toggle

AAPL Stock: 557.31 ( -3.97 )

MacNN News

Mac vs. PC in digital photography tests

updated 04:30 pm EST, Wed January 7, 2004

G5 tested against PC

Rob Galbraith has published a report Apple's new dual-2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 and its single-1.8GHz Power Mac G5 to a Dual-Xeon�3.06GHz PC, and a single-3.2GHz PC. The tests compare the machines using countless digital photography operations, with performance numbers for each. Ultimately,�the Mac tied or led the PC in 19 of�the 77 tests that comprise the report. "Put another way, the PC was faster in 58 of�77 benchmarks."

by MacNN Staff

(56)

TAGS :

industry

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
Ouch.

Ouch. That's not good. Though based on my experience with iPhoto, it's not as surprising as I wish it was.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
No huge margins.

At least there were no massive diffs like with the g4s.

I have to say that I expected just a tad more out of 10.3 and PS CS.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not taking advantage of..

... the platform is the first thing I noticed. One of the reasons that you would want to go to a 64-bit machine is that you can stuff a lot more very fast memory into it. They limited the PowerMacs to the same 2 GB of RAM that the Dell was running on. Now, the Dell can go to 4GB but the Apple can move to 8GB. So, my question is why wouldn't you run a comparison on the performance of the two boxes by tuning them both to their strengths?

The next thing that seems to come to me is that I think Apple should be making its own pro digital photo software to replace Adobe's Photoshop. I believe that they can build a better and obviously much faster application than Adobe is pushing with Photoshop.

The next question I have is just a speed question. How is it that on these one-to-one tests the Macs seem to lag behind the WinTel machines. However, the Virginia Tech super-cluster blew the doors off of the larger and far more expensive 3.2 GHz Xeon super-cluster? Somehow, the math is not adding up.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
Huh

I hope this will once and for all shut the idiots up who said G4s are great and SO much faster then P4s.

I have always maintained that G3 and G5s are competitive processors whereas the G4 machines have seriously hindered Apple in adding marketshare and selling more machines because G4 is a serious bad processor. Yes, G4 may have some advantages but it defied the Moore's law i.e. its architectural advantages cannot compensate for its slow speed increases.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
RIPE.

this G5 is just RIPE to lead in 10-15 test categories.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
Very specific tests

The majority of these tests were opening RAW and NEF images from different digital cameras.

So, 19 seconds on a Dell vs 20 seconds on a G5. Then we spend the next half hour actually working with it. This is where the speed test comes down to the user: which is the more comfortable environment to work in?

My feeling is that 1 second advantage from the Dell is more than lost by navigating through Windows explorer dialogs arranging files to be where we want them.

Or frustratedly mousing around because Photoshop hasn't "caught" the spacebar because Windows XP's focus was on the last button clicked, not the window...

Just another perspective!

Wintel may edge out a Mac by a few seconds on some specific tests, but the overall speed decrease for a user is far more important from my point of view.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
AMD64

what about the AMD 64 machines? They may do even better...

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:53pm | report spam | close Reply |
Software Problem

Most of these tests where with camera makers own software and the main reason the Mac was slower is that most of these applications are far behind their window counterparts and I don't think any have been optimized for dual processors, let alone the G5. It is a problem for Apple in many applications when comparing cross platform.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
Phase One!

"The time it took to develop RAW photos as full-resolution, High Quality, JPEG High files was tested in C1 Pro 1.3 for Windows and C1 Pro 1.2.2 for Mac."

Ok, Phase One's Capture One is at version _3.1.1_, they used version _1.2.2_ ... hmm... Makes it a bit useless...

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 05:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: RIPE

Yes, we've noticed.
No, we don't care.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 06:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
Summary of detractors.

1) What graphics card is in the 2g5?
2) (repeat) If this is what pro's are likely to use then where is the memory?
3) Almost every test uses proprietary plug-ins and they are inconsistent across brands for performance on the same task.
4) Media reader uses adaptec card in pc, but mac default connector. What? You couldn't find the same extra card? This is of course time to come up w/ a fw800 reader (no excuses here)
5) What these tests really show is what type of media, camera, and software is currently the quickest in proprietary formats. This is useful for buying good gear IF speed in transfer and thumbnailing is your only concern. Otherwise these tests do not offer a good real world battery for comparison of desktop machines as they fail to do any real work; this is why Apple's photoshop shootouts were at least somewhat convincing.
6) There are a few shockers, like previewing jpegs, where one would expect the mac speed to be faster. Is journaling on?
7) How many times did either machine crash (You expect me to believe that between the pc and the mac NEITHER crashed in all those tests?)
8) Background tests were specialized but which machine is running a webserver in the background as well? or checking mail? or loading a webpage? Mail and Browsing are the 2 most likely things that anyone will be doing so if you just came back from a shoot you had better check your mail for changes...and these are the kind of tests you we need to see.

Sure, I could make a test suite in Audio, Video, Photography, Programming, even 'Browsing the Web'; then claim it represented real world situations, throw in a bunch of proprietary and shallow tests, stack the machine and peripheral competitors in favor of one brand, not show my methodology, apply no simple statistics to get good baselines on repition, and finally produce a test that favors brand X...but this is the real world.

While this test is useful for buying non-computer gear it is otherwise useless for real world considerations.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 06:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
Who needs two processors?

Well, if I were to take this test of mismashed OEM software of different versions as a real indicator of the best machine to buy I would run out to buy the single processor Dell. Not a well done test and no, I'll keep my Mac thanks.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 06:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
You gonna trust this guy?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/digitalphotography/thebigpicture/default.asp

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 07:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Let's face it...

Windows on Intel just plain ROCKS!! Suck on that you fruity motherfuckers!!

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 07:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
Bah

Hey Mr. List, would you have made the same list if the G5s won?

That's what I thought.

Also, so what if he's on Microsoft site? His credentials and work suddenly invalid? His 14 page study is wrong? Idiot zealots.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 08:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hey

Guess what! The IT industry doesn't really spend too much time optimizing dual OS software for Macs. Isn't that a surprise?? They make their money on Windows. That's where they make the s*** FAST. Look at Dreamweaver and Fireworks MX 2004 on a Mac and compare it to a PC at a slower speed. Macromedia farmed the coding of the Mac version of those apps out to sloppy teenagers in India. The Windows version was done in the ol US of A by competent people and tested thoroughly. I am sure Adobe is the same way.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 08:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Doesn't Matter

My Photographs still look better on a Mac. Everything always looks really dark on a PC.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 08:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
EAT s***

"Windows on Intel just plain ROCKS!! Suck on that you fruity motherfuckers!!"

Why don't you shut the f*** up. Why don't you go find a pc forum and then f*** yourself. Or better yet, f*** your pc. You s*** sucking, prick licking, pc cocksucking prick hole!!

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 09:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
"Let's face it"

"Windows on Intel just plain ROCKS!! Suck on that you fruity motherfuckers!!".

Let's take a look at this gentlemen's statment.

1. One exclamation point is fine!
2. Windows on Intel ROCKS? As opposed to Windows on Mac?
3. fruity and motherfuckers? Isn't that a double negative?

I think you have your own issues to work out.
And you are an ASSCLOWN.
That would be an a** and CLOWN combined.

Oh BTW: The 3rd fastest SUPER COMPUTER in the world is
all G5s

#1. Japan : $350 million dollars
#2. Los Alamos : $250 million dollars
#3. Virginia Tech : $5 million dollars

Keep your PC.
We all know the true satisfaction of using a Mac.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 09:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: You gonna trust this

Ha--good call! Galbraith works for Microsoft. Things just got a lot clearer...

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 09:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
It's about vision

You flamers are acting like republicans and democrats, chomping at the bit for every piece of information out of Iraq. Stick with the vision, Apple-heads. We get excited each time Apple gives us more of what we want (and how we want it), not because we thought it could beat PC's, but for how it inspired us. Despite Apple's aggressive and successful innovations, we haven't arrived at the end-all be-all ideal computer. (The wise know we never will reach that ideal, and delight in the struggle towards it.)

Results, shmultz. I'm looking forward to the day I have my own G5, or whatever else comes next, because I like Macs. I don't need a reason nor a defense of my choice. Flamers that feel a need to defend their's, will find themselves attacked no matter what the issue.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 09:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: Bah

"Idiot zealots."

There's nothing idiotic about questioning a reviewer's impartiality, especially when he, as one user pointed out, is closely tied to the competition.

And enough with the "z" word. We've heard it a million times that we're already immune to it. But I suppose you, like many others, need a catch-phrase to describe Apple and Mac users. Remember "beleaguered?"

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 09:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
Another

stupid, near meaningless comparison.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:07pm | report spam | close Reply |
He works

for Microsoft.

That's like having a Chevy v. BMW car comparison
by an employee of Chevy.

Dumbfuck.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: He Works

He's had one of his articles published there. Big deal.

Back when the optimized MacBibble first came on the scene he soon had an article up about how great it was and praised the Mac solutions while they were ahead. He isn't partisan -- he owns a decent collection of systems from both platforms and frequently compares the Mac/PC desktops and laptops he owns with respect to his field.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple's site

He's actually mentioned on Apple's site as well:
http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/pturnley/

"To press his investigation, and to prove the concept, Turnley brought in an expert. �I actually hired one of the most knowledgeable people in the digital photographic world, Rob Galbraith, to give me a week of intensive lessons using a digital camera and archiving my work on my PowerBook G4. It was really one of the best investments I ever made,� says Turnley."

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
Get a clue Re: Bah

"There's nothing idiotic about questioning a reviewer's impartiality, especially when he, as one user pointed out, is closely tied to the competition."

If you knew anything about Rob and his work, you would know he is not "closely tied" to Microsoft.

Rob is a well respected professional in digital photography and his comparisons have always been as fair and as realistic in the digital photography world as you will find.

The idiot zealots here who don't seem to know much about digital photography make me sick. Just because Rob used real world software to solve real world problems and showed the new G5s are not superior in speed, he gets labeled a Microsoft collaborator. My guess is most of the bonehead zealots probably have never even his results let alone any other part of his site.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Phase One!

"Ok, Phase One's Capture One is at version _3.1.1_, they used version _1.2.2_ ... hmm... Makes it a bit useless... "

Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing our game, doofus.

Phase One C1 Pro is at 1.3 for Windows and I believe at 1.2 for Macs. Please check their Web site at http://www.c1dslr.com.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
What about

How much did these machines cost?

Here is something to chew on:

Machine A: Dell 450 : $5434
Machine B: Dell 360 : $4346
Machine C: Apple : Dual 2 ghz G5 : $4,049
Machine D: Apple : G5 1.8 ghz : $3549

If you look at the comparisons, and take into consideration
what other experts have said about the software optimization
for Windows v. Mac, and also the PRICE per machine, how can
you still want to buy a PC based on these results?

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 10:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: He works

"for Microsoft. That's like having a Chevy v. BMW car comparison by an employee of Chevy. Dumbfuck."

It is amazing how stupid people are here. His evaluation does not yield the results you insist have to be true, so he works for Microsoft.

People ought to at least take 30 seconds to visit Rob's site before labeling him.

Rob's site is considered a standard for high end digital photography information. And anyone who spent five minutes reading his site would immediately recognize he is no Microsoft/Intel pusher.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 11:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
"He works"

He is a photographer.
So, how does this "study" have any credence?

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 11:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
I want

More informatio about these machines.
This is far from a complete study of Mac v. PC.
He should stick to cameras, as it is obvious he is truly an expert when they are concerned.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 11:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: I want

"More informatio about these machines.
This is far from a complete study of Mac v. PC."

Please read the article. He never intended it to be a complete study of the Mac vs. PC. He provides all of the configuration data in the article.

The only reason people are attacking the comparison is because it does not fit their predetermined answer that the G5 blows away Intel machines in all high end digital photography uses.

He took higher end machines from two players, Dell and Apple and ran common tasks that a professional digital photographer would run and timed them.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/07, 11:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hey

I don't care which one imports a photo in .5 seconds less, but I do care about the quality of my work. When Windows crashes I don't care how fast the machine boots compared to the G5 because the Mac wouldn't have crashed in the first place. I don't have to defrag my hard drive and I certainly don't have to put up with spyware, adware, terrible preemptive multitasking, poorly-designed interfaces, and everything else that comes with Windows. So stop bashing the author, he is just busy looking at his stopwatch and hasn't noticed that people are actually getting work done faster and better on Macs. He doesn't work for Microsoft directly, he doesn't have equal machines for price or configuration, he didn't test everything 100% equally, and none of it will really matter after people forget about the article in a few hours.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:00am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: summary

2) (repeat) If this is what pro's are likely to use then where is the memory?

Please, if he put in 4GB in the Mac, and 8GB in the PC (the max of each), you'd be whining that the test was unfair!

3) Almost every test uses proprietary plug-ins and they are inconsistent across brands for performance on the same task.

OK, but he's testing plug-ins real photographers would use.

5) What these tests really show is what type of media, camera, and software is currently the quickest in proprietary formats. This is useful for buying good gear IF speed in transfer and thumbnailing is your only concern. Otherwise these tests do not offer a good real world battery for comparison of desktop machines as they fail to do any real work; this is why Apple's photoshop shootouts were at least somewhat convincing.

What do you mean "fail to do any real work". Maybe not you're work, but its not a comparison for you then. Its a comparison for what he was testing.

8) Background tests were specialized but which machine is running a webserver in the background as well? or checking mail? or loading a webpage? Mail and Browsing are the 2 most likely things that anyone will be doing so if you just came back from a shoot you had better check your mail for changes...and these are the kind of tests you we need to see.

Please, if you're doing benchmarks, you don't run stuff in the background. Again, if he did this, someone would be complaining that the tests weren't fair because one system has better multi-tasking emailers or web clients then the others.

While this test is useful for buying non-computer gear it is otherwise useless for real world considerations.

No, its also helpful for those who do a lot of digital photography. He's not doing comprehensive tests. As a reverse example, those Photoshop tests apple does (and the others do) are completely meaningless to me, because I don't do photoshop. But you're saying I should buy a Mac because Photoshop works great on it?

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:04am | report spam | close Reply |
Re:prices

If you look at the comparisons, and take into consideration
what other experts have said about the software optimization
for Windows v. Mac, and also the PRICE per machine, how can
you still want to buy a PC based on these results?

Wait, if you're a pro, you're filling the computer with memory and other fun stuff (according to other posters). So what does cost have to do with anything?

And as for optimaztions, its a point, but actually backfires. Should someone buy a Mac because the software he uses WOULD work better if it were optimized for Mac, but they're better optimized for the PC? I don't think so. Are you going to be telling your clients that "sure its slower than your PC that you had, but if the software was better, it would be faster. Just thinnk about that while waiting for your work to complete..."

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Anyway

I was just at another site that had the real scoop. Rob is g**! So the tests are meaningless.

All you Defenders of the Rob can now slink back into your closets and resume choking your chickens.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:45am | report spam | close Reply |
Anyway

I was just at another site that had the real scoop. Rob is g**! So the tests are meaningless.

All you Defenders of the Rob can now slink back into your closets and resume choking your chickens.

And regardless, Windows on Intel ROCKS! Apple poseurs!

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:51am | report spam | close Reply |
"Anyway-Anyway"

You don't happen to stutter, live in a cave, and rape small animals would you?

"WIndows rocks on Intel."
"Apple poseurs."? Is that french for posers?

What a dickhead.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 03:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Galbraith

Galbraith is a troll. It's a shame he's pretty notable figure in the online world of digital photography.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 04:24am | report spam | close Reply |
Nikon Capture for Mac?

One of the pieces of software being tested is Nikon Capture for the Mac. This is one of the slowest apps I've ever seen on the Macintosh. It can make your G5 feel like it is a beige G3 with 64 MB RAM running Mac OS X 10.0.

The Pentium 4 has been there already for a year or more (2?), the G5 is pretty new. I wonder whether some of these proprietary image viewers & image processesing software tools are already optimized for the G5. Probably not. Most of them are just bad ports of their windows counterparts.

Time for Apple to deliver a 3 GHz G5 and a version of iPhoto which can do the tricks this fellow tested.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 08:59am | report spam | close Reply |
re: Get a Clue

You know, your choice of words and the tone and manner upon which you express them reek of the same type of zealotry you purport us of exhibiting.

I could just as easily call you a Rob Galbraith zealot. But I won't.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 09:04am | report spam | close Reply |
Why Dell?

Everyone knows they are the _WORST_ performing Intel boxes out there, and generally just plain old pieces of dog s***.

Why not try an AMD based solution or something from another, much better purveyor of PC hardware? I'd bet it would be faster than the shitbox Dell.

But, the Apple is quite competitive - .5 second isn't going to be noticed by anyone, and is quite possibly within the margin of error for timing these things. (After all, we have a human operating the stopwatch.)

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 09:23am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Get a Clue

"I could just as easily call you a Rob Galbraith zealot. But I won't."

I would not care in the least. But I consider myself more of a Rob Galbraith defender than zealot.

It pisses me off that someone who has provided a wealth of great information for professional (and non-professional) digital photographers gets attacked by a bunch of small minded people because he took real world machine, ran real world software, used real world operations and came up with numbers that do not match people's preconceived notion that the G5 humiliates PCs in all cases.

I will bet most of the people attacking him know nothing about high end digital photography, have even read his site or even bothered to read his article. If they did read his article, it was more to find areas to attack than to try to understand what he was saying.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 09:51am | report spam | close Reply |
My Summary

First, I don't think that Mr. Galbraith is a Windows pawn. He could be but I don't think so. I think he is just a great photographer that uses computers.

So, in his perspective and to others using the same type of software/hardware, the PC does come out on top for speed. No, I am not going to get into the advantages of OS X over XP in this posting. However, let it be known that I work on both and far prefer OS X.

What this testing shows me is that:

� Apple should be writing more drivers for the most popular digital cameras out there.
� Apple should also be making their own digital picture software since Adobe does not seem to be making the most of the Apple hardware and software.
� Kingston Compact Flash cards are slow.
� 400 Mbs FireWire is significantly faster than USB 2.
� Mr. Galbraith didn't test the 64-bit CPUs biggest advantage... larger memory addressing.
� If I were buying a Dell, the single processor unit is a much better buy than the dual.
� Apple needs to work on getting a hold of IBM's G5 compiler.

So, with all the possible and probably software/hardware improvements that I expect for the G5 in the coming months, I fully expect tests like this to change quite a bit in the areas where Apple takes a direct hand. However, I do not see much improvement with the third part players. Adobe will continue its relentless march to Windows only. The camera makers will continue to try to reduce costs by writing code that is optimized for the Windows platform and then ported to the Mac.

That last statement is one of the reasons that I typically look for OS X applications that are written in Cocoa rather than Carbon. I am looking for a commitment to the Mac platform. Since Cocoa applications are not typically cross-platform, they are usually fully optimized for the Mac without consideration for or planning for a cross-platform move. Thus, they are more likely to fully take advantage of OS X and Mac hardware. That is not a guarantee just more probable.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 10:01am | report spam | close Reply |
testing

i would tend to believe rob's tests are unbiased and that he ran them as fairly as possible. i do have a touch of doubt though - and here's the reason:

i recently bought a canon digital rebel camera and picked up a "regular" sandisk CF card. the wait time for multiple shots to be transfered to the card was annoying, and i need extra space as well, so i consulted robs digi-reb article testing various CF card transfer speeds. his transfer rates for the sandisk ultra II card were nearly double those of my original CF card, so i went ahead and made the purchase. my results? absolutely no difference between the two. he does explain his methodology for determining transfer rates, which i attempted to re-create many times (and had others check out what he had said and i had attempted on my own), but could not reproduce anywhere close to the 2x difference. unfortunately, i haven't had any luck having anyone else confirm or refute my findings.

having said all that, i do not think rob is biased towards pc's or is intentionally skewing his tests. the digi-reb experience just gives me pause before accepting the results as absolute truth.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 10:48am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: My Summary

"Mr. Galbraith didn't test the 64-bit CPUs biggest advantage... larger memory addressing."

Please, pray tell, share with us how he would do that? Name one realistic way to get a digital image to more than 2GB, let alone 4GB. And after that, please tell us how to test it on 32-bit OSes.

If you are doing digital photography, even with 25Mp images from digital camera backs, you cannot approach 2GB per image using realistic situations. Even with 16-bit color and multiple layers, it is hard to get much above 1GB.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 11:28am | report spam | close Reply |
s-l-o-w

Macs ARE slower, always have been.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 12:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Re: My Summary

Image is not the only thing in the computer and not the only thing that RAM is used for. PhotoShop, for one, uses a very significant scratch disk. Even more is happening during his multi-tasking tests besides just the image. So, if you had used your brain before your keyboard, you would know that the dual processor running an operating system with large files being manipulated just might have been affected by the amount of physical RAM.

Now, maybe 8 GB's of RAM would *not* have made a difference. However, since the additional memory addressing is perhaps the most often mentioned benefit for working with the new 64-bit CPU's, don't you think that *maybe* he should have attempted to see if it made a difference? Especially since most applications are not set up to fully exploit 64-bit CPU processing.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 02:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
"s-l-o-w"

"Macs ARE slower, always have been."

I guess it is a wash then?

PC users are S-L-O-W-E-R, always have been.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 03:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Re: My Summary

Photoshop CS's process can't address more than 2GB of Ram, end of story (see Chris Cox's posts on Ars Technica).

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 04:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Curious

If the Xeon machines are supposedly faster than the G5 machines, then why is the Virginia Tech super-cluster, with many fewer processors, faster than the Xeon super-cluster? The Virginia Tech cluster comes in at #3 and the closest Xeon-based one comes in at #4.

In the words of Mr. Hall, "Hmmmm....."

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/08, 05:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Photographer?

What is a photographer writing an article comparing the speed argument between PCs and Macs? He is obviously good at the photography end of things, but lacks in the computer end, which makes me sick. What the f*** is he doing? He doesn't know.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/09, 10:20am | report spam | close Reply |
whatever

So PCs are faster then macs. That's no suprise. IBM is only just now getting the G5 to the level where they can compete with the fastest PCs. That's why apple switched to the G5, because it kicks the G4's butt.

Here's another perspective. The G5 is nearly equal in speed to the Xeon, EVEN WITH A FULL 1 GHz speed deficit! It's pretty clear that if the G5 can ramp up properly, it's a much superior processor.

Hang in there guys. The mac is back in the running for the fastest computer out there. Just give IBM some time to perfect their fab process, so they can start churning out those 3 GHz G5s. THEN we'll see how well a Xeon fairs ;-)

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/09, 01:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
A call to switch to

Apple! You PC losers have seen the writing on the wall, only if you could read it, you pathetic slow;retarded;losers.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/09, 03:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
I think this says enough

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-009

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	With iPad included, Apple leads mobile...
05/22	Next iPhone may have 3.95-inch display...

Show All

05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	With iPad included, Apple leads mobile...
05/22	Next iPhone may have 3.95-inch display...
05/22	Evizone delivers a unique take on business...

Show All

05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	Hands on: TouchType case for iPad,...
05/22	Public figures pay tribute to Jobs...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Mac vs. PC in digital photography tests

updated 04:30 pm EST, Wed January 7, 2004

G5 tested against PC

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Ouch.

No huge margins.

Not taking advantage of..

Huh

RIPE.

Very specific tests

AMD64

Software Problem

Phase One!

re: RIPE

Summary of detractors.

Who needs two processors?

You gonna trust this guy?

Let's face it...

Bah

Hey

Doesn't Matter

EAT s***

"Let's face it"

re: You gonna trust this

It's about vision

re: Bah

Another

He works

Re: He Works

Apple's site

Get a clue Re: Bah

Re: Phase One!

What about

Re: He works

"He works"

I want

Re: I want

Hey

Re: summary

Re:prices

Anyway

Anyway

"Anyway-Anyway"

Galbraith

Nikon Capture for Mac?

re: Get a Clue

Why Dell?

Re: Get a Clue

My Summary

testing

Re: My Summary

s-l-o-w

Re: Re: My Summary

"s-l-o-w"

Re: Re: My Summary

Curious

Photographer?

whatever

A call to switch to

I think this says enough

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace