4 ms·
>that trounces all the results we've mentioned here somehow.[1] MacOS, being unix based, has a decent thread scheduler - unlike windows 10/11, which is based o
by DarkmSparks 5y ago
>that trounces all the results we've mentioned here somehow.[1]
MacOS, being unix based, has a decent thread scheduler - unlike windows 10/11, which is based on windows NT and 32bits, and never cared about anything other than single core performance until very very recently.
- kbenson 5y agoIf that's true it puts a lot of comparisons into question. That windows multiprocessing isn't as good as MacOS doesn't matter to a lot of people that run neither. There's not a lot of point in using these benchmarks to say something about the hardware if the software above it but below the benchmark can cause it to be off by such a large amount.
- DarkmSparks 5y agoMost comparisons have always been questionable. Main reason MacOS gets away with charging so much more for similar hardware and still dominates the productivity market is it squeezes so much more performance (and stability) out of equivalent hardware. Just check the geekbench top multithread scores, windows starts around the 39th _page_ - and thats for windows enterprise.