Photoshop and FC benchmarks will certainly vary differently between machines.
In this context the photoshop graphs nicely illustrate how ram, rather than cpu speed, can be the limiting factor. Video editing will be mostly ram bound on a machine equiped with only 512megs and running OS X.
The Photoshop results posted illustrate the effect of RAM when working with a single extremely large 110 MB image. The whole image has to be in RAM in order to work with it. I expect there would be an image size below which Photoshop would perform at full speed even with only 512 MB RAM.
Video consists of a very large number of much smaller images, not all of which need to be in RAM at any given time in order to do useful and speedy editing work. That is why I say Photoshop and Final Cut are very different animals.
I would like to see benchmark results showing Final Cut Pro/Express performance versus RAM.
Frustrated with waiting for a Powermac G5 dual I to bought the 1.8 MHz machine. As of right now (pre-Panther) I find my self wanting more.
There's a new update to FCP specifically tailored to the G5's and Panther that will provide a significant performance boost, so I'd just hang in there with what you have right now, cause the speed boots coming with these software updates might be sufficient enought to hold you over for quite a while.
Thank's for the tip, can't wait. I'm just frustrated with Jaguar's performance and that damn FINDER from hell. Hoping Panther and the FCP upgrade will do the trick. Still getting the Dual though, price/performance ration is just to poor for the 1.6 and 1.8.
It is a big mistake to extrapolate Photoshop results to Final Cut Pro/Express. Very different animals.
The point was that adding RAM does make a huge difference.
One thing from the graphs that I find interesting. There isn't a huge difference from the stock 1.8 vs stock dual 2.0 Almost as if we where seeing only a single 2.0 at work. So what is the other processor doing?
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
Photoshop and FC benchmarks will certainly vary differently between machines.
In this context the photoshop graphs nicely illustrate how ram, rather than cpu speed, can be the limiting factor. Video editing will be mostly ram bound on a machine equiped with only 512megs and running OS X.
The Photoshop results posted illustrate the effect of RAM when working with a single extremely large 110 MB image. The whole image has to be in RAM in order to work with it. I expect there would be an image size below which Photoshop would perform at full speed even with only 512 MB RAM.
Video consists of a very large number of much smaller images, not all of which need to be in RAM at any given time in order to do useful and speedy editing work. That is why I say Photoshop and Final Cut are very different animals.
I would like to see benchmark results showing Final Cut Pro/Express performance versus RAM.
Originally posted by Relic
Frustrated with waiting for a Powermac G5 dual I to bought the 1.8 MHz machine. As of right now (pre-Panther) I find my self wanting more.
There's a new update to FCP specifically tailored to the G5's and Panther that will provide a significant performance boost, so I'd just hang in there with what you have right now, cause the speed boots coming with these software updates might be sufficient enought to hold you over for quite a while.
Originally posted by Tidris
It is a big mistake to extrapolate Photoshop results to Final Cut Pro/Express. Very different animals.
The point was that adding RAM does make a huge difference.
One thing from the graphs that I find interesting. There isn't a huge difference from the stock 1.8 vs stock dual 2.0