Friday Apple Quickies

An anonymous reader writes "Steve Jobs' $78 million Apple income tops Fortune magazine's list of CEOs whose companies lagged behind the S&P 500 performance last year. The number 'reflects the value of five million restricted shares Jobs got this year in exchange for 27.5 million underwater options.'" markomarko writes "Well, despite Charlie White making all us Mac users eat crow over his comparison of render times between a dual 1.25 GHz Power Mac and a Dell 3.06 GHz P4, it seems that that Dave Nagel has given us a reason to take another look at the Mac. His article shows how After Effects render speeds can be doubled with the Mac, by using both CPUs."

Comments

Re:After effects

[cyb97]

I wonder if you know what After Effects does sir, as there are different uses for Final Cut *, Shake and After Effects.
After Effects is actually what the name implies a program to add Effects after it's been edited (or even while). Final Cut is a linear editor, while After Effects is a visual effects program. The do wastly different things.
Shake on the other hand is not unsimilar to AE, but the price tag on it ($5,000) just prices it out of the competition. That's also why they marked it as a digital composition tool, aimed at filmproducers rather than the average joe just wanting to put some flashy-text in his average home-video.

So in other words....

[Squidgee]

Adobe is technically screwing over the Mac.

By releasing a product which uses 1/2 of the Mac's power, they've crippled it. It would be similar to capping that 3ghz pentium to 1.5ghz, in which cause the Mac would (Guess what) slaughter the PC.

Yea, Adobe's a real good Mac software maker.

Re:So in other words....

[arloguthrie]

Oh, right, it's Adobe's fault. *rolls eyes*

Damn right its Adobe's fault. It's Microsoft's fault that Windows sucks, is it not? It's not Intel's fault that Microsoft is not writing an operating system that runs smoothly and efficiently on their processors and chipsets. So if Adobe isn't willing to optimize their software to take advantage of Altivec and dual-processors on the platform that made their company what it is today, then I say, "Adobe -- j'accuse!"

I have many of the same feelings about Adobe as I do Microsoft. Adobe had a nearly monopolistic place in the design industry (Photoshop, especially) and they abuse it by filling their software with bloat and not actually improving it. They have a history of making their software incompatible with others (see this article). And let's not forget when they sued Macromedia for using a fairly common UI widget.

When optimized for G4s and multiple G4s, software can be very zippy on a Mac. In raw power, they are still lacking behind in Intel, all us Mac lovers are sad to admit. But this article proves that Macs, compared to PCs in their price point neighborhood, can hold their own if developers like the marketing-driven ones at Adobe, took the time to make their software take full advantage of the machine they're working on.

Frustrating

[Niles_Stonne]

Reading the "Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again" article was an exercise in frustration, particularly when the other link states how to nearly double rendering performance. The writing in the article just generally pissed me off.

Anyway, perhaps it's time to send a nicely worded e-mail to Mr. Charlie White. A real benchmark may be impressive, considering a 3.06Ghz Dell system was only 2 times faster than the 1.25Ghz G4 in the best case - a Mhz/Mhz comparison should put it closer to 2.4 times faster.

By doing a little analysis of their data, we get the following table:


Test Name (Mac Time in Seconds/Dell Time in Seconds) = Time Ratio
1. After Effects: Simple Animation (14/7) = 2.0
2. After Effects: Video Composite (85/54) = 1.57
3. After Effects: Data Project (227/125) = 1.82
4. After Effects: Gambler (43/29) = 1.48
5. After Effects: Source Shapes (426/254) = 1.68
6. After Effects: Virtual Set (495/264) = 1.88
1. Photoshop: Layer styles & transformation (7.1/4.5) = 1.58
2. Photoshop: Filter Effects (62/35.1) = 1.77
3. Photoshop: Manipulations and adjustments (4.5/3.4) = 1.32

Average Time Ratio: 1.68


That means that On Average The Mac, running at 1.25Ghz only took 1.68 times longer to do the same task.

The "How to Double your After Effects Performance" article averages almost exactly a 2x speed increase, taking on average 49.2% of the time on the "long tests". Taking this into account, we can look at the two longest tests, factor in the speed increase, and look at the "final" performance:


5. After Effects: Source Shapes (209.65/254) = 0.83
6. After Effects: Virtual Set (243.61/264) = 0.92


If we go through the same calculation for _all_ of the calculations, we get the Mac BEATING the Dell, taking only 83% of the time that the Dell took. If we take the Photoshop calculations out of the average, it is still at only 86% of the time the Dell took.

Note that these are all calculated values, and as such may vary significantly from actual values, also that I used the improvement on the "long" test for everything, and did not use the improvement on the short test at all - I imagine that the two systems would end up nearly even in a real test.

Apparently all of my tables were lame when I had them formatted, thanks lameness filter!

Re:Frustrating

[Niles_Stonne]

Read both of the articles, you will see that After Effects only uses one processor - hence the ability to "double your performance" using the dual processor "tip" from the second article. My calculation is correct, given that the second processor is roughly equivalent to a brick as far as After Effects is concerned in it's standard configuration.

The entire point of my post was to extrapolate from given data what the data may have looked like if White's testing had used the dual processor tip, instead of just using a single 1.25Ghz G4 vs a 3.06Ghz Intel.

Re:Frustrating

[Llywelyn]

Do you know *anything* about SMP?

1) If the mac was only using one processor, then while a dual system is still faster (OS tasks can be sent to the other processor, other apps have more of a pipeline to be scheduled in, &c) it is nowhere near the point of using all of its processors.

2) Two single processors have advantages and disadvantages when compared to one faster processor. Some of the advantages include that it will feel more responsive and will actually be faster when performing lots of smaller or a mixed group of CPU based tasks. When performing a single large tasks (such as what AE tends to do without this hack), each one independently, the dual processor system suffers greatly.

Dual processor machines are just completely different beasts--adding their MHz and comparing them that way is a very poor way of scaling them per MHz against a single processor system, since it is completely and totally nonrepresentative of how the systems work.

Re:Frustrating

[GlassHeart]

Mr. White is [an idiot], if only because he believed the results of his tests enough to publish them, and make a fool of himself

I don't think there is reason to believe that the White benchmarks are invalid. First of all, they are out-of-the-box configurations, still valid for those who don't want to hack their software. Secondly, it predates this dual processor hack.

Its conclusion can now be called into question, but I think "idiot" is far too harsh. If he is intellectually honest, he will redo his benchmarks applying this recent discovery.

Sorry Charlie, Dave, my fault

[markomarko]

The last thing I wanted to achieve with my posting was another shouting match over the validity of Charlie White's benchmarks. If some more of you had bothered to read the second article, you would realize that this isn't a software "hack", it's a technique that employs adobe software included with the After Effects production bundle, and that it does, in real world terms, double render speeds on many After Effects tasks. Charlie and Dave were both good enough to reply to my inquiries about their tests, and the relationship between them. Seems Charlie is planning another test soon, using the "render farm" technique on both the Mac and the P4, but with the latest hardware. And yes, the technique provided by Dave did come after Charlie's article. Two things I'm disappointed with: One, that adobe didn't recognize that the benchmarks they published didn't make full use of both processors in the mac, when they have software that will do so. Charlie wasn't aware of this trick, and that's fine, but I would have expected Adobe to know more about their own software. Two, (yes I'm saying it again)the number of slashdotters that don't actually read the articles they comment on. To Charlie and Dave: I publicly apologize if my invitation to revisit the results has resulted in a mass of e-mail you don't need, or otherwise inconvenienced you. To Charlie in particular: I in no way meant to slander your test. I just wanted to show that the dual 1.25 is actually capable of much better performance with both processors being used to their full potential.