http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
Mac gets crushed. (sorry if someone else posted this)
Mac gets crushed. (sorry if someone else posted this)
ouchie...
- Thread starter Nummi_G4
- Start date
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
...And Mac apologists will have a zillion responses along the lines of "the tests were skewed towards the PC", "mhz doesn't matter'...blah blah blah...
Apple had better becomes at least competitive in Professional Performance of their desktops, or 2003 will be a very bad year for the Pro unit...
Apple had better becomes at least competitive in Professional Performance of their desktops, or 2003 will be a very bad year for the Pro unit...
kendall
Registered
Intel's Hyper-Threading technology is going to squash the dual processor myth Apple is trying to instill in PowerMac users.
Tom's Hardware also has a great review of the new P4 3.06GHz HT against a P4 3.6GHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021114/index.html
Wow Apple, not only are those MHz getting high but the technological advancements Intel is making sure are starting to put the G4 to shame.
I love Apple dearly and wouldn't trade my iBook for anything but when it comes to a desktop computer, I'd always choose a PC over a Mac. Pretty soon, no Photoshop benchmark in the world is going to save the Mac from a PC.
Don't forget my favorite part of the whole article.
Of course, Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if youre spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system youre using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, itll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC.
Whine about it all you want but its the truth.
Tom's Hardware also has a great review of the new P4 3.06GHz HT against a P4 3.6GHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021114/index.html
Wow Apple, not only are those MHz getting high but the technological advancements Intel is making sure are starting to put the G4 to shame.
I love Apple dearly and wouldn't trade my iBook for anything but when it comes to a desktop computer, I'd always choose a PC over a Mac. Pretty soon, no Photoshop benchmark in the world is going to save the Mac from a PC.
Don't forget my favorite part of the whole article.
Of course, Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if youre spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system youre using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, itll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC.
Whine about it all you want but its the truth.
malexgreen
Contributor and PB User
So why switch? Does the 2.2GHz Pentium4 M outperform the 1GHz G4 in the powerbook?
Woah... I wonder if that thind would run Linux - only THEN would it rock!
But MAN do people really spend that much money on a PC??? I'll bet you can save tons of money by building it yourself.
If you ask me, only Sony (on the X86 architecture) and Apple are worth the money. Everything else I have built (even servers for a Web Hoster).
But, gotta love PCs and Microsoft tho - they keep me in business!
But MAN do people really spend that much money on a PC??? I'll bet you can save tons of money by building it yourself.
If you ask me, only Sony (on the X86 architecture) and Apple are worth the money. Everything else I have built (even servers for a Web Hoster).
But, gotta love PCs and Microsoft tho - they keep me in business!
solrac
Mac Ninja
This is true, and the PC is a great deal faster, but check this out:
My PC friend bought a dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz system for $5000. It crushes any G4 system by 100 fold, easily.
But... he always says... "when I am rendering, I do not TOUCH the computer. It's my golden rule. Because if you touch the computer while it renders (or burns a CD or whatever), then something may go wrong and screw it up."
However, this is a thing of the past with OS X. With OS X, I would render and encode a movie, burn a CD, write email, play mp3s, work in photoshop, and download from the web ALL at the SAME time, and I would feel TOTALLY SECURE that NO FRAMES would be dropped and NO BURN WOULD GO BAD.
OS X is completely multithreaded and shares processor (single or dual) equally.
So that might make a render take 4 times longer, but if you can get other work done at the same time without worrying about corrupting a process, it might be totally worth it.
I say if you are just a video editor / renderer / compressor / focused on that, then the PC is the best choice these days.
But if you multitask and need rock solid reliability from the OS and applications, and you want to do everything at the same time, Mac OS X does it a lot better. When we get new chips some day, it will do it faster and better, too. Hulkaors would agree with me there!
My PC friend bought a dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz system for $5000. It crushes any G4 system by 100 fold, easily.
But... he always says... "when I am rendering, I do not TOUCH the computer. It's my golden rule. Because if you touch the computer while it renders (or burns a CD or whatever), then something may go wrong and screw it up."
However, this is a thing of the past with OS X. With OS X, I would render and encode a movie, burn a CD, write email, play mp3s, work in photoshop, and download from the web ALL at the SAME time, and I would feel TOTALLY SECURE that NO FRAMES would be dropped and NO BURN WOULD GO BAD.
OS X is completely multithreaded and shares processor (single or dual) equally.
So that might make a render take 4 times longer, but if you can get other work done at the same time without worrying about corrupting a process, it might be totally worth it.
I say if you are just a video editor / renderer / compressor / focused on that, then the PC is the best choice these days.
But if you multitask and need rock solid reliability from the OS and applications, and you want to do everything at the same time, Mac OS X does it a lot better. When we get new chips some day, it will do it faster and better, too. Hulkaors would agree with me there!
kendall
Registered
You're friend is mistaken. I have a dual 1GHz P3 setup and I can burn CDs, rip music, watch movies and Photoshop all at the same time without worrying about something going wrong.
If your friend can't do all that with cycles to spare then something is wrong with his rig.
As for multitasking, Windows NT/2000/XP take the cake. They are far superior to OS X with a lot less RAM. Windows NT/2000/XP support SMP very well. You can actually assign each app to a single processor and the level in which they are able to utilize that processor. SMP with Windows NT/2000/XP is king.
If your friend can't do all that with cycles to spare then something is wrong with his rig.
As for multitasking, Windows NT/2000/XP take the cake. They are far superior to OS X with a lot less RAM. Windows NT/2000/XP support SMP very well. You can actually assign each app to a single processor and the level in which they are able to utilize that processor. SMP with Windows NT/2000/XP is king.
Jason
Eyebrow Moderator
i say mistaken as well, my 700mhz athlon multi tasks better than my 800mhz g4
and the funny thing is, in most applications they are about equal speed... go figure on the mhz myth
you ask, why use apple then?
im a designer and i like the os, so sue me, but hell does apple suck with hardware... and thats an understatement
and the funny thing is, in most applications they are about equal speed... go figure on the mhz myth
you ask, why use apple then?
im a designer and i like the os, so sue me, but hell does apple suck with hardware... and thats an understatement
Col. Sanders
Registered
Haha! You are all mistaken!
My pentium 4 can't multitask worth crap when i want to multitask, my music skips, I lose frames, the system hangs; on my mac, music is constant, everything is snappy and my video project is just fine. This board seems to be overrun with PC users who like to hear themselves talk. I don't know how some of your computers can't do what everyone elses can. I will admit lately some of our systems are beginning to get slower, as the death of the G4 looms, but you guys are exaggerating too much. You guys need to start a Windows forum for people who can't get away from using macs.
My pentium 4 can't multitask worth crap when i want to multitask, my music skips, I lose frames, the system hangs; on my mac, music is constant, everything is snappy and my video project is just fine. This board seems to be overrun with PC users who like to hear themselves talk. I don't know how some of your computers can't do what everyone elses can. I will admit lately some of our systems are beginning to get slower, as the death of the G4 looms, but you guys are exaggerating too much. You guys need to start a Windows forum for people who can't get away from using macs.
edX
mac shaman
well, one thing that apple seems to have over pc's is consistency. my imac 400 g3 will work about as good as the next guys imac 400 g3. when you start comparing pc's of supposedly equal hardware, you find out that there is a vast range of quality and performance. more than can be accounted for by some of your average geek tweeking. at least apple makes it so you can compare apples to apples, instead of having to compare lemons to oranges.
edX
mac shaman
yea? and the news is?
that's always been one of apple's points in controlling the hardware. it's not like a secret. how else to you prepose to deliver a guarenteed experience in computing? and the people like myself who buy all in one macs aren't concerned with all that hardware geek stuff. we have no interest in tinkering inside our macs that much. the most i've ever done, or wanted to do, was change my ram. that's an easy enough and practical enough task. most all in one owners wouldn't even feel comfortable doing that themselves. they'd pay compusa big bucks to do it. labor would probably cost more than the memory. and there are lots more people like that than there are people who want to play computer technician and hardware geek. the majority of computer uses want to do one thing - use their computer without hassles. only by controlling and limiting what's inside, can apple guarentee that will happen for them.
itanium - you say it like it's a bad thing, but for the average computer user, it's a blessing. like the stupid commercials say "it works" that way.
that's always been one of apple's points in controlling the hardware. it's not like a secret. how else to you prepose to deliver a guarenteed experience in computing? and the people like myself who buy all in one macs aren't concerned with all that hardware geek stuff. we have no interest in tinkering inside our macs that much. the most i've ever done, or wanted to do, was change my ram. that's an easy enough and practical enough task. most all in one owners wouldn't even feel comfortable doing that themselves. they'd pay compusa big bucks to do it. labor would probably cost more than the memory. and there are lots more people like that than there are people who want to play computer technician and hardware geek. the majority of computer uses want to do one thing - use their computer without hassles. only by controlling and limiting what's inside, can apple guarentee that will happen for them.
itanium - you say it like it's a bad thing, but for the average computer user, it's a blessing. like the stupid commercials say "it works" that way.
kendall
Registered
I wasn't saying it like it was a bad thing. It just seemed like you were trying to point out this revelation about Macs when you really can't blame the PC industry for having choices which are not available to some Mac users.
I'm sure if Mac users were able to upgrade a lot of the hardware in their iMac, they'd very well do so. Then your idea of Macs being comparable from one to another wouldn't be possible.
PCs used to be very much like iMacs are today. Consumers didn't have much of a choice of upgrading because each PC manufacturer had proprietary hardware. As a user of PCs I can honestly say, thank god we moved past that stage.
As for "it works." Tell me how well Quake 3 works or maybe FCP. Probably not very well on your iMac because of the video card. If those programs were something you were interested in running, your only option would be to buy a new Mac. Cheapest desktop solution, $999 eMac.
For a PC user, all they'd have to do is upgrade the video card and CPU. Maximum cost, maybe $200. I think the PC slogan should be, "it keeps working."
I'm sure if Mac users were able to upgrade a lot of the hardware in their iMac, they'd very well do so. Then your idea of Macs being comparable from one to another wouldn't be possible.
PCs used to be very much like iMacs are today. Consumers didn't have much of a choice of upgrading because each PC manufacturer had proprietary hardware. As a user of PCs I can honestly say, thank god we moved past that stage.
As for "it works." Tell me how well Quake 3 works or maybe FCP. Probably not very well on your iMac because of the video card. If those programs were something you were interested in running, your only option would be to buy a new Mac. Cheapest desktop solution, $999 eMac.
For a PC user, all they'd have to do is upgrade the video card and CPU. Maximum cost, maybe $200. I think the PC slogan should be, "it keeps working."
genghiscohen
Membrum virile
"It keeps working," my gluteus maximus!
I have a lot of friends who use PCs. Every one of them has at least one horror story about how trying to some simple task became a monster nightmare.
None of my Mac using friends ever have those experiences.
I have a lot of friends who use PCs. Every one of them has at least one horror story about how trying to some simple task became a monster nightmare.
None of my Mac using friends ever have those experiences.