On 11 Aug 2006, at 5:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
That would imply to *me* that you've been wrong all along with your CPU-bound argument, unless it's only Quartz's 3D and transparency elements that are handed off.
David, on the Mac side, Mac 2D performance has been historically CPU- bound because -- even with the extra work being asked of Mac graphics cards (i.e., Quartz Extreme/Core Image) -- the graphics cards supplied with most Mac models met or exceeded the ability of the CPU to feed them, at least when it comes to everyday 2D tasks. 2D tasks are much less demanding than 3D tasks, so most cards that are adequate 3D performers at the time of their release don't break much of a sweat doing the 2D stuff -- even the more expanded set of 2D tasks Mac OS X asks of them.
On the Intel side, because WinXP passes off fewer tasks to the graphics card, my understanding is that Windows machines are normally less likely than Macs to become GPU-bound -- unless there is a severe mismatch between processor and graphics card. Apple has historically tried to prevent this by ensuring a good match between CPU and graphics card, but of course PC manufacturers give the consumer more leeway to pick and choose. Given the age of the chipsets used in both of Tyler's video cards, it's entirely possible that his CPUs exceed the ability of his graphics cards to keep up, and obviously I should have admitted that possibility sooner. At first, I didn't realize that the Radeon X600 was based on the Radeon 9600 chipset, which originally debuted in 2003, and was always a low-performing budget graphics card. The X600 may well be underpowered for a 3.0-3.2 GHz P4.
So I admit I was over-broad, and should probably have qualified many of my previous statements. I apologize for this.
I should also have admitted that now that the top-of-the-line Macs are using significantly faster processors, they will probably require significantly faster graphics cards to avoid becoming GPU-bound. We will have to wait for the benchmarks before we know for sure if the 7300 GT is up to the task (especially on the quad 3.0 GHz model). My impression from reading 7300 GT reviews, as well as the initial Mac Pro reviews, is that this card likely performs well enough to handle everyday 2D tasks without becoming GPU-bound, even on very large displays. But we won't know that for sure until some 2D benchmarks emerge, specifically head-to-head benchmarks with the 7300 GT vs. the X1900 in the same machine.
The upgraded video card options for the Mac Pro aren't shipping yet, so we won't have a definitive answer to that question until they do.
Cheers, - Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
