Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: MegaWorks
yes but the G5 is a duel-processor system are guys sure the FX can beat it. The reason why I'm asking it's because I do a lot of image editing and digital design etc and my digital design teacher told the class that apple is better then PC cause it's a 64bit system and produces better image quality, plus PC according to him is only for Games!!!
Edit: do guys have a link that proves PC is more powerful then the G5
Mega
People like your teacher exist everywhere, in all fields. It's usually futile to argue with them, so don't bother. Back to the original question. The G5 can come in dual systems yes, but you did not specify that. If you want a dual system on the x86 side you can pick from either Xeon, Athlon MP or Opteron. Of those, Athlon MP is getting a little long in the tooth (old platform, no updates) but is also the cheapest one.
There have been a few comparisons between the G5 and Xeon/P4/Opteron systems, however I do not have any links handy at the moment. Generally they get linked in the AT news section on the site.
PS: The argument that 64-bit produces better image quality is pure BS
EDIT:">http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp">EDIT: Here is one comparison, benchmarks at the last page</a>
This useless benchmark gets brought out time and time again at this point. Most of the time some better informed person takes the trouble to explain why it is so inaccurate - and gets ignored. The PCWorld benchmark demonstrates two things: How lousy Premier performance was on the Mac before Adobe stopped developing it (it runs in a type of emulation in the Classic environment - totally unoptimised for G5!!!); And the insecure lengths people will go to to fool themselves, and others, that they made the right choice of platform.
Get over your anxieties, people, & lets give out some information that will actually stand scrutiny.
So, let's put this PCWorld junk to rest:
MegaWorks, your teacher is not going to give a damn about Quake or Word performance. I doubt you are being taught to play games; Quake demonstrated 3D Graphics Card performance on the whole - not CPU; You say you are doing image editing - that's 2D.
Microsoft Word runs faster on PC!!!!!!! Does it matter to anyone? "In Microsoft Word we timed a search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document" - What this benchmark tells you is that you have to be working with a document so large that Word isn't even designed for it (Adobe Framemaker is designed for large book/manual writing... Word is not) if you are going to see any difference in performance.
That leaves Premier - which I've told you runs in the classic environment on the Mac - that is an OS 9 legacy environment, not OS X - for those who don't know. Apple responded to this ridiculous benchmark by saying - Yes, & Final Cut Pro will do these tasks faster than Premiere can on a Mac or a PC - unfortunately this reflects the performance of Premier & not the Mac. Subsequently Adobe dropped Mac support & did a major rewrite on the PC version.
So where does this leave you, Megaworks? Fanboys of any persuasion are not going to furnish you with convincing arguments either way. If you want advice on image manipulation I recommend you read Rob Galbraith's site. He's a pro photographer :-
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp
If you want a valid benchmark this one, by PC Magazine, is impartial:-
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp
It covers a range of applications: Acrobat, Photoshop, FCP, Lightwave, Sorenson Squeeze, Avid Express Pro run on a Dell Precision 650 Dual Xeon 3.06-GHz processors 512K cache, Apple Dual G5 2.0GHz and Apple Dual G4 1.4GHz.
It also show up a very real problem with benchmarks:
Forget the G5: The G4, most agree, is an out of date CPU yet it bests Xeons at more than double the clock-speed in Acrobat, Sorenson Squeeze & Avid Express Pro! Yet if someone were to claim it is a faster CPU than a Xeon at twice the clock-speed they'd be laughed at.
Now consider this & tell me - REAL WORLD - which is faster?
"At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer."
The total Photoshop times were:
G4 - 3:07 minutes
Xeon - 1:43 minutes
This involved loading 12 controls - at over a minute for some on Photoshop for Windows.
So, let's say you are a photographer - can you do these transformations on the Dell 650 in 1:43 minutes? No, it is impossible. So should the benchmark reflect this?
G4 - 3:20 minutes (controls load virtually instantly)
Xeon - 14 minutes (an average of 1 minute per control)
What this points out is that other factors can blow away split second CPU advantages... and this is what Mac users have been claiming for years. No viruses - no crashing - no dll hell - no OS reinstalling - no component incompatibilities - no spyware - no trojans - no browser hijacking - Macs just work.
My advice is to listen but not take anyone's word as gospel. You are at college so you probably have access to both. Spend some time using both & make your own mind up, over a period of time, about which YOU personally are more productive on. Be your own person. Benchmarks will never tell you if a computer will work FOR YOU.
One figure that is worth finding out is the ratio of support techs/PCs versus techs/Macs your college employ - it might give you an idea of the amount of unproductive support time each platform requires.