PC vs. MAC

Post Reply New Topic

Since Apple abandoned risc architecture and embraced intel... there is no difference (in fact windows can be run on a newer mac without emulation)...

From a purely power standpoint, the mac os is anemic (when dealing with video editing) you can see a distinct flaw in their multithreading code... When running high end applications that tax the power of the processors, it becomes terribly obvious that they only take advantage of about half of their power.

As such... Since I need the power in my business... PC all the way

You know about 20 years ago. Commodore had a computer called the Amiga and for it time. It was the most powerful personal computer on the market. It blew PC and Mac right out of the water.

Yup... and when the company went into bankruptcy, they were sub par on processing power, both for graphics and sound...

That was more than 20 years ago. The reason why the Amiga 500 originally could produce better graphics than a contemporary x86 PC, was that the games were only coded for the specific hardware found in the Amiga 500. The very same thing is what enables a PS3 to outperform computers from 2006. With the rise of the PS1, consoles could keep up with PCs (the gap between a computer and a SNES at the dawn of the 16 bit generation, was much larger), and thus, the market for the Amiga diminished.

And was produced up til 1994... 20 years ago...

As for the coding... yes and no... when the amiga came out... it's video and sound capabilities were far beyond that of anything else on the market... coded for or no

It's sound was roughly on par with the first generation Soundblatser, so yes, the sound was more advanced than that of most computers at the time. In terms of raw CPU power, it wasn't more powerful than a 286 CPU, though. Most x86 computers had VGA in the late 1980s, but it wasn't used in games before the early 1990s. By 1991, upper-mid-range computers had surpased it in both graphics and sound.

If you look at the Amiga version of Test Drive 1, I'll admit that it was very advanced when it hit the shelves, though.

Oh, I know... but it was the best for artists and musicians at the time... hence the reason that Babylon 5 and seaquest were rendered on one

The way I see it, PCs are good for gaming, while Macs are good for things like audio/video production and photo editing. Of course, that's just looking at it from an OS-based perspective; hardware wise, PCs are better since they're actually made to be upgradable and repairable, unlike Macs which are made to look fancy and be disposable.

Not any more... Macs ignore any processing cycles over 2.5 ghz... These days - video production works PC with AVID Media Composer and Adobe Premiere much faster... Final cut x is geared towards the apple crowd... but powerhouses of design are all pc based.

Just wondering, but what's considered an adequate PC nowadays for those tasks? I'm guessing like a quad-core Core i7 and 16GB of RAM.

Depends on what version of what software... that will run CS4 easily... but would stutter on cs6... I am running an over clocked 8 core amd running at 5.26 ghz per core with a water cooler, 64 gb ram (went with a server board) and 10 TB of online storage... I don't know what the minimum is... but this more than meets my needs...

Do you have a source for that? Because when I Googled it, you seem to be the only source.

It didn't need a whole lot of CPU power. Most of the power was in it's custom chips.

experience, benchmarks, render times using the same versions of software on both mac and PC