PC beats MAC for plug in count!

[BCBud]

I was reading the comparison post on the Mac 001 side and it would appear that the top of the line Mac: Dual processor G4 500. Gets no where near what a Intel 667 with 256M of RAM can get. And that is only a 667, how 'bout a 1G or even 1.14G. From the sound of things this is really pissing the Mac guys off. Especially considering that PC's cost about 1/2 to 1/3 the price. I do work with Mac's, cutting post on TDM. I think that Mac's work better for TDM, but it kind of seems like PC's work better for 001.
Till I upgrade all I have is a PII400 with 128M, and 1 7200 drive that has one partion with system files on the other side.
I got 24 tracks of 24bit 44.1K with 24 4 band Eq's, 6compressors, and 1 Dverb. When I added the 7th compressor it still played, but screen refresh was too slow for my liking.
Now all we need is something decent to plug in to.

[Paul Curtiz]

Oh boy ! Now you've done it !
How dare you ?
Are you sure your info is correct ?
Has it been verified ?
Double checked ?

It better be, because you might end up with another Mac vs PC war on your hands.
These Mac boys want the truth.
(In my worst Jack Nicholson impression : "They can't handle the truth !").

I remember some months ago when all you could read about was how it would never work on a PC. I'll wipe that sneer of my face now...

No hard feelings towards anybody. Most of the DUC people have been extremely helpful so far. I'm just in a good mood.

Cheers

------------------
Paul Curtiz / Scratch Studio

[dafunk]

ahh BCBUD, my good fellow, perhaps you should read the thread properly before posting that crap!

here is what the digi tech guy said:

<The bottom line is this: some plug-ins perform better on the Mac, while others perform better on the PC. Although the source code is the same, the performance differences between the platforms can be attributed to radically different memory and instruction architectures, development tools with differing optimization capabilities, and plug-in algorithms which may be a more natural fit for one platform over the other. In the end, the overall average performance of PTLE on either system is (in my experience) roughly the same.>

So for the case of that guy that got 120 eq in a session.. I ask you "who the hell needs 120 eq's?"

Maybe a 677 p3 PC does perform slightly better than dual G4 MAC at the moment. thats only cause PTLE isn't actually using the second processor yet...

So laugh it up PeeCee boys, cause when PTLE is updated for the G4's velocity engine and dual processors, you'll be choking on the dust!!!

l8r loosers!

[B.Ray]

"Maybe a 677 p3 PC does perform slightly better than dual G4 MAC at the moment. thats only cause PTLE isn't actually using the second processor yet..."

I may be missing something, but 120 compared to 49 is not slightly better.

"l8r loosers!"

Did you say loosers?

My PC cost $850. It outperforms your $2,500 "supercomputer". Looser? I don't think so.

Like BCBud said above, no one has even tested PTLE on a top of the line PC yet (e.g 1.14GHz).

Yes Altivec, DP & OSX support is coming but so is the 1.5GHz Pentium IV (later this month in fact for the 1.5GHz PIV).

In spite of all the rhetoric and hype, the facts do speak for themselves.

Six months ago, the idea of running PTLE on a PC was the joke of the DUC. They used to refer to PC's as an Etch-A-Scetch. One guy used to go on about how slow his mom's Intel 386 was. Well it is slow. They run at 16MHz. 1.14GHz..., well that's quite a different story isn't it?

[BCBud]

This thread has nothing at all to do with the musical applications of 120 4 band ep's and everything to do with with the fact that 120 4 band eq'a where loaded into a PC and played back.

[djan]

Dear all, since you seem to konw the differences between Macs and PCs runnig Protools I was woundering if you could hep me.

I have just installed my new system and on runnig the demo song I get the following message
"the operating system held held of interupts for too long, try increasing the H/W buffer size (-9094)"

my system ins a PII 450 with 256MB of RAM
it has a IBM 27 GB hard Drive
and the mother borard is a MSI 6116
I am runnig WIN98se

I have tried the suggestions in the install guide no luck

any ideas would be great
many thanks in Advance
James


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BCBud:
I was reading the comparison post on the Mac 001 side and it would appear that the top of the line Mac: Dual processor G4 500. Gets no where near what a Intel 667 with 256M of RAM can get. And that is only a 667, how 'bout a 1G or even 1.14G. From the sound of things this is really pissing the Mac guys off. Especially considering that PC's cost about 1/2 to 1/3 the price. I do work with Mac's, cutting post on TDM. I think that Mac's work better for TDM, but it kind of seems like PC's work better for 001.
Till I upgrade all I have is a PII400 with 128M, and 1 7200 drive that has one partion with system files on the other side.
I got 24 tracks of 24bit 44.1K with 24 4 band Eq's, 6compressors, and 1 Dverb. When I added the 7th compressor it still played, but screen refresh was too slow for my liking.
Now all we need is something decent to plug in to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[dafunk]

You guys are so cute!

<Did you say loosers?>-->yeah I did!

Did you not read the post?!? different algorithms - different performance. You are comparing apples with grapes.. and we all know that doesn't work.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the overwhelming majority of PT users use mac?

This debate is old and boring.

the end.

BTW this forum is supposed to be about sharing info ideas and getting help, not about who's platform is better, in that spirit, a response to djan: Have you tried the adusting the hardware buffer setting? Its in the hardware setup dialog, try a higher setting... should work.

[Music101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dafunk:

><Did you say loosers?>-->yeah I did!

Does not compute with us PC users.
It has to make sense to compute.
Maybe that line runs better on a MAC?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dafunk:
>Did you not read the post?!? different >algorithms - different performance. You are >comparing apples with grapes.. and we all >know that doesn't work.

Not correct.

I got 120 4 Band EQ running on a PIII-667 with no problem, where the G4 500 only got a count of 49.
Same plugins, vastly difference in performance.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dafunk:
>Have you ever stopped to wonder why the >overwhelming majority of PT users use mac?

Because the believe was always that the MAC was better, untill proven now that it does not perform better for Protools LE, but that the PC is a better buy, and outperformes the MAC.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dafunk:
>>This debate is old and boring.

You were calling PC users loosers, if you can't take the heat....

Fact is, that the PC did in this test outperform the MACs. Just accept that as a fact, and carry on working with your MAC, and be happy with it, knowing that the PC's did outperform your MAC.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dafunk:
>BTW this forum is supposed to be about >sharing info ideas and getting help, not >about who's platform is better.

Absolutely correct.
Then don't call PC users names, just because you don't want to work with a PC. That is not in the spirit of this forum.

I am going to upgrade to a P4 1.4 GHz in the near future. When I do, I will do another test with plugins - and post it again.

My original post with my PIII-667 was just a test to comparitively see how PCs compare, as to Motherboards - memory configs - RAM... and also just for information as to what PC users could expect from a PIII.

To each his own. This is not about a PC - MAC war, but rather an informative forum, for people to share experiences, and ideas.

Let's keep this spirit.

Have fun.
M101

[garuda_x]

my dogs better than your dog!

but really though. it is very interesting that you can get so many more plugins running on a pIII. i will be using the 001 on a windows box initially because i lack the funds for a pci expansion for my powerbook and my older macs are really older and cant run pt. i think that i would like to get a mac for pt though if for no other reason than for the sheer volume of plugins available. whahoo! i can run a bunch of eq's that are processor intensive, but i want to run plugs that are processor intensive and downright cool. there just seems to be about a quarter or the amount of plugs for win as there are for the mac........ thats really just the end of it. you hear of so many nt pt users jumping ship and buying mac setups....a bit less so on the 001 side, but we shall see. the market is controlled by the consumers ultimately. (viva la capitalism) well, its cold in los angeles. i need socks.
_x

[dsteele]

In the case of Digi 01, is there realy a lot more plug-ins for Mac then Windows? I thought there are just a lot less of the new RTAS plugins for both.

D.