I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.
The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.
Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??
Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them. So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done. Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing -- and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Heh, 3ghz quad xeon Mac Pros can be had for cheaper then their 2.66ghz PC conterparts. Something that happens very rarley in the world of Mac.
I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.
The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.
Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??
Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them. So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done. Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing -- and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!
Rob.
For right now, yes. 3gig quads are apple exclusive.
No big deal to me really. Mac does not have much market share, and I doubt many companies will switch to MAC hardware just because they can get a setup that is clocked a little higher than current high end PC's. The reason Intel is probably doing it is because it's a very small market, not many people will be buying them, and they will not have a hard time binning these chips at that low of a demand. At any rate, you can configure a HP server system, similar specs to the Mac, with exception to the CPU(2.66), and it costs about $600 less. I don't know if the little bit extra performance is worth the $600 or not. But, if I were a company using PC's, I wouldn't switch to Macs because of this deal that won't be so exclusive a quarter or two. I don't know why Toms didn't write an article on it, but, it really doesn't seem to earth shattering to me. At the same time, there really hasn't been much in the way of news going on the past couple weeks, so they probably had plenty of time to throw a little article together for you Mac fanboys amongst us. It doesn't seem like they have been to pressed for time, with overclocking bacon sandwiches and all . It is funny that the bacon sandwich story popped up, but nothing on Apple.
Not sure where your comments about switching came from??
TG covers every other "top of the line" product on the market from Intel/AMD -- same with nVidia/ATI, regardless of market share. In fact, TG usually covers the topic before the grunts can actually buy the products.
Gotcha, I perceived your post differently than you intended. I was looking at it in a PC v Mac way, not a TG think Microsoft>Mac way. I see now, and I would not be surprised. It doesn't seem like the report much that doesn't have to do with Microsoft(speaking strictly of topics in that realm). Sorry, understand what you are saying and agree with your point.
I personally would love to see some performance tests using products available for both WinXP/Vista and OSX -- like Adobe CS3 Extended. I would also like to see cross application/OS comparison tests:
Logic Pro 7.1 vs. Sonar 6 PE
Final Cut Studio (especially v2) vs. Adobe Studio suite
Shake vs. (whatever is available on the PC that has same capabilities)
time it takes upsample or downsample audio
Maximum number of virtual instruments
H.264 rendering
morph rendering
video file size limits (if any)
4GB vs 8GB vs 16GB etc. etc.
I just don't see many benchmarks comparing the two -- sure the market share maybe small on both sides of the fence in this particular hardware arena but when has TG cared so much about that? This place has always been about Performance -- so why no meat articles to see who is da king for these types of tasks. There is life beyond just 3D twitching/gaming.
Some of us age with our hardware and 3D shooters just become one and the same and we move on to other things to explore beyond how good are my reflexes.
TG is happy to show gaming smack down, but when it comes to other apps nothing?! Void. Lets see which apps and OS can really put their top of the line hardware to good use -- lets see how well a 8 core 3Ghz Mac eats thru a render in FCP vs. an 8 core 2.66Ghz Vista Ultimate PC.
Is TG really doing it's job or just reporting all that is Microshaft? Market share be damn, hell only a very small fraction of people own an 8800GTX but it got premiere billing before it was released (and in SLI too).
Now that you can run Windows and OSX on the same box, there are a whole slew of benchmarks you can do to really compare the two OS's. I would love to see them bench the hell out of them. And then put a hackintosh together and do it again. I have heard clowns try to say that OSX is faster because of the hardware(in this case it may be true). But, it's just OSX on PC hardware now, not really any difference. If it's faster, the OS will be what's making it faster. Am I off base here?
1. Boot Camp Beta 1.2 with WinXP will only support 2GB RAM - Vista 32bit will go upto 4GB, Vista 64 supports EFI so limited by whatever MS deem
2. EFI has to emulate a BIOS so you get a small layer there
To do fair comparisons you really should separate the best hardware you can get for the PC vs. the best hardware Apple offer.
In the case Apple will have a 0.33 Ghz advantage in CPU performance and a 1333Mhz FSB. You have to pick Vista Ultimate 64bit to get 8 core and more than 4GB RAM support.
Sonar 6 PE has a 64bit version -- however, finding good 64bit drivers for Vista will be a challenge espeically for higher end Audio equipment.
But since I've seen gaming comparisons made against the MacPro with an ATI X1900XT vs. an nVidia 8800GTX on the PC side (pretty obvious the winner there), it's clear many folks seem unconcerned with hardware differences. So lets put the best Apple have to offer vs. the best PC there is and see just how well the software and the OS's do on applications that aren't games (like those I listed). Also included overclocking on the PC side to see how it may or may not help the OS/apps.
And I'm not talking about ripping MP3s, I'm suggesting real audio processing at 96khz 24bit or higher.
I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.
1. Boot Camp Beta 1.2 with WinXP will only support 2GB RAM - Vista 32bit will go upto 4GB, Vista 64 supports EFI so limited by whatever MS deem
2. EFI has to emulate a BIOS so you get a small layer there
To do fair comparisons you really should separate the best hardware you can get for the PC vs. the best hardware Apple offer.
In the case Apple will have a 0.33 Ghz advantage in CPU performance and a 1333Mhz FSB. You have to pick Vista Ultimate 64bit to get 8 core and more than 4GB RAM support.
Sonar 6 PE has a 64bit version -- however, finding good 64bit drivers for Vista will be a challenge espeically for higher end Audio equipment.
But since I've seen gaming comparisons made against the MacPro with an ATI X1900XT vs. an nVidia 8800GTX on the PC side (pretty obvious the winner there), it's clear many folks seem unconcerned with hardware differences. So lets put the best Apple have to offer vs. the best PC there is and see just how well the software and the OS's do on applications that aren't games (like those I listed). Also included overclocking on the PC side to see how it may or may not help the OS/apps.
And I'm not talking about ripping MP3s, I'm suggesting real audio processing at 96khz 24bit or higher.
The end of the day numbers would be interesting.
It's VERY temporary.
Intel is releasing a new Xeon 3GHz for the PC Server market soon. You see it's because Dell and HP haven't asked for one. Supply and Demand. Mac needs to try and on up PC's to remain alive. With soo little marketshare and soo little games and hardware built specifically for Macs , Mac users suffer from P3n!s envy and feel the need to go post on PC hardware sites anytime something goes their way.
Why does it matter when you can buy a q6600 and overclock it well past 3Ghz for a 1/3 the cost. As stated before Mac's market share is so small it more of a marketing gimmick. While benchmarks would be interesting don't kid yourself into thinking that OS/App difference would be able to offset the power of overclocking.
Why does it matter when you can buy a q6600 and overclock it well past 3Ghz for a 1/3 the cost. As stated before Mac's market share is so small it more of a marketing gimmick. While benchmarks would be interesting don't kid yourself into thinking that OS/App difference would be able to offset the power of overclocking.
The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.
If you are commenting on the not-so-hot ability of the average Windows XP/Vista installation to handle 8 cores, and few applications that can use them, then maybe you have a point. But if "Microsoft humpers" refers to ALL non-Apple x86 users, then you're full of **** as I've worked a tiny bit with a 512-CPU Dell x86 cluster running Linux and it worked beautifully.
Quote :
Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??
The masses...heh. You really are in the RDF, aren't you? The CPU isn't seeing wide adoption because of a few reasons:
1. It runs hotter than the average blast furnace.
2. Yields suck and it's expensive because it's an absolute top-bin part.
3. The Xeon 5000 DP chips are much less of a joke than the previous Xeon DPs, but the Opterons still are the choice. Especially once you move on up to the Opteron 8200 series- 8 Opteron cores at the same clock speeds as 8 Xeon cores murder the Xeons. There is no replacement for bandwidth.
4. There is a new stepping coming that WILL be popular, as well as having a lower TDP and probably better yields.
Quote :
Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them.
Mac guy: OMG, now I have cores! And Cool Sounding Pro iApps to use them! LOLZ!!!!
UNIX guy: [yawn] We've had them since Apples still had the rainbow-colored logo, green screens, and 5 1/4" floppies. [shakes head slowly] Kids...
Quote :
So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done.
Wow, you can do math. Congratulations. Did you have to use iCalculator Pro to help you?
Quote :
Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing
Mmm hmm. Not. First, you can work with audio and video on about any kind of computer. Secondly, an 8-core MacPro would get kicked around like an empty can in a schoolyard in massively multithreaded rendering by an 8-socket Opteron server and obliterated by real big-iron hardware from Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, or even Dell. None of which run Apple OSes.
Quote :
...and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!
Wow, one game on a MacPro! Wow! You might just catch Linux in a decade at your current rate! And I'll bet it doesn't run on Windows...oh, wait, it runs better on Windows because Macintoshes don't support the fastest video cards due to the special ROM needed for them to work on a Mac.
. It is funny that the bacon sandwich story popped up, but nothing on Apple.
rrlarose@hotmail.com 