--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? > Finale is not a > 3D application, and there *really* isn't any > significant difference > in 2D or video performance between a (relatively) > low-end card like > the GeForce 7300 GT and a high-end gaming or CAD > card. Well, only that I worked in tech support for 2 years and spoke with customers who confirmed that the faster video cards improved performance in Finale. That along with my personal findings that the faster video cards allowed me to have faster drawing at higher resolutions seemed like a good clue! Finale doesn't make use of the fancy features on these video cards, like anti-aliasing (though this will come into play on Mac because of the OS). But certainly having the faster processor in the graphics card makes a difference. > Do any of them use 3D so heavily that you'd need > something more > powerful than the GeForce 7300 GT? Need and benefit from are two different things. Yes, these applications would benefit from a better video card. They wouldn't benefit from an extra processor. > That's not a bad > card by any > means. And as I said, you can always upgrade the Mac > to the Radeon > X1900 XT, which is a 3D powerhouse. Do you have the option to pair video cards? Regardless, the point is that I don't want to spend the money on the processor when it would be better spent on the graphics card. > > The point is > > that in general a second processor is not going to > > give me nearly as much boost as having a good > video > > card, > > I'm *extremely* dubious of this statement, > especially since most Mac > pro audio and video apps (not to mention the OS) > have been optimized > for multiple processors for years. What is your > evidence? I already explained that if I spent $3000 on a Mac, I wouldn't be using it only for or even primarily for Mac applications. I'd run everything I could from Windows. And most applications just don't make use of multiple processors. I don't believe I own any applications that are optimized for dual processor support. > > > But I can't dump the unwanted processor that's > costing > > me so much more! Why does Apple have to only offer > the > > Core 2 Duos in sets of 2??? > > You mean Xeons, and you're acting like this is > something new. It is new. iMacs have been using single versions of the G5 processor. Now they're not using the single version of the top processor. They're using a processor that's slower than a half-way decent Pentium 4. The new Xeons use the same circuitry as the other chips in the Core 2 Duo line (Conroes and Meroms). Intel has moved to essentially one processor for its notebooks, desktops, and servers. > The Pro > machines have been quad for years -- Apple was not > going to replace a > quad G5 with a machine with fewer processors. And > the quad > processors make a massive difference in any > application optimized for > multiple processors -- which on the Mac program is > basically any high- > end application. Like Finale? Or Sibelius? > > > If you put just one of > > those things in an iMac or Mac Mini you suddenly > have > > a very legitimate low cost machine. Sticking with > the > > old Core Duos, they have a processor which doesn't > > even keep up with the P4's. > > Uh, no, that's not true. But of course Apple will > eventually replace > the Core Duos with the next-gen Core 2 Duos, > probably starting with > the Mac Book Pro. But have some patience -- the > first Intel Macs only > just came out 6 months ago, and the Core 2 Duos only > started > shipping, what, a month ago? They're already being used by the top PC manufacturers. The point is that this transition doesn't take much - the iMacs and Mac Minis should be using them now. > > > Yes it is. The new Xeons (Woodcrests) that Apple > is > > using are from the same processor line as the > Conroes > > I'm afraid you are incorrect, although Intel's > confusing naming > scheme doesn't help matters: No, I've checked myself on several sites. The conroes, meroms and 5100's are at their heart all the same processor. > > You called the Xeon 5100's "the Xeon version of the > Core Duo," which > is completely wrong -- the Core Duos are 32-bit and > the Xeons are 64- > bit. Read my paragraph again. The entire paragraph was about the core 2 duo processor. You're right - I left the "2" out accidentally in that sentence... but if you read my paragraph, there should not have been any doubt which processor I was referring to. It's about the equivalent of me figuring out that you meant "Mac platform" rather than "Mac program." Tyler __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
