I believe this was a comparison of Video Editing Systems, not a "how fast does Adobe Premiere run on x86 vs Power Mac" contest. If a combination of Final Cut Pro or Express and a Power Mac out performs an x86 architecture running Adobe Premiere, well, there you are. If I want the best performing Video editing system it includes software and hardware. Just because Final Cut doesn't run on the x86 there is no reason to use a less capable software package like Premiere on the Power Mac to make things "fair". It's about getting the job done, not being fair. I know plenty of professionals that do video editing and I doubt if any of them would choose an x86 system running Premiere over a Power Mac running Final Cut Pro. It's not like Apple was claiming the Power Mac was faster running Quake. Although, since the new XBox will be running PPC hardware, we'll have to wait and see won't we?
Which manufactor doesnt use testing that favors them? Thats why we look at benchmarks from independent sources. Of course Apple is going to say there stuff is better, so does every other company in the world, its business. Don't pull up something and make it sound ultra unique to Apple just because you don't like them.
I love my Apple, Wes. I also love my iPod. I have nothing against Apple, but rather, against dishonest marketing.
I'm just very, very, used to Apple padding their benchmarks in unfair ways. Sure, most companies do some sort of benchmark padding but Apple seems to be the master at it - comparing totally dissimilar and incomparable products on a frequent basis.
It's interesting to note thatin gaming ( DOOM 3 ) on a G5 using a 6800 ULTRA (whose PCB just so happens to be a WHOLE lot larger than the PC versions) just doesn't perform as well as the PC counterpart. Now there's a 1 to 1 "apple" being compared but showing clearly different results.
In my experience those that are avid users of Macs usually consist of two categories:
1) Those Video/Mulitmedia professionals that want the best processing power.. and using a Mac for that does make sense to an extent
2) and Operating System enthusiasts that just love to GLORIFY how wonderful that MAc OS is over anything they've ever used.
But is it worth the the extra hundreds.. ahem.. I mean 1,000's of extra dollars??
I'm not so agreeable on that.
- but ofcourse I'm not trying to instigate a mac vs. pc debate here
A64 3400+ 2.4 Ghz @ 2.9 Ghz
Zalman Cu7700 Heatsink
DFI Lanparty nforce3 250GB
1 GB PC4000 @ 500 DDR
BFG 6800 ULTRA OC @ 470/1.200
Coolermaster Coolviva VGA Cooler
80 GB Maxtor PATA HD
160 GB Maxtor PATA HD
37GB Western Digital 10k Raptor SATA HD
Enermax 420W Noisetaker
2X Altec Lansing 641 (800W of power)
Hmmm. I don't seem to remember the benchmarks being discussed having anything to do with gaming.
That's my point. It was about a system solution for digital video work. Makes no difference what the Doom performance is. Some people actually buy systems to do work, not to mention that a PC system for gaming is certainly hundreds, or in some cases thousands, more than an Xbox or PS2. I can't see paying that much extra to play games. I could see paying that much extra for a work station that earned it's keep.
Man, the anti-mac fear factor bias reeks here--are you folks really that threatened by Unix and iopen soruce...don't answer that LOL. I use both Macs (for Unix development, JSP web development, and Video editing) and PCs for gaming and business apps and development. Get it through your heads: computers are tools not life styles or religions. OS X Unix happens to be a great development platform for open source and open standards and also for using software tools Apple and Apple Partners like Alias Research can produce that are tuned for the PowerPC architecture. Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio are a 'cut' above Premiere and people buy Macs to run them--but peopel still use Adobe After Effects on the Mac--I do. For mainstream games requiring tuned graphics drivers (hint:Nvidia and ATI), PCs will always out-pterform Macs for one compelling reason: with 90+ percent of the market, PC graphics drivers will always get the lion's share of vendor attention. Period. I use an Athlon FX-55 and and ATI 850 XL Pro for my PC and it rocks for its purpose. I have a dual G5 and it rocks at its purpose. And by the way, Mac hardware is at most a couple of a hundred--not thousands--more expensive. And teh deisng of the software, OS, and hardware is so ergonomic and elegant--its worth every penny more. Liek a BMW versus a Pontiac. And with free word-class development tools and apps , X11 and Unix, and 64-bit support and drivers that work today (unlike Windows) it is a great environment for 64-bit computing and video. But I still use my PC just as much for other things. Note I use an Athlon because Apple was being a bit disingenuous--they benchmarked against 'sucky' Intel instead of Athlon. I'd like to see them try a cross-platform app like The Gimp in a Dual G5 versus dual Opterons and also a dual-core Athon x2 comparison. Now *that* would be fun...notice I said fun since I have other reasons than jsut benchmarks to use BOTH platforms. Stop arguing wheterh a Phillips or falt-blade screw driver is superior. What kind of screw are you driving in? Pick the best tool for the job.
Very well said, and I have to say I agree. Some people become so attached to their PC's that hearing a word against it makes them very defensive. PC's are nothing more than a processor of tasks - a tool. If it does it's job then that's fine. Ignore the benchmarks and all the specs the companies churn out at you, if it's good enough for you then that's ok, and that's as far as it goes.
Great article that really hits the nail when it comes to Apple dreamworld in-the-corner testing.
I cannot help wondering what other major differences there are on the testet systems - for example, a collegue of mine who is a Macintosh slave once in a while proudly proclaims "A Mac comes with SCSI as a standard, what do you say to that?". As calmly as possible I try to explain him that if you wanted to spend the same money, as a Mac costs, on a PC, you can get SCSI as well, but the great thing about PCs are that they are NOT locked into a standard. But he doesnt understand my point since he repeats "But in Mac it's a standard!!!". [I give up]
So the interesting thing here is also, where else but software did Mac cook the numbers? The most fair test would be two as-identical-as-possible systems but I take it that is too much to ask for a Mac slave - I don't think they understand WHY that is how it should be done...
You people are full of it. It's not just about unfair benchmarking which Apple HAS to do since they havent correctly build hardware to match up the spec the slap on the boxes. I have use both for work and tried to use macs for play and they just cant handle massive data transfer through the AGP/Graphics slot. Not sure why but theres a bottleneck somewhere and none of you mac lovers would ever know because the image that you bought for yes thousands more than a PC keeps you from trying both side by side. "Dual" processors on a Mac have been a joke for a while since they definitely don't crunch numbers in the way my Dual Xeon does. You ever run a 3D app on a G5? Well I have and a "dual" 2ghz barely keeps up with my 2.8 single proc P4 and I brought mine to work with me to actually be content and produce faster. I built a Xeon system recently for $1800 (Dual 3.6 Ghz Xeon 1MB Cache 2 GB RAM GeForce 6800 with 10k Raptors) If there was such a thing for Apple an educated guess would estimate it would cost about $7000 since if you were to buy the same retail PC it would be almost $5000. It's not about which is betteer its about which lives up to what it is and the raw power it provides.
I find it hard to believe that a dual 2.0 ghz g5 cannot keep up with a 2.8 ghz p4. I have had both macs and pc's for years, and it is hard to find a powermac that will lose to a 2 year old pc. I currently have a 2.0 ghz g5 with standard video (9600) and 1.5 Gigs of ram. I also have a gaming computer, an athlon 64 3800+ with 2 gigs of ram and an ati x800 video card. I will agree, the PC will leave the mac behind, but only IN GAMES, and sometimes in analyzing large spreadsheets using MS office. I'm not even going to start with the whole Office is written better for PC's, because in the end it doesnt matter, what matters is the end result, not the software used. If you try sound editing, video editing, or even making complex 3-d models (like lets say a protein, or a DNA strand), the mac wins hands down. Like i said before however, the PC is faster at games, and I own both because they are each good at what they are meant to do.
Well i didn't even consider gaming as far as true practicality but DNA strands I'm not sure. As far as 3D models, animation pure number crunching, rendering and realtime performance in Maya and even Photoshop it sucks and should not be called a true dual processor computer. CHeck out Photoshop benchmark at driverheaven.net and it further proves my point that a single extreme P4 out does dual G5 by a lot. Have you rendered large 3D scenes on a Mac compared to a dual proc PC? I have and its no match. Beside the price point of the same value pc hardware being faster.SO Apple sells a $4000 machine with radeon 9800 LMAO what a joke get with it Apple. Why is Apple going with Intel chips because they officially admin they are faster. You may disagree but thats fact.
Maybe something will come out good from Intel though like a parts market for processors with competitive pricing for Macs....whoa that would be unheard of haha