PC or MAC ? performance 1

[realflavor]

Question what would perform better below. use for Audio/Web/Video applications... What system would perfom faster and better

MAC G3:::
• 1.25GHz w/ 1MB L3 Cache
• 512MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) -1 DIMM
• 80GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
• Optical 2 - None
• ATI Radeon 9000 Pro dual-display w/64MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English
• Apple Pro Speakers
Subtotal = $1,433.00

----------------------------------------------

PC AMD 64 3000+ System:::
• Windows XP Pro
• AMD ATHLON64 3000+ Processor
• NEW ASUS K8V SE Deluxe VIA K8T800 Chipset AGP8X w/LAN,USB2,IEEE,
• 1024 MB PC3200 400MHz DDR MEMORY (Kingston)
• Seagate 120GB 7200RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB Cache
• nVidia GeForce FX 5900 128MB 8x AGP w/ TVO, & DVI
Price: $1280.00

 

[SirNuke]

I know the original author probally has more information than you know what to do with, but I would go for the AMD one. In terms of ghz, the Motorlas chips have a better chip design. The most important one is how many stages the cpu pipeline has. The pipeline is were the cpus 'results' are held. One reason CPUS are getting faster (not just with ghz) is because they guess at the result of slower processing (usually math instructions). Usually the CPU is correct but if it isn't it has to erase the pipeline and start over on. AMD and Motorala both traditionally favor very short pipelines, where Intel uses longer ones to get the super high ghz. This is usually the case when a slower processer beats a faster one.

Now back to the AMD vs Motorala debates... Motorala typically has an even shorter pipeline than AMDs. AMD's 64-bit chips are quite fast. Why? Don't listen to AMD, its not because they are 64-bit chips (32-bit chips can handle 64-bit instructions, just not as efficanly). AMD's 64 chips are fast because AMD threw just about everything they have in terms of chip design into them. In paticular they created some more direct connections on the motherboard, and most importantly use DDR type connections to the onchip memory caches. AMD has typical favored more cpu cache over faster cache connection (which Intel and I believe Motorala, but I'm not sure about Motorala), which gives the AMD 64s a very strong edge.

Now keeping this in mind, both are very fast and the differences would be most likely only noticable with games (the better grapics card might still make the bigger difference with the AMD computer). My final line is which operating system are you more comforatable with?

Just my thoughts with Linux...

Now before ANYONE rips into me for being 'anti-linux', please keep your hatred out of your further comments.

There is a place and a time for Linux. If you are not playing games (or not new 3d games), Linux performs excellently as a web/video/audio os. You may notice increase in performance with video editing, but otherwise you will most likely never tax either Linux or Windows. If you are new to Linux, would will need either someone who isn't, a very intellengent techie, or a lot of time, since Linux can be very fustrating to outside a few select areas. Printer support is overall poor, and most modems are not supported. Any performance gained can quickly be lost (for example my Linux runs slower in a windows enviroment with my newer video card due to some poor drivers, but performances execllently as a server).

I would have to say 5% of ALL Windows programs run in a form under Linux, with 3.5% being ports of programs, 1% being java/OS-less programs, and .5% (if even that) being WINE applications. WINE is great, but its very buggy. Virtual PC, for MAC, does run very excellently, but if you need Windows APPs very bad, you will want to just get the AMD



SirNuke

 

[realflavor]

let me put together.

-A AMD should be good enough for my work (WEB/AUDIO/GRAPHIC DESIGN), a AMD 64 much better if i run Windows 64 on it.

-IF LINUX, then most of the softwares will run and if not then i need a Windows Emulator for the rest. PLUS the software will run faster/perform better under linux.

??? Did i get it right?

other question. What is a good graphic card for my work (WEB/AUDIO/GRAPHIC DESIGN) AND i for hooking up 2 Screens (=1 BIG SCREEN), i might play a few games on it, but nothing really big....

 

[realflavor]

p.s:
IF AMD 64 but Windows xp pro and not Windows 64 ... how will the system perfome???

 

[BadBigBen]

Realflavor - basically put - AMD64 will run with WinXP Home/Pro with no problems... faster with it's 64bit counterpart that Microsoft is developing (but not complete at this stage)... as to it being wise to run Linux and emulate Windows? well, I can't really answer this one, as I use three diff computers with 5 diff OS's on them, to do various things (two PC's one with WinXP Pro (Internet and Office) and Win98Se (running some DOS progies and some software that wont run under XP), the other with W2k and Linux running as a hardware firewall server 90% of the time; one Amiga running Amiga OS (for playing OLD games and some video stuff (Toaster)) and Linux (for testing))...

as for graphic cards - I would, personally, tend towards the Matrox Parhelia line (P750) for the things you are going to do, even though a ATI and nVidia produce very good GPUs...

as to Linux - as mentioned before, is a very knowledge intense Software and by no means easy to debug when you have errors or malfunctions, as a workstation... as a server it's almost unbeatable... Remember that LINUX is an opensource project and by no means complete... Wine comes with various distros and is ready to use... btw it already has 64bit support for the AMD64 and XEON processors out there... another good thing about LINUX is that it runs on a variety of platforms, PC's, Apples and Macs, Amiga, and others, and the software for Linux is interchangeable between these platforms...

@ SirNuke - no I don't believe you are Anti-Linux, you just see it realistic... Motorolla chips are also faster cuz they are RISC processors... if one is to play games, then he/she should go break down and buy a game console, my opinion...

@ Ceh4702 - seems to me you got one interessting workplace! any openings at you job place?

Ben

 

[realflavor]

Thanks to every body in here ... y'all great and helped me to get closer to my final decicion of the system.....

one last final question. If u run dual monitors,how "good" need to be the monitor? like if i use 2 x 17" used monitors for the beginning. will that work? ot r there specific parameters for th emonitor to have?

p.s.: The matrox graphic card looks pretty good to me, $250 =( gotta think about it

 

[onrdbandit]

Howdy,

One thing you need to keep in mind when selecting 2 monitors is size. It is REALLY annoying when you have two monitors w/ different size or resolution at the same time. Annother thing is height from your desk. If the base of the monitors isnt equal, it can be a bit disorienting (had to stack books under one monitor to level it up) because the cursor will not appear to move correctly from one monitor's "space" to the other's.

The monitors dont really have to be expensive, but if you are going to spend the money on a Matrox card and do video type work, I would get a good monitor so you can be sure your project looks like you want.

Good luck and godspeed,
onrdbandit

No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

 

[cdogg]

jurgen,
I know this is getting a bit off-topic again, but I wanted to address what you said about MAC performance in general:

I have seen Mac systems of 1Ghz outperforming Intel or Amd chips running at 3Ghz.

I read an article in Maximum PC a few months ago (back in November or December of '03). They tested a P4EE 3.2GHz, Athlon64 3200+, and a G5. Out of like 20 benchmarks, the G5 only came ahead in 2 or 3, all of which were apps geared for the MAC like Mathematica and some of the Premiere/Photoshop tests. In just about every other benchmark, it lost by a good margin. If you have name or link to your source, I would appreciate the chance to see how the tests were performed.

In regards to the RISC versus CISC debate:

Well, this one is pretty much over. RISC processors have since evolved to incorporate many features first found in CISC CPU's (like SIMD and floating-point execution units) which increase the number of clock cycles per instruction. There was a great article released on RISC vs. CISC, which anyone who is interested in learning about their evolution into today's modern CPU's should read:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

As you can see, in the end the perfect combination of both will ultimately be the solution.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884