*Snicker*

Posted by: MacBozo

*Snicker* - 10/16/09 09:34 AM

Tests: Snow Leopard overall faster than Windows 7
Posted by: carp

Re: *Snicker* - 10/16/09 10:50 AM

38% thats not bad
Posted by: DLC

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 05:59 AM

Well Windows 7 IS faster at some things !!



.... er like getting viruses and malware !! laugh
Posted by: Mike

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 08:27 AM

"Mac OS X lags only in its historically weaker 3D graphics support."

Hmmm....So essentially Macs 'suck' at gaming? cry
Posted by: carp

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 11:10 AM

Yep

Their talking about 3rd party graphic drivers , not sure if they are Mac compatible ?
Posted by: Mike

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Yep

Their talking about 3rd party graphic drivers , not sure if they are Mac compatible ?


But you can install those 3rd party graphics drivers on the Windows-Bootcamp partition, right?
Let's say, NVidia or ATI comes up with an updated driver for the card. I assume this wouldn't affect the Mac-partition at all.
Posted by: carp

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 02:12 PM

Good question ? ?

I would assume if the driver is NOT a firm ware update it should work . My question would be if it is a firm ware update say to graphic card instead a sofeware would it affect a mac when rebooting into OSX ?
Posted by: Mike

Re: *Snicker* - 10/17/09 04:57 PM

IMHO, since the 'video/graphics' card is 'shared' by both OSes, it would.
Also, all 'updated drivers' for the Windows-partition usually come via Apple's Bootcamp updates.
BTW: I always thought that games looked better on the Windows-partition (running the same game on OS X and WinXP). But that may be purely 'subjective'...
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 03:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike
"Mac OS X lags only in its historically weaker 3D graphics support."

Hmmm....So essentially Macs 'suck' at gaming? cry


There's a lot more to 3D than games. Professional CAD and 3D modeling, for example.
Posted by: Lea

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 06:41 AM


Curious coffee buzz question, Sarge. Are Macs better now at CAD and 3D than they used to be? I worked for a multimedia shop 8ish years ago, and damn that stuff was beautiful but it was slooooowwwww. We only had a couple of PCs inhouse and they were so old and lame, they were barely functional for cross platform testing The guys that did the rendering were always really frustrated.

Never made much sense ~ The company had boucoux bucks and the boss hated Macs. (Turn over was so bad, the employee entrance was a revolving door.)



Posted by: Attimus

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 08:58 AM

I use windows 7 on my MBP for CAD and 3dsmax. I haven't ever rendered on it yet so i can't tell you. Only had my mac for about 3 weeks.

Revit, CAD, and Sketchup run fine. no slowness or anything.

Sketchup is on the OSX side too
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 09:05 AM

Explanation was in the article:

Quote:
Mac OS X lags only in its historically weaker 3D graphics support. Without software drivers as optimized for the tasks, the platform is noticeably slower than Windows both in professional modeling tests such as Cinebench R10 or gaming tests like Call of Duty 4.

It simply means that the software devs are not optimizing their apps for OS X.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea

Curious coffee buzz question, Sarge. Are Macs better now at CAD and 3D than they used to be?


No, simply because the software isn't there. 3DMax is still PC only, and Maya isn't up to par with the Windows and Linux versions.

Not to mention pro 3D cards, which are plentiful on the Windows/Linux side of things but the choice on OS X currently is.. zero. Seriously, an HD4870 in the Mac Pro for "More graphics intensive work"? That's a year and a half old gaming card they want to charge me $200 extra for. Newegg sells them for around $120.

Apple needs to get serious about video cards, especially for pro work. That's the real problem.

However there are some good developments. For instance, I believe there is an OS X version of Artios CAD forthcoming (won't hold my breath though).

Posted by: Lea

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 01:45 PM


Seems like an odd backseat for Apple to take. I just count myself lucky that I got to look over some of the shoulders back at that shop. Watching stuff render today would probably leave me speechless (not that I'm tryin' to give anybody any ideas wink ).



Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: *Snicker* - 10/19/09 09:36 PM

It's faster these days. And it's not.

Meaning the level of detail we expect has gone up.
Google how long it takes for rendering frames for Pixar.. and that's an animation.



Optimus Prime will be life size on IMAX screens in many forest fight shots.
Imax frames take about 6 times longer than anamorphic to render.
IMAX frame render times: As high as 72 hours per frame!

http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/cool-facts-on-transformers-2-from-ilm/


Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: *Snicker* - 10/20/09 07:34 AM

Forget render times, Optimus Prime has 11,000+ parts to the model alone. It's gotten to the point where a person needs an engineering degree to create some of these effects.

Speaking of which, I can't imagine how much work went into the effects for 2012. Some of the shots in the trailers look unbelievable in terms of simulations required. Each and every car falling off an overpass has to be calculated, and there are tens of thousands. Not to mention the buildings falling, breaking apart, hitting each other. Wow.