Endless Paradigm

Pages: 1 2 3

Mac OS X on a Windows PC is better. I mean, Mac computers are overly expensive for hardware you can get on a Windows PC for sometimes half the price. Now, I must admit, Mac OS X does look cool, but wasting money on the Mac hardware is just... well... a waste.

As to the topic at hand, I lol'd. I mean, does Bill Gates fear Apple? I wouldn't if I were in his position. After all, you can't decide which one's better until you've tried them all.

|-Anubis-| Wrote:Have you seen the latest refresh of their line?

# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB

That is not as fast as the available 3.20ghz quad core is it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6819115044

And their dual cpu quad core setup only goes up to 2.93ghz.

MysterySword Wrote:Mac OS X on a Windows PC is better. I mean, Mac computers are overly expensive for hardware you can get on a Windows PC for sometimes half the price. Now, I must admit, Mac OS X does look cool, but wasting money on the Mac hardware is just... well... a waste.

As to the topic at hand, I lol'd. I mean, does Bill Gates fear Apple? I wouldn't if I were in his position. After all, you can't decide which one's better until you've tried them all.

Think about the image of Microsoft that would protray? Here is Bill Gates, king of Windows, but his wife and family are not using his Windows Based phone or mp3 players?

That would be like the owner of Shell or BP gasoline's family all driving electric scooters.

SchmilK Wrote:
|-Anubis-| Wrote:Have you seen the latest refresh of their line?

# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB

That is not as fast as the available 3.20ghz quad core is it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6819115044

And their dual cpu quad core setup only goes up to 2.93ghz.

why would one need anything higher than 3.0GHz?

Mc Cabe Wrote:
SchmilK Wrote:
|-Anubis-| Wrote:Have you seen the latest refresh of their line?

# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB

That is not as fast as the available 3.20ghz quad core is it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6819115044

And their dual cpu quad core setup only goes up to 2.93ghz.

why would one need anything higher than 3.0GHz?

You've never worked in a production environment with timelines and clients making trivial changes that require a movie to be re-exported or an animation sequence to be re-rendered at 1920x1080. All the power you can possess is needed!

Wee did a test with Adobe After Effects that I am looking for the render times that compares a Power PC dual dual cpu, new Mac Pro dual quad 2.4ghz, PC Dual cpu Dual Core AMD setup, a Dual cpu Quad core Xeon 3.2ghz, and a single cpu quad core 2.66ghz all doing the same after effects project.

The Dual quad xeon in vista 64 did the project in 11 minutes, the dual quad mac did it in 45 minutes...ill get the exact numbers shortly. But basically for $1300 less for the PC than the Mac wee got 2TB data, and went from 45mintes to 11 minutes to render the same thing!

ah I see thanks :)

Here's the stats to render a 30 second animation in Adobe After Effects cs3 at 1920x1080 30fps.
All systesm have 4gb ram and the XP32 is using a /3g switch

When it says 2x2core that means 2 cpu with 2 cores each etc...

Keep in mind also that OSX10.5.x box cost $1000 more than the dual xeon that CRUSHED the competition!
And with that saved money wee could build the e8400 system for just under $1000 today with prices as low as they are!

Code:

			XP32           2.4ghz amd opteron 880 2x2core - CS3 1hr15min

OSX10.5.x     2.6ghz xeon macpro 2x4 cores    - CS3 41min 42sec

Vista64        3.0ghz e8400 1x2 cores     - CS3 39min 57 seconds

Vista64        3.5ghz e8400 1x2 cores     - CS3 36min 27sec    (overclocked on stock fan from the above system at 3.0ghz)  

Vista64        2.66ghz Q6600 1x4 cores   - CS3 28min30s

Vista64      3.2ghz xeon x5450 2x4 cores     - CS3 11min51s

See why I think Mac's suck when it comes to speed?

Time is money...and the only place I recommend to put Apples are in pie.

SchmilK Wrote:Plus you need to consider Apple will NEVER install the fastest cpu, ram, or harddrive in their systems.

Apple computers have
-much slower cpu than the fastest available Intel chips
-use pc4200 ram instead of pc6400 or even pc8500 in the ddr2 flavor thus leaving the FSB at less than 800mhz and not utilizing the available 1333mhz FSB a pc uses in a DDR2 compatable system let alone the huge boost of the i7 chip's available speed
-use 4200 and 5400rpm drives in their laptops along with equally slow memory

Since when do you want the fastest available Intel chips? On a cost efficiency point of view (since wee're discussing Macs being expensive), you don't want even close.

If you're one of these people who owns a Core i7 965 extreme, then congrats, you've just beaten a Mac and being un-price-efficient. You don't have the right to laugh at any Mac people, I laugh at you.

And laptops only come with 5400RPM HDDs generally.

SchmilK Wrote:
|-Anubis-| Wrote:Have you seen the latest refresh of their line?

# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB

That is not as fast as the available 3.20ghz quad core is it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6819115044

And their dual cpu quad core setup only goes up to 2.93ghz.

Exacly like I was saying, if you actually bought that CPU you linked, you don't belong in this argument.

3.06GHz quad is good enough for 99% of everything you'll do. If your company needs tons of power, then whatever, but that's not very representative of the average consumer.

And no, I'm not a Mac fanboy. I've never had a Mac in my life.

You've missed the point...

Spoiler for the only big bang for the buck you can get with Apple is to buy a Red Delicious and blow it up with an M80.:

Any Apple computer you buy you are paying a HEAVY premium for and NO performance gains come with it!

Going to Apple.com and lookign at default Mac pro setup\

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor

3GB (three 1GB) memory

640GB hard drive
18x double-layer SuperDrive

NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB

$2,499.00

Compare that to this that i put together in 5 seconds on http://www.buyxg.com

Case: Sigma Gaming Unicorn Mid-Tower 420W Case with Side-panel Window
CPU: (Quad-Core)Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX9770 @ 3.20GHz 1600FSB 12MB L2 Cache 64-bit
Mainboard: Asus P5Q Deluxe Intel P45 CrossFire Chipset LGA775 FSB1600 DDR2/800 Mainboard w/GbLAN, USB2.0, IEEE1394, & 7.1Audio
Memory: 8GB (4x2GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (Corsair or Major Brand)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB 16X PCI Express
Video Card 2: NONE
VIDEO CARD 3: NONE
LCD Monitor: NONE
HARD DRIVE: Single Hard Drive (1TB (1TBx1) SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16MB Cache 7200RPM HDD)
Data Hard Drive: NONE
Optical Drive: (Special Price)LG 20X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2: 16X DVD ROM (BLACK COLOR)
Sound: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
Price: $2430.00

That Mac has NO chance to compete AND i still have $69 to spend on hookers and blow.

Change the PC cpu to an e8400 and you would get similar performance (based on above renders wee did at work which was using a DUAL XEON) and only spend $1200.

Want to compare laptops?
macbook starting at $1299
# 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# 160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# Keyboard (English) / User's Guide

Mtech ML9000
http://www.discountpcsales.com/cgi-bin/s...TECHML9000
$1342

MTECH ML9000
#15.4" WSXGA+ w/GlassView (1680X1050) Nvidia 9600M GT w/512MB
#2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile Processor P9600 6MB L2 Cache 1066FSB 25 Watt
#4096MB 2 DIMMS
#Primary Hard Drive 320GB (7200RPM) SATA II 3Gb/s HDD

#8X DVD±R/RW/4X DL Dual Layer

#Built-In 7-IN-1 Flash Memory Reader (MMC/RSMMC/MS/MS Pro/MS DUO/SD/Mini-SD)
#2 Megapixel Integrated Digital Video Camera,56K V.90 Modem, 10/100 Ethernet

Even running XBENCH on the Dual Xeon Mac Pro and comparing it to the e8400 system that is overclocked to 3.5ghz the hackintosh wins by about 80marks!

SchmilK Wrote:You've missed the point...
Spoiler for the only big bang for the buck you can get with Apple is to buy a Red Delicious and blow it up with an M80.:
Source: YouTube

Any Apple computer you buy you are paying a HEAVY premium for and NO performance gains come with it!

Going to Apple.com and lookign at default Mac pro setup\

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
	
3GB (three 1GB) memory
	
640GB hard drive
18x double-layer SuperDrive
	
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB
	
$2,499.00

Compare that to this that i put together in 5 seconds on http://www.buyxg.com

Case: Sigma Gaming Unicorn Mid-Tower 420W Case with Side-panel Window
CPU: (Quad-Core)Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX9770 @ 3.20GHz 1600FSB 12MB L2 Cache 64-bit
Mainboard: Asus P5Q Deluxe Intel P45 CrossFire Chipset LGA775 FSB1600 DDR2/800 Mainboard w/GbLAN, USB2.0, IEEE1394, & 7.1Audio
Memory: 8GB (4x2GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (Corsair or Major Brand)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB 16X PCI Express
Video Card 2: NONE
VIDEO CARD 3: NONE
LCD Monitor: NONE
HARD DRIVE: Single Hard Drive (1TB (1TBx1) SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16MB Cache 7200RPM HDD)
Data Hard Drive: NONE
Optical Drive: (Special Price)LG 20X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2: 16X DVD ROM (BLACK COLOR)
Sound: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
Price: $2430.00
	
That Mac has NO chance to compete AND i still have $69 to spend on hookers and blow.

Change the PC cpu to an e8400 and you would get similar performance and only spend $1200.

Obviously wee both agree that Macs are a ripoff. I never contradicted you on that.

But what I'm saying is stuff like Q9775 are also very ripoff. If I'm not mistaken, the Q9775 is the one that costs like more than $1500USD (2nd in ripoffness only to the Core i7 965. EDIT: No, Q9775 is the most ripoff). You can buy a whole system with $1500, a good one too. So yeah, wasting $1500 on a Q9775 isn't a whole lot better than buying a Mac. Hell, if
you really want the speed that much, get a Core i7 920 and overclock, you'll end up way faster than the Q9775, for like 1/5 of the price.

The E5200 is actually like my favorite processor. The "My $70CPU > your $200CPU". It costs like $70-75US, and you can overclock it to beat an E8500. Q6600 I also like.

SchmilK Wrote:Change the PC cpu to an e8400 and you would get similar performance and only spend $1200.

That's the way. :)

Pages: 1 2 3

MysterySword

SchmilK

SchmilK

Mc Cabe

SchmilK

Mc Cabe

SchmilK

Assassinator

SchmilK

Assassinator