Catching Up to Do in After Effects

sybaritic

[quote] After seeing the results of these tests, we can only conclude that Apple's fastest G4 workstations are certainly not faster than dual 1.533MHz Athlon MP-equipped systems, at least as far as After Effects is concerned. Not one of the objective tests we conducted using After Effects showed Apple's flagship machine to be superior. In fact, in most of the tests, the Mac was left lagging far behind. And, this was when we were using a PC whose chips are now three steps below the fastest Athlons available (now the fastest Athlon XP is the 2100+ running at 1.73GHz), and far slower than benchmarks have shown the latest Intel Xeon chips to be, now shipping at 2.4 GHz. Of course, there are many valid reasons for using a Mac that go beyond raw speed (my emphasis). But if Mac users are under the impression that their machines can render After Effects composites faster than any Windows-based workstation, our tests do not support that conclusion.

<hr></blockquote>



Mac videographers who are planning to buy the current top of the line dual 1 Gig machine before MWNY might want to take a look at Charlie White's article comparing the the dualie with a dual 1.533 Athlon MP-equipped system. For ease of use and minimal headaches, I think the Mac wins hands down, but the article might compel would-be buyers to wait for a faster system this summer.



<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown3.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown3.htm</a>;

dru

[quote]Originally posted by Sybaritic:

<strong>



Mac videographers who are planning to buy the current top of the line dual 1 Gig machine before MWNY might want to take a look at Charlie White's article comparing the the dualie with a dual 1.533 Athlon MP-equipped system. For ease of use and minimal headaches, I think the Mac wins hands down, but the article might compel would-be buyers to wait for a faster system this summer.



<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown3.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown3.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;



This article was already posted elsewhere. On the thread I replied that it was very curious the "objective" benchmarks removed 512MB from the PC rather than ADD 512MB to the Mac. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS X was "starving" for RAM.



While I don't believe the Mac would necessarily catch up or beat the PC, it would have been EXTREMELY instructive to have 1GB (more realistic for people doing that sort of application anyway) RAM as well as run the tests under Mac OS 9.&lt;p&gt;



I also noted the article never *specifically* stated that apps were run as Carbonized "native" apps. For all you can tell from the text they could've run the via Classic. Unlikely, but it's an interesting omission.

leonis

Look at the current AE file I am working on....it eats up over 930MB or RAM to render! :eek:







512MB RAM just doesn't cut it!

amorph

There's already a thread about this <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001487"; target="_blank">here</a>.