Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:16 pm

Okay your right to an extent, none the less PC would still be better than a MAC as for you saying it's not all software. I'm afraid your wrong. I've taken classes in computer enginering and electronic design for 3 years now, I know how and what goes throught the CPU and what not. Like you said as well, I'm not going into detail with it. Nor do I know all the details since I never got really deep with MAC's.

So here's the deal, we'll just end it here. Nothing more nothing less. Many people battle over which is better and what works what. I'm rather tired of batteling constantly. I've won many times only because my professors new the true reasons why and backed me up. I trust my proffesors and believe them, In the long run what matters is; is it worth the money to get a MAC Laptop. I say nay due to productivity time when you can get a way faster computer.

Remember MAC's are backwards in the computer world. Instead of software going with the hardware, the hardware goes with the software. This is the main reason why you truly can't customize a MAC, and is also why the programing code is now open to the public like UNIX and Linux, unlike Windows.

I guess you can say in other words you won this battle.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:22 pm

Edo wrote:Okay your right to an extent, none the less PC would still be better than a MAC as for you saying it's not all software. I'm afraid your wrong. I've taken classes in computer enginering and electronic design for 3 years now, I know how and what goes throught the CPU and what not.

Uhm...I hate to use this card, but...I'm a Computer Engineer at AMD and thus know quite a bit about this. I also have a degree in this field from the #3 college in this field and work at one of the computer companies.

As for software, let me clarify something...software obviously DOES have something to do with it, but the reason (to me) MACs are so slow is because they are using an outdated chip design (fine I said it) that is not very scalable. This is the reason they went with two processors instead of one as a standard for high performance. They can't push their processor any further.

So YES, software DOES matter in that it CAN make up for SOME of these defficiencies, HOWEVER that doesn't change the fact that MACs aren't easy to scale in performance and are outdated with their G4 processors. This might be why they are going to (probably) use the PowerPC5 for their next computers.

Make sense?

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:45 pm

I hate you

LOL

Yah I have heard about that PowerPC5 I would like to see it.

I see know, that's could understand. Ok. You win.

so tell me which do you prefer AMD or Pentium?

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:01 pm

Edo wrote: so tell me which do you prefer AMD or Pentium?

Cyrix

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:27 pm

Edo, I think your professor suck if they back up some of your ideas.

You come in with the wrong idea about video cards affect on video editing. Then you suggest that OS needs to be running on both cpus for it to work properly. That on a Dual G4, both cpus are treated as one. Which is not the case.

I suggested in a scenario as to the reason why the G4 was slower was because the compressor was using only one thread on one cpu. Thus it was not actually splitting the process between the two cpus. It would then be obvious that a 1.4Ghz G4 is going to fail against a 2.4Ghz P4.

You said this was not possible because the CPUs *ALWAYS* work together and that the software makes it so.

Earlier in the conversation I pointed out that a likely scenario for dual processor acheiving someone a performance boost was the idea that one CPU could be compressing/decompresing video while another applies a effect or transition on it. You thought this was a horrible idea. You explictly told me this was not how it worked. You referenced your amazing years of college work and mentioned that you had done battles like this before and had always come out the victor.

You also pointed me to this website:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

Then told me to look at the graph alone. That would prove both processors worked as one. The graph is a completely synthetic benchmark that can easily be split over two cpus.

I also decided to read the darn text and if you look on the right side. What do we have here?

This is almost exactly what I was saying previously. There is no mention of OS X merging two cpus into one either. It mentions alot about using amazingly efficent multi-threading. But multithreading is not merging two cpus into one.

Alot of times in dual CPU solutions, the largest real-world performance boost is about %180 of a normal CPU, you're most likely not going to notice a %200 performance increase due to various limitations of multi-processor computing.

The only thing I can think of on a consumer level that does anything like what you're talking about is hyperthreading from Intel, which does the reverse. Splitting one cpu into two virtual cpus.

So, I am not sure what your professors are talking about if they said you're right. Either they're crazy or you weren't listening.

~klinky

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:48 am

Damn, Klinky laid the smackdown!

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

Ass!

I was just joking, man. Don't think I was actually trying to insult you.

Intel's Hyperthreading is cool.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 3:10 am

the Black Monarch wrote:I was just joking, man. Don't think I was actually trying to insult you.

Intel's Hyperthreading is cool.

Nah I knew you were...I guess it should've read

"Ass!

"

Happy?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:39 pm

Orgasmic

.

J89idsioss · Post by **J89idsioss** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:22 pm

Guess I should say again. It all comes down to what you like, and what works for you. PCs used to work for me, until lately, now I'm switching back to a mac.

See reference to why I feel this way in my sig. 8)

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:09 pm

Well Zaliek, I hope you're getting one of those new G5s that Apple announced today, and not one with a crappy Motorola chip. I've got to say though, Apple's design team seems to be losing it. The G5 case is definately a step down from the purdy G4's.