I've always heard that mac proccessors are better suited for handling graphics (photoshop, illustrator, etc.). Is this true? and why?
thanks!
thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
graphics: mac vs. pc
- Thread starter believo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Altivec SIMD unit does not share registers with the FP unit, unlike the Intel solution.
So using Altivec doesn't kill regular FP performance.
Pre-G5 systems sucked at Int performance, the G5 went a good length to address some of these problems in Int performace -- but it also based on old Power4 tech, expect IBM to catch up real quick with the Power5-UL.
The G4 wasn't bad, just hobbled behind a slow bus.
So using Altivec doesn't kill regular FP performance.
Pre-G5 systems sucked at Int performance, the G5 went a good length to address some of these problems in Int performace -- but it also based on old Power4 tech, expect IBM to catch up real quick with the Power5-UL.
The G4 wasn't bad, just hobbled behind a slow bus.
i apprecaite the explanation. unfortunately i don't understand it... 
if you can explain things in simplier terms it would help... thanks.
if you can explain things in simplier terms it would help... thanks.
Jon Stokes has some articles on the various processors, and stuff like SIMD.believo said:i apprecaite the explanation. unfortunately i don't understand it...
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/simd/simd-1.html
The consensus I've found and came to is that Macs have better color calibration with the utility ColorSync. It makes sending graphics to the printer fun! ;P (printer as a person and not the $50 thing you buy from wal-mart)
I asked a Why Mac over PC on the Adobe forums, and other than people shouting troll, I believe some of the main reasons why graphics are better suited on macs is because,
1. Macs were the first to have a GUI, therefore gained a following with artists
2. Upgrading software to Windows would be a costly task
3. Colorsync
4. Most Printers use Macs (the good ones anyway)
those were just some (in no particular order) that I've seem mentioned.
I asked a Why Mac over PC on the Adobe forums, and other than people shouting troll, I believe some of the main reasons why graphics are better suited on macs is because,
1. Macs were the first to have a GUI, therefore gained a following with artists
2. Upgrading software to Windows would be a costly task
3. Colorsync
4. Most Printers use Macs (the good ones anyway)
those were just some (in no particular order) that I've seem mentioned.
Yes, it seems it is tradition that graphics are pushed as 'better' on mac, as originally, graphics software was written for mac...but nowadays, I think PCs are able to adequately compete.
Color calibration is a big issue, but even though you go through the colorsync utility that comes with Mac, it doesn't mean that your monitor is correctly calibrated...for something like that you need hardware to analyze a test an image on your actual monitor....ex: Spyder Calibrator .... www.pantone.com
Color calibration is a big issue, but even though you go through the colorsync utility that comes with Mac, it doesn't mean that your monitor is correctly calibrated...for something like that you need hardware to analyze a test an image on your actual monitor....ex: Spyder Calibrator .... www.pantone.com
grneyedjay said:
Yeah but after calibrating your monitor you can use the same profile for your scanner/printer/etc.