Do Mac's still have any solid graphical advantage over PC's?
-
Do you really notice any difference? I mean I updated the drivers for an Nvidia card in my HP workstation. I be damned if could could have noticed the difference. Updates for the Mac come one or twice every couple of months or so. When an update for a card is needed, it's patched. I don't see the problem.
PS, as it ever occured to you that these patches for Windows may be needed- because MS are forever adding security fixes to their software. My Compaq had about 80 (!) security patches download the other day!
-
@edson said:
brodie,
perhaps the answer to your questions lies behind the answer to this question: why do most advertising agencies and video/film companies use macs?
I don't know, do they? I mean, I wouldn't necessarily be all that surprised I guess, but has anyone ever really done any empirical research in to what percentage of film companies use macs vs. pcs?
Assuming it's true though, I'm not sure why they do...that's sort of my question. Based on later responses, I'd venture to guess that maybe there's some software that's geared more towards Mac? If that's truly the case though, that's fairly damning because in 99.9% of cases the situation will be reversed where the required software is more geared towards PC's based on the larger user base.
-Brodie
-
@tfdesign said:
@unknownuser said:
But as a Windows user, I've never thought, "crap I'd need OSX to do/open/run that."
I take it you've never used Logic (a pro DAW) then?
Logic started life on Atari as C-Lab Notator/Creator. It then was ported to Windows and Mac as eMagic Logic. Then in the early naughties, Apple bought eMagic, and dropped support for Windows. As you can imagine, there was a major outcry. But many then made the switch from Windows to Mac, simply because MIDI and Audio were built into Mac OSX (like the Atari), and there was no hunting around to find the 'ultimate' driver for it. Most simply didn't have the time to fiddle around getting latency on the PC to work well.
haha, I got quite offended at first when you asked me if I never use logic!
As for "Logic", no, never heard of it. It doesn't sound like something I'd need in arch-viz. I have Adobe's Presentation suite or whatever they call it which includes Premiere and After Effects, both of which I use but not often. Mostly though I'm doing stills in PS.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
@tfdesign said:
@unknownuser said:
But as a Windows user, I've never thought, "crap I'd need OSX to do/open/run that."
I take it you've never used Logic (a pro DAW) then?
haha, I got quite offended at first when you asked me if I never use logic!
As for "Logic", no, never heard of it. It doesn't sound like something I'd need in arch-viz.
Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you!
Before I worked on Archviz, I was a musician (as well as a photographer!- which I still am!)- I have two LP's out, (both on iTunes). I used Logic most of the time, and have also been using it to create sound effects and the like for backing tracks. I also use iMovie, which is like a cut down version of Final Cut Pro.
The Mac just rocks with that software. -
Brodie
to answer the question in the topic title:
"Do Mac's still have any solid graphical advantage over PC's?"The answer is NO. And for people doing pretty heavy CG stuff they're actually worse (don't want to start a flame war so I'll explain)
The main problem here is drivers and performance.
First drivers: mac doesn't support nothing above opengl 2.3 (but they're getting upgrade to 3 in a short time, i think...), and has you know opengl had became famous because it used a lot for CG software. Now today you still see examples of this: Mari can't be released to mac, and autocad for mac is receive a lot of complaints because is simply too slow compared to windows version (but don't take this too serious... is autodesk afterall
).Performance: plain simple it's the same...if the hardware is the same and the software is the same you'll notice no difference (this from personal experience). Now the problem is Companies and Freelancers in this business normally update/buy new hardware about 2 in 2 years (more or less of course) and from budget point of view when you ask yoursef "i need a computer that can run Cinema 4d (this because runs in pc/mac, but replace by any 3d package) photoshop, vray, after effects etc. and I'm going to spend 1500$ in each pc (that probably will be replace in 2 years) what will allow me to work, render, do faster and bigger? a i3 3.0 4Gg ram Geforce 310 mac or a i7 12Gg ram Geforce 470 pc?".
Think like this if mac was better why does Blur (the reference right now in cinematic for games) just use dell workstations? Hell, the irony of irony's; Steve jobs who was for a long time CEO and it's right know the biggest single shareholder at PIXAR, and, well, they don't even use iOS...
Now for me mac took a turn in the wrong direction in this market. I've worked professionally with both at the same time in brand new ones, but it's simply not the same years ago with the IBM Processors on it (anyone remembers?
) and better screens (for the ones who don't know the mac screens we're famous in digital work at the beginning because they normaly had a more colours and had 15% more gamma if i remember correctly). Now we've got the same processors that we have in pc but more expensive and if you need a good or professional screen you don't buy mac you'll probably buy Lacie or something...A friend of mine, that right now it's partner in company that does multimedia works for tv, web, etc., says that he remember when mac was the only one that opened big files (well he had to left it overnight but it was open in the morning lolol) and the other PCs would simply die trying in the first minutes. He said that for heavy work a mac worksation was the beast backt then. Well, some years have passed and there's not a single Mac in that company, simply because he can't afford to pay more for less especially when he's always on a tight deadline.
Of course if mac hadn't took that turn, they were probably much bigger in CG but certainly not as big as right now in the mainstream (so yeah i understand they're move and i would probly did the same)
BTW i've done work for advertising agencies/architects/tvs etc. (i'm finishing one to deliver on monday right now) and some use mac but normally more just for vector graphical work (illustrator mainly and that's not even 64bits), the big stuff 3D illustrations and Photoshop illustrations are outsourced either to freelancers or CG companies, if they don't have the man and machine power to do it. But things can change as renting render farms get cheaper or when every software move to the cloud (hope not, but that's a different topic
) -
@unknownuser said:
Hell, the irony of irony's; Steve jobs who was for a long time CEO and it's right know the biggest single shareholder at PIXAR, and, well, they don't even use iOS...
i see this fairly often (pixar doesn't use macs) but i have a hard time believing it..
are you saying they don't use macs at all -or- that they don't use macs for everything ?i'm willing to bet they use a lot of macs, a lot of pcs, and a lot of linux boxes.. no?
-
-
@solo said:
meh, that's from 2003..
here's one from 2004
http://www.macnn.com/news/23784..point being, i think this link posting could go on forever and never prove anything.. i'm pretty certain pixar uses all sorts of computers for various parts of the work.. [though i don't know for sure.. it's makes too much sense that they do though]
-
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