or the other in their latest offerings.
- jimmies 9y agoHaha, maybe I'm out of date. I know that Microsoft has stepped up on their game, but I figure I can share my anecdotal experience. One year ago I was trying to get Windows 10 or something going on my computer as a backup system. So I was googling a relatively popular freeware program (can't remember what it was) and tried to install it from a popular google search that appeared innocent (like softonic or something). Immediately after installing that I've got a computer with pop-ups and toolbars on my browser (just because I forgot to click Advanced install when I was installing it). It was awful - so I figured I can't be alone. It's more of the practice of the software developers on Windows more than it's the actual core of it. But I don't think the average Joe cares who is at fault - he only knows that his computer is shitty at the end of the day.
- tracker1 9y agoI've seen similar malware target Firefox on macOS (been a while, but I have seen it).
- jordache 9y agowho is actually buying new mac pros? Please speak up
- rleigh 9y agoThere are no new mac pros, just old and very old. (Mostly joking, but there's little justification for a "current" outdated mac pro with the competition offering a much better machine for a vastly lower price. At work, we were told last week that we were no longer allowed to purchase Apple hardware because the cost/benefit no longer justified the price premium. That wasn't from the management either, they were just the messengers; it was from the academic funding bodies which finance our research. And to be honest, it's difficult to disagree with their assessment; they aren't wrong.)
- skyyler 9y agoIs this a big surprise? A brand new, cutting edge processor outperforms an Ivy Bridge Xeon. Mac Pros are older hardware right now. They haven't really been updated in four years. I've seen rumours that they're coming out with a new one next year. Side note: I don't feel like the cost comparison is fair, here. A large portion of the cost of the Mac Pro goes towards the design of the thing. Having a small, arguably aesthetically pleasing object on a desk vs even a Mini-ITX case is a no-brainer for a lot of creative folks. The Ryzen PC didn't include the cost of the power supply, case, OS, storage (seriously one of the big selling points of the Mac Pro is the PCIe flash storage)! The Mac Pro is definitely a failure, it failed to capture the attention of its target market. Why not focus on the real shortcomings? The high cost is only a small part of why that device will probably forever be known as Apple's trash can that should have seen the trash.
- redsummer 9y agoYou should pay less for that awful constrictive design. Apple's product history is littered with failures due to design-led development. G4 cube, round mouse, tube-shaped Trashintosh. Any time the object is based on a standard shape like a circle, cube, or tube you know it will fail. I'm surprised Ive hasn't done a globe yet.
- mikenew 9y agoDon't forget the mouse that can only be charged when it's flipped upside down.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2048 9y agoand you can only right click when you lift up your other finger
- killwhitey 9y agoThe iMac G4 could be described as half of a globe.
- ericjang 9y agoIs it a fair comparison if the operating systems are different? A more adequate comparison would be if the Photoshop benchmark were run on a Mac Pro running the same Windows OS via Boot Camp.
- wvenable 9y agoFair but probably not reasonable. Mac Pro users will be using OS X and PC users will be running Windows. This is what most people would experience. I suspect there isn't any difference but if OS X eats up that much more performance that really should still be another mark against the Mac Pro.
- stale2002 9y agoOr how about the AMD computer running as a hackintosh.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoAFAIK, OS X doesn't have any chipset drivers for non-intel CPUs.
- hoodoof 9y agoIt's going to take many years of constant updates of hardware for me to trust that Apple has changed its spots regarding the Macintosh. I don't think that personal computers are really in Apple's organisational DNA any more as a priority.
- georgespencer 9y agoAgreed. There's been some disappointment in Intel's roadmap for Apple, but if you look at the facts as they stand today: 1. iMac - nothing since October 2015 (545 days since update vs. average of 317 days) 2. 12" MacBook - now coming up to a year old (April 2016) 3. MacBook Air - dead (or at least >2 years since an update) 4. Mac Mini - last updated October 2014 When Phil Schiller says that Apple as an organisation is made up of pro users, prior to the long overdue MacBook Pro update from last fall, what do you think they were using? Two year old iMacs? Years-old MacBooks Pro?
- hoodoof 9y agoAnd it's not only about frequency of updates. I only buy Mac Mini - and I don't want a computer that has the RAM soldered down and I don't want anything that prevents me upgrading or replacing individual broken components. Apple's level of lock in is just too much.
- Imagenuity 9y agoI agree with the Mac Mini only, for the reason it can be upgraded. I've added 16GB RAM and dual storage with an SSD & HDD. Runs current macOS great, despite being a mid-2011 model. Now a refresh that supports 4K & 5K displays along with updated CPU/GPU would be my wish.
- tracker1 9y agoI wish Apple would just switch to an itx/matx form factor for "Mac" and "Mac Pro" models... then include a $300 "core" charge for replacement boards... that would allow someone to get a "replacement" mb, and run their own diy system with genuine MB, and cover Apple's dev costs for the OS/updates. Just hammer down on people selling diy macs... Apple can still sell their own, with beautiful cases, and make even more.. but keep the core very close to stock intel x86 beyond apple's custom firmware. That would keep pro users and diy happy... those willing to pay for apple-care get a current option, and Apple gets "pros" and developers creating content for iThings...
- redsummer 9y agoWhat kind of Hackintosh can you get for $1600? Not as good as the Ryzen of course, but it might be nearly as good as the $5200 Mac.
- seanalltogether 9y agoAre there any video editors left doing work on mac pros? I know this test was all about photoshop, but when talking about work that really needs to flex system muscle, is there anyone left in the mac pro space? All the illustrators and video guys I know are on pcs now, but I only have a small sphere to pull from.
- flukus 9y agoIs there any sort of cap where the amount of RAM makes no/little difference to video editing? Could video editing be done more efficiently by streaming more data (especially off SSD) instead of loading it into memory or is it a case of lazy developers? Genuine questions from someone with zero video editing experience.
- tracker1 9y agoWell, h.265 encoding alone in software is painfully slow, but better results than using nvenc... I use nvenc, because it goes 5-6x as fast. Video editing is bound to be worse considering the number of layers of audio/video, framing, transitions... with 4K being at least 4x the overhead of 1080p, and needing two screens to do it effectively (full-screen preview on one display), that's a LOT of overhead for a system. 4K is what's pushing GPUs to their limit today, let alone video editing's demands.
- makecheck 9y agoA couple of grains of salt to take with something like this: - Much older machines will naturally be slower hardware. - While “costs more the day you bought it” is certainly relevant, it is not an indicator of what you will spend over the life of the machine. The last Mac Pro I had lasted EIGHT YEARS and it still functioned when I replaced it. The PC statistically will probably be replaced at least once in that time, meaning that a simple price comparison is iffy at best.
- bingomad123 9y agoMac Pro are not expensive because they are better, they are expensive because well.. its Apple.
- tracker1 9y agoWell, regarding the laptops.. I have yet to use a better touchpad... I have a logitech keyboard for my htpc that is close, but the right click region is horrible and after 2 years is "loose"... beyond that, I like the aluminum unibody shell, but wouldn't mind a black anodized version. The touchpad is what kept me with a rMBP 2 years ago, today, would probably go with a different vendor.
- bingomad123 9y agoTouchpad on MBP use to be the best as you pointed out but Surface Pro's cheap dettachable keyboard too seems to match MBP touchpad these days.
- draw_down 9y agoDon't worry! A year from now they'll ship a new Mac Pro that only underperforms the cheap PC by 50% instead of 100%.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoFrom 15 seconds down to 9 isn't "double" the performance. Impressive, yes. But then there's the disingenuous comparison of paying full price for 64MB from Apple that nobody in their right mind ever pays. This article is a complete arithmetic failure.
- chmod775 9y agoHe got 7.8s with an overclocked Ryzen, which is where the "double" came from. And honestly whether you pay for the most expensive model of the Mac or not (I'm assuming you meant 64GB of RAM, not 64MB), the point of the article stands. Because where's the point in arguing over whether something is a 6x worse choice, or just a 4x worse choice. Meh.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoAnd you're arithmetically challenged. 7.8s is not half of 14.9s.
- xiaoma 9y agoThe question is, "How did he get Windows 10 for free on a custom machine?"