The "Is Macintosh 'a' fast enough for 'b'" thread

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by CanadaRAM, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #1
    Many threads here ask "will this model of Mac be fast enough to run {whichever} software"

    These posts are hard to answer properly, because EVERY Mac sold today will run vitrually all software sold for Macs. There are a miniscule number of exceptions that are made for certain speed Macs only, and a very small number that only run on older Macs. So the answer is always "Yes, depending"

    The differences are a matter of degree: how fast do you need the software to perform, and how large/how many documents you want to open. You can do video editing on the smallest Mac as well as a Dual G5 monster. You just won't get it done as fast.

    So what it comes down to is what your level of use is. A professional who uses Photoshop every day to earn a living will need higher performance hardware than a hobbyist or an occasional user. Someone recording music requiring 48 tracks, dozens of effects and software synthesizers simultaneously in Logic will need a faster machine than someone using 8 tracks in Garageband.

    2-D programs like Photoshop, MS Office, and audio software really do not benefit much from faster video cards, so once again, any Mac sold today will have sufficient video capability to run almost every program, with higher performance benefitting some 3-D games and selected video production software.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Agreed. I use a G4 933 MHz PowerMac at work to run Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXpress. It does just fine (although I can't say the same for our Windows server-it's awful). MY 5-year old 1GHz upgraded G4 Sawtooth does great at home as well. My personal clients are very happy. :)
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    The thing is......it doesn't matter if it's fast "enough." People want things done, profession or hobbyist. Nobody wants to wait, because waiting isn't fun or productive. We're not a patient bunch, and that's not about to change.
     
  4. d_saum macrumors 6502

    d_saum

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    NC
    #4
    I totally agree... My BW 350 PM does everything I need it to, but hell, I WANT a faster PM. I want everything to be faster. Even my XP machine.... so I cant get spyware and viruses in record time! ;)
     
  5. gabriel_uk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #5
    Appreciate all your points, and am wondering with regards to graphics cards what your thoughts are on the following benchmarks - which apparently show the Radeon 9650 to run slower than the 9600...?

    http://barefeats.com/rad9650.html
     
  6. keysersoze macrumors 68000

    keysersoze

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #6
    The 9650 is a POS and you are better off saving the $50 (if you are BTO a G5) and putting it towards an x800 or 9800. The 9650's sole purpose for existing is allowing people to hook up a 30" Apple display without upgrading a dual 2.7. But if you are spending the money on that machine anyway, you should get a suitable graphic card.

    Just my opinion.
     
  7. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #7
    They compare it to a 9600XT not a 9600... As speeds go...

    Radeon 9600 - 324MHz, 203MHz
    Radeon 9650 - 401MHz, 270MHz
    Radeon 9600 XT - 401MHz, 311MHz

    With the first number being core speed and the second being memory.
     

Share This Page