Video Editing

[W. Wayne Liauh]

The P4s have a much longer pipeline and are substantially slower at the same
clock speed.  Even w/o FPU, all benchmarks indicate a 1.33G Athlon outperforms
1.7G P4.

Actually, for most Windows applications, regardless of which system you use, you
very likely will not see much difference.  The biggest difference I have noticed
is when I ran Corel Draw for Linux.  On a 800 MHz P3, it was so slow that it was
essentially unusable.  Under a 1G Athlon, it was OK.  I don't think the
difference can be attributed to the 200 MHz differential, but the superior
architecture of the Athlons.

Of course, with the Athlons, you can put in half GB of DDR without brinking your
eyes.



Warren Togami wrote:

> The G4 is very powerful for graphics and video editing, but have you seen
> benchmarks of Athlon's running Adobe Photoshop?
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/photoshop-platform/
> This article compares the following three types of platforms:
> Pentium 4 1.4 and 1.7GHz
> Pentium 3 1GHz
> Athlon Thunderbird 1.33 and 1.4GHz
>
> I don't know if you followed the news surrounding the Pentium 4 rollout, but
> that platform has a very weak FPU when compared to other systems.  In many
> of the these benchmarks (and many others), the Pentium 4 is beat by much
> lower clocked Athlons and sometimes even the 1GHz Pentium 3.  The RDRAM of
> Pentium 4 systems is also higher latency than SDRAM and DDR SDRAM,
> especially when you have larger amounts of RAM necessary for graphics
> operations.
>
> These particular Adobe Photoshop benchmarks show the 1.4GHz Athlon beating
> the 1.4GHz Pentium 4 by between 30% to 200%+ in most benchmarks.  This is
> only the 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird.  Other benchmarks have shown the new
> Athlon Palomino (Athlon 4) processor being about 20% faster than the
> Thunderbird at the same clock speed.  Those dual Athlon Palomino systems
> should really fly with Photoshop's SMP support.
>
> Now I have never seen any benchmarks of dual G4 vs dual Athlon, but Steve
> Jobs showed some Photoshop benchmarks on their new dual G4 system at the
> recent Mac Expo.  If I understood what they tested, those results should be
> comparable to Athlon performance.  I suspect that G4 still may be slightly
> faster than the fastest Athlon, but the price for such a dual G4 would be
> nearly $1,000 more than the dual Athlon system.
>
> Aren't we supposed to be boycotting Adobe right now? =)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dusty" <dusty at sandust.com>
> To: "Linux & Unix Advocates & Users" <luau at list.luau.hi.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:36 AM
> Subject: [luau] Video Editing
>
> > The MAC is awesome for video editing, but all the research I have done
> doesn't look good for OSX.  No one is writting all the great Mac apps for
> OSX.
> >
> > Plus, from what I have seen a 500mhz Mac running the adobe products
> (premiere, photoshop, after effects, etc) is almost as fast as a P4
> 1.5Ghz(running other apps the P4 is much faster), which is pretty awsome,
> but for the price I can build the highest end PC I want dual T-birds, 1GB
> mem, 400GB ATA-100 Raid array....  If and when adobe ports their products to
> the Mac I WILL switch.  I really only want After Effects and Photoshop.
> Apple's Final Cut Pro is at least as good if not better than Premiere, but
> nothing even comes close to After Effects until you get about 100x more
> money to spend!
> >
> >
> > Dusty
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to luau as: liauhw001 at Hawaii.rr.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')