How fast is a Mac running Windows XP using Boot Camp compared to a Windows PC?

For all practical purposes, an Intel-based Mac running Windows XP is a Windows PC.

MacWorld installed Windows XP Pro using Boot Camp on an iMac "Core Duo" 2.0 20-Inch and a MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.16 15-Inch and compared these systems to a Dell Inspiron E1705, an HP Compaq nx9420, and an HP Pavilion a1250n. The iMac, Dell, and Pavilion systems have 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo (T2500) processors, and the MacBook Pro and HP Compaq systems have 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo (T2600) processors. All models were equipped with 1 GB of RAM and were running Windows XP Pro SP2, with the exception of the Pavilion model which was running Windows Media Center Edition.

The gritty details of tests in WorldBench 5, Multitasking, Windows Media Encoder 9, Roxio VideoWave, Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1, and Microsoft Office 2002 SP2 are provided in a chart for your perusal.

However, the short conclusion by the author is that "the Macs running Windows gave these PCs a run for their money, with the 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro turning in the fastest scores on three of the five individual tests. The build-to-order MacBook configuration also tied the 2.16 GHz HP Compaq in the sixth test, involving Roxio VideoWave."

C|Net's Alpha Blog also installed Windows XP Pro using Boot Camp on a MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.0 15-Inch. The bloggers then compared its performance to two other computers -- an Acer TravelMate 8200 and HP Pavillion dv1000t -- also with 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo (T2500) processors and Windows XP Pro.

The MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.0 15-Inch was equipped with "2 GB of DDR2 SDRAM (666 MHz); an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics card; and a 100 GB hard drive spinning at 5,400 RPM".

The Acer TravelMate 8200 had "2 GB of slightly slower DDR2 SDRAM (533 MHz); an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics card; and a slightly larger 120 GB hard drive spinning at 5,400 RPM." Complete configuration information is not provided for the HP system, but the author notes that it is included for "additional context".

Running an unspecified Photoshop CS task, C|Net reports that the MacBook Pro took 2.5 minutes to complete the test, the Acer took 2.7 minutes, and the HP took 3.19 minutes.

In "Sorenson Squeeze, Dr. Divx, and Cinebench, [that] all test encoding performance. . . The MacBook Pro running Windows XP delivers performance power that's identical to the PC competition."

CreativeMac compared the speed of the MacBook Pro "Core Duo" 2.16 15-Inch running both MacOS X and Windows XP to a handful of Windows PCs in a suite of Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, and Illustrator performance tests.

The article is extremely comprehensive, and should be read in detail, but the author concludes that:

We've seen now that the MacBook Pro is a viable machine, even when comparing it with high-end desktop systems running either MacOS X or Windows. The tests of Abobe software running under Windows shows the potential that this machine has for the time (whenever it may be) when Adobe gets around to porting its applications to the Mactel platform. This notebook not only holds its own against the titans of creative workstations, but in some cases it even beats them, regardless of which operating system you're running at the time. And it shows that, for those looking for an all-in-one multi-platform system, the MacBook Pro is up to the task like no other machine that's come before it.

Ultimately, as one would expect when practically identical hardware is compared running the same operating system, results are similar. If you need your Intel-based Mac to provide Windows performance comparable to other PCs on the market, these systems can deliver.

Also see: How does the performance of Parallels Desktop for Mac 5 compare to VMWare Fusion 3? How does the performance compare for productivity applications? How does it compare for games?

Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices