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

THANKS APPLE - I am done here....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the people saying go to your local Apple Store and test it out. If you're concerned about After Effects speed, take a project you did and burn it to CD and bring it down with you. They should have AE installed by default on the PowerBook, at least it is in the bay area at all the stores I've been at. Load up the project and start rendering. If it seems too slow to you, then don't get it. Also they have lots of other applications that you can play around in to feel the speed. If you decide not to get it, then at least you can feel sure that you made the right choice based on your feelings of the computer, and not somebody elses.
 
The results of the laptops are nice as I mentioned, but is it really like that the G4 is still left behind of the Intel processor in terms of pure processor speed. It was a centrino 1.3Ghz they tested and the fastest are nearly 2Ghz.... Against the 1.3Ghz machine the G4 did fine. When looking the tests telling about the procesor speed is seems to be 2 out of 3 tests for G4.

http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html

One thing I also could think about is to buy a dual G5 2Ghz and a laptop when there should not be any speed issues any more.

However. There is one thing which confuse me. As far as I know XEON is 32bit computer and G5 is 64bit one. The G5 do not seem to be any faster than XEON...

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

:confused:
 
Originally posted by Stojamow
The results of the laptops are nice as I mentioned, but is it really like that the G4 is still left behind of the Intel processor in terms of pure processor speed. It was a centrino 1.3Ghz they tested and the fastest are nearly 2Ghz.... Against the 1.3Ghz machine the G4 did fine. When looking the tests telling about the procesor speed is seems to be 2 out of 3 tests for G4.

http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html

One thing I also could think about is to buy a dual G5 2Ghz and a laptop when there should not be any speed issues any more.

However. There is one thing which confuse me. As far as I know XEON is 32bit computer and G5 is 64bit one. The G5 do not seem to be any faster than XEON...

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

:confused:
Click to expand...

Please tell me why a 64bit should be any faster then a 32bit computer?
 
Originally posted by Stojamow
The results of the laptops are nice as I mentioned, but is it really like that the G4 is still left behind of the Intel processor in terms of pure processor speed. It was a centrino 1.3Ghz they tested and the fastest are nearly 2Ghz.... Against the 1.3Ghz machine the G4 did fine. When looking the tests telling about the procesor speed is seems to be 2 out of 3 tests for G4.

http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html
Click to expand...

I believe the reason for only having a 1.3GHz, is because it was the only Centrino laptop that they could get their hands on. They use whatever people will let them borrow. Or it could be because it has a similar price point to the PowerBook.

If all you're interested in is pure processor speed than go with that 1.7GHz laptop. If you want the best features for the best price, than get the PowerBook.

Here are two similar configurations I did right now. I feel they are pretty fair. The only questionable thing is I put in DVD+RW and a CD-RW drives. Which I feel is equal to the SuperDrive in the PowerBook. You can take off ~$100 for the CD-RW or ~$380 for the DVD+RW if you don't want both.

pb.jpg


dell.jpg


As you can see, the PowerBook is cheaper than the Dell, as well as it has a bigger screen, bigger hard drive, but it doesn't have as nice a video card as the Dell, and the Dell has 66 more mhz than the PowerBook. But the PowerBook is thinner, and weighs less (for it having a bigger screen): 6.9 to 7.0.

Oh yeah, and the Dell has a $200 off thing, so the total is $3,244 vs. $3,124. $120 doesn't seem like much, but when you up the Dell to the full processor, then the price goes up with it as well.
 
True...

There is a certain point in owning a Mac when working for video industry because all the major applications do run in a Mac but not in a PC.

I have actually started to think to cancel my order and order a Powermac and later on a G4 laptop.

HUMMM....

That might do because then I would be fully capable to run any professional applications if needed.

BTW: As you can see I am building my first own edit :D . Until now I have been editing in rented suites.
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Please tell me why a 64bit should be any faster then a 32bit computer?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily faster, but scalable. 64-bit processors are designed to handle more memory and more data at one time.

That may not mean that your programs run faster, but it definitely means you can run more of them without a slow down. A backend heavily loaded database server cluster with a couple hundred terabytes comes to mind. It can keep up with these were a 32-bit would start falling behind.

The main reason why a G5 is faster is more in the memory bus than anything.
 
Originally posted by tomf87
Not necessarily faster, but scalable. 64-bit processors are designed to handle more memory and more data at one time.

That may not mean that your programs run faster, but it definitely means you can run more of them without a slow down. A backend heavily loaded database server cluster with a couple hundred terabytes comes to mind. It can keep up with these were a 32-bit would start falling behind.

The main reason why a G5 is faster is more in the memory bus than anything.
Click to expand...

Your quite correct. I have a question though. Do you know that the G5 can accept to 32bit commands at once substituting a 64bit command? It seems that you are implying that though I highly doubt it can. For some apps with a rewrite I do agree thought there will be a speed in crease but at this moment with no rewrites and with basic programs there is no reason a 64bit processor should be any faster then 32 bit processor. If it is which the G5 it's because of other parts of the chip design.
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Your quite correct. I have a question though. Do you know that the G5 can accept to 32bit commands at once substituting a 64bit command? It seems that you are implying that though I highly doubt it can. For some apps with a rewrite I do agree thought there will be a speed in crease but at this moment with no rewrites and with basic programs there is no reason a 64bit processor should be any faster then 32 bit processor. If it is which the G5 it's because of other parts of the chip design.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't implying that and you are correct. My apologies if it came out that way. To be able to scale well, it needs a 64-bit OS running 64-bit applications.

Actually, here's an interesting little blurb. I used to be a Check Point consultant, and I had a customer having performance problems on his Sun box. I found that he was running Solaris in 64-bit mode, while Check Point Firewall-1 is only 32-bit. Switching the OS to 32-bit (about 5 seconds of work) cured the performance woes. It's like the processor was running 64-bit but emulating 32-bit (like Virtual PC or something similar).

So, even if OS X does go 64-bit, the app still may perform at its optimum level until it can address the processor correctly. Only time will tell with that though.
 
Originally posted by tomf87
No, I wasn't implying that and you are correct. My apologies if it came out that way. To be able to scale well, it needs a 64-bit OS running 64-bit applications.

Actually, here's an interesting little blurb. I used to be a Check Point consultant, and I had a customer having performance problems on his Sun box. I found that he was running Solaris in 64-bit mode, while Check Point Firewall-1 is only 32-bit. Switching the OS to 32-bit (about 5 seconds of work) cured the performance woes. It's like the processor was running 64-bit but emulating 32-bit (like Virtual PC or something similar).

So, even if OS X does go 64-bit, the app still may perform at its optimum level until it can address the processor correctly. Only time will tell with that though.
Click to expand...

Am I also correct that the vast majority of regular programs will see no benefit or will not be able to be optimized for 64 bit operations?
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Am I also correct that the vast majority of regular programs will see no benefit or will not be able to be optimized for 64 bit operations?
Click to expand...

Right on target! 32-bit apps know no 64-bit extensions, so they can't benefit.

Now, some programmers may have checks within their programs to see if it is running on a G5, and run some G5 optimized code, but it wouldn't be truly 64-bit.
 
Originally posted by tomf87
Right on target! 32-bit apps know no 64-bit extensions, so they can't benefit.

Now, some programmers may have checks within their programs to see if it is running on a G5, and run some G5 optimized code, but it wouldn't be truly 64-bit.
Click to expand...

-All

I think it's important to point out that with the G5, there won't be a performance hit with running 32-bit on that 64-bit chip.
 
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-All

I think it's important to point out that with the G5, there won't be a performance hit with running 32-bit on that 64-bit chip.
Click to expand...

Well yes and no. It runs as well as a 32bit machine does at the given MHz/GHz but applications that can take advantage of 64bit code will perform better then the same application not optimized for 64bit. So technically if it isn't performing at it's peak you're taking a performance hit. It isn't a matter of the CPU causing the slow down though, it's a matter of programers needing to optimize for the cpu. So if a cpu can run 64bit programs and the program can be written to take advantage of 64bit programs but isn't you are taking a performance hit.
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Well yes and no. It runs as well as a 32bit machine does at the given MHz/GHz but applications that can take advantage of 64bit code will perform better then the same application not optimized for 64bit. So technically if it isn't performing at it's peak you're taking a performance hit. It isn't a matter of the CPU causing the slow down though, it's a matter of programers needing to optimize for the cpu. So if a cpu can run 64bit programs and the program can be written to take advantage of 64bit programs but isn't you are taking a performance hit.
Click to expand...

-MacBandit

Well, taken with that definition - your right. I was referring to the fact that performance won't decrease because you are running a 32bit app on the 64bit G5, unlike what happened when one ran 68k apps on a PPC back at that transition. Remember that? The same app, actually was emulated on the new chip ergo a measurable decrease.
 
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-MacBandit

Well, taken with that definition - your right. I was referring to the fact that performance won't decrease because you are running a 32bit app on the 64bit G5, unlike what happened when one ran 68k apps on a PPC back at that transition. Remember that? The same app, actually was emulated on the new chip ergo a measurable decrease.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that. Mostly at night though and I wake up sweating. Emulating is a very poor word for what was being done. It's much closer to advanced aging of the process.:eek:
 
Originally posted by oaklandbum
Here are two similar configurations I did right now. I feel they are pretty fair. The only questionable thing is I put in DVD+RW and a CD-RW drives. Which I feel is equal to the SuperDrive in the PowerBook. You can take off ~$100 for the CD-RW or ~$380 for the DVD+RW if you don't want both.

...edited to save room...

As you can see, the PowerBook is cheaper than the Dell, as well as it has a bigger screen, bigger hard drive, but it doesn't have as nice a video card as the Dell, and the Dell has 66 more mhz than the PowerBook. But the PowerBook is thinner, and weighs less (for it having a bigger screen): 6.9 to 7.0.

Oh yeah, and the Dell has a $200 off thing, so the total is $3,244 vs. $3,124. $120 doesn't seem like much, but when you up the Dell to the full processor, then the price goes up with it as well.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you have to add AppleCare to the PB (and that still doesn't add up to on-site care the Dell has) and deduct the cost of the (2nd) CD-RW drive you added to the Dell. The DVD-R/RW in the Dell is also a CD-R/RW drive, so currently you have 2 optical drives. Also, about screen size, it appear the Dell has more pixels.

The Dell will still come out cheaper and a higher performer in raw speed (and that's w/o considering the killer graphics card) Also, since you're comparing it to the 17"PB, I'd say battery life is about the same (this wouldn't be the case if the Dell was compared to the old Ti which last longer)
 
Originally posted by Stojamow
True...
There is a certain point in owning a Mac when working for video industry because all the major applications do run in a Mac but not in a PC.
Click to expand...

Not true. Only FCP comes to mind as a Mac only application. There are a lot of compositing software packages and editing packages that are PC only. On top of that, most studios here in LA have a large collection of PCs to work on... so Apple isn't the "standard" for the business.

(Apple is the standard in pre-press/publishing and photography, just not video (and I'd say 50/50 in audio))
 
Originally posted by legion
To be fair, you have to add AppleCare to the PB (and that still doesn't add up to on-site care the Dell has) and deduct the cost of the (2nd) CD-RW drive you added to the Dell. The DVD-R/RW in the Dell is also a CD-R/RW drive, so currently you have 2 optical drives. Also, about screen size, it appear the Dell has more pixels.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't add AppleCare to the PB because I didn't add the Dell stuff either. It was standard, and I couldn't see a way to take it off.

And if the DVD-R/RW (even though it's a DVD+R/RW) can do CD-R/RW why do they not say so on their web page?

from http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_precn_precn_m60.htm :
24X variable CD-ROM Drive (standard)
8X DVD ROM Drive (optional)
CD-RW drive 24X/10X/24X (optional)
Combination DVD/CD-RW drive 8X/24X/10X/24X (optional)
2X DVD+RW2 rewritable DVD drive 2X/16X/8X/4X/24X (optional)
Click to expand...

Like I said in my post, I only added the CD-RW because that's what I thought needed to be added to make it equal to a superdrive.

And sure the Dell does 1920x1200 while the PB does 1440x900. But do you reall want to look at 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen? That's more resolution than my 20" cinema display has, which I think is the right resolution for it's size.

The Dell will still come out cheaper and a higher performer in raw speed (and that's w/o considering the killer graphics card) Also, since you're comparing it to the 17"PB, I'd say battery life is about the same (this wouldn't be the case if the Dell was compared to the old Ti which last longer)
Click to expand...

Like I already said, "if all you're interested in is pure processor speed than go with that 1.7GHz laptop." You're not choosing a PowerBook for it's spead but all it's bult-in features. The PowerBook has gigabit ethernet; the Dell has 10/100. The PowerBook has DVI; the Dell has VGA. The PowerBook has FireWire 400, FireWire 800 and USB 2; The Dell has FireWire 400, USB 2, a Parrallel port, and a Serial port.

The only reason I chose the 17" instead of the 15" is because they were at a closer price point. If I had chosen the 15" then the PowerBook would be an even better deal at $2824 (that's when the 15" Superdrive model gets upgraded to 1 512mb DDR333 SO-DIMM and a 5400rpm hard drive). But then you would have an even slower processor and a smaller screen. But I still think "If you want the best features for the best price, than get the PowerBook."
 
Originally posted by legion
Not true. Only FCP comes to mind as a Mac only application. There are a lot of compositing software packages and editing packages that are PC only. On top of that, most studios here in LA have a large collection of PCs to work on... so Apple isn't the "standard" for the business.

(Apple is the standard in pre-press/publishing and photography, just not video (and I'd say 50/50 in audio))
Click to expand...

I'd say Apple hasa 70/30 advantage in the editing world (if not more). Off the top of my head I can only remember seeing two non-Apple machines at any of the post facilities I've worked for/visited. I think they were both Avid DS machines (I'm certain one was, not sure about the other though). Now, if you are talking about finishing/compositing or 3D/FX stuff that's usually more PC/SGI territory.


Lethal
 
Apple has become a significant player when talking about video industry. I.E. This can be pointed out by looking the pricing & product development by Avid.

Personally I have come to an excellent idea. I do cancel my current order and order a DELL INSPIRON 1100 . That will do.

Unfortunately I have to visit an other website as well and order the following: g5 2ghz dual including 500gb hd and 2gb mem to start with. Oh, of course, i need a display. maybe a 20" ?!?

This will solve the problem. I do have one of the fastest machines out there and I can run all the other software I already have.

:D
 
And what is the best of this is that if I want to switch to FCP when the FCP5 comes out I can do it ... on the other hand: if I want to carry on with Avid and Macs are clearly slowlier than PC's I can simply take my dongle and put it to my new PC if needed.

:rolleyes:
 
The G5 really is an impressive machine. One big way you can tell is by CompUSA, as weird as that sounds. I remember when the PC techs would wander into the Mac section and act like dicks to anyone looking at Macs and putting them down for just about everything saying get a PC instead. Now, even they play around on it or take mention how cool it is. Yesterday one of the techs was playing various CDs and they had one badass screen saver going on it with equalizer and everything. It was connected to one sweet 5.1 digital speaker setup that shook half the store. You can imagine how popular the Mac section was. Just about everyone in the store was somewhere in the Mac area. I just hope this trend continues, because this kind of "cool, awesome" exposure can seriously boost the image of power and performance when peope think of Apple. When you are in a store like that looking at a dull plastic eMachines when just down the hall you have this massive aluminum system with an even more massive LCD monitor blasting music and gathering gasps from the crowd of people, I am sure you'd close your solitaire game and go see what is interesting so many people, too.
 
Originally posted by Stojamow
check this out:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp
Click to expand...

I've had discussions with other people on the PCMag article and while it's impressive it should have been more impressive. Here's the thing. The G5 should have wiped the floor with the PC hands down it's been shown over and over. I don't know what tests they did but they must of either hand picked the ones the PC did well or they didn't have the Photoshop7 plugin for the G5. Also they probably don't know about the cpu stepping control pane. By setting the CPU to max all the time you will improve benchmarks that use multiple short tests greatly. Finally they didn't compare prices between the Dual/Xeon and the Mac. The reason is probably because the Dual/Xeon with 2gigs of RAM matching the G5 they had would be at least a $1,000 more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back