Do Mac's still have any solid graphical advantage over PC's?
-
About driver upgrades -- they do matter, but for specific software, not (usually) all around.
When the Nvidia's FERMI line first came out they were reviewed as being not very good (too hot, too much energy, and no real increase over AMD). After a couple of driver updates FERMI is considerably faster than their AMD counterparts (GTX470 > 5850, GTX480 > 5870, etc.)
These are usually targeted at specific programs, games, where they've been able to noticeably improve performance.
-
jeff hammond
2008 article
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Pixar_Big_on_Linux_Clusters_-Mac_Not_so_Much/
quotes from this article and solo's one:
"While Intel-based servers are generally less expensive than Unix-RISC-based servers, Gibbs said that the conversion is taking place because the performance gap between the two types of setups has largely been erased, and even reversed for certain functions.
"They (film studios) will pay what they have to pay to get the image quality," Gibbs said.""While RenderMan does indeed run on both Linux and Mac OS X, Linux is the preferred platform according to one the authoris sources. [RenderMan Server is] "certainly used extensively on OS X workstations...very few people run RenderMan on OS X clusters," the source said.
"Technically, OS X is very well suited [for clustering] but it does not seem to have made much headway," the source added.
One reason cited for the Linux preference is that Xserves are much more expensive than white box Linux servers. However, another reason not cited in the article is that cluster operations often require subtle and technically difficult changes to the Mac OS X kernel. This reporter is has been exposed to situations in which changes required for better cluster operations at Apple took a back seat to consumer oriented concessions. On the other hand, experienced computer scientists can simply recompile the Linux kernel to suit their needs when necessary."Please don't see me as a fanboy or hateboy (if you've read my post you can see i have a past with mac), but I don't have "deep pockets" or a big company budget behind me, so paying more to get half the performance with my budget is a "no-go".
Just to get you an idea: the last works i've done, i can't even open the final files in a today 1500euros MAC, besides being extremely slow in the parts that can open...but my 950euros PC (bought without screen to be fair) bough a year ago besides opening, it's 2,5-3,5 times faster...So put yourself in my shoes: In my case is mac the best option for me?
Now I can say that I would change to mac without thinking much if I would get the performance proportional to what I paid for: More expensive -> more faster -> more/bigger files/works.
-
oh well, i guess my point is being missed.
pixar uses linux for rendering? what do they use for modeling? editing? accounting? etc..
probably mac, windows, linux, and some proprietary stuff that isn't available to anyone else..if they had to use only macs, they'd still produce brilliant movies.. if they had to use only windows, they'd get the job done as well.. so on and so forth.
if i had to use windows then i'd get the job done.. if i had to use only napkins then i'd still get the job done..
if you had to use only macs, you'd get the job done.. and on and on.personally, i couldn't care less what computer you use to produce the work.. that'd be like me being upset because someone's house was built with bostich guns instead of paslodes..
[paslode rules btw
]for you to say you don't want to spend extra money for less performance.. well, join the other hundred million or so people saying the same thing.. i don't think it's very enlightening as it's makes a whole bunch of sense from a consumer point of view.. some people though, for whatever reason, tend to spend a little (or a lot) of extra money on things to which there are cheaper alternatives.. i happen to do that on computers and hamburgers but on the flipside, i spend probably $200 year on clothes which isn't even enough for a single shirt that my neighbor might wear..
likewise, i can sit back and think about how retarded so many people are for buying cars/gas but that's not being very productive is it? and those things are a whole heck of a lot more cash than computers but i bet you own one.
-
Out of the box? Yes, of course. A Mac is designed for an artist. So, yeah, if you're not into buying your own tower, then a Mac is a solid choice. But if you are into building (or know someone
), then the PC will always blow a Mac away. End of story. -
Do Mac's still have any solid graphical advantage over PC?
No.
-
Jeff
Yeah I know that point, but I tough that was a question that is, from the beginning, granted:
"It's the artist that does the project, SW/HW are just tools"And I said that about pixar, but I surely doubt that they don't have a little bit of all with all the departments and freedom they have (not everyone needs raw performance, or open OS, or better user experiences, it can go any side).
But you have to be careful in how you present your argument. For example I agreed with everything you say in that way you presented.
But you forgot to had a "little" thing to the equation: Time/deadlines/speed.For example, I could model in a mac using cinema4d and render it on brazil or something (photoshop and piece of paper with pen/pencil is something that i can't still pass
) and i would do still do the job in about the same time (more or less once i got confortable with the TOOLS). But render it, working with big files, do heavy calculations, physics, etc on a mac in the same budget that a pc counterpart, in the same time, in a tight deadline, is Impossible (2.6ghz are slower than 3ghz, dual is worst than quad for multicore, and 4Ggram it's less than 8, a low end GPU it's worse than a High end GPu,obvious..).And that's a Fact
I certainly hoped not (better competition would be better to us, costumers). -
Advertisement