First off, let's not open this up into another Mac vs. PC debate.
Okay, never mind, let's.....
First off to the %90-95 of you Mac users out there that think Windows is the only operating system that PC's run, well.... you're wrong. So there. BSD, FreeBSD, 3 x 10^ who gives a sh*t different flavors of linux, several commercial Unix flavours (including Solaris), BeOS, and several other OSes ALL run on the PC. Each one handles a little different. Each one takes tweaking to produce numbers suitable to release as benchmarks.
To the PC users that have never gotten any closer to a Mac that they fear that..... *shivers*... unnamed feeling of AHHHHH!!!!!
Get over it, Macs ain't that bad. I mean, MacOS is still a piece of crap designed for those that were to lazy to learn sh:)
But Rhapsody runs on Macs. So does *gasp* Linux.
And BeOS. And who knows how many silent others.
You can argue photoshop performance and video times until may next-to-most-recent-ex calls me back....
PCs have the current best price-to-performance ratio in the 32-bit market.
Macs are nice specifically because they're not PCs. They are easy to use. You don't have to worry about a lot of the same issues (chances are if some yahoo decided that they wanted to write a Mac driver for a piece of hardware, it's a gonna work). I like some of the development tools, and I like being able to relax and know that if I get that itch, I can still look across the network at my box and write my photoshop/prottols stuff to my FAT variant based shared disk.
But let's look at Mr. Carmack's argument, memory bandwith.
Somebody else can pull up some numbers, but what kind of memory subsystem do G4's use? I'm pretty sure it isn't RAMBUS, DDR-SDRAM, or 133mhz based DIMMS. I might be wrong about the last one. I've been out of hardware for a bit.
Point is this: the current incarnation of memory as it sits, they way memory subsystems are implemented, the PC archetechture has more memory bandwidth, and is favouring those running memory intensive applications.
That's all anyone was saying.
If you want a real test, then put both systems side by side, and see who has the best floating point performance. And no, nobody gives half a damn about integer performance anymore.
And this time, when you go to get the testbed systems, go dollar fo dollar, and see which one puts you on top.
BTW, does anybody have any hopes or aspirations about next-gen software finally being multithreaded? Even more daring, does anyone think that the new doom engine should be ported to 64-bit?:)
Slashdot Mirror
First off, let's not open this up into another Mac vs. PC debate.
:)
:)
Okay, never mind, let's.....
First off to the %90-95 of you Mac users out there that think Windows is the only operating system that PC's run, well.... you're wrong. So there. BSD, FreeBSD, 3 x 10^ who gives a sh*t different flavors of linux, several commercial Unix flavours (including Solaris), BeOS, and several other OSes ALL run on the PC. Each one handles a little different. Each one takes tweaking to produce numbers suitable to release as benchmarks.
To the PC users that have never gotten any closer to a Mac that they fear that..... *shivers*... unnamed feeling of AHHHHH!!!!!
Get over it, Macs ain't that bad. I mean, MacOS is still a piece of crap designed for those that were to lazy to learn sh
But Rhapsody runs on Macs. So does *gasp* Linux.
And BeOS. And who knows how many silent others.
You can argue photoshop performance and video times until may next-to-most-recent-ex calls me back....
PCs have the current best price-to-performance ratio in the 32-bit market.
Macs are nice specifically because they're not PCs. They are easy to use. You don't have to worry about a lot of the same issues (chances are if some yahoo decided that they wanted to write a Mac driver for a piece of hardware, it's a gonna work). I like some of the development tools, and I like being able to relax and know that if I get that itch, I can still look across the network at my box and write my photoshop/prottols stuff to my FAT variant based shared disk.
But let's look at Mr. Carmack's argument, memory bandwith.
Somebody else can pull up some numbers, but what kind of memory subsystem do G4's use? I'm pretty sure it isn't RAMBUS, DDR-SDRAM, or 133mhz based DIMMS. I might be wrong about the last one. I've been out of hardware for a bit.
Point is this: the current incarnation of memory as it sits, they way memory subsystems are implemented, the PC archetechture has more memory bandwidth, and is favouring those running memory intensive applications.
That's all anyone was saying.
If you want a real test, then put both systems side by side, and see who has the best floating point performance. And no, nobody gives half a damn about integer performance anymore.
And this time, when you go to get the testbed systems, go dollar fo dollar, and see which one puts you on top.
BTW, does anybody have any hopes or aspirations about next-gen software finally being multithreaded? Even more daring, does anyone think that the new doom engine should be ported to 64-bit?