Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

What should I get Mac or PC ?

red is apple-centric

red is apple-centric

before this turns into a full blown mac vs. pc argument (too late) i just wanted to chime in with a red-related observation. red is a mac house. yes they develop on pcs (doesn't seem like they want to except to support large pc userbase) but name one red software solution that came out on pc first. red always delivers mac versions first and have some deep roots with apple.

and no one can count fcp out yet. just because apple doesn't update as frequently or telegraph future releases to media and tech forums doesn't mean they're not working on a 4k native solution that doesn't match or best scratch at a fraction of the price. color already supports 4k output so why wouldn't the next fcp release do the same?

i've been a mac user since 1984 and a reduser since 2007. if red was primarily pc, i might have had to jump to pc platforms. my point is that a low end, functional red package starts at $25,000+ so mac and pc loyalty is really irrelevant if you're shopping based on price. the real dollar investment is in red hardware and ultimately the red culture.
 
Tim Morten said:
Let's examine the claims:

1. Mac is the only patform that runs FCP: Yup, can't argue. To put it gently, I do not love FCP, but I recognize that it's a personal choice. Adobe Creative Suite, Avid Media Composer, Assimilate Scratch, Sony Vegas... lots of options on PC. As soon as we start talking about mainstream software, there are many many applications which are available on PC but not on Mac.

2. Mac is more stable: Lots of anecdotal testimonial, but lack of hard data. My personal experience is that Macs have the same drive failures, power supply failures, video card failures, memory failures, etc. that PC's do. It's true that Mac users tend to be less sophisticated, and tend to customize their systems less, so there is less opportunity for user-induced problems. This is about type of user rather than about any inherent advantage to the system.

3. Mac is more flexible: This is claimed because a Mac can also run Windows. With caveats of course, but it does work if you want to pay the money. As new Windows versions are released, there is a lag before these versions are supported by Boot Camp. As your Apple hardware ages, it will stop being supported (list here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3986). Parallels and VMWare are virtualization alternatives, instead of native boots, with all the baggage that comes with that. Ability to boot Windows aside, you will always have less options with Apple's native OS. Less software to choose from, and less hardware.

4. Mac is easier to use: The subjectivity of this statement should be obvious. I have numerous qualms with the Mac interface. Putting the menu bar at the top of the screen instead of within the current window is something that many new Mac users have difficulty with, for example. But once you start running software, using that software is no easier on one system than another. Editing and post production are inherently technical; if you really feel that you aren't up to the "complexity" of using a PC, I hear you can get a Moviola real cheap these days. :)

5. Macs don't get viruses: Plain and simple, this is a false statement. Macs absolutely get viruses. It's true that Macs are targetted less often, because there are less of them, but they are in no way immune. It is a simple matter to install virus protection. Microsoft provides a very capable virus checker for free to all registered owners of Windows. Install it, and use the safe browsing practices that you should employ regardless of what system you are on. Oracle/Sun Solaris gets less viruses too, but it doesn't mean I wan't to use it.

Bottom Line: If you want to pay substantial extra money, are willing to accept hardware and software limitations, and don't mind inferior video driver performance, then you are a good candidate for a Mac. Plus, you'll get the validation of being "cool" like Justin Long, you can tell yourself that you "think different" like other brilliant people, and you'll get lifetime membership to one of the most popular cults on the planet! :)
Click to expand...

By all means, let's stick to verifiable facts.

1. Unless you're talking about high-end, dedicated computer systems, Mac offers a complete editing and finishing solution.

2. Mac is more stable. Period. It's not anecdotal; show me any survey that shows PC to have fewer problems than Mac.

3. Which system is more flexible? A Mac can and does run virtually any tool we use for editing and finishing.

4. Mac is easier to use. Does this mean Mac users are less capable or less technically knowledgeable? Perhaps they simply spend no time trying to get the computer to work after each hardware or software addition.

5. Viruses. Claiming that both Mac and PC are equally vulnerable to viruses betrays an irrational bias. No one really believes this. Our Macs are connected to the internet and we've not had a single virus ever, and we go back to the first Avid sold in the Southeast. I mean that literally.

I find your last paragraph rather insulting. If you mean humor, OK, fine; otherwise I could charge you with attempting to be "cool" by tinkering, tweaking, and troubleshooting your PC while we Mac users are editing. As for "thinking different," how about this thinking; choose the platform which is clearly superior in productivity even if it costs a bit more.

Best regards,

Leo
 
Tim Morten said:
Bottom Line: If you want to pay substantial extra money, are willing to accept hardware and software limitations, and don't mind inferior video driver performance, then you are a good candidate for a Mac. Plus, you'll get the validation of being "cool" like Justin Long, you can tell yourself that you "think different" like other brilliant people, and you'll get lifetime membership to one of the most popular cults on the planet! :)
Click to expand...
This is insulting FUD.
 
Tim Morten said:
Let's examine the claims:

1. Mac is the only patform that runs FCP: Yup, can't argue. To put it gently, I do not love FCP, but I recognize that it's a personal choice. Adobe Creative Suite, Avid Media Composer, Assimilate Scratch, Sony Vegas... lots of options on PC. As soon as we start talking about mainstream software, there are many many applications which are available on PC but not on Mac.

2. Mac is more stable: Lots of anecdotal testimonial, but lack of hard data. My personal experience is that Macs have the same drive failures, power supply failures, video card failures, memory failures, etc. that PC's do. It's true that Mac users tend to be less sophisticated, and tend to customize their systems less, so there is less opportunity for user-induced problems. This is about type of user rather than about any inherent advantage to the system.

3. Mac is more flexible: This is claimed because a Mac can also run Windows. With caveats of course, but it does work if you want to pay the money. As new Windows versions are released, there is a lag before these versions are supported by Boot Camp. As your Apple hardware ages, it will stop being supported (list here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3986). Parallels and VMWare are virtualization alternatives, instead of native boots, with all the baggage that comes with that. Ability to boot Windows aside, you will always have less options with Apple's native OS. Less software to choose from, and less hardware.

4. Mac is easier to use: The subjectivity of this statement should be obvious. I have numerous qualms with the Mac interface. Putting the menu bar at the top of the screen instead of within the current window is something that many new Mac users have difficulty with, for example. But once you start running software, using that software is no easier on one system than another. Editing and post production are inherently technical; if you really feel that you aren't up to the "complexity" of using a PC, I hear you can get a Moviola real cheap these days. :)

5. Macs don't get viruses: Plain and simple, this is a false statement. Macs absolutely get viruses. It's true that Macs are targetted less often, because there are less of them, but they are in no way immune. It is a simple matter to install virus protection. Microsoft provides a very capable virus checker for free to all registered owners of Windows. Install it, and use the safe browsing practices that you should employ regardless of what system you are on. Oracle/Sun Solaris gets less viruses too, but it doesn't mean I wan't to use it.

Bottom Line: If you want to pay substantial extra money, are willing to accept hardware and software limitations, and don't mind inferior video driver performance, then you are a good candidate for a Mac. Plus, you'll get the validation of being "cool" like Justin Long, you can tell yourself that you "think different" like other brilliant people, and you'll get lifetime membership to one of the most popular cults on the planet! :)
Click to expand...

This is not a discussion leading comment. Its simple provocation. Don't get into this trap.
 
I think both have their strengths. In the end, it has to be a personal choice. Before you read my post, please note that it is all completely based on my own personal experience. I have given both Windows and Mac a fair try.

I have chosen PC and Windows because:

1) I am a hardware enthusiast and wish to keep up-to-date with the latest hardware. To run a Mac, I need to buy what Apple gives me, not what I want. This is an absolute deal-breaker for me straight away. Upgrades are also so much easier. If you wanted to move from Core 2 Quad to Core i7, you would need to wait till 2009, and have to go in for a new system. On a PC, all I need to do is buy a Core i7 CPU in 2008 and a motherboard, and that's about it. That costs $500, and I have it six months before Apple makes it available. In these 6 months I have a CPU that is 30%-40% faster for a far lesser price. That 30% to 40% could potentially be worth thousands or more. You could even assemble an AMD 48-core server CPU. The possibilities are endless.
2) By extension, price. The cheapest Mac Pro costs $3k or so. I can assemble a superior system for half that price.
3) Overclocking. This is a big deal. Overclocking a 2.66 GHz CPU to 4 GHz makes your entire process 50% faster. 50%!

Now for OS related preferences:

4) My NLE of choice is Sony Vegas Pro, and I use Avisynth and VirtualDub extensively. In addition, Windows has a large array of software that I regularly use that don't work on Mac. There are a couple of softwares that are Mac-only that I like a lot. More on that later.
5) DirectX offers useful DXVA video acceleration that are a big help in high quality previews. MadVR is the best video renderer by far. The frequency of Windows drivers from Nvidia and ATI are at a steadier pace - and these drivers help a lot. The general quality of the drivers are much higher. Drivers are as important to GPUs as firmware is to the Red One. I am a big fan of VfW codecs. My workflow is built around the Lagarith Lossless Codec, which is again, Windows only. ProRes is just far too lossy for my liking, and uncompressed codecs are too massive. To put it simply, most of my workflow and software uses Windows only products, which are far superior for my methods to anything available on the Mac.
6) There are certain small details to Windows that just appeal to me personally. The Aero Snap is one of those very simple "I can't believe I survived without this!" features. I could go on and on. There are hundreds of little details which leave me with no option but to us Windows.

Now, here are the things I like about Mac:

Hardware related:

1) A Mac can run Windows and Mac, but a PC can run only Windows.
2) The entire unit has a single warranty. Personally, I haven't had a SINGLE hardware component malfunction. This could also be a disadvantage. If you had one part malfunction (most likely), you would have to send your entire Mac for repair. It could be gone for a while, and in the middle of a production, it can be a major handicap. With a PC, you can diagnose the part that failed, and send it for RMA. In the meantime, you can replace just the part if there's a pressing need. Once again, in my experience, PC components have been extremely reliable. If things started failing, I would consider a Mac.

OS-related

1) It is more secure in terms of viruses, trojans, spyware, etc. It isn't a big deal though. I have never suffered a virus probem since using Vista/2007. XP was rather leaky though. Both OSes are extremely reliable. Windows 7 has the edge, solely because I use it much more and it has never, ever crashed, frozen or anything. It seems like bulletproof OS, and boy do I abuse it!
2) I have tried Davinci Resolve and it is a fine piece of software. But then again, you can install Linux. Logic Pro is also pretty cool. These are the two softwares that Windows don't have a reply for, in my preference list.
3) The interface is very neat. Possible easier to use than Windows.
4) An ancient computer runs faster on Mac. Though at this stage I am just fishing for positives.
Edit:
5) After a lot of thinking, Mac OSX upgrades are cheaper. Though, obviously, a $50 saving is irrelevant compared to the thousands saved on the hardware.

All this is keeping in mind the requirements of a cinema post-production system. As you can see, it is a no-brainer for my system.

Now, let me re-iterate once again that my clear choice is Windows/PC and this choice is mine only. It is based on my methods and my experience. I can understand perfectly well how some of my reasons might appear as meaningless to you. In the end, it is your choice to make.
 
Yikes, those are some passionate responses. Good thing I didn't say anything negative about Xenu, er I mean Steve Jobs...

Anyhow, fair enough that there are lots of folks on the board that love their Macs. Choices are a good thing. I'll agree to disagree... along with the other 90% of people in the world who use computers -- sorry could resist one last dig! :).

Peace,
Tim
 
Craig Schober said:
but name one red software solution that came out on pc first. red always delivers mac versions first and have some deep roots with apple.
Click to expand...

REDCINE - The first REDCINE came out on Windows, then Mac.

SCRATCH - We were the first and only high-end application to natively support R3D for about a year. We run Windows exclusively.

Craig Schober said:
just because apple doesn't update as frequently or telegraph future releases to media and tech forums doesn't mean they're not working on a 4k native solution that doesn't match or best scratch at a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

And when that comes out, I'm sure many people will use it. Until then, several thousand camera owners have work to do.

Craig Schober said:
color already supports 4k output so why wouldn't the next fcp release do the same?
Click to expand...

Because they are completely different code-bases, have different code teams, and are essentially separate products stuck together by marketing and a patchwork of "Send to..." glue.

Craig Schober said:
my point is that a low end, functional red package starts at $25,000+ so mac and pc loyalty is really irrelevant if you're shopping based on price.
Click to expand...

Rocket Fuel, which ASSIMILATE has offered (and sold a ton of) for almost a year - is US$10,999. A complete turnkey system can be purchased from Keycode Media in Los Angeles for under US$15K. Many of our other resellers - B&H in NYC, Systems4U in Holland, Seika in Tokyo, etc, etc. - offer similar packages.

Get your facts straight, please.

Lucas

ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA
 
If you want bang for your buck, maximum performance for your hard-earned cash, get a PC.

Want the best of both worlds and run FCS? Hackintosh. That's what I built/run and both OS' are stable as ever.

For all you Apple fanboys out there:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/22/secunia-ranks-apple-first-in-software-insecurity-safari-said-to/

Cineform Neo3D/4K v5 were available for CS5 Windows months ago - no CS5 Mac support yet. These things matter for those of us shooting 3D.

I had a G5 Quad once upon a time, purchased with the assurance that I'd be able to upgrade the stock video card to something more robust. Six months later, still no upgrade path from Apple, but I could pay $600 for someone to hack the $200 PC card to make it work in the Mac. No thanks. Finally, after 9 months, Apple comes out with a standalone card that you can buy from them for a measly $750 just to remind me of how proprietary their universe is. So I sold it all.

Do you want to tweak and upgrade (pick your own components) and optimize and get under the hood? Get a PC.

"Hi, I'm a Mac. I give you exactly the same functionality as a PC, but for just over twice the price. And everyone knows that more expensive things must be better things! My OS is based on Unix, and computer science profs use Unix, so even though you don't know how to use Unix any differently than you'd use Windows, everyone knows you The Realest. Let's see how much street cred your PC-using loser friends can buy with the measly $600 they saved! Which makes it ironic as hell that the pro-Linux crowd loves the fact that Apple's OS is Linux-based. Linux is cool because it's OPEN-SOURCE! Apple is the diametrical opposite of open-source!"

I dare any of you Mac guys to benchmark your machines against Tom's PC. It looks pretty badass, too. ;)
 
Fusion 6.1

Fusion 6.1

Another high-end software that supports RED is eyeon's Fusion compositing system. Fusion 6.1 natively supports R3D files, Mysterium-X, and both Color Science 1 and 2 are selectable. It also leverages the GPU for processing like CS5. Windows only.
 
Peter Chang said:
If you want bang for your buck, maximum performance for your hard-earned cash, get a PC.

Want the best of both worlds and run FCS? Hackintosh. That's what I built/run and both OS' are stable as ever.

For all you Apple fanboys out there:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/22/secunia-ranks-apple-first-in-software-insecurity-safari-said-to/

Cineform Neo3D/4K v5 were available for CS5 Windows months ago - no CS5 Mac support yet. These things matter for those of us shooting 3D.

I had a G5 Quad once upon a time, purchased with the assurance that I'd be able to upgrade the stock video card to something more robust. Six months later, still no upgrade path from Apple, but I could pay $600 for someone to hack the $200 PC card to make it work in the Mac. No thanks. Finally, after 9 months, Apple comes out with a standalone card that you can buy from them for a measly $750 just to remind me of how proprietary their universe is. So I sold it all.

Do you want to tweak and upgrade (pick your own components) and optimize and get under the hood? Get a PC.

"Hi, I'm a Mac. I give you exactly the same functionality as a PC, but for just over twice the price. And everyone knows that more expensive things must be better things! My OS is based on Unix, and computer science profs use Unix, so even though you don't know how to use Unix any differently than you'd use Windows, everyone knows you The Realest. Let's see how much street cred your PC-using loser friends can buy with the measly $600 they saved! Which makes it ironic as hell that the pro-Linux crowd loves the fact that Apple's OS is Linux-based. Linux is cool because it's OPEN-SOURCE! Apple is the diametrical opposite of open-source!"

I dare any of you Mac guys to benchmark your machines against Tom's PC. It looks pretty badass, too. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a great extent. Hackintosh is an option, but still an option of dubious legality.

Let's assume I have $3,000 to spend on an Editing and Post Production system (minus display). I have two options:

Mac Pro: 2.66 GHz Quad Core, 6GB 1066 MHz RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4870, 1TB 7200 RPM, etc. ~$3000.

PC: 3.2 GHz Six-Core O/ced to 4.2 GHz ($900), 12GB 1600 MHz RAM ($400), Nvidia Geforce GTX 470 / ATI Radeon HD 5870 ($350/$400), 2TB x 2 in RAID0 ($240) for offline storage, 128GB SSD x 2 in RAID1 ($500), X-Fi Fatality sound card ($200), a superb enclosure, high end motherboard and cooling system plus all the necessary accessories ($500), opportunities for endless tweaking, etc. ~$3000.

So, for the same price (with no exaggerations), we get 2.5 times the CPU power, twice the RAM at 50% higher speeds, 2 time the GPU power (or, something like 5-10x if you are looking for CUDA), online storage system which is about 5 times faster, offline with twice the space with redundancy, a sound that is required for precision mixing, etc. etc. If it took you 12 hours to render a project, now it will take 5 hours. If your high bitrate footage was contrained by the HDD to run at 6 fps, it will now run at real-time. We all know the potential of GPU Acceleration. It is quite laughable that Apple offer a 2008 card from ATI and a GT 120 for CUDA. A GT 120 has 32 CUDA Cores. GTX 470 has 448 CUDA Cores.

Or, if you are on a budget, I can assemble a AMD six-core 3.2 GHz based PC for under $1,500. Yes, that is a superior system for half the price.

I know which option I will choose. It is fair to say that owning a Mac is "easier" or "safer", but if I am getting a product that is several times faster, I am up to the challenge. Besides, PC has NEVER failed me. If the Apple were 90% as fast, it would be worth consider. It is less than half as fast as an equivalent PC, and with all the other inflexibilities to boot. That severely cripples my productivity. Thus, this, and for the several other reasons I have mentioned before, a PC is the only option for my process.
 
Great posts by Peter and Subhadip.
icon14.gif
 
Fair enough i suppose, though i highly doubt your gonna find 12GB of 1600mhz ram for $400 bucks. But you also need to keep in mind that your comparing the most current tech available in the windows world, with a base mac pro released in early 2009. When the new model comes out, i would be willing to bet that at the same price the aging model is at now, i will get a similarly performing computer as you have just suggested.

As for the old Video card. http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/04...-gtx-480-drivers-hint-at-desktop-mac-updates/
 
Ian Laurie said:
Fair enough i suppose, though i highly doubt your gonna find 12GB of 1600mhz ram for $400 bucks. But you also need to keep in mind that your comparing the most current tech available in the windows world, with a base mac pro released in early 2009. When the new model comes out, i would be willing to bet that at the same price the aging model is at now, i will get a similarly performing computer as you have just suggested.

As for the old Video card. http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/04...-gtx-480-drivers-hint-at-desktop-mac-updates/
Click to expand...

The problem is, we have been using Radeon HD 5870 for the PC since September 2009. A Mac may release with HD 5870 in August/September 2010, but then PC owners will have HD 6870 in October 2010. Simply put, Apple is way behind the curve. An entire generation behind. Even in early 2009, you could buy a quad core 2.66 GHz CPU (Core i7 920) for $300, and assemble a PC around it for $1500 or so. We can bring this topic up when the latest generation of Macs release. There will still be a major price/performance deficit. Trust me, I have been doing this for a long time, and at no point has an Apple system made sense. I still keep checking because I want the best system that is out there, and I hope one day Apple can be a viable alternative.

As for 12GB RAM, you could actually get 1600 MHz for as low as $300. The average price is around $350. Here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0006127&IsNodeId=1&name=DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800).

I chose the most expensive 12 GB RAM to make the comparison a bit fairer.
 
wow. Must say that is a pretty good deal. Comparing ram for my mac pro (early 2008) really isn't fair as it is fully buffered. The new models you can get it from the same source as a pc ram vendor. Honestly I am quite impressed. Your the first person on here that has given a hands down unbiased reason as to why you chose a PC. Informative as well. On the other hand, not everyone wants to build their own computer. and while we may be a bit behind the curve when the new models come out, i honestly believe Apple is a bit behind due to some major work going on behind the scenes to push them forward. I love my OSX so i am gonna stick with it. But thank you for posting a very reasonable, very honest list of reasons.
 
Ian Laurie said:
wow. Must say that is a pretty good deal. Comparing ram for my mac pro (early 2008) really isn't fair as it is fully buffered. The new models you can get it from the same source as a pc ram vendor. Honestly I am quite impressed. Your the first person on here that has given a hands down unbiased reason as to why you chose a PC. Informative as well. On the other hand, not everyone wants to build their own computer. and while we may be a bit behind the curve when the new models come out, i honestly believe Apple is a bit behind due to some major work going on behind the scenes to push them forward. I love my OSX so i am gonna stick with it. But thank you for posting a very reasonable, very honest list of reasons.
Click to expand...

I completely understand why you may not want to build a PC. There are ready off-the-shelf PCs out there that offer substantially more value. Here's one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113135. This $1000 PC, for example, will outperform the $3000 Mac Pro. For $3000, you can get yourself one of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229183. Yes, you read that right. 3.33 GHz six-core, 12GB, 2 TB, GTX 480. Several times faster than 2.66 GHz quad core, 6GB, GT 120, I am sure you will agree. Still, to extract the most value out of your system, you have to build your own PC. Your ideal PC. You can see how the above system will stutter hopelessly playing back multiple 5K REDCODE 2.5:1 streams simultaneously. For that, it is better to invest the money in a pair of SSDs in RAID.

I myself was extremely skeptical. I realized, in theory, it could save me hours. It could make my work that much easier. I assembled my first PC and haven't looked back since. 7-8 years back, things were a little more complicated. But today's PCs are just so easy to assemble! If you still don't want to do it, hire someone to assemble it for you. Still cheaper than Macs.

To be fair, I am comparing a server-based system for the Mac Pro to a desktop solution. The buffered RAM and the CPU cost more. To a video post-producer, however, this is inconsequential. We just need the best performance. iMacs aren't really an option (severely underpowered).

As for the RAM, you could buy 12GB for under $300 earlier this year! 1066 MHz 12GB could be had for as little as $200. For some reason DDR3 prices increased, but they are starting to come back down again.

Most of the reasons to buy an Apple has to be from the software side. For hardware, it is a complete no-brainer. It makes very little sense to buy a Mac to run Windows. The only possible explanation could be if you are delighted with Apple support and you don't trust the likes of Acer, Gateway or Dell as much.
 
This is funny.

It is frustrating that Macs don't support all the great hardware out there, but they are so much more stabil than Windows that I gladly give up that hardware.

Macs are also more expensive than a home built PC. If you search the Hackintosh sites, you see that they all agree it costs about the same to buy a high end Mac Pro as to built it yourself. So Macs aren't that much more expensive and all the time and energy required to get something working eats up any costs savings.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
I agree with you to a great extent. Hackintosh is an option, but still an option of dubious legality.

Let's assume I have $3,000 to spend on an Editing and Post Production system (minus display). I have two options:

Mac Pro: 2.66 GHz Quad Core, 6GB 1066 MHz RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4870, 1TB 7200 RPM, etc. ~$3000.

PC: 3.2 GHz Six-Core O/ced to 4.2 GHz ($900), 12GB 1600 MHz RAM ($400), Nvidia Geforce GTX 470 / ATI Radeon HD 5870 ($350/$400), 2TB x 2 in RAID0 ($240) for offline storage, 128GB SSD x 2 in RAID1 ($500), X-Fi Fatality sound card ($200), a superb enclosure, high end motherboard and cooling system plus all the necessary accessories ($500), opportunities for endless tweaking, etc. ~$3000.

So, for the same price (with no exaggerations), we get 2.5 times the CPU power, twice the RAM at 50% higher speeds, 2 time the GPU power (or, something like 5-10x if you are looking for CUDA), online storage system which is about 5 times faster, offline with twice the space with redundancy, a sound that is required for precision mixing, etc. etc. If it took you 12 hours to render a project, now it will take 5 hours. If your high bitrate footage was contrained by the HDD to run at 6 fps, it will now run at real-time. We all know the potential of GPU Acceleration. It is quite laughable that Apple offer a 2008 card from ATI and a GT 120 for CUDA. A GT 120 has 32 CUDA Cores. GTX 470 has 448 CUDA Cores.

Or, if you are on a budget, I can assemble a AMD six-core 3.2 GHz based PC for under $1,500. Yes, that is a superior system for half the price.

I know which option I will choose. It is fair to say that owning a Mac is "easier" or "safer", but if I am getting a product that is several times faster, I am up to the challenge. Besides, PC has NEVER failed me. If the Apple were 90% as fast, it would be worth consider. It is less than half as fast as an equivalent PC, and with all the other inflexibilities to boot. That severely cripples my productivity. Thus, this, and for the several other reasons I have mentioned before, a PC is the only option for my process.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that you are comparing a i7 processor with a nehalem xeon processor. Most of the price of the mac goes to the nehalem xeon. That's a separate comparison all together, but Xeons are for workstation use, and are very expensive.

a 2.66 ghz nehalem xeon processor alone is 1 thousand dollars, 1/3 of the price of that quad core mac.

you can get good deals on quality ram at macsales.com, but you can claim up to more ram because you are working on a workstation motherboard.

I"m serious when I say, if you actually spec out equal 1:1 parts as close as possible to a mac, and convert it to a PC, the PC runs very close to being the same price. Few hundred dollars difference. The real question is, is the performance level in a workstation spec vs a more pc/gaming spec that much different?

Those are the really questions that should be asked about mac/vs pc. Mac USES pc parts, it's been that way since intel processors came in, the g5 was the last of the first party stuff apple made. Everything in your mac is made outside of apple, according to Apple's spec sheet.

So my question is, what is the performance difference in a work station type configuration and a more typical high power pc configuration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top