Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac vs. PC, read it and weep

Why G5 instead of Alienware

The Alienware PC sounds good for games, especially with that wicked case, but the G5 PowerMac is the better computer for professional multimedia. The latest and greatest computer is used for tasks like rendering video and audio as well as running impressive real-time 3D engines. 3D allready runs in next-generation frame rates on the G5 but the most impressive performance test is the rendering of audio and video. PCs might always outperform Apple hardware at ripping tracks from Audio CDs but that may have to do more with the speed of CD drives used instead of the performance of either CPU. This is why Logic outperforms Windows solutions on similar hardware; the rendering engines are more optimised on the Mac.
 
Since you ca'tn truly run the same OS or application on both systems. Can there ever truly be an objective and unbiased test of Intel/AMD vs. Mac Hardware.
For the most part the Alienware review only lets you know how poorly written Word and Premiere are for OS X.
The fact that the P4 system disappears in the mp3 encoding test is also a little sketchy. There is no explination for why they left it out. They weren't even converting a CD to mp3's truly. They converted WAV's and AIFF to mp3's how is that a true test (no to mention, they used the free version of iTunes against the pay version of MusicMatch).
I just wish some one could come up with a true way to compare speed across platforms.
 
Originally posted by Counterfit
Maybe loading RedHat on the PC and Yellow Dog on the Mac and running the same apps would be a bit more even...
Click to expand...

I think this misses the point entirely, though...What practical use would information about pure hardware performance be to anyone? Sure, it's another stat one faction can lord over the other, but in the end, things like operating system and other software ARE important. If the PC's hardware is "faster," but it doesn't run software as quickly as the Mac because XP holds it back (or vice versa), that's crucial information. All the crap about theoretical performance and making all but one variable constant is immaterial here--You've got to show people real results based on tests that examine the way the system will really be run. After all, I doubt you're going to be running yellow dog on your Mac.
 
Originally posted by themadchemist
...All the crap about theoretical performance and making all but one variable constant is immaterial here--You've got to show people real results based on tests that examine the way the system will really be run...
Click to expand...
Then maybe the answer is to not use the same program on each computer. Premiere 6.5 was awful on Mac (I uninstalled it from mine and went back to 6.0). I honestly, don't know anyone who uses it on a regular basis.
How about a test of FCP vs. Premiere doing the same things? I think that would be a interesting test.
Set up a Mac and an Windows systems for the same amount of money and run equivalently priced software designed for each computer to do the same tasks. This is the kind of benchmark I would like to see.
Does Premiere on a $3000 Alienware render a motion blur faster or slower than FCP on the Dual 2 GHz G5? (or some test along those lines).

Has it been done?

Edit: Fixed some typos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back