This is looking VERY UGLY

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    A Mac is not going to beat a PC running DDR or RDRAM in these tests. They are pretty much memory bound and that's the current Achilles Heel of the Mac HW.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    macgpmacgp Posts: 88member
    The Powermac G4 got its ass kicked <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 3 of 15
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Those are a lot of memory bound tasks. Simply using an Xserve (yes that's right people, its name is Xserve, NOT Xserver) would speed the tasks up greatly. Considering that the Dual Gig did that well with 133MHz SDRAM, I'm quite impressed. Can't wait to see how well the next revision does.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    oh my god! I am going to have to wait SIX extra seconds on a PM G4???!!?!?!? APPLE SUCKS!!! SIX SECONDS!!!! OH MY GOD!!!



    uh, sorry about that. software is everything, all hardware is equally adequate these days.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    In PS7Bench, my Power Mac holds its own against 2.4 GHz PCs.



    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.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    [quote]software is everything, all hardware is equally adequate these days.<hr></blockquote>



    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.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    cobracobra Posts: 253member
    Leonis:



    I assumed you forwarded that link to Steve'o.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    cobracobra Posts: 253member
    I would be curious to just see the test redone with a 266 MHZ FSB and 266 MHZ DDR ram on the dual 1 GHZ PM. No other changes.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    ouch!



    lemon



    bon



    bon
  • Reply 10 of 15
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]I would be curious to just see the test redone with a 266 MHZ FSB and 266 MHZ DDR ram on the dual 1 GHZ PM. No other changes. <hr></blockquote>



    ...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?
  • Reply 11 of 15
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    I'm surprised the mac performed that well, I suspected the gap to be much, much wider. This doesnt say much . . .



    Very sad.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    [quote]Originally posted by MajorMatt:

    <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()
  • Reply 13 of 15
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    [quote]Originally posted by radar1503:

    <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.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

    <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]" />
  • Reply 15 of 15
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    Did anyone even read his reviews of each machine or just look at the final measurement in hard, cold numbers?



    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...
Sign In or Register to comment.