This is looking VERY UGLY
We all know the slowsilver is slower than PCs. But the test is even worse than I thought
<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm</a>
Scary
<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm</a>
Scary
Comments
uh, sorry about that. software is everything, all hardware is equally adequate these days.
With Apple's test procedure, which is the closest thing to a real workflow, my machine bests anything, by a lot.
I'd love to see the file and actions Mr. White used so I could test them myself.
That's not completely true, but it is much more true than years back. The Quadra 950 and the Classic were available at the same time for four months (May to September '92). The Classic used the same processor as the original Mac, an 8 MHz 68000, while the Quadra 950 used a screaming-fast 33 MHz 68040. I think that's the biggest speed difference Apple's ever had. Right now, the biggest difference is between the 600 MHz iBook and the dual GHz Xserve. But the iBook is fully capable of running most modern software. The Classic couldn't run a lot of modern software when it was finally canceled. So we do have it good. Also, if the Classic was introduced today with proportionally the same specs, it'd be like a revision A iMac.
I assumed you forwarded that link to Steve'o.
lemon
bon
bon
...if it existed.
BTW, how would XServe help? AFAIK, the G4 only supports a 133MHz SDR bus, so how does a faster memory interface help if the CPU is connected with a normal SDR bus to the northbridge?
Very sad.
<strong>I'm surprised the mac performed that well, I suspected the gap to be much, much wider. This doesnt say much . . .
Very sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with the Major, i am sad, my bear is in the washer, and in a few minutes in the dryer, but i miss my teddy.
the mac should whollop the PC, **** the PC (I like using the word **** to express my feelings toward PC users, i should probably stop()
<strong>
...if it existed.
BTW, how would XServe help? AFAIK, the G4 only supports a 133MHz SDR bus, so how does a faster memory interface help if the CPU is connected with a normal SDR bus to the northbridge?</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but the DDR-RAM in the Xserve has a lot less latency. The Xserve kicks the PowerMac G4's ass.
<strong>We all know the slowsilver is slower than PCs. But the test is even worse than I thought
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many times did the PC systems crash before it finished the tests? They didn't post that. LOL <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Quote:
But when we used Discreet Cleaner 5.1 to compress our demo files to the Sorenson 3 codec, the G4 could almost keep up with the Athlon MP. With each file, the G4 trailed the Athlon by only two or three seconds, and tied it on two of the files. So, I'm thinking part of the severe trouncing the Mac took from that third-rate PC had something to do with the After Effects 5.5 code, and we're looking forward to the next version of After Effects, where we hope that optimization of the Altivec instructions can help the Mac perform better in AE. But the other reason the Mac got toasted is because of its processors. They're not as fast as the quickest Athlons.
The <a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/reviews/cw_macg4dual1gig.htm" target="_blank">review</a> of the Mac.
The Mac was the slowest, yep, but what are you going to edit the rest of the video files on? Premiere? ha! If the PCs could run a Final Cut Pro equivalent, they might have something there for a while.
And they still don't run OS X, so there goes 95% of the fun of using a fast computer...