From: Bruce.Weinel@p1.f456.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Bruce Weinel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:37:49

Several recent messages have debated Mac versus 486 performance and quoted
many
benchmark figures (Excel recalc, for example). Some have implied an advantage
to PC systems with one quote stating:

  IT> See my post elsewhere about some actual benchmarks using Excel. A 
  IT> 386SLC (16 bit bus) recalcs a sheet twice as fast in Excel as a IICi
  IT> does. A 486/25 will blow the ci out of the water.

Others have raised issues of the Mac's supposedly superior architecture, the
software advantage that is purported to exist due to a 68K having a more
rational
instruction set than an 8x86 and the application compatibility that may or may
not stem from Apple's tighter controls (of the Mac ROM API). All of these
points
are debatable, but ignore the central issue: Macs are more useful.

My desk has two keyboards and two NEC 5D monitors sitting side by side. One
system is a 486/33 with 16MB, coprocessed 1024x768x8-bit video, about 1 GB of
SCSI disks, Windows 3.1 and a full software suite (Excel, Word, Corel, MS
Project,
PowerPoint, PageMaker, Illustrator, et cetera). The other is a MacIIcx
upgraded
to 50MHz 68030 and 68882, with 32 MB, coprocessed 1152x870x24-bit video, about
1 GB of SCSI disk, System 7 and a similar suite (Excel, Word, Studio 32,
MacProject,
Persuasion, PageMaker, Illustrator, et cetera). Two more comparable machines
would be hard to define, but I find myself doing about 95% of my work on the
Mac. Why?

Benchmarks are meaningless. The only thing they prove is that the benchmark
process runs on both machines, not how usable the system is. For example, if
I chose Dhrystones and Whetstones as a basis then the Mac scores 200 to 450
TIMES the power of the PC! [hint: 486 FPU isn't wide enough for scientific
benchmarks]
But if I choose Excel recalcs then the Mac barely wins by about 20%. [I
suspect
the PC version has been crippled to use narrower reals and some integers]

Who cares! In GUI mode the Mac screen, in 24-bit mode, updates faster than the
PC in 8-bit mode (even though the PC uses a TM34010 at 50MHz). The Mac is also
hooked to BOTH 5Ds, the left one switches between PC and Mac, because a Mac
can support multiple monitors as a virtual desktop. Try to do this with
Windoze.
[BTW, the second Mac video is also accelerated with a 50 MHz AMD29000]

Bottom Line: Experience has shown that I'm four to ten times more productive
on the Mac. Things are better integrated. There's more built in (e.g. I didn't
have to buy a SoundBlaster Pro/MC to get stero sound, like on the PC). I have
had orders of magnitude fewer integration problems with removable hard drives,
8mm tapes, EtherNet adapters, flat bed scanners, CD ROM drives and all of the
other devices that keep PC systems houses in business.

If you like to twiddle with hardware and software then, by all means, buy a
PC. If you want to get more work done with fewer hassles then cough up the
money
for a Macintosh. Like everything else: TANSTAAFL.

 * Origin: Howls from "The Pit" BBS (03) 321-3295 (3:632/456.1@fidonet)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel