Hehe the toaster option for mac? ROFL. I think they would lynch me here at the forum for that.
Good point about the PC/Mac issue. I will fix that in SpeedPoll v1.1 ®, because i cant edit the poll afterwards.
I did a little searching and I found that:
It seems very hard to do comparisons with PCs VS Macs. It seems that server tests favours PCs and multimedia tests favors Mac.
This snippet in one of Slashdots articles. “Sound Technology, one of the “leading UK distributors specialising in musical instruments, music software and pro-audio equipment,” seems to have some data regarding the real-world performance of the G5 compared to the high-end PC. They state, ‘The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051 … More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.’”
Yeah it is…I tested a Mac against a PC with photoshop way back in 1998-99. Eventhough the PC had more speed, the Mac was maybe 0.5-4 times as fast!
Then a friend of mine did a similar test a year ago, but it was about calculations, and it came out with a huge difference in favour of mac.
He is also a PC guy…
Interesting all of this. Could it be rather the OS is to blame here? In windows, a program just to open a window and write “Hello World” is like a megabyte (dont remember exactly, but its surprisingly big, I know that). While it still isnt “heavy on calculations” or anything, the cpu still has to chug away through all that bloated code. So the main bottleneck isnt the CPU, but all those cycles wasted waiting for the RAM to deliver pretty inefficent new instructions.
Maybe Mac OSes does this better?
In DOS Impulse Tracker 2.14 handled 256 simultaneous voices on my 600 Mhz computer. With filters and 32 bit interpolation. And program size for IT.EXE is 93.5 kb so thats pretty easy on the RAM<->CPU bus.
What about those Athlon XP’s ?
I have an Athlon XP 2500+ which runs at 1,85 Ghz actually, but it claims to be as fast as a P4 2500 . (But a Centrino with 1,2 Ghz is as fast as my Athon…compared that with Renoise )
What about those Athlon XP’s ?
I have an Athlon XP 2500+ which runs at 1,85 Ghz actually, but it claims to be as fast as a P4 2500 .
2500 pls, then we keep it simple Intel P4 is running Renoise with multithreading support off.
So I think they are comparable in speed at that “product rating”. And that way the AMD64 3400+ @ 2.4 Ghz wont seem slower than it really is
Centrinos are troublemakers for this poll. Maybe they shoud vote @ their speed x 1.5 as people seems to suggest.
Windows - good multitasking software, but it has a zillion lines of codes and bunch of drivers, DLL and configurations, so it is not as simple as DOS (which is why Impulse Tracker was so fast and smooth. It wrote straight to hardware without anything in the background)
So uhmm… if you want fast Renoise, remember to optimize your computer by maybe not having so much stuff running in windows at the same time. Some VSTi use a lot of CPU, and if you get an ASIO card then your CPU usage and latency will be lower.