Printable View
I would like to know what kind of computer you use and why. It is my opinion that Apple is overrated in the graphic design world and definately not worth the cost and limited upgradability. Don't get me wrong, I think they are fairly solid machines, but come on, at least put a 1 gig processor in your machines apple.
JMO
I wonder what is yours.
they do have 1ghz in Apples.. actually they have 2. They make Dual 1 GHZ G4 PowerMac.
I thought their fastest machine was like a dual 833mhz system. Sorry about being behind the times.
Do you use apple machines?
If so why... familiarity, performance, name recognition???
Stop thinking in terms of Megahertz - Apple gigafloped a chip (which is the old supercomputer standard) at 500 megahertz. The Intel chips weren't able to do this until their chips hit 1.2 Gigahertz (1200 Megahertz). The mega and gigahertz refers to clock cycles in the chips and NOT how many processes have been completed.
In other words the Apple chips do more in a clock cycle than the Intel chips.
Incidentally AMD chips also run more processes per clock cycle than Intel chips and if you want to stay on a PC platform you get a faster chip for less money with AMD.
My old VIC 20 can execute an instruction in a single clock cycle while newer CISC designs from Motorola and Intel require multiple clock cycles per instruction. Granted, the instructions don't do nearly as much but a hopped up VIC 20 could easily get better instuction set benchmarks than any CPU on the market today :)
FLOPS is a measure of floating point operations per second so you're still measuring clock cycles except you're talking about how fast the FPU is instead of the CPU.
If you want to talk about meaningful benchmarks today you have to work at a higher level and measure application performance, disk, video, bus throughput. Everything else is just marketing hype to allow XYZ corp to say they have the fastest CPU. The CPU has become a very small part of modern computer system performance.
so what if Apple chips do more per clock cycle then Intel Chips.. Unless Apple comes out with a Mac that is clocked at 2.53 GHZ then it's doesn't matter. Fact is G4 processor are really aged compared to new AMD and Intel processors, and they can't keep up.Quote:
Originally posted by Orkar
Stop thinking in terms of Megahertz - Apple gigafloped a chip (which is the old supercomputer standard) at 500 megahertz. The Intel chips weren't able to do this until their chips hit 1.2 Gigahertz (1200 Megahertz). The mega and gigahertz refers to clock cycles in the chips and NOT how many processes have been completed.
In other words the Apple chips do more in a clock cycle than the Intel chips.
Incidentally AMD chips also run more processes per clock cycle than Intel chips and if you want to stay on a PC platform you get a faster chip for less money with AMD.
As someone wiser than me once said on this forum, it is not the machine that matters. just the person sitting in front of it.
I was once told an overly simplified metaphor, but I thought it was a pretty good explaination of the difference in amount of transistors between Apple and AMD or Intel. Think of Apple cpu's as a porche 911 and the competition as chevelle ss with a 454 big block V8 under the hood. They both do 150mph it's just that AMD and Intel take a little more gas to get there.
as long as that chevelle doesn't stall, starts when you turn the key, and doesn't crash on the way to the finish line.
in answer to your first question serpent, i have a dual gig g4 at work, as well as a g4 powerbook and a another g4 (533) tower at home for my freelance work. also at work is a P4sitting right next to me i use solely for corporate email, even though i have photoshop, flash, and dreamweaver installed. i also edit/produce digital video and there's no way i'd pick adobe premiere over final cut pro, so i'll gladly stick with my macs...
I use mac's because PC's suck. Everytime a PC designer comes out with something 'new' macintosh already did it 10 years ago. I could spend all day spewing forth technical data and benchmarks, pros and cons of RISC vs CISC processors... yada, yada, yada. I have better things to do with my time.
PC's are trash plain and simple, they are overbloated, hodge-podge, memory hogging, horribly in-efficient machines. and they also look like crap compared to a Mac (except in the case of the 'flower power' imac.. )
The only reason I even consider owning one.. is because i have to test my websites on a PC before I launch them. :p
As someome early said the cpu is a small part of the puzzle.
I have a dual p3 xeon machine that smokes the dual g4 at work.
why?
raid0 15000 rpm scsis and lots of ram. also a quardo vid card helps.
I'm may upgrade to p4 xeons, or I may stall till the opteron (64 bit multiprocessor from AMD).
You also have more options with a P.C.
wrap up:
You will not get crap with a mac. however you will not get the very best either. And there is a price premium for the mac.
[Edited by TallGuyLittleCar on 05-20-2002 at 04:12 PM]
Well as so many people before have said...does it really matter what kind of computer you use? It's not the computer that makes you a better designer or programmer. So whether you use a mac or a pc, you'll still have the same skill level.
sure it matters, the faster the PC the faster u can compress files, render complex graphics and a host of other things. When your dealing with BIG files it can make a huge difference in time saved. Sure for low end web design using notepad and typing out html it doesn't matter so much.
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.
the PC is just a tool, just like owning and knowing how to use a saw doesn't make you a carpenter. With web design and multimedia, production can be an issue, and having a proper efficent tool can save time and money. Doesn't take an "artist" to be a web designer or multimedia.
[Edited by Hellsbellboy on 05-21-2002 at 01:37 AM]
Here's an article for everyone - sort of goes along with this thread:
http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24988.html
"So, what is the solution to this dilemma? Quit using the 'increasing clock frequency = increasing performance' marketing ploy. We believe that the ideal clocking frequency will be in the 500-MHz to 1-GHz range and that to improve performance, the microprocessor must do more work on a percycle basis, e.g., see the results for the IBM Power3... " - from the article..
This is from some labs at Los Alamos - It's just a view but I guess it goes along with 1 side of this argument.
Who knows which one is correct. But it makes for an interesting point.
Fastest machine in the universe:
1. It does the whole job in less than 1 clock cycle
2. The GUI is idiot simple to use
3. Costs less than $10
4. Requires no electricity
Answer
a. Etch A Sketch
b. pencil and paper
c. either a or b
I feel that the proper tools can make you a better craftsman. I can do an adequate job with a screwdriver, but give me an electric screwdriver and I spend less time turning a screw and more time completing a project.Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
Well as so many people before have said...does it really matter what kind of computer you use? It's not the computer that makes you a better designer or programmer. So whether you use a mac or a pc, you'll still have the same skill level.
Very true. However a slow computer will interupt your workflow. And I don't know about you but I hate that. Imagine doing a fine art piece and having someone interupt you every few minutes to say "hey whats up?".Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.
well, it's nice to see we agree on something ;)Quote:
Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Very true. However a slow computer will interupt your workflow. And I don't know about you but I hate that. Imagine doing a fine art piece and having someone interupt you every few minutes to say "hey whats up?".Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.