2007 Dual Core AMD vs. 1986 Mac

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you pit a brand new dual core AMD system against a 20 year old Mac Plus running every day tasks…who do you think would win? Hit the link and see for yourself.

In order to keep the hoots and hollers of "unfair comparison" at a minimum, we designed the tests to be as fair and equitable as possible. There was no point running PCMark or Sandra Sisoft-type benchmarks on the two computers as the AMD would have the Mac for lunch. We focused on running tests that reflect how the user perceives the computing experience.
Click to expand...
 
That is interesting...

Just goes to show you all of our faster computers are not getting us ahead because of more bloated software.
 
EXreaction said:
That is interesting...

Just goes to show you all of our faster computers are not getting us ahead because of more bloated software.
Click to expand...

When you look at a tiny subset of very narrowly defined office tasks that is true. Far and away it is not. I would shutter to think how long some of our alignment, database, sequencing, and modeling would take on a PC from just 10 years ago or even 5 years ago.

There is a reason why I can do all those things they did in the article on my smartphone were as I can't use even begin to work our alignment and sequencing programs.
 
The sort of comparisons they did were like comparing a 1927 Ford Model T to a modern day passenger car and saying "Looking they both seat four passengers, there has been no advance in technology!" Yes, many basic level things are the same. My Quad Core PC of today doesn't allow me to type any faster than I did on my Commodore VIC-20 from 25 years ago. But when it comes to number crunching, and getting real work done, there is simply no comparison.
 
I have to agree with Paul_Johnson and JethroXP. There test were too confined.

I like this comment
For the functions that people use most often, the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to 8!
Click to expand...

So most people only turn there machine on and use Word & Excel?

So I guess those that play games, process data, and surf the web are the minority of computer users?

Isn't the main push of Apple how you can make movies, music and graphics on a Mac? Wonder why if nobody does that with a computer.
 
Exavior said:
I have to agree with Paul_Johnson and JethroXP. There test were too confined.

I like this comment


So most people only turn there machine on and use Word & Excel?

So I guess those that play games, process data, and surf the web are the minority of computer users?

Isn't the main push of Apple how you can make movies, music and graphics on a Mac? Wonder why if nobody does that with a computer.
Click to expand...

LOL jeez guys chill out, the point they were trying to make is that for basic work required setups, computers haven't really advanced much.

Yes we have faster computers now, but things are bloated and start up times are now slower so in the end it all evens out.

Could the Mac from 86 beat out a 2007 Dual Core system? No.. but who the hell expects it to? Thats like saying why can't your Nintendo run Oblivion?

Computers replaced typewriters for work, yet in 20 years they haven't added any improvements to doing basic word processing. Hell I bet people use the computers to goof off more now than they did before, built in games like solitaire, and access to the internet for chatting / browsing.

Would the newer computer beat the crap out of the older one in lots of tests, sure would. But the fact that basic tasks and uses of the computer haven't advanced in 20 years is interesting.
 
jmackay said:
Could the Mac from 86 beat out a 2007 Dual Core system? No.. but who the hell expects it to? Thats like saying why can't your Nintendo run Oblivion?
Click to expand...

Ugh meant to say "in gaming or video processing".
 
This article can be summed up by saying that program load times SUCK. This has been a pretty significant problem ever since I got my first computer. While part of this can be blamed on bloated code, an even larger portion of it can also be blamed on the physical limitations of disk based hard drives. Non-sequential read rates for hard drives have not been keeping pace with the technological advancements made in other components such as processors and memory. Even worse, they have not been keeping pace with advancements in hard drive capacity. I doubt that 500GB hard drives are a full 100 times faster than 5GB models.
It will be many years before solid state storage digs us out of this hole.

However, I am curious about how they did the file save. A lot of those old computers get bogged down while navigating through folders containing lots of files.
 
I thought it was quite funny. Just look at the load times from OS 9 to OSX. It got so much slower in OSX.
 
Also, I think they should have used a new macPro instead of the AMD machine.

Then we could all use this as another opportunity to rip on Apple :D
 
I hate to say this but I would need some apples to apples testing done... : )-
 
Better idea: Create a custom brochure with custom graphics on both. Newer applications on the PC.

Photoshop & Microsoft Word

Who would win? The PC. Not only in speed, but in usability. The newer applications are slower because they have 100x more features that help productivity.

Go use old ass Word for DOS. It takes forever to do anything. Typing a letter, it's the same. Anyone can type a letter. You don't need much horsepower to do it. The reason Word 2007 is so much bigger and slower starting than Word for DOS is because you can do SO MUCH MORE!

This was a flawed experiment. Apples to Oranges. Of course there is going to be more code, and bloat, and less speed on startup. Let's run Word for DOS on a 10 year old PC, and Word for DOS on a Core2Duo. Apples to Apples.


Take a look at some other threads and articles that ask the question "When will software catch up to the hardware?". Well, they try to and get knocked down by people saying "Why is software getting bigger and having more features?" -- Because, you idiot! It's taking advantage of the faster hardware. We asked for it, we got it, now we bitch about it?!

Bad article, in my opinion. I wanted my fancy GUI, I wanted my full featured Word 2007, I wanted my fast 3D games. I wanted my software to use my hardware. I got it. If I wanted to use Notepad (which I do), and only Notepad, I'd use my 486 with Windows 3.11 still.
 
In absolute computing power exclusively measured in processor speed, AMD's combined 4.8GHz is 600 times faster than the Motorola.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after that lil piece of FUD. Only an idiot would add up CPU frequency for dual processors literally. Seriously a waste of my time.
 
Jeez guys, are you going to base your next PC purchase on this article?

step back, chill out, and take it for what it is... nostalgia.
 
uh, how bout opening some photoshop action, a few pdf's, some word and excel files and see how productive that bad boy is

wait, can it run adobe software?

agreed, total waste of time, damn propaganda
 
When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus it can be stated that for the majority of simple office uses, the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.
Click to expand...

It's hard that anyone could be so mind-numbingly stupi that they would make a comment like that.

I just mail-merged over 50,000 pages of documents for mailing. It took 2 minutes. How many days would it take on the Mac?

If the people that wrote that article are serious they make me pity the human race.
 
I can't believe some of you are taking this article seriously. Lighten up guys, it's a joke.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
When you look at a tiny subset of very narrowly defined office tasks that is true. Far and away it is not. I would shutter to think how long some of our alignment, database, sequencing, and modeling would take on a PC from just 10 years ago or even 5 years ago.

There is a reason why I can do all those things they did in the article on my smartphone were as I can't use even begin to work our alignment and sequencing programs.
Click to expand...

Yea really. I don't think the article was written well. Sure basic tasks will not get much faster. To say we haven't gotten more productive is a joke though.
 
I love how insecure some of the people on this site are. Besides, word and Excel probably are the most commonly used applications for computers.
 
FLECOM said:
actually yes... since a huge majority of computers are in the workplace
Click to expand...

But is that all you use at work?

Were I work it those programs are used but they aren't are main programs, they are used so little some machines don't even have Office installed or might only have a viewer. We have a few financial programs, CAD programs, mapping programs, various databases, various management programs for various pieces of equipment. Here recently I think i've seen more files exchanged as PDF than I have word docs, so you need Adobe Acrobat and other programs for making PDF files. Unless my workplace is a lot more unque than what I think it is, I would expect other companies to be using far more than just word and excel, thus making me still believe my statement. "So most people only turn there machine on and use Word & Excel?" Had the article made a statement about basic computing or something in regards to wanting to look at only the aspect of the movement from typewriters to computers then fine, however that isn't the case. They are claiming that this test represents the most used functionaly of a computer. Which at least based on my experience computers are used more than just as a replacement for a typewriter.

I completely agree with your post Ur_Mom and was thinking the exact same thing. Of course newer software with far more features is going to take up more memory and processing power. And as you said, it is getting more features as the hardware is giving us the ablity to get more features and run the software at pretty close to the same speed we did years ago.
 
Top uses of a home PC today?
email/chat
Website browsing
digital media encoding/decoding
gaming (primarily 3D)

Of those, the 1986 Mac is capable of editing email.
 
I'd say I use my PC mainly to browse and to watch anime.

The old mac certainly can't play 1080p h.264. :)
 
And horses are better than cars, if you just measure gas costs. For some reason, owning a computer makes people think they know something, versus owning a car where they would never lecture mechanics with broken arguments. (I know the article wasn't serious but some people do say similar things on the net, which is almost certainly where they got the idea.)
 
devil22 said:
And horses are better than cars, if you just measure gas costs. For some reason, owning a computer makes people think they know something, versus owning a car where they would never lecture mechanics with broken arguments. (I know the article wasn't serious but some people do say similar things on the net, which is almost certainly where they got the idea.)
Click to expand...

Nothing beats that fresh, New Horse Smell!
 
The whole point is about the bloat, and 50%(+) of the bloat on Windows Vista is Security and DRM.

For those of us in IT, almost all security has left us less productive, and spend more time trying to work around ill conceived security.
 
I think the real point of the peice is to highlight just how badly bloated and inefficient software has gotten.

From Windows itself (10 times the size the functionality requires if it were well written from a cleanslate) to the office applications.

A better comparison would be of similr applications on an Atari MegaST. That Mac plus cost $3499... the Atari was $1400. And the software equivalents cost equally less....some were far superior at the time as well... Calamus vs Word at the time was no contest.

But those older computers were testament to how much you could accomplish with so little in technical resources.

A modern system is orders of magnitude faster and more capable.... yet as the article points out, alot of our run of the mill activities aren't orders of magnitude more efficient.

Oh yeah, you cant compare web browsing ease at all... there WAS NO WEB. :eek: :p :D
 
swetmore said:
The whole point is about the bloat, and 50%(+) of the bloat on Windows Vista is Security and DRM.

For those of us in IT, almost all security has left us less productive, and spend more time trying to work around ill conceived security.
Click to expand...

Or a consumers illusion of security.

To me, the perfect security is secure yet transparent. You don't have to jump through hoops to be secure. It just is. Vista's security, while it works, is invasive. Not my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, I love Vista. It has a lot to offer me. There are a few things that I don't care for, and the security model and DRM are two.

For nostalgia, why not bust out an old C64 with tape drive. Talk about productivity...

Load "word" ,8,1

Run

Hell, I had Compuserve on my old C64 with a 1200 modem. So, basic email was available. Productive? No. Could it handle the basics? Yes. Could I do a graphical intense Word document? It'd take a few days for something that would take 15 minutes in Word 2007. I don't think productivity has suffered. Depends on what you are doing.
 
I thought it was funny.

I also thought it was a joke....I don't know what yall are getting all bent up about:p
 
I don't think this article says anything worthwile and its view is too narrow.

The differences in times are minimal and the difference in ammount of work being done is substantial. I'd also bet to bargin that these time are so close because there is hardly any room for improvement.


I do not understand the jump in category, if the old pc is a mac why isn't the new pc a mac? why not an older windows pc? heck for kick and giggles run the older windows on the newer hardware.

I don't understand the point of the article. The user experience scope has change drasticly since then. A perfect example would the the car. At one point and time we were just happy to get in a vehicle that went from point a to point b. Of the rarity of cases where that is still true today we'd reqire power stearing, power breakes and at least a radio. Can you imagin buying a car that had no radio it was hard to turn and stop?
 
I'd love to see the times it would take if Windows XP were written in assembly. On that AMD, I'm wagering it would be much faster and uber cool to boot.

XP Assembly Edition. Now we're talking!
 
devil22 said:
And horses are better than cars, if you just measure gas costs. For some reason, owning a computer makes people think they know something, versus owning a car where they would never lecture mechanics with broken arguments. (I know the article wasn't serious but some people do say similar things on the net, which is almost certainly where they got the idea.)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if I can say this for all of us at [H], but many of us are THE "computer guy" in the family. We usually have at least several builds under our belts, and have routinely and painfully fixed [insert cousin/nephew/etc.]'s computer many times. I would think that with this experience we have the right and the expertise to debunk an article that is full of fallacies, such as this one.

Now, I'm talking about BUILDING computers. You are right--owning one gives you no right. But when you have built many, many computers, I certainly think we have the ability and competency to call out an article when it is clearly wrong.
 
FLECOM said:
actually yes... since a huge majority of computers are in the workplace
Click to expand...

I agree.
What I am curious is if anyone compared the productivity of the 1986 version of these products with the 2007 version.
 
alright guys well i guess you can have the "winner" and i'll just go ahead here and take the Athly with me

lol interesting article none the less
 
i agree with everyone here that the article is stupid.

but, had this been Mac vs. Mac we'd be singing a different tune....."mac's sucked then as much as they do now", and all sorts of other goodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top