Jump to content

hackintosh's faster than real macs?


mlmorg
 Share

35 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

This question has been lingering for a while now.

 

Every real mac that I've used, like a macbook pro, macbook, etc. has always been WAY slower than my pitiful amd 64 3200 hackintosh (lots of stalls, rainbow cursors, etc.) I don't know if it's my friends and them having tons of {censored} on their computers (which some of them do, but most don't) but it doesn't make sense to me that they would be slower. My chip is so old compared to these new intel core 2 duos, is it possible that at times my machine can work faster than others? Do real macs have bloatware? Am I just imagining this?

 

Thanks, Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How comparable is the Hack, RAM wise, video card wise, HD wise?

 

I have a second machine that has that same processor, 2G RAM, and a Geforce 6800 and it still seems sluggish compared to the MBP I have played with in the local computer store.

(Not much of a test but general feel.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh sorry forgot about that haha

 

its got 2gigs, geforce 6600 pcie, 7200 ide perp 320gig from seagate

 

the only thing that would be better is the 7200 HD, don't see how that would make much of a difference though.

 

maybe im just imaging, or my friends have lots of {censored} on their computers, but it never seems like they do

 

i don't know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh sorry forgot about that haha

 

its got 2gigs, geforce 6600 pcie, 7200 ide perp 320gig from seagate

 

the only thing that would be better is the 7200 HD, don't see how that would make much of a difference though.

 

maybe im just imaging, or my friends have lots of {censored} on their computers, but it never seems like they do

 

i don't know...

Hard drive speed and RAM make a bigger difference than CPU speed in terms of OS responsiveness. If they have slower hard drives and not enough RAM, that can make the computer seem MUCH less responsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi mlmorg:

 

I ran X-Bench on my OSx86 PC at Home and the benchmarks were very similar to Mac Mini Core Solo (which isn't as fast as Core Duo -- of course).

 

Still I was fairly happy with the results since I had built my OSx86 on the "cheap". Specs were very similar except for my PC had 1GB and the mini had only 512MB. We are both running Tiger (I'm running 10.4.6).

 

XBench - The only benchmark you'll ever need

 

--danyel :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I built a machine. The XBench scores for my Core2Duo beat the old Mac Pro, when HD speed wasn't counted at least. The current system HD is ancient, since I could repartition an empty drive for the Master Boot Record partition set.

 

Perhaps EFI has an overhead, or the hacks remove some sort of protection that takes it's toll on the hardware. Vista added driver->hardware polling much more often as a part of it's DRM scheme, and I'm told that it slows things down quite a bit. Maybe hacked kernels remove something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I built a machine. The XBench scores for my Core2Duo beat the old Mac Pro, when HD speed wasn't counted at least. The current system HD is ancient, since I could repartition an empty drive for the Master Boot Record partition set.

 

Perhaps EFI has an overhead, or the hacks remove some sort of protection that takes it's toll on the hardware. Vista added driver->hardware polling much more often as a part of it's DRM scheme, and I'm told that it slows things down quite a bit. Maybe hacked kernels remove something similar.

 

Was everything but the HD the same? Same CPU, FSB, RAM, RAM speed, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got severall G4 and a pentium D925 system with 2GB, the last one is the slowest one, but is the onlyone who runs vista and OSX in the same time.

 

I don't know why, but the old G4 machines are still performing better as many new PC's with vista.

 

My next machine will be an Apple, it's less nois and more stable.

Apple rocks!!!

 

If you really want speed, buy an 8core mac!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that my own experience is that my hacintosh is faster than my g4, but the specs are different.

I think people should focus more on the stability of the systems, speed seems to vary dependent on your particular hardware rig.

7200RPM hard drives make a large difference from 5400RPM ones, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had said before the site got hacked that i guess i probably just don't look at the specs of the macbooks and macbooks pro closely enough

 

obviously most macbooks and macbook pros will be 5400, not 7200 like mine

 

also they probably more likely have 1gb instead of 2gigs like mine...although when i upgraded from 1 gig i didnt see much of a difference speed wise

 

maybe there is no real difference and i just have been partial to my computer...anyway, will definitely keep this in the back of my mind when i go on others to see i could be right in some instances

 

thanks all

 

*btw* frizbot what did you say before the site when down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a LOT of spinning wheels on the Minis/MBs as well.. none on the hackintosh. But that's easy to explain: MBs, Mac Minis and iMacs do *not* run the Intel Desktop CPUs (at present: Conroe) but rather its mobile siblings, Yonah and Merom.. Minis were still running on obselete Yonah Duos well into 2007 while the rest of the fam was upgraded to Meroms (which weren't all that much faster than the yonah but deliver the true 64-bit [EM64T] instruction sets). So for anything except the Mac Pro across the board the accompanying mobile/express chipsets are also noticeably slower. Of course they also use slower RAM, slower disks, etc.. but in short we're comparing notebook/mobility components (across all but the Mac Pro) to desktop components.

 

So in a nutshell:

Yonah = Mobility Core Duo

Merom = Mobility Core 2 Duo

Conroe = Desktop Core 2 Duo

 

I have a 1GHz G4, a Core Duo Mac Mini (Yonah) and a Core 2 Duo MB (Merom)... all which are annihilated by my Conroe E6320.. even my old Prescott 3.4GHz system will smoke the mini's Yonah (and of course smoking a 1GHz G4 goes w/o saying.. that's a very, very old CPU).

 

That said, the Mac Pros [Woodcrest] can't be beat - dollar for dollar they're as good as it gets. Price/Performance sweet spot for a hackintosh would be a core 2 quad (Q6600, 8MB L2, $485) and a 512MB 7950 ($300).. dropping those on any decent 965/975 mobo w/ 4+ gigs of 1066MHz ram would perform well into Mac Pro territory at most tasks and definitely come in @ well below half the cost.. probably below a third..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the meroms were inherently slower than their same conroe counterparts...but if you say so!

 

I always thought the older meroms were just slower because the motherboards out for meroms weren't horrible...but not so for conroe. Now, with the intel boards out I thought the merom was fast again...but I guess not.

 

Even though, I wouldn't have thought an amd 3200 could beat a merom...but youre right, i probably wasn't taking into full account the ram and slower hard drive speeds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used the macbooks - and they are fast. MUCH faster than my G4 1.5 powerbook. They are faster than any other laptops that I've tried.

 

But let's compare apples to apples (ha ha) You really can't compare a G4 to a conroe. You really can't compare an overclocked conroe to a mini. How about some similar hardware comparisons ?

 

An Imac to a conroe box with similar clock speeds, HD's and memory - that's a real test.

 

I have seen posts where members have had their overclocked conroes beat high end mac pro's in xbench scores. Now that's useful information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Merom vs. Conroe (or Mobility vs. Desktop):

merom uses 166mhz x4 to yield a 667mhz cpu bus

conroe uses 266mhz x4 yielding a 1066mhz cpu bus

...so yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the two.

 

I can get xbench scores for the following (if I nag the friends/fam):

conroe 1.83 @800 on i945 (2GB @667MHz)

e6320 (1.83 @1066) on i975x (4GB @800MHz)

e6600 (2.4 @1066) on P965 (2GB @800MHz)

 

But again Mac Pro withstanding, dollar for dollar there's no comparison. A hackintosh will do better at half the cost (even on paper the CPU/RAM/Video components will be better).

 

 

Example:

 

Mac Mini:

1.83GHz Merom

512MB PC2-5300, 80GB 2.5" <1.5Gbps SATA, (GMA950)

$799

 

iMac 2.16Ghz Merom: $1500-$2000 (20"-24", 1GB, X1600/NV7300)

 

Hackintosh Mini-Killer:

MSI GM3 w/ Conroe 1.83GHz + Inwin mini-tower

2GB PC2-6400, 320GB 3.5" 3Gbps SATA, Pioneer 112D, (GMA950)

$400

 

Hackintosh Midrange vs. iMac (same as above except for):

Decent P965 mobo upg +$75

E6600 upg +$100

Half decent 256MB video card (eg NV7900 [better than iMac]) +$200

Total: $760

 

Hackintosh Performance Rig vs. anything:

Antec P180 Mid Tower $130

Gigabit GA-965P-DQ6 $235

Core 2 Quad Q6600 $485

512MB BFG 7950 GT OC $280

4GB Fast PC2-6400 $300

320GB Sata $100

Pioneer 112DBK $40

Total: $1570

 

(Decent 20" +$260)

(Dell 2407WFP +$600)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've read somewhere (but that was when the mac pro was just released) that if you buy a dell with the same specifications as the mac pro, that the dell would be a lot more expensive. Dell even confirmed that.

 

You guys are comparing a computer that you buy from a company to a computer that you make yourself with parts from the local computer shop. Of course are those 'home made' computers a lot cheaper (and most of you guys don't even mention the price of a screen and keyboard and OS etc (i know we don't pay for that ^_^ , but if you buy a mac, you pay for the OS). But they are ugly like {censored} and they have cables everywhere and are very large)

 

But i admit that apple really waits tooooo long to update their computers. For exemple the iMac, that is a really expensive machine if you look at the hardware, but that's because it isn't updated since Septembre. Therefore, if you want a new imac, wait until they upgrade him (i will do that, but i'm waiting for 2 months already :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say for the money for Mac Pro, you can get much better hardware so it surely would beat Mac Pro badly.

Not this again...lol. You're wrong. For the money of a Mac Pro, you can't build anything that will beat it. Go look at the first 3-4 pages of GeekBench scores and tell me if you see anything other than "Mac Pro 8-Core." If you're talking about buying comparable components, they will end up being just as much as a Mac Pro, sometimes even more. Remember you have to compare apples to apples, or dual CPU Xeon 5000 series board with two woodcrests, not a 965P with a single processor slot and 4 RAM slots and a single Conroe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I included the screens at the bottom.. didn't include mouse keyboard because I had to buy 3 sets of those w/ all the mini's my family has purchased.. also remember both Minis and Pro prices don't include screens either.

 

I'm a big iMac fan, owning one, and Mac Pro fan (and recommend Mini's to most looking for a PC upgrade). But playing devil's advocate to your quote "But they are ugly like {censored} and they have cables everywhere and are very large)"

 

Regarding "very large": My Shutlle SD39P2 supports 4 cores in 1/6th the footprint of a Mac Pro (and is sexy as all hell).. so no hackintosh has to be large (http://us.shuttle.com/barebone/Models/sd39p2.html), its a personal choice.

 

Regarding cables: I'm using the Apple bluetooth keyboard/mouse.. prior to which I had both Apple wired keyboard/mouse. How is this any different? IMO cables are 100% user budget/issue, there's actually more wireless devices available to hackintoshes than there are legit Macs. That and I've seen many Mac Mini's with 10+ cables jammed into the rear, same applies to iMac and Mac Pro

 

I'm w/ you on Mac quality/design/etc.. and you're correct, when the Mac Pro was introduced you could not build a cheaper equiv. (even at Dell.com)..

 

 

In response to an earlier post about comparing apples-to-apples.. A conroe will outperform a merom, a p965 chipset can dance circles around a mobility chipset and desktop ram/disk is faster than the mobile equiv. The only point I was trying to make is its easy to smoke a mini/imac w/ desktop components because they are simply faster (and hotter, and consume more power, etc).. the fact that they cost less is a perk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I lost the reply with benchmark results with the insanelyhacked problem, making my claim "my computer is teh fast" pretty weak. I'll quickly rehash the results.

 

JaS 10.4.8. Core2Duo 1.8 IIRC (Thermalright 120-extreme passive) @ 1.066ghz bus +4% overclock, 2GBx2 (3gb usable due to 32bit system), GMA950 @ 1920x1200 VGA, 945 (d945gcl), and an old slow HD since it could be repartitioned. In XBench 1.3, with lots of stuff running and the HD test disabled, IIRC I had a score of 149.89. Currently in that test, with only a couple things open, I have a score of 155.57 arbitrary bogounits. The Mac Pro is currently averaging 156 (it was 154 when I posted my lost reply). There are Mac Pros in the official list with results over 200, yet there are also ones scoring much lower than mine. Obviously, the HD I have in here is beaten by things like the "3GHZ 4GB 2x500GB stripe" machine at 141.92 "units", and I get 120 units with it included now that the test is working. With the Quartz test disabled as well, I'm at 161.25 units, since we already know GMA950 < GeForce 7300. I have a 7600GT available, but I don't need a hot noisy videocard in this machine yet. Someone unlock real overclocking in the D945GCL, and I'll see what this system can do.

 

That's the basis for my theory that the hacked software could be faster. Vista added lots of driver hardware polling things for it's DRM-type security, so maybe the official OS X has something similar, or EFI has a huge overhead, I simply wouldn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current hackintosh is faster than most consumer Apple Macs, but slower than most Mac Pros. I consider that 100% successful :) My hackintosh scores 142 on xbench 1.3 (everything enabled,) competitive with a similarly equipped Mac Pro in everything but the Thread Test where is gets slaughtered. I am not sure exactly what threading measures, but since the Mac Pro is using Xeons and a server class motherboard and I am using a gaming motherboard with a C2D processor I am not losing any sleep over it.

 

For comparison, I benchmarked my 24" iMac and it only scored 118 with xbench 1.3 (everything enabled.) It has slightly slower processor cores, but a marginally better graphics card. The RAM is slower and the hard disk is slower on the iMac too, which hurts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hackintosh - xbench: 99 geekbench: 1870

My CD imac 1.83 - xbench: 121 geekbench: 2127

 

My hackintosh fares pretty damn well IMO as it only has one core. I would upgrade my hackintosh more (better HD, PCI-E graphics) but I don't need to for what i use it for. I'm sure with a graphics and HD upgrade my hackintosh will be nearly on par with my core duo iMac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Very interesting topic

 

just for {censored} and giggles

 

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/13885

 

if it dont show up my hackintosh scores a 2289 on geekbench. not bad for a lowly pentium 4. i dont have a 'real' mac handy to compare to at the moment.

 

but i think its also since we have regualr mobos with bios we can overclock the {censored} out our hackintoshes yielding better performance from our machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...