Mac vs PC, PC vs Mac - Which is better for RAW? - The Answer is INSIDE!!


Status
Not open for further replies.

Darren

ClubSNAP Admin
Staff member
Jan 16, 2002
8,608
27
48
Melbourne
#1
At last, a definitive benchmark on whether PC is better or Mac is better for imaging workflow.

In pro digital photography, megahertz matters - Article by Rob Galbraith - CLICK ME!!

Conclusion is that a 3.06GHz Pentium 4 PC outpaces the top end dual 1.25GHz G4 Mac by a very considerable margin, and even a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 is able to keep up with (and in most cases, overtake) the top end Macintosh.
 

hazardman

New Member
Aug 10, 2002
288
0
0
35
Eunos
Visit site
#3
But apple never crashes. And it's good for video too. I'll choose Apple for it's design and it's heavy duty image processing work.
I'm still an Apple fan regardless of all.
 

rueyloon

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,680
0
36
www.rueyloon.com
#6
Originally posted by hazardman
But apple never crashes. And it's good for video too. I'll choose Apple for it's design and it's heavy duty image processing work.
I'm still an Apple fan regardless of all.

never crash Zhun Boh ??!?!?

win2k and winxp is just as stable.
 

matthew

New Member
Apr 19, 2002
122
0
0
Sydney
www.sleeper.apana.org.au
#7
Originally posted by rueyloon



never crash Zhun Boh ??!?!?

win2k and winxp is just as stable.
Win2k/XP is not 'as stable'. They are way ahead in stablity.

Mac OS9 is nearly as unstable as Windows ME :).

Try supporting several 100 mac machines and still think they are stable after wards.

OS9 had too much internet crap added to it in order to compete with Windows. I think they suceeding in being windows like - they emulated the unreliablity. The last really stable OS version was 8.6.
Price pressure on Apple of late has caused them to use cheaper parts - we get HD and Power supply failures at a rate comparable with cheap PCs.

MacOSX is mostly stable but to few apps take advantage of it and it's a support nightmare as Apple keep making significant changes each release.

Apple like to say their DP machines out compute wintel platforms, but DP wintel platforms are cheaper, and your application has to be threaded to take advantage of more than one CPU - and if your photo transform can't be threaded, it doesn't matter how many processors you have, its only going to run at the speed that one CPU chip can compute at.

A G4 IS way faster clock for clock than a P4, around 2x faster. Even PIII is significantly faster clock for clock than a P4. (Intel don't like to publish that one. :) Thats why AMD started "PR" labling their chips again, AMD Athlons are more effcient chips than the PIII, let alone the P4, but people are buying on raw MHz values.

The P4 only wins over the G4 as they are made at more than 2x the clock speed of the G4 chip thus can win on raw brawn.


We have people at work proud of their DP mac G4 machines, but all they do basic word processing and simple web pages and run MacOS9, which CANT use the 2nd processor chip - it sits there idle....


As always - find the software that does the things you want and is easy to use. Then buy what ever computer/OS your chosen package needs to run.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#8
Originally posted by rueyloon



never crash Zhun Boh ??!?!?

win2k and winxp is just as stable.
Got a colleague running an iBook with 320MB on OS X, never switches off the machine (he always put it on suspend). He uses it daily for photoshop, etc and it had not required reboot for over 2 weeks.

OTOH, my Win2K Professional workstation in office runs for months without needing a reboot too.

:cool:

Regards
CK
 

PentiumPC

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2002
557
0
16
50
Singapore
Visit site
#9
OMG Apple never crash... who are you kidding.

Originally posted by hazardman
But apple never crashes. And it's good for video too. I'll choose Apple for it's design and it's heavy duty image processing work.
I'm still an Apple fan regardless of all.
 

PentiumPC

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2002
557
0
16
50
Singapore
Visit site
#13
That I do agree, my Ti seem to display my images more accurately, recently I have adjusted my PC monitor closer to that.

Originally posted by ckiang


True, but Mac has nicer, more accurate displays. :)

Regards
CK
 

Feb 22, 2002
431
0
16
31
singapore
Visit site
#14
really meh
somehow i dun believe the review (could it be anti mac) cos i always tot mac is faster thats why many designer and pros in digital imaging is using mac
as the saying goes what u pay is what u get
 

roti

New Member
Sep 24, 2002
659
0
0
Sgp/China/TW
Visit site
#15
Originally posted by ckiang
But hey, Apple just released their absolutely cool 17" G4 PowerBook.

17" Widescreen display (1440 x 900)
802.11g support
FireWire 800 support (Faster than regular FireWire 400)
Auto Backlit keyboard via fibre optics

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index17.html



Regards
Ck
dear bro.....this is not cheap leh.....
 

rueyloon

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,680
0
36
www.rueyloon.com
#16
Originally posted by nicholas1986
really meh
somehow i dun believe the review (could it be anti mac) cos i always tot mac is faster thats why many designer and pros in digital imaging is using mac
as the saying goes what u pay is what u get
I'm using a mac and I belive the report :)

buck for buck, mac cannot fight on price vs performance
 

mylau

New Member
Jan 19, 2002
1,019
0
0
33
#18
Originally posted by ckiang
But hey, Apple just released their absolutely cool 17" G4 PowerBook.

17" Widescreen display (1440 x 900)
802.11g support
FireWire 800 support (Faster than regular FireWire 400)
Auto Backlit keyboard via fibre optics

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index17.html



Regards
Ck
nice design. ;p
 

matthew

New Member
Apr 19, 2002
122
0
0
Sydney
www.sleeper.apana.org.au
#19
Originally posted by sljm
hmm no linux fans ah ..... =< Linux is quite good for digital imaging too leh
I use Linux. But it lacks colour management. There is stuff around but the various people working on colour management solutions are skirting around software patents...

Apple to their credit DO understand the importance of Colour managment. M$ only recently realised they need to as well, but they don't make the hardware their OS runs on unlike Apple.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom