PCs beats us again...
Here's the article:
<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>;
1st and foremost, I love Apple and I only own Macs and next week will be buying a new Dually 1.25 ghz. So no bitch ass flames about, "Well if ya don't like it, go buy a PC!"
This is an article a friend just sent me. I've been trying to convince him to buy a new Mac for a while now, but this article threw up some red flags. And for the record the author is a Mac guy.
My questions are:
1. Why the big differences between the Mac and PC benchmarks? Is it only because of the obvious Ghz advantage?
2. How much better do you think the Dually 1.25 PMG4s with Jaguar would fare?
Thanks for any feedback.
<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>;
1st and foremost, I love Apple and I only own Macs and next week will be buying a new Dually 1.25 ghz. So no bitch ass flames about, "Well if ya don't like it, go buy a PC!"
This is an article a friend just sent me. I've been trying to convince him to buy a new Mac for a while now, but this article threw up some red flags. And for the record the author is a Mac guy.
My questions are:
1. Why the big differences between the Mac and PC benchmarks? Is it only because of the obvious Ghz advantage?
2. How much better do you think the Dually 1.25 PMG4s with Jaguar would fare?
Thanks for any feedback.
Comments
Apple says the new dual 1.25GHz G4 is "up to" 90% faster than a 2.53GHz P4.
Adobe says the new dual 1.25GHz G4 is faster than any machine "seen" in Photoshop.
PC Digital Editing "shows" a dual 1GHz being beaten by a 2.5GHz P4 and a dual 1.67GHz Athlon XP.
My theory: The benchmarks are purposefully rigged to produce the results each side wants.
Use common sense. Don't believe anything unless you see it for yourself. Everyone lies.
At any rate I really don't doubt that Motorola will eventually become the chip manf for Portable and low end machines with IBM Iron at the top end.
I do believe PCs are faster, but not so significantly that warrants a Mac useless. I'm very productive on my G4/400, as Iv learned to take advantage of OSX.
OS X based on UNIX, which means with a little work on Apple's side all of us could make the switch to "Apple Approved" Intel or AMD boxes and end the dependency on the lagging Motorola. I think that should be Apple's main goal.
<strong>PC's are faster...and have been for sometime but the biggest gains you will see is in learning to be efficient in the program. I believe the weakest link is usually the operator of the computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn straight. How many people keep their CPU pegged at 100% utilization non-stop? Fact is, most people could increase their productivity more by organizing their work area, increasing their typing speed, getting a faster internet connection, getting a bigger monitor, and learning work-saving shortcuts like macros, applescript, efficient use of templates, etc.
Not that I wouldn't mind a faster machine, but doing something like organizing my dock (or Apple menu) more efficiently, cleaning out lots of dead folders and files from my hard drive, and generally getting more streamlined & efficient, those are the ways I've seen the biggest gains in productivity myself. Jeez, anyone who has time to waste posting zillions of messages on a forum like this shouldn't worry too much about benchmarks anyway, as we all obviously have plenty of time to waste!
The way some people talk about hardware speed (and I'm including us Mac users, when we were on top), you'd think we all get up in the morning and immediately press the big, red, "RENDER LATEST CGI BLOCKBUSTER" button which appears on our screens right after the boot finishes. Sheesh.