On 08 Aug 2006, at 6:38 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
--- 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!
So what you're saying is that you haven't actually looked at any
benchmarks. The plural of anecdote is not data.
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.
Not in 2D or video. Only in 3D. The stock video card on the Mac Pro
performs just as well in 2D applications as the expensive ones. But
don't take my word for it -- check the benchmarks.
Do you have the option to pair video cards?
Yes -- you can install up to four video cards, driving eight
independent monitors.
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.
You have presented no evidence that your money would be better spent
on a better graphics card than the GeForce 7300 GT, which for 2D
applications is just as powerful as any of the more expensive
graphics cards.
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.
Surely this is changing now that Intel is pushing the Core Duo line,
hard, to PC manufacturers? At any rate, Apple's responsibility is to
ensure the best possible hardware configuration for OS X, which means
multiple processors in the high end.
It is new. iMacs have been using single versions of
the G5 processor.
Uh, we were talking about the pro line, not iMacs.
Now they're not using the single
version of the top processor.
No. The Core Duo is a dual-core processor. The iMacs will no doubt be
upgraded to the Core 2 Duo in due time.
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?
Not what I would consider high-end pro applications. Finale and
Sibelius are niche apps with a tiny user base.
High-end apps are stuff like Photoshop, InDesign, Final Cut Pro,
Logic, ProTools, 3D Studio Max... stuff like that.
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.
They will be using them very soon. Historically, Apple has not
updated as often as the PC manufacturers, and while post-Intel, they
are moving in this direction -- the MacBook Pros have already been
updated twice -- it's unrealistic to expect them start revising their
product line every month.
For crying out loud, they just unveiled the Mac Pros *yesterday* --
they want all the media attention to be focused on the new product.
It will be at least a few weeks before they unveil major upgrades to
any of the other product lines.
If Apple had used Core 2 Duos in the Mac Pros, people would be
bitching that they didn't use the most powerful option (Xeon 5100
series). If you absolutely must have a Core 2 Duo machine, wait a few
weeks and get an iMac.
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."
Well, sorry, but I *was* confused by your mistake. It sounded to me
like you were saying the Core Duos and the Xeon 5100's were one
branch, and the Core 2 Duos were a completely different branch. It
also sounded like you were saying that the Xeon 5100 was merely a
Core Duo on steroids, while the Core 2 Duo was the real Great Leap
Forward. And while all three processors are based on the Intel Core
Microarchitecture, I consider the difference between the 32-bit and
64-bit versions pretty significant.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
