Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:44 am

Maybe if your tests were more scientific :p. But I think it's rather obvious that a 1.4Ghz CPU is going to lose out to a 2.4Ghz CPU, even if it's a Pentium4 2.4Ghz.

Video card wouldn't have any impact on compressing, or well anything to do with video editing either

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:29 pm

klinky wrote:Maybe if your tests were more scientific :p. But I think it's rather obvious that a 1.4Ghz CPU is going to lose out to a 2.4Ghz CPU, even if it's a Pentium4 2.4Ghz.

Video card wouldn't have any impact on compressing, or well anything to do with video editing either

Not that I wanna dig this old thread up again, but one thing I'd like to state (as I have MANY times) is that speed != performance. It's QUITE possible a 1.4 Ghz CPU can beat a 2.4 Ghz CPU. If it executes more instructions per cycle and more efficiently, it would be it very easily.

HOWEVER, from my knowledge of Apple CPUs, that's not the case. Given, a 1.4 Ghz Apple would spank a 1.4 Ghz P4 (which doesn't exist...just extrapolating) since it is a more efficient core.

As for the statement about never buying a MAC, you should keep in mind that the best editing software is on Apples and NOT PCs (Final Cut Pro 3.0).

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:52 pm

dwchang wrote:
klinky wrote:As for the statement about never buying a MAC, you should keep in mind that the best editing software is on Apples and NOT PCs

Nope, Avid XPress Pro is on both, ditto with Media Composer (if you want best-of-the-best). If you're looking for bang for your buck, then Vegas is only on Windows.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:02 pm

alternatefutures wrote:Nope, Avid XPress Pro is on both, ditto with Media Composer (if you want best-of-the-best). If you're looking for bang for your buck, then Vegas is only on Windows.

Really? Didn't know. All I know is that FCP is better than Premiere which is the tool of choice here (as you know). So what is this program and what makes it so special?

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:03 pm

Well, maybe I should have suggested that a G4 1.4Ghz is not going to outperform a 2.4Ghz CPU. When comparing CPUs to see which one is "better designed" I would think it better to pit two equally clocked cpus together than one that has a 1Ghz "advantage". Of course one could also suggest that they should be pitted against each other on the basis of cost. I am not sure how much a G4 1.4Ghz cpu costs though

.

But basically saying you tried a 2.4Ghz P4 against a G4 1.4Ghz, does not actually mean the 1.4Ghz G4 sucks. Though I do like the x86 platform better. Also he left out other things such as the video formats he was exporting to. Then the mentioning of graphic cards playing a part in the performance of compressing lead me to see that maybe his validity as a benchmarker is suspect.

As for best video editing software available. Final Cut Pro is known as the "defacto". But many packages are coming out for the PC which are starting to rival many of the long-time Mac only solutions.

~klinky

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:17 pm

FCP is only the best NLE under $1000. Now, the question is does it's $999 pricetag mean it is $500 better than Vegas? Unless all you've ever known is FCP, definately not. Is Avid Xpress Pro $700 better than FCP... probably not, but if you're thinking of buying a high-end Mac with FCP you could buy an equally powerful PC with Xpress for an equitable price. Media Composer is a hardware solution, and I'll let you guess how much that one costs, but it still qualifies as an NLE (and if someone offered to exchange your Mac running FCP with a Media Composer Adrenaline, you'd be well advised to accept) You can read about Vegas and Xpress with the following links;

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/products/vegasfamily.asp
http://www.avid.com/products/xpresspro/

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:09 pm

Since my last post I've noticed you guys mistakenly didn't read my whole post. IF U READ CAREFULLY!!!! I said a "DUAL 1.4GHZ" Mac system over my 2.4GHz P4, that means the MAC had a 400 MHz increase over min and still lost by half!

I must state again! the MAC CPU's "ARE" slower than PC type CPU's! ie. Pentium and Athlons, If you don't belive me check out some stats on google.com. MAC's are good but there is way too much hype. Remember the only reason why MAC's are fast is because of the OS configuration and programing andnot the CPU or BUS.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:35 pm

Edo wrote:Since my last post I've noticed you guys mistakenly didn't read my whole post. IF U READ CAREFULLY!!!! I said a "DUAL 1.4GHZ" Mac system over my 2.4GHz P4, that means the MAC had a 400 MHz increase over min and still lost by half!

First off you are VERY incorrect in this statement. A dual 1.4 Ghz does not equate to a 2.8 Ghz Computer (i.e. 2*1.4=2.8). A dual 1.4 Ghz means that it can take in approximately twice the amount of instructions since it divides that tasks between the two processors. It DOES NOT mean that it runs the instructions twice as fast since a single instruction will still operate at 1.4 Ghz.

You're probably asking if it takes twice as many instructions, wouldn't that mean it is equivalently running at twice the frequency and the simple answer is no. I could explain with a great deal about architecture, instruction issuing, squashing instructions and so on, but that wouldn't be that pertinent.

Suffice to say a Dual 1.4 Ghz can EASILY be slower than a single CPU 2.4 Ghz.

Edo wrote:I must state again! the MAC CPU's "ARE" slower than PC type CPU's! ie. Pentium and Athlons, If you don't belive me check out some stats on google.com. MAC's are good but there is way too much hype. Remember the only reason why MAC's are fast is because of the OS configuration and programing andnot the CPU or BUS.

You are correct that PCs are faster than MACs, however the architectures are entirely different so you can not make a general Ghz argument (like you made above). A 1.4 Ghz MAC != 1.4 Ghz PC. As said, the architectures are different and thus you can not measure their performance as 1:1.

As for the reason MACs are fast, it is NOT only because of programming and whatnot which you are implying. Their CPU is elegantly designed, although not as efficient as some PCs (namely the Athlon and NOT the P4, which everyone knows about through this thread), and thus it performs fairly well at the frequency as I stated.

As I have stated numerous times:

Performance = Speed (frequency) * instruction/clock (efficiency)

The problem with MACs (somewhat Athlons) is that their speed is very low (i.e. 1.4 Ghz vs. 3 Ghz P4s). Their architecture is pretty sound, but they can't get the other part of the equation (speed).

By the same respects, people may argue Athlons are the same since they are only at 2.25 Ghz, however the architecture is more efficient and thus similar/comprable performance to 3 Ghz P4s. HOWEVER, as you can see even with as efficient a core as an Athlon, they still lag in frequency quite a bit and thus the overall performance is not that good.

As stated, it is NOT just the software.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:53 pm

dwchang wrote:
the Black Monarch wrote: Since this is a powerbook-oriented thread, what are your thoughts on Apple chips?
They're slow...?

Once again, dw has blown us all away with amazing technical detail.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:21 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:
dwchang wrote:
the Black Monarch wrote: Since this is a powerbook-oriented thread, what are your thoughts on Apple chips?
They're slow...?
Once again, dw has blown us all away with amazing technical detail.

You never asked for any. I stated what my thoughts were...I think they're slow...

Ass!