2002. whats the speed of MAC/PC

[andkar]

This is not a I hate mac pc post.
I am not interested in that. I am a Mac user an it will take a lot to change that but some of my friends have recently start using pc / talking about trying out pc and they tell me that you can run up to 20 reverb plug in etc, etc. without any extra dsp card power.

I remember I once found a page with benchmark test, with different computer, different system etc.

I do not remember if it compare pc/Mac with the same parameter.

Is it still around ?
or and is there any reel data on this anywhere ?

Pleas do not reply with "Mac rules" "PC Always better" or wince versa.
I am relay curios on how the different platforms perform.

And I hope the mac wins [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]


/ MAC G4MP 500mhz / digi001 / LAP / TC-Powercore /

[thermoboy]

I don't have the answer to your question, just some breaking news I just got on the web.

Apple 1Ghz versus PIII : PIII wins

How could this happen ?

Aloha

[Bastiaan]

come over to the pc-forum and take a look at the PT-Performa nce thread. With careful chosen systems they get something like 24 tracks+14 aux-tracks with 5 plugins on each channel! Davec constructed a test. Follow it to the word and start posting mac-performance as well!!

[ckerian]

PT's sucks ***** on the Mac in terms of comparison with the PC. Try comparing a dual 1 gig running DP to a PC running anything and you may get different results. Digi purposely keeps PT's slacking on the Mac so they can sell TDM as a must. digi needs to work on their host based stuff but they dont take it seriously. optimize PT's for dual processors and altivec then we can compare PT's on the mac to something.

[jindrich]

unfortunately for all of us long time mac users (i started in 1989 with a lovely MacSE) current PCs vastly OUTPERFORM ANY present Mac. Dont believe Jobs and his tests anymore. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

for audio tasks specially, current $3000 macs are deadly smashed by $800 (or less) Pc boxes.

have a look at this link and surf all trhu Xenomorph's site. This guy is legal. you wont find opinions but facts.
web page

dual G4 at 1ghz cant play beyond 20 stereo platinum reverbs in logic. todays intels and athlons give you 40 and more.
(And consider that emagic has always been a "mac first" company, and his products are adapted for velocity engines and duals)

i've personally tested it. no comments.

[Slim Shady]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR> Apple 1Ghz versus PIII : PIII wins

How could this happen ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my favorite apple news/rumor website (yesterday's edition) As the Apple Turns

"Doesn't anyone think it's strange that they failed to mention that the SPEC2000 test, as compiled, utterly ignores the G4's Velocity Engine registers, which are what gives that chip its supercomputer-class, greater-than-gigaflop floating point performance? What c't did is tantamount to forcing you to write with your toes and then telling you that your handwriting sucks.

What's more, while the industry just loves SPEC benchmarks, faithful viewer Mark Davis reminds us that they've always been biased towards Intel processors, in part because the SPEC code just floods the chip with a constant stream of perfect instructions and let it work at peak efficiency, which is nothing like how real software is processed. As you may recall from Jon Rubinstein's "Megahertz Myth" spiel, Intel's recent chips take a speed hit from the recurring need to clear and refill those extra-long pipelines due to incorrect predictive branching-- it's that whole "pipeline tax" thing. With the SPEC test, there are no data dependency bubbles, and therefore no pipeline tax, so Intel's chips perform better than they would in actual battle conditions.

Apple itself obliquely refers to this problem on its G4 page: "Another aspect of speculative operation worth noting is that it is possible to create (for testing purposes) a contrived set of instructions that can make the processor guess correctly much more often than it would under real-world conditions. Thus a 'benchmark' with no relation to actual performance can be crafted to cleverly avoid the bubble problem and thus indicate unrealistically high performance." No one's mentioned by name, but all signs point to SPEC-- which was never meant to test real-world performance."

Now, I'm not debating the fact that PC's obviously get more plug-ins, I just wanted to clear up the recent PIII vs Mac SPEC benchmark results.

[ckerian]

not sure I would trust anyone named Xenomorph and it's not all about performance, it's about having a usable system. The part they leave out is the 300 hours they spent configuring the system and troubleshooting all the incompatible hardware. No thanks. I'll take less plug in's for OS9. Remember too that nothing is out for OSX and everyone prioritizes dev for windoze. How can a cis processor be more powerful than a RISC? as soon as we get our MHZ up to where the PC's are at there will be no competition.


BTW.. Slim Shady, that's what i wanted to say but I can't because you obviously are smarter than me. good reply!

[jindrich]

it took me 1 month to make (configure in pc terms?)ptools free to work properly with an emi2|6 and my icebook.

i run Macs, Pcs, Linux and windsurf boards. you may be more confortable with one system than with others, but at the end they're all workable. And they all crash THE SAME.

Fact is Macs WERE the fastest and best personal computers avalaible at any price (sometime ago).
Now they're not anymore.

If you're looking for the phatest and fastest audio computer, go to someone in the know to build you a silent monster PC in a 4u rack. And it will cost you less than a top of the line Mac (that will perform 50% poorer).

And i'm still a mac fanatic.

PS: Well, wait. If you wanna go DV just get a superdrive mac and FCP3 and DVDpro. No pc can touch that power and easyness. Period.