No matter which three-legged sentry turret you pick,
Steam games run fine if it houses a decent graphics card. That said, stick this in your breech and shoot it -- the latest edition of Valve's hardware survey shows the glossy white Apple models outgun Windows counterparts in a number of areas. Whereas the majority of Windows PCs have 2GB or 3GB of memory, 53 percent of Macs sport 4GB of RAM -- though that's likely attributable to the popularity of 32-bit OS. While 17 percent of Windows users are also stuck with a single CPU, over 90 percent of Macs running Steam have a dual-core... and internet connectivity's biased towards Mac gamers too, with 65 percent reporting download speeds over 2Mbit compared to under half of PCs. Of course, where it truly counts for games, Macs still sorely lag behind; the top six Windows GPUs reported are all capable performers, but only 32.5 percent of Macs surveyed had anything
but a bottom-barrel graphics card. Get with the times, Apple --
even your mobile guys know gaming's not a niche anymore.
[Thanks, Ryan B.]
posted June 10th 2010 1:31AM
This is such nonsense. So the Macs tested were using newer higher end expensive hardware compared to the average non-Mac which included netbooks and grandmom's hand-me-down.
The real question is, does the exact same or equivalent hardware run better in Windows 7 or OSX.
The answer is that video drivers for Windows 7 are lightyears ahead of OSX, and directx is the performance king for gaming, not to mention that the number of titles available for the Windows platform dwarfs OSX.
@Jack
I like how you tried to trump my entire argument that is backed up by fact, by saying you got an even better Mac for less - but it's used, so that doesn't count. Tard. Plus, I'd still be willing to bet mine gets far better Vantage 3D scores, because Apple's independent graphical rendering software sucks.
@Ducman69
@ShooterMcGavin
Yes, PCs are always going to be cheaper. I have now expanded my little expiriment to a custom build, a PC at BestBuy, and a Mac. For the EXACT same hardware, a custom build is $945, a PC is $1450, and a Mac is $3888. End.
@Joao Cagao
You're funny guy, that was an excellent comparison that made me see the error of my ways. I feel like a dumb for driving an Infiniti G35...
/sarcasm
Funny that they should use these two sentries to represent Macs and PCs. It's terribly accurate, see, the TF2 sentry (PC) can be upgraded constantly through many levels to be an utter beast of a machine. Meanwhile, you have all the Portal sentries (Mac) that are all pretty much just the same clean cut little clones of one another, with utterly minor changes between them :P
Too bad that in your analogy,
PC=BMW
Apple=hyundai
Funny that you think your'e driving a BMW while driving a Hyundai... Mac people are like that...
If this article was about cars it would read like this...
Oh yeah PC's are totally crappier cars... Check the statistics, more of the old PC's are on the road... But the Macs, are totally better, because only the new Macs are on the roads...
Oh and by the way, All PC's on steam come with fatter, stickier rubber... Macs are still driving around with thin, compound 700 tires, so statistically they're much slower on the racetrack...
But hey, let's make the title of this article "Macs are better cars than PC's"... Engadget FAIL.
"While 17 percent of Windows users are also stuck with a single CPU, over 90 percent of Macs running Steam have a dual-core..."
This is a misleading statistic - 17 percent of Windows users have a single core, compared to -10- percent of Macs. Doesn't seem like so big of a difference now, does it?
"Macs running Steam are more powerful than PCs, on average". This is very misleading and doesn't say anything. What are you trying to prove? Anything? Is there a point to this article at all? The amount of PCs vs the amount of Macs that use steam is so vastly different why would you want to compare the two based on averages? This doesn't make any sense.