Are Macs *THAT* much better for editing over the PC?

[addragyn]

"If you actually read about how Lumiere HD works, or any other Mac-based HDV solution, and compare that to HDV options for PCs, it's clear that the PC products are more advanced with significantly better workflow."

It's not to me. Why don't you break it down?

Because you've linked up additional hardware, plugins and solutions that provide limited real time capability or cost more or require extending you current editor with 3rd part solutions. This is different on a Mac or PC how?

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: kwshaw1

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
The example of using photoshop was to show AltiVec does something. Its their for a purpose. FCP uses AltiVec heavily, meaning these video editing tasks will fast. Sure, maybe the new PC's are faster than todays Macs, we dont know, ...

I don't doubt that recent Mac processors have a good technical design (e.g. Altivec). And maybe for desktop computers it's ultimately a draw in terms of general video editing performance, but I've seen several side-by-side comparisons and first-hand reports giving PCs the advantage here. For laptop computers, there is simply no way that even the fastest G4 laptop can come close to the performance of high-end PC laptops, almost all of which are cheaper with a greater variety of features (including higher resolution screens). It would be folly to claim otherwise, and the best thing you can say about Mac laptops is they apparently have good battery life. If all you do is simple DV editing and battery life is important to you, then maybe a Mac laptop makes some sense. If you want a laptop which can serve as a complete replacement for a desktop editing system, then PCs easily have the advantage in this area.

Mate, all G4 and G5 processors have Altivec. Just some programs don't take advantage of it (hence seeming hell slow). However, I won't dispute the fact that the G4 isn't as fast as high end PC's, it's more average. The problem with the notebooks' speed is that they have a terrible slow FSB, which makes the processor seem extra slow. It all comes down to the chipset thing that I was talking about before.
I did quite a few comparisons between PC and apple laptops, and between models, there isn't much difference in options, in fact, the apple notebooks had more options per model. The thing is, they have less models (2 apple models - PB and iB - compared to say 10 dell models).

The whole point of this thread, was that the OP wanted to know whether or not to switch. I would say no, because their computer is already ok for what they're doing.

 

[imported_kwshaw1]

The reason you think the fastest G4 wont come close to high end PC's is because the PC says it has a higher clock speed. That is all you are looking at, clock speed, not the architecture of the processor. If this isnt the case, you wouldnt be saying the fastest G4 wont outperform higher end PC's. You dont have any evidence to prove that statement. You never put the fastest G4 against a higher end PC, and therefore, your argument is not valid. You assume a higher end PC is faster just because it says it has more GHz/MHz. You have probably never heard of the megahertz myth.

No, it's much more than that. The G4 is an older processor which overall was comparable in performance to PC processors introduced around the same time, based on a wide variety of real-world performance comparisons. Since PCs have gotten significantly faster since then relative to themselves, it follows by basic logic that they are now significantly faster than the G4s. There's no plausible reason to think a 1.5 GHz G4 laptop could rival a 3+ GHz PC laptop with advances in every area of hardware technology, but feel free to believe otherwise if you must. I've repeatedly proposed a very simple test you could use to provide some anecdotal information about G4 performance for purposes of video editing, but for some reason you haven't told us whether you tried it. Hmmm.

And by the way, I'm very familiar with the "megahertz myth" and the wide variety of factors which affect overall computer performance. But just so we're clear, clock speed does have an important effect on processor performance, so a processor running at 1.5 GHz would literally have to do twice as much work every single cycle on a consistent basis to match the performance of a 3 GHz processor, and that's assuming everything else in the system was equivalent...which it wouldn't be in comparing an old G4 to a any modern PC or Mac. So maybe for some highly specialized benchmark which happened to run particularly well on a G4 you could get it to look okay compared to today's faster systems, but we've already discussed how pointless synthetic benchmarks are. For practical general-purpose computing, you're not going to get a G4 to match today's fastest computers, period.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

It is not all about clock speed. This is all you are thinking about. You dont even think about the architecture of the processor.

I dont use FCP, so I cant do tests. And all the misinformation, and all of those opinionated statements you said, for some reason, you didnt back any of it up, even after I asked you several times. If you are not going to back up your statements, dont post them. Until you do tests yourself with a Mac against a PC side by side, then maybe you can start saying which is faster. So until then, stop spreading misinformation and opinions to try to make the Mac look bad. You havent proved the PC is faster, so I wonder why you continue to say the PC is faster, even if you dont have any evidence to support this statement.

I await your valid argument. Not an opinionated, or a misinformative statement.

 

[addragyn]

SFF, NOTEBOOKS, PRE-BUILT/BAREBONES PCS

 

[hopejr]

Thin Lizzy: There are PC's that are faster than G4's (actually, it's a majority). But, IMHO, that's no reason to bad mouth macs and it's no reason to not use them.

kwshaw1: The G4 is a whole bunch of different processors, all badged by Apple as G4 (even though at Motorola, they have different names for all the different types, because of the chipset). So the current MCPPC7455 is not the same as the original MCPPC7400 that you said was ok at the time it was released compared to PC's. But, I agree, Apple could do more to boost performance, to get macs up to speed with PCs.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: hopejr
Thin Lizzy: There are PC's that are faster than G4's (actually, it's a majority). But, IMHO, that's no reason to bad mouth macs and it's no reason to not use them.

kwshaw1: The G4 is a whole bunch of different processors, all badged by Apple as G4 (even though at Motorola, they have different names for all the different types, because of the chipset). So the current MCPPC7455 is not the same as the original MCPPC7400 that you said was ok at the time it was released compared to PC's. But, I agree, Apple could do more to boost performance, to get macs up to speed with PCs.

But continuing to badmouth a computer you dont use to make it sound horrible is just silly. And misinformation saying you cant edit HDV on FCP, trying so hard to make the Mac seem like its a crappy machine. And saying todays Macs arent faster than todays PC's with no evidence is also silly, and trying to back up their statements with opinions is just dumb.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Agian I really think the Apple laptops are slower compared to the centrino laptops. If macs "are" faster in the desktop arena agianst other desktops, then apple should really get thier act together and beat the centrino platform because it's kicking ass.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I think the Centrinos are sweet. But, rumor has it that Apple is replacing the current G4 processor with Dual Core G4's with faster clock speeds. Also, they might replace the current G5 processor with a faster one. Its also supposed to be Dual Core, with higher clock speeds too I think. I cant wait to see those!

 

[imported_kwshaw1]

...all the misinformation, and all of those opinionated statements you said, for some reason, you didnt back any of it up, even after I asked you several times. If you are not going to back up your statements, dont post them. Until you do tests yourself with a Mac against a PC side by side, then maybe you can start saying which is faster. So until then, stop spreading misinformation and opinions to try to make the Mac look bad. You havent proved the PC is faster, so I wonder why you continue to say the PC is faster, even if you dont have any evidence to support this statement.

I await your valid argument. Not an opinionated, or a misinformative statement.

Okay, here's something for you to read, although it sounds like you're not likely to believe it:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/ar...aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Among other things, note that a single-processor PC outperformed a dual 2 GHz G5 Mac on the video tasks, and was only slightly behind it for the Photoshop tests. That's consistent with both my general statements about relative performance and your personal experiences regarding Photoshop. There are other similar comparisons available on the internet, which you can easily look up for yourself using any search engine.

I've also mentioned anectdotal reports from people I know who have tried the latest Macs and found them to be lacking in performance for specific practical video tasks compared to PC editing solutions they've used. And I've pointed out fundamental technical reasons why clock speed increases and other hardware advances do matter, but you've chosen to dismiss those in favor of making blind faith statements regarding Apple's processor designs. It doesn't seem that you'd be willing to consider any statements based on anything other than running side-by-side performance tests, but can you accept the reports from people who have done this?

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: kwshaw1

...all the misinformation, and all of those opinionated statements you said, for some reason, you didnt back any of it up, even after I asked you several times. If you are not going to back up your statements, dont post them. Until you do tests yourself with a Mac against a PC side by side, then maybe you can start saying which is faster. So until then, stop spreading misinformation and opinions to try to make the Mac look bad. You havent proved the PC is faster, so I wonder why you continue to say the PC is faster, even if you dont have any evidence to support this statement.

I await your valid argument. Not an opinionated, or a misinformative statement.

Okay, here's something for you to read, although it sounds like you're not likely to believe it:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/ar...aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Among other things, note that a single-processor PC outperformed a dual 2 GHz G5 Mac on the video tasks, and was only slightly behind it for the Photoshop tests. That's consistent with both my general statements about relative performance and your personal experiences regarding Photoshop. There are other similar comparisons available on the internet, which you can easily look up for yourself using any search engine.

I've also mentioned anectdotal reports from people I know who have tried the latest Macs and found them to be lacking in performance for specific practical video tasks compared to PC editing solutions they've used. And I've pointed out fundamental technical reasons why clock speed increases and other hardware advances do matter, but you've chosen to dismiss those in favor of making blind faith statements regarding Apple's processor designs. It doesn't seem that you'd be willing to consider any statements based on anything other than running side-by-side performance tests, but can you accept the reports from people who have done this?

Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
I think the Centrinos are sweet. But, rumor has it that Apple is replacing the current G4 processor with Dual Core G4's with faster clock speeds. Also, they might replace the current G5 processor with a faster one. Its also supposed to be Dual Core, with higher clock speeds too I think. I cant wait to see those!

PC laptops will have dual core soon as well. So now you're pointing to future products because you realize you've lost the argument? Face it, Macs are slower and cost more money. They have a third-tier company in charge of their CPU designs. The only things they have going for them are their industrial design, OS, FCP, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and the iPod. In terms of sheer performance there is no comparison. The PC is customizable to the point that one can have 8 CPUs in their system easily. As the above poster showed, even a single A64 processor will smoke the dual G5 in almost every single benchmark.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
I think the Centrinos are sweet. But, rumor has it that Apple is replacing the current G4 processor with Dual Core G4's with faster clock speeds. Also, they might replace the current G5 processor with a faster one. Its also supposed to be Dual Core, with higher clock speeds too I think. I cant wait to see those!

PC laptops will have dual core soon as well. So now you're pointing to future products because you realize you've lost the argument? Face it, Macs are slower and cost more money. They have a third-tier company in charge of their CPU designs. The only things they have going for them are their industrial design, OS, FCP, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and the iPod. In terms of sheer performance there is no comparison. The PC is customizable to the point that one can have 8 CPUs in their system easily. As the above poster showed, even a single A64 processor will smoke the dual G5 in almost every single benchmark.

Excuse me? I have lost the argument? How? He has not proved a damn thing. Period. How can I lose to an argument consisting of lies and opinions. As for that "benchmark" that is from a PC website. And not only that, benchmarks dont tell the truth. If you cannot say how I lost the argument, you have no business posting here.

Also, you are trying to win an argument with your opinions? Come up with a valid argument at least, not something you just make up, and try to use it as an argument.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

So you want to see some benchmarks? Here you go. And I know what you are going to say. "Those are BS." So are the ones on that PC site. Also, why dont you prove that the A64 is faster. You seem to think they are, but you havent provided any evidence. What is your evidence going to be? A benchmark you found on the internet?

As I always say, every site shows something different. You cant possibly believe everything you read can you?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
I think the Centrinos are sweet. But, rumor has it that Apple is replacing the current G4 processor with Dual Core G4's with faster clock speeds. Also, they might replace the current G5 processor with a faster one. Its also supposed to be Dual Core, with higher clock speeds too I think. I cant wait to see those!

PC laptops will have dual core soon as well. So now you're pointing to future products because you realize you've lost the argument? Face it, Macs are slower and cost more money. They have a third-tier company in charge of their CPU designs. The only things they have going for them are their industrial design, OS, FCP, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and the iPod. In terms of sheer performance there is no comparison. The PC is customizable to the point that one can have 8 CPUs in their system easily. As the above poster showed, even a single A64 processor will smoke the dual G5 in almost every single benchmark.

Excuse me? I have lost the argument? How? He has not proved a damn thing. Period. How can I lose to an argument consisting of lies and opinions. As for that "benchmark" that is from a PC website. And not only that, benchmarks dont tell the truth. If you cannot say how I lost the argument, you have no business posting here.

So we should just listen to you rather than looking at benchmarks? Why don't you show us some proof that the Mac is faster? Honestly, if you run the same Photoshop filters on the same image on two computers, it's an excellent performance comparison. If you don't believe in such scientific evidence, I would suggest that you're on the wrong message board and you have no business posting here. I'd be surprised if you even read AT articles.

You lost the arguement because you resorted to illuding to future products instead of showing some evidence that current Macs are faster than current PCs.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

So you want to see some benchmarks? Here you go. And I know what you are going to say. "Those are BS." So are the ones on that PC site. Also, why dont you prove that the A64 is faster. You seem to think they are, but you havent provided any evidence. What is your evidence going to be? A benchmark you found on the internet?

As I always say, every site shows something different. You cant possibly believe everything you read can you?

No, your benchmark (not plural) isn't BS, but it is comparing a DUAL G5 to a SINGLE A64. Two Opterons would dust two G5s in Photoshop. This has been repeatedly proven by numerous publications. The A64 is KNOWN to be the fastest CPU for Photoshop, gaming, and databases. The P4 has been repeatedly proven to be the fastest processor for video. All of these facts are widely accepted within the IT industry. This is why I feel you're being foolish making these claims that the Mac is faster. It's widely substantiated fact that they're not. They even had to pull their ads claiming to have the "world's fastest personal computer" because it's simply not true. Name a single task where the Mac is faster. I'm interested in finding out, because I'm not aware of a single processing task that runs faster on a Mac than on a custom PC (for less money I might add).

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
I think the Centrinos are sweet. But, rumor has it that Apple is replacing the current G4 processor with Dual Core G4's with faster clock speeds. Also, they might replace the current G5 processor with a faster one. Its also supposed to be Dual Core, with higher clock speeds too I think. I cant wait to see those!

PC laptops will have dual core soon as well. So now you're pointing to future products because you realize you've lost the argument? Face it, Macs are slower and cost more money. They have a third-tier company in charge of their CPU designs. The only things they have going for them are their industrial design, OS, FCP, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and the iPod. In terms of sheer performance there is no comparison. The PC is customizable to the point that one can have 8 CPUs in their system easily. As the above poster showed, even a single A64 processor will smoke the dual G5 in almost every single benchmark.

Excuse me? I have lost the argument? How? He has not proved a damn thing. Period. How can I lose to an argument consisting of lies and opinions. As for that "benchmark" that is from a PC website. And not only that, benchmarks dont tell the truth. If you cannot say how I lost the argument, you have no business posting here.

So we should just listen to you rather than looking at benchmarks? Why don't you show us some proof that the Mac is faster? Honestly, if you run the same Photoshop filters on the same image on two computers, it's an excellent performance comparison. If you don't believe in such scientific evidence, I would suggest that you're on the wrong message board and you have no business posting here. I'd be surprised if you even read AT articles.

You lost the arguement because you resorted to illuding to future products instead of showing some evidence that current Macs are faster than current PCs.

I honestly dont care if you dont believe me. Thats not my problem. Also, can you quote me on when I am trying to say the Mac is faster? You dont read my posts. I am here to correct kshaws misleading information. He is trying so hard to make the Mac look bad by saying they are slow and saying "FCP cant edit HDV."

I lost the argument because of that? That post had nothing to do with the argument. You pointed out PC laptops are going to have dual core processors. You lost the argument. :roll:

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

So you want to see some benchmarks? Here you go. And I know what you are going to say. "Those are BS." So are the ones on that PC site. Also, why dont you prove that the A64 is faster. You seem to think they are, but you havent provided any evidence. What is your evidence going to be? A benchmark you found on the internet?

As I always say, every site shows something different. You cant possibly believe everything you read can you?

No, your benchmark (not plural) isn't BS, but it is comparing a DUAL G5 to a SINGLE A64. Two Opterons would dust two G5s in Photoshop. This has been repeatedly proven by numerous publications. The A64 is KNOWN to be the fastest CPU for Photoshop, gaming, and databases. The P4 has been repeatedly proven to be the fastest processor for video. All of these facts are widely accepted within the IT industry. This is why I feel you're being foolish making these claims that the Mac is faster. It's widely substantiated fact that they're not. They even had to pull their ads claiming to have the "world's fastest personal computer" because it's simply not true. Name a single task where the Mac is faster. I'm interested in finding out, because I'm not aware of a single processing task that runs faster on a Mac than on a custom PC (for less money I might add).

And that benchmark kshaw provided was comparing a SINGLE A64 to a DUAL G5, isnt it? And how was the A64 known to be the fastest CPU for those Apps? Did you find that on the internet? I have not claimed that the Mac is faster, at all. Perhaps you should quote me on this. Trying to make the Mac look bad and spreading misleading information about it is BS. First off, kshaw doesnt even use todays Macs at all to be making idiotic comments like this. And how do you know that the Dual Opterons would dust a G5 in photoshop? Have you tested this out? Or are you just reading crap on the internet, believe what you read.

 

[halfadder]

Regarding the PC World test, I don't doubt that the PCs are faster. But I do want to point out a few issues that might narrow the margin:

MS Word is a native Windows application. The Mac version will never be faster. It's designed for Windows, and as I understand it, Mac wrapper code is added before it's compiled for Mac OS X. Plus, it's a "Carbon" application, which means its framework is actually derrived from Mac OS 9 compatible APIs, not the native Mac OS X framework called "Cocoa".

Quake3 is also a Windows native application, although Carmack did keep testing it on multiple platforms. As I understand it from his .plan updates, the Mac version does not have the same level of tuning in the virtual machine that powers the bots and other changeable aspects of the game. The FPS numbers also seem quite low. I wonder if they were using the AltiVec optimized version? Many updates have been released to the Mac version of Quake3 in the past 2 years for G4/G5 CPUs.

Premiere 6 and Photoshop 7.0.1 are much more meaningful benchmarks. But again, Premiere has always been trash on Mac OS. (And heck, even version 6 sucked on Windows... but there is no Mac version of Premiere Pro 1.0 or 1.5 to compare with though). Maybe it would have been better to compare Premiere vs Final Cut Pro based on similar actions. (i.e., "scale clip to 50%, apply a gaussian blur, and do a 2 second wipe transition to another clip").
Photoshop 7.0.1 was the very first version of Photoshop released for the G5. On the Mac side, it's basicly Photoshop 7.0 plus a "G5 Accelerator" plugin. A much better test would be Photoshop CS 8.0.1. However I'm pretty sure the PC would still be faster.

There is also no note of the version of Mac OS X used. Based on machine specs (2 GHz G5 rather than 2.5 GHz, 2.2 GHz Opteron rather than 2.4 GHz, etc) I am guessing that this test is at least a year old. Mac OS X 10.3 has gone thru many substantial updates for G5 users. Some revisions were dogs for performance, others were much better. 10.3.4 and up have been great for G5 users in general from what I've read on the Mac forums.

I would like to see an updated version of this benchmark with numbers from UT2004 v.3339, Halo v.612 (1.5 on Mac, 1.06 on PC), and World of Warcraft 1.2. I would also like to see Mathematica and MATLAB benchmarks between the two platforms, as well as specific algorithms, such as libjpeg and libz to see how the two architectures compare on specific types of operations. Why not show some LAME encoding too? Where are the Maya 6 benchmarks? How about Lightwave? Protools audio mixing? Etc Etc Etc.

I like benchmarks, and I'm glad PC Magazine did indeed release these benchmarks... they inform and hopefully they also lit a fire under the butt of Apple and all of those that write software for Mac OS X (or port code from Windows to Mac).

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
can you quote me on when I am trying to say the Mac is faster?

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
The reason you think the fastest G4 wont come close to high end PC's is because the PC says it has a higher clock speed. That is all you are looking at, clock speed, not the architecture of the processor. If this isnt the case, you wouldnt be saying the fastest G4 wont outperform higher end PC's. You dont have any evidence to prove that statement. You never put the fastest G4 against a higher end PC, and therefore, your argument is not valid. You assume a higher end PC is faster just because it says it has more GHz/MHz. You have probably never heard of the megahertz myth.

There you go. You have the audacity to assume a G4 will even come *close* to a high-end PC in terms of performance. That's like comparing a P4 3.2C to a P3 733. If the G5 is beaten by high end PCs, the G4 will surely lose very very badly.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that your platform is slower and more expensive? It's a widely known fact. It's one of the main reasons why only 1% of computers sold are made by Apple.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

So you want to see some benchmarks? Here you go. And I know what you are going to say. "Those are BS." So are the ones on that PC site. Also, why dont you prove that the A64 is faster. You seem to think they are, but you havent provided any evidence. What is your evidence going to be? A benchmark you found on the internet?

As I always say, every site shows something different. You cant possibly believe everything you read can you?

No, your benchmark (not plural) isn't BS, but it is comparing a DUAL G5 to a SINGLE A64. Two Opterons would dust two G5s in Photoshop. This has been repeatedly proven by numerous publications. The A64 is KNOWN to be the fastest CPU for Photoshop, gaming, and databases. The P4 has been repeatedly proven to be the fastest processor for video. All of these facts are widely accepted within the IT industry. This is why I feel you're being foolish making these claims that the Mac is faster. It's widely substantiated fact that they're not. They even had to pull their ads claiming to have the "world's fastest personal computer" because it's simply not true. Name a single task where the Mac is faster. I'm interested in finding out, because I'm not aware of a single processing task that runs faster on a Mac than on a custom PC (for less money I might add).

And that benchmark kshaw provided was comparing a SINGLE A64 to a DUAL G5, isnt it? And how was the A64 known to be the fastest CPU for those Apps? Did you find that on the internet? I have not claimed that the Mac is faster, at all. Perhaps you should quote me on this. Trying to make the Mac look bad and spreading misleading information about it is BS. First off, kshaw doesnt even use todays Macs at all to be making idiotic comments like this. And how do you know that the Dual Opterons would dust a G5 in photoshop? Have you tested this out? Or are you just reading crap on the internet, believe what you read.

If you don't believe anything you read on the internet, WTF are you doing here? Go read a book or something. :roll:

There are numerous reputable sources of hardware benchmarks on the internet. Anandtech is considered by many to be the most trusted hardware review site out there. I've run benchmarks on my own system, and they consistantly come very close to the numbers I read on the internet.

I would trust an AT review over your nonsense opinion any day of the week. :thumbsdown:

 

[thirdlegstump]

When it comes to iUltimate iComputing iPower, nothing....NOTHING comes remotely close to an iApple iMacintosh. Simply put, if you want too much iPower as well as iXtreme ease of use and infinite iReliability, you want a Power Macintosh. iHands down. With killer iApps such as Apple's ridiculously overpowered but iXtremely easy to use and reliable iMail.app, iGarbageband, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iCal, iLife, iEtc......you'll quickly realize you've been wasting your time and money on that new dual Opteron rig running the unstable, unreliable, underpowered, non(i) Windoze OS and you'll realize that iNOW you're playing with iPower!

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first off, you are reading benchmarks off of a PC website. Really, what do you expect? And you have not pointed out anything. What you pointed out was your opinions and misinformation. I have read all you posts, and you havent proved anything. You only told me what you think. Thats all. As everyone can see, the rest of your post is opinionated. And technical reasons? Where? All of your posts just consisted of "Todays PC's are faster than todays Macs." Clock speed isnt the only thing that is important to the processor, but thats what you think, from what I read from your posts.

So show us some benchmarks done by Steve Jobs himself then for all we care. Anything to substantiate your claims other than "my computer is faster than my friend's PC". :roll:

If you want some technical reasoning as to why the PC is faster, you could start by investigating the integrated memory controller on the A64, along with its highly efficient design and massive FPU power.

If an A64 can beat two G5s, I'd love to see what it can do to Thin Lizzy's single G4.

So you want to see some benchmarks? Here you go. And I know what you are going to say. "Those are BS." So are the ones on that PC site. Also, why dont you prove that the A64 is faster. You seem to think they are, but you havent provided any evidence. What is your evidence going to be? A benchmark you found on the internet?

As I always say, every site shows something different. You cant possibly believe everything you read can you?

No, your benchmark (not plural) isn't BS, but it is comparing a DUAL G5 to a SINGLE A64. Two Opterons would dust two G5s in Photoshop. This has been repeatedly proven by numerous publications. The A64 is KNOWN to be the fastest CPU for Photoshop, gaming, and databases. The P4 has been repeatedly proven to be the fastest processor for video. All of these facts are widely accepted within the IT industry. This is why I feel you're being foolish making these claims that the Mac is faster. It's widely substantiated fact that they're not. They even had to pull their ads claiming to have the "world's fastest personal computer" because it's simply not true. Name a single task where the Mac is faster. I'm interested in finding out, because I'm not aware of a single processing task that runs faster on a Mac than on a custom PC (for less money I might add).

And that benchmark kshaw provided was comparing a SINGLE A64 to a DUAL G5, isnt it? And how was the A64 known to be the fastest CPU for those Apps? Did you find that on the internet? I have not claimed that the Mac is faster, at all. Perhaps you should quote me on this. Trying to make the Mac look bad and spreading misleading information about it is BS. First off, kshaw doesnt even use todays Macs at all to be making idiotic comments like this. And how do you know that the Dual Opterons would dust a G5 in photoshop? Have you tested this out? Or are you just reading crap on the internet, believe what you read.

If you don't believe anything you read on the internet, WTF are you doing here? Go read a book or something. :roll:

There are numerous reputable sources of hardware benchmarks on the internet. Anandtech is considered by many to be the most trusted hardware review site out there. I've run benchmarks on my own system, and they consistantly come very close to the numbers I read on the internet.

I would trust an AT review over your nonsense opinion any day of the week. :thumbsdown:

What am I doing here? I am here to try to help people out. Thats why I am here. I dont recall ever saying I dont believe anything on the internet. I said I dont believe everything posted on the internet. There is a difference. If you would like me to explain, I will be more than happy to. If I did say anything, quote me on this, otherwise quit making stuff up. My nonsense opinion? What nonsense opinion? Your whole arguments, including kshaws were all opinionated. All of your posts.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
When it comes to iUltimate iComputing iPower, nothing....NOTHING comes remotely close to an iApple iMacintosh. Simply put, if you want too much iPower as well as iXtreme ease of use and infinite iReliability, you want a Power Macintosh. iHands down. With killer iApps such as Apple's ridiculously overpowered but iXtremely easy to use and reliable iMail.app, iGarbageband, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iCal, iLife, iEtc......you'll quickly realize you've been wasting your time and money on that new dual Opteron rig running the unstable, unreliable, underpowered, non(i) Windoze OS and you'll realize that iNOW you're playing with iPower!

:thumbsup: :beer: