A computer with a $ 1,530 AMD has crushed a $ 5,600 Mac Pro in design.
How many times have we heard that a Mac is much better to design? Finally we will be able to demonstrate, through data, that this is totally false. I know that it may be true if we compare an average Windows computer (with a price of around 400 or 500 euros, with obviously low benefits) with an average Mac computer (which does not drop below 1,300 euros).
Without a doubt Intel has been the king in the world of processors (for computers, of course). But now the throne may wobble after AMD’s Ryzen unveil. This latest processor unveiled by the company in November is based on the AMD Zen architecture. It has 8 cores and 16 processing threads, in addition to a 3.4 GHz frequency. Tests state that AMD is taking leaps and bounds: it wins by the thousandth, and in every respect, alIntel Core i7-6900K, one of the best from Intel.
And not only does it win in benefits, but it also comes out three times cheaper. And is that the Intel Core i7 costs from 1,100 to 1,400 euros (depends on the market), while the AMD Ryzen costs only 400 euros.
AMD wins in terms of graphic design
Thanks to a comparison of a YouTube user We have been able to see how the AMD Ryzen 1700 fulmina in terms of graphic processing refers to a Mac Pro It costs almost four times more, as Xataka has reflected. The results are simply amazing and of course, very interesting on a technical level.
In the video we can see, specifically, a MacPro with 8 cores running at 3 GHz and 64 GB of RAM compared to a AMD Ryzen 1700. The latter also has 8 cores running at 3 GHz, but with 16 GB of RAM. We must point out that if you wanted to expand those 16 GB to the 64 that the Mac incorporates, you would need only about 250 dollars more.
Let’s go with the numbers: the $ 6,500 Mac Pro takes almost 15 seconds in doing a task that AMD Ryzen 1700 takes just 8.8 seconds. In short, with the AMD Ryzen 1700 the same task is performed as with the Mac Pro (which costs 3.6 times more) but 1.7 times faster.
If we squeeze the AMD a little more and put it at 3.5 GHz, we will have to we can do it in 7.7 seconds, which is summarized in 1.95 times faster. If it costs 3.6 times more expensive, it would make sense for it to perform the tasks almost four times faster too, but as we can see, it is totally false, or at least in this case.