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

CanadaRAM

macrumors G5
Original poster
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.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,165
19
Chicago, Illinois
CanadaRAM said:
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.
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. :)
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,389
114
Location Location Location
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.
 

d_saum

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2005
398
0
NC
Abstract said:
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.
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! ;)
 

gabriel_uk

macrumors regular
Apr 19, 2005
100
0
England
CanadaRAM said:
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.
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
 

keysersoze

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2004
1,596
8
NH
gabriel_uk said:
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
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.
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
gabriel_uk said:
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
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.