As for why I need a faster computer. I work for a large format printer and we deal with some very large file sizes. It can take forever to process filters in photoshop and sometimes even longer to send a file to our rips. We get by with what we have, and noone has asked for a new computer but we always try to budget money to keep up with technology. It would be pretty difficult to upgrade every computer in the department at one time. So we do it gradually, one machine at a time.
Benchmarks are crap. Even so-called "real world" benchmarks often lack the whole picture.
Could the G4 be faster? yes, it's severely limited by its lack of DDR support. But the performance differential is nowhere near as big as it was in 1997, when Apple was shipping dual 604e-350 machines to compete with the 200mhz Pentium Pro.
That being said...picking a computer simply by how long it can make its benchmark bar is like picking a boyfriend simply by how long...[well, you get the idea].
Well, then sorry for the snap. It's honestly too hard for me to tell. And with idiots like SPJ making all sorts of noise all the time, it's getting even harder for me to tell what's serious, what's a joke, and what's facetious.
Cheers.
Quote:
As for why I need a faster computer. I work for a large format printer and we deal with some very large file sizes. It can take forever to process filters in photoshop and sometimes even longer to send a file to our rips. We get by with what we have, and noone has asked for a new computer but we always try to budget money to keep up with technology. It would be pretty difficult to upgrade every computer in the department at one time. So we do it gradually, one machine at a time.
fair enough. I deal with 100+ MB Photoshop and Tiff images, and of course it's going to be slow. Having 1GB of RAM makes a big difference though. My Powerbook with a Gig of RAM (Ti 1Ghz) Does better, though, than a 2.8 Pentium4 with a Quadro4 990, but only 512MB of RAM, when it comes to processing large files. Regardless, if you have a 970 with a lot of RAM it should burn through big images with reckless abandon.
Well the showdown shows that the G4 is not only half the clock speed but also half the performance of the Intel. It also show how uneven tests are across the board. For some tests the AMD is almost as far behind as the G4 in other it is about equal to the Xeon. The G4 is more consistent than the AMD, in all tests excluding the Premiere it is at 40-50% the performance of the Xeon, the AMD vary far more.
I think that the 970 also will be "uneven" with the Xeon. That is better at some equal in other and also slower at still other stuff. This is a vast improvement over the G4 that has been lagging far behind for over 3 years in everything outside some few AltiVec enabled applications.
My dream is that the 970 will be vastly better than all Intel AMD Motorola CPUs in all aspects. This might not come true (apart from the Motorola part) but I will be pleased to rejoin the race that the Mac left in 1999
Well, if these benchmarks from MacBidouille are correct my questions and prayers have been graciously answered. They are probably incorrect or just plain made up, but I am personally going to enjoy this while it lasts. It would truly be a beautiful thing if these benchs are true.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Yes I was, thanks for the backup.
Well... you were _trying_ to be humorous at least.
Without audible intonation or non-verbal cue, sarcasm isn't readily apparent without a
Could the G4 be faster? yes, it's severely limited by its lack of DDR support. But the performance differential is nowhere near as big as it was in 1997, when Apple was shipping dual 604e-350 machines to compete with the 200mhz Pentium Pro.
That being said...picking a computer simply by how long it can make its benchmark bar is like picking a boyfriend simply by how long...[well, you get the idea].
Cheers.
As for why I need a faster computer. I work for a large format printer and we deal with some very large file sizes. It can take forever to process filters in photoshop and sometimes even longer to send a file to our rips. We get by with what we have, and noone has asked for a new computer but we always try to budget money to keep up with technology. It would be pretty difficult to upgrade every computer in the department at one time. So we do it gradually, one machine at a time.
fair enough. I deal with 100+ MB Photoshop and Tiff images, and of course it's going to be slow. Having 1GB of RAM makes a big difference though. My Powerbook with a Gig of RAM (Ti 1Ghz) Does better, though, than a 2.8 Pentium4 with a Quadro4 990, but only 512MB of RAM, when it comes to processing large files. Regardless, if you have a 970 with a lot of RAM it should burn through big images with reckless abandon.
I think that the 970 also will be "uneven" with the Xeon. That is better at some equal in other and also slower at still other stuff. This is a vast improvement over the G4 that has been lagging far behind for over 3 years in everything outside some few AltiVec enabled applications.
My dream is that the 970 will be vastly better than all Intel AMD Motorola CPUs in all aspects. This might not come true (apart from the Motorola part) but I will be pleased to rejoin the race that the Mac left in 1999