CPU Render Benchmark

[John Bigboote]

SO---Jody, you are saying(to sum up) that a single frame rendered IN A:M took 4:18, but the same frame- rendered in a SEQUENCE in NetRender took an average of 1:16?

[MMZ_TimeLord]

John,

 

Basically, yes. But, to qualify that statement, remember that there were FOUR threads or nodes running. So if you multiply that 1:16 by 4, you still end up with over 5 minutes a frame. BUT, by dividing the workload, you can reduce the overall render time of the entire sequence.

 

Example: 120 frames rendered in A:M or with only one Node at 4 minutes a frame is (4x120=480 minutes) 8 hours. Where if you have four nodes running and each frame takes 5 minutes in each node, you get (5*120 / 4 = 150 minutes) 2 hours 30 minutes. This reduces the overall render time by 5 hours and 30 minutes.

 

Again, your mileage may vary as well as your RAM usage. If the frames have a LOT of texture maps, then you will have to be very conscious of the RAM usage per node.

 

With 16GB available, I could run upwards of 2 or 3 GB per node before there would be issues.

[robcat2075]

my latest comparison, all on my intel Q6600 running at 3.0 GHz with 4 Gigs of Ram.

 

v15 (32-bit) 9:48

v16 (64-bit) 4:42

v17 (64-bit) 4:03

 

 

 

[Xtaz]

latest result using V17 Beta 1 ( 64 bit ) = 3'08"

 

 

amazinh job Hash team !!!

[jason1025]

Interesting

 

I have never liked using AM via Mac OS for various reasons. Unfortunately I am a mac guy and do everything else on mac.

This has always been an issue.

The solution for years was a dual boot system on the mac into Windows.

But that too was a pain because of having to shutdown the mac and restart. And less integration between what I am doing on the mac and what I am doing on the PC via th emac.

 

New solution

 

Windows 7 running on the mac on the mac OS via VMware Fusion.

 

Only cost like $40.00

 

Same Render speed even though its emulating and no issues as of yet.

 

[youngman]

Latest test:

Version V17 Beta5 = 2.00min

 

i7 3770k @ 3.5ghz

16gb ram

Win 7 64 bit

 

 

 

Regards

 

Jay

[robcat2075]

Latest test:

Version V17 Beta5 = 2.00min

 

Wow!

[Kamikaze]

version of A:M:

14c

render time min:sec:

12:32

CPU Brand and model:

amd a4-3300m

Actual CPU speed in GHz:

1.9 ghz Dual Core

how many cores A:M is using:

1 I think

RAM:

4gb (3.48 usable)

OS:

Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit)

 

This is a hp pavilion g6-1b60u says 1 cpu dual core 1.90 to 2.5 ghz depending on ?

I used CPU-Z software to check cpu speed while rendering it stayed in the 1.9 area and even dipped lower on occasion....

Task manager shows CPU running at 50% so probably 1 core running?

May overclock CPU to say at a steady 2.5 ghz like a friend of mine has done for the past year with no overheating problems....

Also adding 4 gb more ram, when it shows up.

 

Mike Kaze

[robcat2075]

version of A:M:

14c

render time min:sec:

12:32

 

Upgrading to v16 64-bit would probably shave at least a third off that. Many speed improvements in the last few years.

 

Yes, A:M's renderer uses 1 core. However, V16 includes Netrender so you can task all your cores with rendering.

[Kamikaze]

Yea, I'm going to have to get the newer version...I thought AM was a V17.........

Ive got my time down to 9:24 ......

shaving off appx 3 min per frame...

both cores are being used it seems at least that is what core temps are showing......

and I overclocked to cpu's max documented speed of 2.5 ghz ......

 

This is fun...

 

UPDATE------just subscribed to new version 16b........64bit

 

Render Time 5:24

 

Nutter UPDATE--------on 17 beta 5 SSE3 64 bit

 

Render Time 4:47

[robcat2075]

v17 is still "beta" (save frequently), but it is indeed faster.

 

Ya know, I think back in v14 they did have the renderer using multiple cores but it was unreliable so they dropped that.

[lordofthesplines]

I couldn't resist the new version:

 

version of A:M:

17 SSE4

render time min:sec:

2:17

CPU Brand and model:

2600K

Actual CPU speed in GHz:

Stock

how many cores A:M is using:

1

RAM:

16gb

OS:

Windows 7 Business(64 bit)

[NancyGormezano]

Comparison of ver 16b/32 to 17a/32. WinXPpro sp3. Surprised to see 16b is faster.

[Fuchur]

Comparison of ver 16b/32 to 17a/32. WinXPpro sp3. Surprised to see 16b is faster.

 

17.0 c is out... and if you have a 64bit-capable computer, I would recommend get Win7 64bit (not that expensive anymore). 64bit A:M is much faster than 32bit...

Which version are you using? SSE3 or SSE4 or is your computer not capable of both? (if not capabale of both this could be the reason for the slower rendertimes on v17...)

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[robcat2075]

I don't know Nancy's exact parameters but I'll note that I've gotten unexpected results when benchmarking with just "one" A:M running.

 

Apparently just running A:M by itself isn't perceived as enough of a panic situation (on my 4 core machine) for the OS to always run the CPU at full speed. Once I did get a result that o newer version was slower than an older version

 

If I run two A:Ms at once that will force the CPUs to run at 100% speed and i will get better apples to apples time comparisons.

[NancyGormezano]

17.0 c is out... and if you have a 64bit-capable computer, I would recommend get Win7 64bit (not that expensive anymore). 64bit A:M is much faster than 32bit...

Which version are you using? SSE3 or SSE4 or is your computer not capable of both? (if not capabale of both this could be the reason for the slower rendertimes on v17...)

 

Thanks for the input Gerald. Pathetically, my luddite gene is coming into full bloom. Every day, I can hear the faint cries of the dodos & dinosaurs begging me to join them.

 

I'm still (after 3? 4? more? years) afraid to upgrade to win7 64...Yes. Fear & profound laziness about having to reinstall everything, finding out what else doesn't work anymore. I know I will have trouble getting my "antiques roadshow candidate" wacom tablet (15 years old?) to work. It works beautifully now.

 

I was hesitant to try 17c. I thought I had read that people were having troubles with it making their computers act weird? (mtpeak? Robcat?) - perhaps I am mistaken?

 

My graphics card: GeForce 8600 GTS/PCI/SSE2. My drivers, old and antiquated, I'm sure. Could be the problem. I suspect, but don't know, that going to 17c will help, I suspect it won't.

 

A real concern for me is that FakeAOCpu won't work. It works beautifully in 16b/32 for me, but it doesn't in 17a/32 (crashes). I've come to love fakeAO. I do hear that by some fluke, that FakeAOCpu doesn't crash in 17/64 (for some others). I wish Jenpy, if he is going to abandon it, would just give Steffen the source code so he could recompile it.

 

When I finally get some courage, and the urge to torture myself, I will upgrade OS. Hopefully before I am forced to go to Win8. Gawd. That sounds even scary-awfuller.

 

I don't know Nancy's exact parameters but I'll note that I've gotten unexpected results when benchmarking with just "one" A:M running.

Apparently just running A:M by itself isn't perceived as enough of a panic situation (on my 4 core machine) for the OS to always run the CPU at full speed. Once I did get a result that o newer version was slower than an older version

If I run two A:Ms at once that will force the CPUs to run at 100% speed and i will get better apples to apples time comparisons.

 

I have a 3.2Ghz Core2Duo. I tried rendering with 17a twice, however, both times only one instance of it was rendering.

 

First time I had it rendering with my browser, Photoshop, & A:M16b also, all open, and the render time for 17a was 6:36. So then I tried it with nothing else open, and rendertime was 6:34. Are you saying I should try with 2 instances open, and both rendering?

 

All times I have ever tried this benchmark test, I have only had 1 instance open and rendering. I have never noticed wildly different times, from one render to another, using same version, on any of the versions (13, 14, 15, 16, 17 etc).

[robcat2075]

First, I'd find the Resource Monitor (I have no idea what it is called in Win XP) that tells what percentage of maximum frequency your PC is running at . Maybe yours is always at 100%. If it is, it is. But mine throttles quite a bit from 66% to 100%. I have to get 2 A:Ms rendering simultaneously to get it up to 100%

 

(This is not the same as "CPU Usage")

 

I'm not convinced yet that v17 is what has caused the momentary display freezing in my PC

 

 

If you need your OS for your peripherals then that's a reason to stick with it or start scoping out ebay for a replacement. Used cintiqs can go for not much.

[NancyGormezano]

First, I'd find the Resource Monitor (I have no idea what it is called in Win XP) that tells what percentage of maximum frequency your PC is running at . Maybe yours is always at 100%. If it is, it is. But mine throttles quite a bit from 66% to 100%. I have to get 2 A:Ms rendering simultaneously to get it up to 100%

 

(This is not the same as "CPU Usage")

 

Not the same as cpu usage? No comprendo. What else would it be?

 

But anyway I tried 2 instances of AM 17 rendering simultaneously: 1 instance took 6:36, other took 6:41. Not much difference from only 1 instance. And yes both cores were grinding away at 100%, and my hard drive was spinning a storm. First time I've tried that. I would be a little hesitant to do that for any long renders (might burn up the universe). But was interesting to try. I guess that equates to doing 2 frames in approx 6:38 mins average, and around 3:19/frame (if I did any parallel rendering).

 

When I only do 1 frame, my cpu usage usually shows around 50%. Not sure, because I did't monitor it, but that's what I'm use to seeing. I have a feeling that the swapping (with whatever) is what's grinding it up to 100% solid when doing 2 frames in parallel.

[robcat2075]

Not the same as cpu usage? No comprendo. What else would it be?

 

The Frequency% is how much of the top clock speed the CPU is running at regardless of whether it is churning through any code. I have a 2.4MHx CPU but right now it is idling at only 1.6MHz.

 

The usage% is how much of the available processing time is spent doing real stuff, regardless of what speed it is doing it at. If you are running One A:M on a two core machine 50% would be an expected number (100% use of 1 core out of two).

 

 

your results sound reliable. I'd have to install 32-bit v17 to investigate more.

[robcat2075]

OK, you made me install 32-bit v17 again. In a three way race I got

 

v16b 32-bit 7:34

v16b 64-bit 5:57

v17c 32-bit 8:06

v17d 64-bit 5:05

 

 

So perhaps 32-bit v17 is a bit slower than v16

 

 

edit: I ran another test with 64-bit v16 in the mix and added the result above.

 

So 64-bit v17 is faster than 64-bit v16 but 32-bit v17 is slower than 32-bit v16

 

In all cases the 64-bits are faster than the 32-bits.

 

 

It's POSSIBLE that my and Nancy's results for the 32-bit versions are handicapped because we are running them on 64-bit CPUs.

[robcat2075]

A real concern for me is that FakeAOCpu won't work. It works beautifully in 16b/32 for me, but it doesn't in 17a/32 (crashes). I've come to love fakeAO. I do hear that by some fluke, that FakeAOCpu doesn't crash in 17/64 (for some others).

 

 

For what it is worth...FakeAOGPU works for me in 64-bit v17 both as a render time post effect and as a post effect in a Composite

 

However, both FakeAOGPU and FakeAOCPU crash my 32-bit v17

[robcat2075]

A real concern for me is that FakeAOCpu won't work. It works beautifully in 16b/32 for me, but it doesn't in 17a/32 (crashes). I've come to love fakeAO. I do hear that by some fluke, that FakeAOCpu doesn't crash in 17/64 (for some others).

 

 

For what it is worth...FakeAOGPU works for me in 64-bit v17 both as a render time post effect and as a post effect in a Composite

 

However, both FakeAOGPU and FakeAOCPU crash my 32-bit v17

 

One other work-around for people who want to use 32-bit v17 but also want to have FakeAO....

 

Render without FakeAO in V17 to OpenEXR with a depth buffer, then use that OpenEXR file in a Composite in v16 to add the FakeAO as a Post effect.

 

Of course this is more efficient for image sequences than single images, but if you tend to use FakeAO in Post anyway, like me, it's a minor commute.

[markw]

Macbook Pro v6.2

Intel i7 2.66GHz.

2 physical cores & 2 virtual cores via Hyper Threading.

OS 10.6.8

A:M 17g

Total time for 4 frames rendered direct from A:M = 0:15:27

Total time for 4 frames rendered with Netrender = 0:07:28

 

So in this test, Netrender is twice as fast overall than A:M which is nice.

But each individual frame took twice as long in Netrender, than from A:M.

I'm not a programmer, so forgive this next question, but could Netrender be optimized further?

[Rodney]

I'm not a programmer, so forgive this next question, but could Netrender be optimized further?

 

The obvious answer is yes, but the real question is how to get from here to there.

My primary thought would be to further reduce variation.

 

There are two areas of concern with regard to a render:

 

- What the renderer performs.

- What the user sets.

 

A problem to consider is that all renders are not created equal.

An optimized render for one case might not be optimized globally for all cases.

The use case model suggests that optimization be made for the most likely case first with consideration for other likely cases.

Those cases that are less likely or not likely in any case would be set aside, bypassed or jettisoned.

 

Disclaimer: I am not a programmer either.

[robcat2075]

Macbook Pro v6.2

Intel i7 2.66GHz.

2 physical cores & 2 virtual cores via Hyper Threading.

OS 10.6.8

A:M 17g

Total time for 4 frames rendered direct from A:M = 0:15:27

Total time for 4 frames rendered with Netrender = 0:07:28

 

So in this test, Netrender is twice as fast overall than A:M which is nice.

But each individual frame took twice as long in Netrender, than from A:M.

I'm not a programmer, so forgive this next question, but could Netrender be optimized further?

 

The hyper threading is the culprit. The two virtual cores get you some extra overall performance but not as much as two real cores would and they have the drawback of occasionally getting in the way of the real cores, slowing everything down. In most consumer apps that would never be noticed, but A:M saws away continuously for many minutes at a time which is different than most apps. You might try a test with hyperthreading disabled ( and two nodes running) and see if the result is much different.

 

On my four-core, no hyperthreading machine the render nodes are almost as fast as A:M. They do have some extra overhead in that they need to completely reload all assets for every frame (although that is not a significant issue inthe benchmark scene)

[markw]

Well that was interesting!

Thanks for the suggestion Robert of turning off the Hyper Threading!

 

Total time for 4 frames rendered with Netrender without HT = 0:09:25

So although the Hyper Threading slows down any one frame by nearly half, with Netrender it made-up for it by being able to process 2 frames(no HT) or 4 frames (with HT) at a time.

 

Conclusion; Netrender with Hyper Threading is still the fastest way to render.

 

Now what I would really like to see, if anyone else here on the forum has a similar/comparable hardware setup to me, is how quick Windows A:M 64bit dose those 4 frames as I did them to get some idea of the actual difference between Windows and Mac render times.

[robcat2075]

I have an Intel Q6600 which is a generation or so earlier than your i7 CPU

 

It has four cores at 2.4 GHz. NetRender takes about 5:16 per frame to do the benchmark scene.

 

[markw]

Thanks Robert, so that was 4 real cores and no hyper threading and 64bit right?

Which would suggest to me, in this admittedly unscientific test as our hardware is not totally identical, that per physical core the Mac 32bit i7 render times are similar too, and in this particular case, a little faster than your Q6600 Windows 64bit times.

[robcat2075]

Your i7 CPU has the "SSE4" extensions that mine does not and that probably is a bigger advantage than having 64-bit.

[markw]

Your i7 CPU has the "SSE4" extensions that mine does not and that probably is a bigger advantage than having 64-bit.

Oh no, not another variable!

[NancyGormezano]

Your i7 CPU has the "SSE4" extensions that mine does not and that probably is a bigger advantage than having 64-bit.

Oh no, not another variable!

 

And your cpu is rated 2.66, while Robert's is 2.4ghz

[robcat2075]

Yeah CPU speed is probably still the biggest indicator.

 

We're comparing apples to prunes here.

 

Mmmm... prunes... I need lunch.

[higginsdj]

On my old Toshiba Qosmio Laptop

 

17g

4:18

intel i7 Q740

1.73ghz

It looked like only 1 core was being taxed

RAM 8gb

Windows 7 64 bit Service Pack 1

[thejobe]

New machine test.

A:M v17g 64 bit

3:08

AMD phameon II X6 3.75GHZ (6 cores)

16GB RAM

1 core (A:M main program)

Win 7 64bit

[ruscular]

v17g 64bit

render time 02:19

intel i7 2600k

step-less overclocking Asus P8B75 between 3.57-3.61 ghz

8 thread

16gb setting at 1333

Window 8 64bit

 

I just recently upgraded and got a deal on a return in store item at Fry's for both the mobo and CPU. maybe saved about $50 on top of the other deals. I end up spending $470 for the CPU($260), CPU 212 series fan($30) Memory($99), and Moboard($80).

[jason1025]

I just got the new 2013 11 inch macbook air an ran the bench test.

 

This cant be right. it rendered it in 1:57

 

I did upgrade to the fastest processor.

 

Robert can you post screen grabs of the correct render settings for output. I find it hard to believe this tiny computer that fits into an envelope renders 4 minutes faster than my mac pro tower with 8 3GHZ Xeon processors.

[NancyGormezano]

That's curious. Does the macbook air run windows 7 home premium? The image you uploaded says you are running win 7 when you rendered at 1:57

Edited July 2, 2013 by NancyGormezano

[Fuchur]

I just got the new 2013 11 inch macbook air an ran the bench test.

 

This cant be right. it rendered it in 1:57

 

I did upgrade to the fastest processor.

 

Robert can you post screen grabs of the correct render settings for output. I find it hard to believe this tiny computer that fits into an envelope renders 4 minutes faster than my mac pro tower with 8 3GHZ Xeon processors.

 

A little too fast for my taste yes... even if the processor is much better, at 2.1 GHz it is unlikely to outperform all the other systems here... but well we will see... maybe it is really that fast?

Which version of A:M are you using? Anyway: The Xeon seems to be quite slow to me... much less expensive CPUs are much faster than that nowadays...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[markw]

Wow Jason!

Though I too find that time hard to believe I think something must be off somewhere. (But oh what joy if true!)

Probably best to run the test more than once to be sure no matter what results we get any way.

Robert stated that the render output in A:M's preferences; Tools > Options > Render tab, should be set to "use settings from: The Camera"

Those settings are;

[jason1025]

I just got the new 2013 11 inch macbook air an ran the bench test.

 

This cant be right. it rendered it in 1:57

 

I did upgrade to the fastest processor.

 

Robert can you post screen grabs of the correct render settings for output. I find it hard to believe this tiny computer that fits into an envelope renders 4 minutes faster than my mac pro tower with 8 3GHZ Xeon processors.

 

 

In short yes. All macs can run all versions of windows natively. In fact my best experience with windows has always been on a mac.

[jason1025]

Its confirmed I have verified the settings over and over again. I have rendered identical projects in multiple PC's and macs. And to be clear I always boot into windows and run AM on the PC side of my macs. I never use the mac side for AM as it is extremely unstable.

 

So does my computer hold the record so far?

 

1:55 ???? Has anyone gotten a better time?

 

I am using AM V17g

 

You can compare my rendered image to yours if you wish. However before crying foul I have noticed that the renders have always been slightly different from version to version. I believe I even showed evidence of this earlier in the thread.

 

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=348713

[jason1025]

Is anyone aware if V18 will have speed improvements?

[NancyGormezano]

In short yes. All macs can run all versions of windows natively. In fact my best experience with windows has always been on a mac.

 

Wow.

 

I have to ask: What makes it a Mac if it's using Intel hardware and a Microsoft OS (other than it can also run a MacOS)? Does Apple do something special/unique to the Hardware config?

 

I'm assuming it's using integrated intel graphics?

 

There must be PC's with that config? Is this CPU just for Macs? or can any lapbook/laptop use?

 

I'm trying to figure out what makes this system fast (other than ver17g 64 bit in conjunction with win7 64 being fast).

 

What are the numbers for cache? (lots? fast?) memory? HD? (speed? SSD?), I understand this CPU can run at a burst mode up to 3.2ghz? (or something like that). Hyperthreading OFF? 4 Cores?

 

Does 17g use anything unique to this hardware config (eg: instruction set extensions? GPU?)

 

This is the first time I would seriously consider getting a laptop to replace desktop PC.

[jason1025]

I have to ask: What makes it a Mac if it's using Intel hardware and a Microsoft OS (other than it can also run a MacOS)? Does Apple do something special/unique to the Hardware config?

 

I'm assuming it's using integrated intel graphics?

 

 

Yes , not the best way to do it.

There must be PC's with that config? Is this CPU just for Macs? or can any lapbook/laptop use?

There are PC's with that cpu. Its not even a fast cpu as compared to the new XEON's

I'm trying to figure out what makes this system fast (other than ver17g 64 bit in conjunction with win7 64 being fast).

The CPU Its very new.

What are the numbers for cache? (lots? fast?) memory? HD? (speed? SSD?), I understand this CPU can run at a burst mode up to 3.2ghz? (or something like that). Hyperthreading OFF? 4 Cores?

Its got the fastest SSD in the world. Or close to it, because it connects via PIC not SATA. That does not impact AM to much though.

Does 17g use anything unique to this hardware config (eg: instruction set extensions? GPU?)

Dont think so

This is the first time I would seriously consider getting a laptop to replace desktop PC.

Macs are like getting a BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar,MCfarlin F1.

 

In other words having a mac is having the best. Its having the best experience with a computer.

 

Honda's are nice, They get you from A to B, Fords have improved to. But they are not the best.

 

The only reason I ever boot into PC land is to use AM.

 

If you are a person who has the extra cash for the best then you will not be disappointed with a mac. You do pay a lot for having the best.

 

But I simply do not have the headaches that the PC lovers have had to learn to live with for so many years. They have lived with those in convinces for so long they see them as normal computing.

 

I reboot and or shut down my macs about once every 2 weeks and its usually because I am going on a bussin ess meeting.

 

When I am in PC land and working on a project I often have to reboot multiple times a day. Windows is Buggy. Windows is not intuitive as mac.

 

I feel bad for people who believe that PC's are as good as a mac. AM is the only thing that makes be cross the line.

[jason1025]

I have to ask: What makes it a Mac if it's using Intel hardware and a Microsoft OS (other than it can also run a MacOS)? Does Apple do something special/unique to the Hardware config?

 

I'm assuming it's using integrated intel graphics?

 

 

Yes , not the best way to do it.

There must be PC's with that config? Is this CPU just for Macs? or can any lapbook/laptop use?

There are PC's with that cpu. Its not even a fast cpu as compared to the new XEON's

I'm trying to figure out what makes this system fast (other than ver17g 64 bit in conjunction with win7 64 being fast).

The CPU Its very new.

What are the numbers for cache? (lots? fast?) memory? HD? (speed? SSD?), I understand this CPU can run at a burst mode up to 3.2ghz? (or something like that). Hyperthreading OFF? 4 Cores?

Its got the fastest SSD in the world. Or close to it, because it connects via PCi not SATA. That does not impact AM to much though.

Does 17g use anything unique to this hardware config (eg: instruction set extensions? GPU?)

Dont think so

This is the first time I would seriously consider getting a laptop to replace desktop PC.

Macs are like getting a BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar,MCfarlin F1.

 

In other words having a mac is having the best. Its having the best experience with a computer.

 

Honda's are nice, They get you from A to B, Fords have improved to. But they are not the best.

 

The only reason I ever boot into PC land is to use AM.

 

If you are a person who has the extra cash for the best then you will not be disappointed with a mac. You do pay a lot for having the best.

 

But I simply do not have the headaches that the PC lovers have had to learn to live with for so many years. They have lived with those in convinces for so long they see them as normal computing.

 

I reboot and or shut down my macs about once every 2 weeks and its usually because I am going on a bussin ess meeting.

 

When I am in PC land and working on a project I often have to reboot multiple times a day. Windows is Buggy. Windows is not intuitive as mac.

 

I feel bad for people who believe that PC's are as good as a mac. AM is the only thing that makes be cross the line.

[NancyGormezano]

Thanks for your reply.

 

I still have to ask: What makes it a Mac if it's using Intel hardware and a Microsoft OS (other than it can also run a MacOS)? Does Apple do something special/unique to the Hardware config to make it run fast with windows?

 

When I am in PC land and working on a project I often have to reboot multiple times a day. Windows is Buggy. Windows is not intuitive as mac.

 

I haven't ever found macs to be intuitive, just different. Windows in the past has been buggy (and all future OS's will have bugs). All systems will have bugs. I have crashed many a mac (friends) when I have tried them out to see if I would like them. When a user is familiar with an OS, program, they will crash it less often. They know what NOT to do. A new user monkey will give it a better shake down.

 

I rarely, if ever (can't remember last time) that I have had to reboot my computer (winxp pro). And I run usually with multiple programs open (photoshop, AE, A:M, etc) all simultaneously. I might have to close and reopen some programs (like A:M, photoshop, etc) because those applications have memory leaks, or don't reinitialize something, or they get themselves into a funny state, but never have to restart, reboot because the OS is misbehaving.

 

I repeat, this is the first time I would seriously consider getting a laptop to replace desktop PC. But I would not get a Mac laptop. I have too much software that is windows based. Since one can get a windows system (win 7 home, pro) with the same hardware config as that "mac" for way less money...I don't see a need, to spend the extra dough.

 

Thanks for posting your Benchmark results!

[jason1025]

I feel for you.

 

Apple makes the motherboard, windows drivers, designs how everything will be implemented

[Fuchur]

I feel bad for people who believe that PC's are as good as a mac. AM is the only thing that makes be cross the line.

 

Sorry, but that is too much for me. Macs are stable (in general... there are exceptions I came accross too) but with a good PC you get the same.

I don't have to boot several times a day. I am using one Mac and but about 20x Windows 7 PC created by myself (I am a system admin).

 

PCs are not that much bound to what Macintosh/Windows thinks they should do. There are many more Windows Developers (Softwarebased, not App-based which is a totally different thing).

PCs have more software written for it and with a few exceptions which really do not matter have equal or better software nowadays.

 

Buying a Mac is more like "buy and forget" IF you can live with the limitations. It is easy to explain why Macs run "smoother". Because Apple limits the Macs to do what they want them to do and everything that would be more dangerously/unpredictable is just not allowed.

 

In general it can be thought of like this:

Freedom - Between freedom/ease of Use - Ease of Use

Linux - Windows - Macs

 

The difference is the same as with Linux and Windows.

Windows is easier to work with for non-nerdy people than Linux but Linux gives more freedom.

Macs are easier to work with for not-that-nerdy people than Windows but Window gives more freedom.

 

I tend to go for the middle if I have to choose between easy usage and freedom especially if easy usage is that expensive.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[thefreshestever]

Buying a Mac is more like "buy and forget" IF you can live with the limitations. It is easy to explain why Macs run "smoother". Because Apple limits the Macs to do what they want them to do and everything that would be more dangerously/unpredictable is just not allowed.

 

for instance?

[Fuchur]

Buying a Mac is more like "buy and forget" IF you can live with the limitations. It is easy to explain why Macs run "smoother". Because Apple limits the Macs to do what they want them to do and everything that would be more dangerously/unpredictable is just not allowed.

 

for instance?

 

Backwards-compatibility is a big thing there... Steffen ran into that for instance with XCode 4 dropping support for features from XCode 3.2. In the end you have to work with the newest OS or you are doomed when developing or buying new software. Windows can run software back to Win95 in many cases, trying running software from Mac OS 9 on your newest one... that is often not possible at all. That is one of the reasons why Windows is a little buggier: Windows is highly compatible in all directions. It is better today, since Macs are now compatible to a wider range of hardware, but still not as good as on Windows machines.

 

Digging deeper into configurations can be quite tricky on a Mac. The Unix base is close to what you know from Linux there only a little more tricky.

 

Even worth: Blogging... it is really quite disappointing what is given on the Mac in that direction. Try to get business software for the Mac... close to impossible. Try to connect your BlackBerry-Phone with a Mac... (best you just dont try it... they want to sell the iPhone and you really see that if you try to use something different they have a interest in.

 

The Attitude is something that gets in the way when trying to program Apps too... every other MobileOS can be coded with any other OS: Android, Windows Mobile, Trizan... no problem at all. Much more open.

That seems to be something that tells you to get a Mac, but I for my part am not very happy with supporting a attitude like that.

 

You will run into quite many problems when trying to work with business software like SAP and equal stuff... the limitations are even higher with software from Apple itself. Everything they want you to do works great, but never try thinking out of the box...

 

And dont try to play games on Macs... the amount of games is really 50:1 for Windows here.

 

Again: Macs are not bad at all... they have big advantages in some situations, but Windows has them too. And argumenting with "I do not have to boot for 4 weeks..." is something I cant understand... do you really run a computer that long? For what? And yes, you can run windows that long too (> most servers are not shut down daily, weekly or monthly but yearly if at all and many are Linux or Windows...)

 

Get a Mac if you have the money and want to run different OSes next to eachother. That is something the Macs (with Intel-hardware) are good at today. They can be easier to work with and they are a little less buggy... but the question is: Does that one reboot each day really have such an impact on you that the price is okay with you?

 

See you

*Fuchur*