Mac CPU vs PC CPU

DemonStacey

Hey guys!

First this is NOT a Mac vs PC debate thread!

Just a question!

Me and a friend of mine were talking about Macs and PCs.

He mentioned something about that macs use their processors differently than PCs in that they actively switch the majority of the processing power to the active document/program. to keep from getting bogged down on anything in the background. I thought this was something that PCs did as well and was just due to the CPU which wouldn't be different between a Mac and a PC.

I tried to google this but since I didn't know what it was called I didn't get very far.

Any one know the truths behind this? I just very curious about the technology.

syndalis

Each OS handles prioritization slightly differently, but mostly your friend is being a silly goose.

In truth, both Windows 7/8 and modern Mac OS's are 99% the same in terms of multitasking, sandboxing apps, etc.

jackal

This seems to be something going around. Someone said basically the same thing to me about Linux/Windows rather than Mac/Windows. I was all, "Nope," and he was all, "Yep."

Jasconius

at best, he is over-exaggerating a very minute difference between the two


there is no broad difference between the two, at least anything that actually impacts a typical user

Stormwatcher

That sounds like a terrible idea, anyway.

Dehumanized

Stormwatcher wrote: »

That sounds like a terrible idea, anyway.

Yeah. Modern processors and operating systems are very good at scheduling so that foreground processes are not starved while still letting background processing continue unimpeded. There's no particular need for the processor to drop everything because the user decided to switch focus from Word to Safari, and it'd be daft if the processor was allocated to reserve a set percentage of queue time for foreground processes.

bowen

They're also the same hardware, so it's strictly an OS' multitasking environment that's handling this.

Windows, Linux, and OSX all handle multitasking in very similar, and almost identical ways (round robin I think). Some OS are slightly more efficient than other ones, but when comparing all of the modern ones? You wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Obviously each one implements the process in similar but unique ways.

DemonStacey

Thanks all!

And for the record we were talking about at the highest end of the ridiculous spectrum, not for an ordinary user. Like someone who is using every program in their adobe suite and editing videos simultaneously or something.

bowen

Hm. I'd probably say mac might fare better there from a software standpoint, the suites have been on Mac longer? That'd be stretching it though.

Foomy

DaemonSadi wrote: »

Thanks all!

And for the record we were talking about at the highest end of the ridiculous spectrum, not for an ordinary user. Like someone who is using every program in their adobe suite and editing videos simultaneously or something.

well under that situation it probably wouldn't be the way the OS's handle CPU threads, but rather how they handle RAM allocation that would lead to any performance differences, OSX 10.4+ might get a slight edge here simply because it's only 64bit, and should have a higher chance of it's programs being 64-bit native with insanely high ram limits, a lot of programs on windows is still 32-bit, and have ram limits at 4gb.

but I'm not an expert on how OSX handles ram, and whether most of it's programs are 64-bit or not. so this would just be a guess.

DemonStacey

Seems about right.

I was saying that I don't think it would matter as the hardware is the same. But he was saying that Macs did something special that allowed them to specifically multi-task greater than a pc.

Dehumanized

Clearly, Steve Jobs lovingly crafted every CPU instruction by hand, while Microsoft used The Devil's x86 to compile their operating libraries.

DemonStacey

Dehumanized wrote: »

Clearly, Steve Jobs lovingly crafted every CPU instruction by hand, while Microsoft used The Devil's x86 to compile their operating libraries.

I gotta say though, the devil did a pretty good job!

MadCaddy

Yea, outside of minute differences to avoid patent infringement/IP violations, it's all dependent on the hardware/software involved, and then, you are being so specific as to lose any real value in a statement of "which is better".. I haven't fucked around with OSX much since the most recent update, so I'm not sure how it's memory prioritization has worked out, but I agree that it could have an edge just in the fact that Mac's are so much more protected, with 64 bit software exclusively modernly.. I do know that it was much different in the '90's with the high end Mac's for Graphics designers being STRICTLY better than their PC counterparts, but again, that was all about the partnerships the companies have, and the software in use. I believe also that Apple had superior pricepoints for enterprise graphics design gear...

Anyway, yea, your friend was being a goose. There's nothing inherently better for all purposes, and unless you could say a benchmark you'd specifically like tested, I'd just avoid having conversations like this, as people usually know only enough to be dangerous, and get biased towards their 'Mac/PC' roots. Now, if you wanna talk about the differences between Ubuntu, and Fedora.. I just found an interesting article about their kernal differences, and how it affects their memory usage.