Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-29-2003, 04:10 PM
tele_player tele_player is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 6,557
Default Re: dave c test

I guess the macs need a little help? [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
(I'm probably getting a mac to keep my PCs company, so don't think of this as an anti-Mac slam!)
__________________
Quad 2.5 G5, 4.5G RAM


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-29-2003, 08:41 PM
JMS40 JMS40 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Gnashville
Posts: 6,347
Default Re: dave c test

Quote:
Originally posted by tele_player:
I guess the macs need a little help? [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
(I'm probably getting a mac to keep my PCs company, so don't think of this as an anti-Mac slam!)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The fact is, when the test first came out, most of us were running high P3's, the Mac guys were running systems more than double the cost, with half the results.
Davec was not very popular over on the Mac forum.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-30-2003, 11:45 AM
nitronick1 nitronick1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: on the road
Posts: 25
Default Re: dave c test

Quote:
Originally posted by executivos:
wait....the mac forum only uses 4 plugins? whats up with that?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let's not get our pantaloons in a bunch, guys.
The post I am refering to over on the mac forum had only four of the five plugs listed. The person that posted DID use all five plugs in his test. He just made a mistake when posting.
__________________
Mitchell Benson
OKC Backup
www.okcbackup.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-30-2003, 11:55 AM
da BaSsTaRd! da BaSsTaRd! is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: dave c test

Quote:
Originally posted by kris whitten:
Dave C test IS NOT an accurate way to test performance.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">did you get my song?

how's that for non-sequiter??? [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]
__________________
i love my apple iPhone!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-30-2003, 01:03 PM
JMS40 JMS40 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Gnashville
Posts: 6,347
Default Re: dave c test

Sorry to upset you Kris.

4 plugs or 5 plugs, the Davec test was not popular on the Mac side.
The archives back that statement up.

It's also true that, at the time I first posted P3 800 stats on the performance thread (2001), my system was besting the only G4 reporting.
I had about 500 bucks in my system and felt pretty good about the results.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-30-2003, 03:02 PM
kris whitten kris whitten is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: H.B. CA
Posts: 939
Default Re: dave c test

Disclaimer: you all know I could give a crap what type of machine you use, i use mac, b/c of the OS, and thats that. When I can install OS X on a peecee, I will build one. I even hot rodded my mac so there [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

hey guys, my point is simple.

The dave c test showed that P3 systems were faster than G4 systems...

HOWEVER

these P3 systems were a lot faster than a 400 mhz G4, were they not at least 800mhz?

Motorola is to blame. And Apple for going with those losers.

But I challenge you to take a P3 400 mhz and get 12 dave c tracks out of it.

besides, we have already come to agree that

1) no one will use 32 + 15 with 200 plugs... the host performance is finally at the point where everyones dave c should be plenty. (my 1.2ghz upgrade does fine, plenty of power, for now)

2) The available plugs for peecee's suck. SO who cares how many plugs it will get.... I can't imagine not having access to all of the dope plug ins us mac people get.

Bottom line is the "spread" of rumors in these posts gets interpreted as "fact"

and then newbie search and say things like

" I heard the midiman interfaces have buggy drivers"

"i hear scsi is necessary for high track counts"

"only use firewire for back up"

"only use 7200 rpm drives"

You get the point.

I see the Dave c test making a comeback soon though, when the G5 comes out you guys can try to build machines that "almost perform like a g5 for XX less !!!" [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-30-2003, 09:27 PM
JMS40 JMS40 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Gnashville
Posts: 6,347
Default Re: dave c test

Quote:
Originally posted by kris whitten:

The dave c test showed that P3 systems were faster than G4 systems...

HOWEVER

these P3 systems were a lot faster than a 400 mhz G4, were they not at least 800mhz?

Motorola is to blame. And Apple for going with those losers.

But I challenge you to take a P3 400 mhz and get 12 dave c tracks out of it.

[img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, two years ago, I should have posted results from a P3 400 just to be competitive?
What's the point here.
Two years ago I had a P3 800 system that was rock solid, at a time when G4 systems weren't getting the kind of performance I was for more than twice the cost.
The Davec test just gave us a bar to jump over.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-30-2003, 10:58 PM
kris whitten kris whitten is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: H.B. CA
Posts: 939
Default Re: dave c test

the freakin point here is that yeah you had a p3, but it wasn't running at 400 mhz!!!!

Do you know how to read?

The key hear is mhz.

to say

"My p3 800 mhz was faster than a G4 400mhz "

is , like, hih hih, DUH!!!!! [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

OF COURSE IT IS. IT IS TWICE AS FAST.

PTLE IS DEPENDENT ON MEGAHERTZ !!!!!

But a mac with the same processor speed as a peecee is going to ATLEAST perform equal.

And again my point can be re configured here, for the slower people we have on the board.

what type of track count was your 800mhz p3 getting on davec?

when you put the answer, i will reply in real slow typing so that you can undserstand me.

heres a hint. If you look at the davec count for an "equivalent mhz" g4, you will notice things are closer than you think.

Well, were closer.

Hola G5 [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-30-2003, 11:19 PM
JMS40 JMS40 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Gnashville
Posts: 6,347
Default Re: dave c test

Well my point is, should I be penalized for running an 800mhz at that time?
You've been around long enough to know, that was when folks in 'the know' were saying "you can't do audio on a PC... get a Mac".
We fought hard to show we could compete. Now you're saying "Sure you won, you had faster horses."
Frankly, I find your tone condescending.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-31-2003, 02:14 AM
Joe Evans Joe Evans is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Posts: 1,020
Default Re: dave c test

I am not talking to anyone directly with this post. I am just making a general comment.

I must be a little lost here....I have known for a while that some Mac people and some PC people are borderline fanatics, but honestly what difference does it make to YOU if HE runs a Mac and you run a PC or vice-versa? Are you happy with your machine's performance? Are you happy with the plug-ins you use? Are you happy with what you paid for your hardware? Then WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Seriously.....

I see the DaveC test as a benchmark for a very specific circumstance. I personally use it to see if changes I have made in my setup have a positive or negative impact or in my system's performance with PTLE. I think that using the exact same test everytime can yield evidence of that particular system's speed for comparison, but as a comparison of one platform to another, well.....I don't see it.

Personally I run a PC because it's cheaper than a Mac and it does what I need. I also do video editing and use a PC for that as well, but, if I could afford a Mac I would probably use it for video due to the software and hardware support for that type of work. If I had both platforms available to me, I would choose the best one for the job after trying them both. As it stands I am happy with what I have now and it works for me.

I realize that this post is most likely going to set some people off and I will never understand why that happens. It seems to me that the people that flame the most about how great their particular platform is might actually be trying to convince themselves or justify the choices they have made. Maybe that's it.....

Off my soapbox now.

Mingle among yourselves.....

[img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

--joe
__________________
--joe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dave c test on the mac g4 ggmmss 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 1 06-04-2005 02:39 PM
I NEED THE DAVE C TEST ***BBOY*** 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 2 03-13-2005 11:21 PM
Dave C Test WolfieCA 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 11 02-24-2005 11:04 AM
DAVE C TEST tonebeats 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 2 02-29-2004 06:49 AM
Dave test add - on PT_Boogie 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 3 09-17-2003 10:19 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com