|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Agathon
If this is about the PC World article then it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Some of those machines cost quite a bit more than the top end G5. In any case the comparisons are hardly knock down proof.
|
The only reason they cost "quite a bit more" (being the Alienware rig cost a whole $200 more...) is because they're extreme high end and extremely overpriced. You could build your own system still for cheaper than the dual G5 PowerMac (as I did).
|
Quote:
|
|
For instance comparing Mac performance on Premiere when Adobe has stopped developing it for the Mac because it was being spanked by Final Cut Pro due to performance issues among other things is a bit daft.
|
Final Cut Pro isn't multiplatform.
|
Quote:
|
|
And as for Word - as a user of Word X I can say it is definitely sluggish - but that's MS' fault for poor programming, not Apple's.
|
How much can you keep deflecting blame to someone else? How do you explain QuickTime encoding being pathetically slow on Apple's hardware, on Apple's OS?
And if you use Word X, and it's what most people use -- why does this even matter? A system is only as fast as its slowest part.
The G5 is decent in floating point by very slow in integer and logic operations (even in Apple's rigged SPEC benchmarks the crippled P4 beat it). Since Word entirely uses inteter and logic operations, particularly in autosummarize and search & replace, it comes as no surprise that a CPU with twice the integer performance will be quite a bit faster.
!
