[Codename]

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...macvspciii.htm

Two G4's use more power and require more cooling than a single P4 3.06GHz and yet they get slaughtered. Looks like the Mac metric of being half as fast for twice to four times the cost is alive and well. Keep in mind that a 2.4GHz system from Dell can be had for less than $600.

The MHz myth is not a GHz myth, especially when the higher clocked processor is using 1066MHz RDRAM.


The concluding remark of the 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 you�re spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system you�re 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, it�ll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC. So, in addition to the extra $1150 you must pay for the Mac, will cost you time as well, especially while using After Effects. Time is money. After looking at these startling benchmark results, we have to gaze over at our beautifully-designed Macs and ask, �Is it worth it?�

Obviously not since Apple's marketshare continues to dwindle and PowerMac sales are at their lowest levels ever.

[Ganesha]

Originally posted by Codename:


Two G4's use more power and require more cooling than a single P4 3.06GHz and yet they get slaughtered.

If you can afford a Mac, you can probally afford to pay for the extra power it uses... in anycase...

[Mac-arthur]

Originally posted by Codename:
snip

*yawn*

[Mastrap]

Wow. How much did Dell pay for this article? That's not journalism, that's an advertorial.

Having said that the new PC video editing boxes that are coming out now are good. Very good.

I still prefer Final Cut Pro to Premiere but if things start taking significantly longer on a Mac (especially rendering times) than it's time to look at what the competition can do. Apple needs to answer this because time in this business is money. If I can undercut my competitors prices by 30% because my hardware allows me to work significantly faster, thus allowing me to be more productive, I ill earn more money. An investment of $3000 will be returned in no time at all.

I am not talking about the beauty of OS X here, these boxes are one trick ponies so few things can go wrong. Premiere and Photoshop is all they need, with a good capturing card. Most of them aren't even networked.

[kOnshii]

What is wrong with comparing a Mac with a PC?

Mac's do it all the time, Jobs is always bragging about how the G4 kicks a PIII back in the days, so I believe that this is just constructive comparisons, again performance of a Mac to a PC and it's crazy prize tag.

I don't mind paying top dollar for my Mac, but back in the days, you got what you payed for. You had features that were ahead of time, maybe sometimes to ahead, and the processor complemented its high price tag.

Now that's no-longer the fact, 2 G4's don't double the performance, I�m not going to get technical, and the prices tag is not justified.

At least lower the price, if you�re going to sell outdated hardware. I believe apple should switch from G4 to Power4.

I hated Alti-Vec from the start

[MindFad]

I couldn't read the article over the sound of the huge P4 ad in the middle of it.

I was impressed with the benchmarks, considering the 3-GHz P4 was running on a 1066-MHz on a bus, right (whereas the poor 1.25 G4 is chugging at 167MHz half-arsed DDR bus)? RDRAM, too, right? I'd love to see what a PPC 970 dual (even single) on a 900-MHz bus would do. Now that'd be interesting.

Shame we'll have to wait so long for a new chip, be it 970 or whatever. I must be living in some fantasy land of dumbasses enjoying my current machine. What was I thinking?

And if you hated Velocity Engine/VMX/whatever, if we get a 970, you'll probably hate it more, huh? Isn't VMX basically Velocity Engine? The same damn thing, as far as I understand it, from what I've read.

Still, as someone said in another thread, when Intel/AMD breaks the "OS X" barrier, I will buy an Intel/AMD machine, be it from Apple or someone else. OS X is me operating system o' choice. Makes me a dumbass, right?

[Mac Zealot]

I will be very vague at this.

I find myself to be an impatient person when it comes to using the computer, as I have many worn down keyboards, dented computer cases, and amazingly, people with hurt feelings.

There is one huge disadvantage to the PC platform, and that is, that in order to enable your PC to be FULLY usable, one must install Windows, usually the XP version.

I have gone into this matter many times before. People buy their new computer, and set it up for what they need it to do.. however, most people do not go into a 3 hour tweaking process required in order to get those results.

As was mentioned in another private benchmark before, a video render was actually FASTER on a mac, if I recall correctly, but only when both the mac and the PC were out of the BOX.

However, if we go into further detail, it takes around 3-4 hours of tweaking, restarts, and trivia, to finally get the PC to beat the mac. Yes, those are three hours you could have spent daydreaming, doing more work, or having sex.

Now, I understand that to most all people on the MacNN community, 3 hours is nothing, so people are more efficient with windows.

I myself, feel as if I am a windows veteran. I do not have my head in a bucket, as I evaluated many current builds of windows, and found them to be utterly ubsurd, insanely inefficient, and profoundly, dull.

Thus, one must think that the interface could help, provided the fact that not only does apple monopolize the media industry as far as good programs go, but they do also make one of the world's best interfaces.

Though, of course, with windows, you can customize the fisher price interface to look like rusty pipes or silver pixels.

I also recall the 'good ole' days when I had a PC, I recall the 'good ole' days when I would open up the cpu cabinet door on my desk, yank the tower out, and kick it franitcally out of frustration, I remember the days that I never made backups of my machine because I never had enough information to even backup to a floppy, and I recall the days when I used my zip drive for storage because my hard drive was wiped about 2 times a month.

Why, that you may ask? Well, my hardware did stink, indeed, and I admit, today the offerings are much better than they were then, but the dark side lost me, and I will never fight for them again.

So what do I do with the piles of PCs I have? People are even GIVING THEM AWAY to me, in drones, I went from having 2 pc laptops to a fleet of a whooping 3 desktops, 2 laptops, and soon to come another used desktop..

So what do I do? I set aside some time, take a whole course of two days trying different builds of linux, and BSD, and finally find what I want.

It took about an hour to configure and many trivial events, eventually the machine was up and running, and agreeably, I have to admit that KDE is better than any GUI windows can ever dream of making... HOWEVER....

To turn on my computer, I turn it on, wait for the computer to prompt me, and hit enter...

THEN I have to log in, type startx, and wait for kde to boot, and if I want to shut down, I must quit kde, hope I am logged in as root (or a SU), and shutdown -h now.

It's quite painless, of course, just a few seconds more, but quite annoying. THE COMPUTER IS NOT EVEN USABLE OUT OF THE BOX!

Of course, thanks to my newly found common sense and knowledge, i can have any PC running FreeBSD with KDE installed within 40 mins depending on how quick the install is (configure to about 5 mins)

I suppose it's your world if you believe that speed is enough to get you to switch to an infereor platform, with infereor processors, infereor interface, and infereor programs, not to mention the infereor (piece of turd with a glade Plug In� air freshener attached to it) Operating system required to run.

For me, however, I will continue to use my Dual 800 G4 Power macintosh. It gets the job done the way I want it.

[klinux]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Yes, those are three hours you could have spent daydreaming, doing more work, or having sex.

Dude, in the time you took to type all that I did all three AND configured two PCs!

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by MindFad:
I couldn't read the article over the sound of the huge P4 ad in the middle of it.

I was impressed with the benchmarks, considering the 3-GHz P4 was running on a 1066-MHz on a bus, right (whereas the poor 1.25 G4 is chugging at 167MHz half-arsed DDR bus)? RDRAM, too, right? I'd love to see what a PPC 970 dual (even single) on a 900-MHz bus would do. Now that'd be interesting.

Shame we'll have to wait so long for a new chip, be it 970 or whatever. I must be living in some fantasy land of dumbasses enjoying my current machine. What was I thinking?

And if you hated Velocity Engine/VMX/whatever, if we get a 970, you'll probably hate it more, huh? Isn't VMX basically Velocity Engine? The same damn thing, as far as I understand it, from what I've read.

Still, as someone said in another thread, when Intel/AMD breaks the "OS X" barrier, I will buy an Intel/AMD machine, be it from Apple or someone else. OS X is me operating system o' choice. Makes me a dumbass, right?

It's their best versus our best.

It's not fair to say "IF we had...", cause then, I can say: "IF they had a clawhammer...", etc.

As it stands, that isn't an argument.

What invalidates this for me is one thing: Final Cut Pro.

Nothing compares, and I'd rather run FCP on my single 400 than Premier on a dual 3GHz Xeon system with Ultra 320 RAID arrays.

[klinux]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Nothing compares, and I'd rather run FCP on my single 400 than Premier on a dual 3GHz Xeon system with Ultra 320 RAID arrays.

That - is loyalty, my friend.

I have not done any video-editing before so my comment is tangential to the referenced article. However, you cannot tell me that a simple straight forward thing like, say encoding MP3 is faster on g4 1.25 than P4 3.0 (or even 2.x).

Just this week, I decided to rip a DVD to my HD and I only had my iBook with me. Bad idea. It took soooooooooo long I almost cried. Good user experience? I think not.

[Eagerly waiting for people to say Dell and MS paid me to be here and I am just a troll for saying PCs do most things faster.]

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by klinux:



[Eagerly waiting for people to say Dell and MS paid me to be here and I am just a troll for saying PCs do most things faster.]

You're no troll for saying that - however you did use your iBook for something it was never designed to handle.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by klinux:


That - is loyalty, my friend.

I have not done any video-editing before so my comment is tangential to the referenced article. However, you cannot tell me that a simple straight forward thing like, say encoding MP3 is faster on g4 1.25 than P4 3.0 (or even 2.x).

Just this week, I decided to rip a DVD to my HD and I only had my iBook with me. Bad idea. It took soooooooooo long I almost cried. Good user experience? I think not.

[Eagerly waiting for people to say Dell and MS paid me to be here and I am just a troll for saying PCs do most things faster.]

In my opinion, a good experience with something like video editing is more reliant on the software used than the hardware.

FCP is truly superb.

Not only that, I'd probably get things faster on a slow G4 with FCP, than a fast Athlon with Prem. anyway...

I'm not loyal to any system.

I run OSX, OS9 and Windows here.

I will always use whatever is the best tool for the job.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cipher13:




Not only that, I'd probably get things faster on a slow G4 with FCP, than a fast Athlon with Prem...

I'm with you in liking FCP. However rendering times are rendering times. And if I can half them....that's a huge benefit.

Like you I'm not sure if it would make up for having to use Premiere though. Tabbed windows overload.

[olePigeon]

Ok. So Codename has pointed out .... again, that PCs are faster than Macs. And I will point out .... again, that your average graphics and audio professional doesn't care.

I can only reiterate the same thing so many times. People are generally more productive and creative on a Macintosh than a PC.

What is the point of doing a job twice as fast at half the potential? MacOS does not run on a 3.06GHz P4, nor does its legendary ease of use, or its uncanny creative inspiration. Sure would be nice, but it isn't a reality.

I was wondering, what are they doing rendering 2 hours of fullscreen composite video without any video or DSP hardware? You can wait 2 hours with After Effects, or you can do everything in real time with an Avid workstation. Kinda like those "professionals" they talk about in the article.

In the meantime, happy birthday, Codename. I believe it's 6 candles this year.

[Codename]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Ok. So Codename has pointed out .... again, that PCs are faster than Macs. And I will point out .... again, that your average graphics and audio professional doesn't care.

If they didn't care, they would be buying Macs. Of course they care; "Power"Mac sales are in the toilet and Apple's marketshare continues to drop. Nobody except trained maclots are buying "Power"Macs.

And your arguement about MacOS became moot once Apple released OS X. OS X is not MacOS, it's NeXTOS pretending to me MacOS and doing a bad job of it. There is nothing ledendary about OS X's useabilitiy or inituitiveness. Infact, it's the quite the opposite. I'm going to have to disagree with the article and say that MacOS X is no match for Windows XP in terms of practical useability. When 75% of your user base is still using OS classic even though is crashy and unpredictable, something's wrong. OS X is slow, proprietary and unintutive compared to classic MacOS and Windows.

[scaught]

i like mac osx quite a bit. id bet quite a few users around here do. your statements are bullish unfounded FUD. you certainly have a right to have an opinion.

ps. we dont care how fast computers are that dont run the mac os. you just dont understand that, do you.

pps. there you go again saying macos is propietary like thats a bad thing.

[Codename]

No matter how much anecdotal crap maclots spread, it doesn't change the fact that less than 2.5% of the world uses macs and less than 25% of those use Macs running OS X.

MacOS X is a failure in that it failed to save Apple. The end is drawing nearer. Makes you think what is the point of Apple these days when they can't even compete in what used to be one of their core markets.

We ran our After Effects and Photoshop benchmarks on this machine, nine in all, and saw a speed improvement that was far beyond what we anticipated. Mac users will be disappointed to see that this new Dell machine, while priced almost $1150 less than the Mac Dual G4 1.25 GHz machine, was nearly twice as fast on most of the nine benchmarks we ran.

[scaught]

Originally posted by Codename:
No matter how much anecdotal crap maclots spread, it doesn't change the fact that less than 2.5% of the world uses macs and less than 25% of those use Macs running OS X.

MacOS X is a failure in that it failed to save Apple. The end is drawing nearer. Makes you think what is the point of Apple these days when they can't even compete in what used to be one of their core markets.

aww. how cute. "the end is drawing near!!!"

the end has been drawing near for apple since the 70s. get over it.

noone NEEDS to run OS X. one of our membership here runs a server on a machine running 8.6 and gets 80+ days of uptime on it. another of our membership works at one of MITs labs where there are apple Lisa's still in use by scientists there.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by Codename:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...macvspciii.htm

Two G4's use more power and require more cooling than a single P4 3.06GHz and yet they get slaughtered. Looks like the Mac metric of being half as fast for twice to four times the cost is alive and well. Keep in mind that a 2.4GHz system from Dell can be had for less than $600.

Obviously not since Apple's marketshare continues to dwindle and PowerMac sales are at their lowest levels ever.

so what... you want to use FCP or Shake then you are going to have to start using Macs... being able to use the best software is a more important factor...bi0tch

[gorgonzola]

This thread is going nowhere. Flame war waiting to explode.