what is bette? Mac or PC for edit video?

[lordsmurf]

Pull out your calculator and get to it:
http://www.microcenter.com/apple/apple_store.html
http://www.microcenter.com/search_results_e_compare.phtml?web_group=pc_desktops&page_t...esktop+Systems
http://www.microcenter.com/search_results_e_compare.phtml?web_group=pc_notebooks&page_...tebook+Systems

Here's one example (specs matched at random):

TOSHIBA LAPTOP
Intel® Core(tm) 2 Duo Processor T5200 (1.6GHz);
1GB DDR2-533 RAM;
120GB 5,400RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive;
SuperMulti Double Layer 8X DVD±R/RW;
Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection (802.11a/b/g);
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950 Video Chipset;
17.0" Widescreen XGA+ TruBrite Display;
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
$1,249.99

APPLE
Intel® Core Duo Processor (2.16GHz);
1GB DDR2-667 RAM;
120GB 5,400RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive;
8x Double Layer SuperDrive;
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 Video Chipset;
AirPort Extreme 802.11g Wireless Network Adapter;
17.0" TFT Widescreen Active Matrix Display;
Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger"
$2,499.99

The only differences here is the Windows system has a CORE 2 DUO (newer CPU), but the Intel graphics card. The Mac has the old CORE DUO (older CPU), but the ATI graphics card. The price differences should about cancel each other out. The Mac also has slightly faster RAM, maybe $50-100 difference there too, at most, and performance differences tend to be negligible. Then again, the Mac has the plain matte screen, not the more vivid glossy and semi-gloss screens. So again, specs either match or cancel out.

Yet the Windows machine is $1250, while the Mac is $2500. Apple clearly overcharges for the "privilege" of owning the Mac.

This is not a cherry-picked example. You can compared specs across systems on pretty much any site, for either notebook or desktop, from any number of stores, and come to the same type of conclusions. Mac will cost at least 2x as much, usually more than 2x as much, as the Windows counterpart.

To think otherwise is divorced from reality.

Oh, and the Windows system sales are not even being counted for. Since Mac rarely has sales, to be fair, I used normal-priced Windows systems. Not the specials. That same Toshiba laptop, on sale, averages for around $800-900 in stores.

I recently purchased an HP notebook for about $1100 that can run circles around even the most powerful $3000 Mac notebook currently available. I really wanted the Mac notebook, but I can better spend that $1900 price difference. That's a lot of money.

Now, don't be a Apple fanboy and think I'm "bashing" Apple. I think they're great systems. But you're going to pay through the nose for it, and anybody trying to decide "which is better" may want to consider pricing in their overall decision.

[ffooky]

APPLE
Intel® Core Duo Processor (2.16GHz);
1GB DDR2-667 RAM;
120GB 5,400RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive;
8x Double Layer SuperDrive;
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 Video Chipset;
AirPort Extreme 802.11g Wireless Network Adapter;
17.0" TFT Widescreen Active Matrix Display;
Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger"
$2,499.99

The only differences here is the Windows system has a CORE 2 DUO (newer CPU), but the Intel graphics card. The Mac has the old CORE DUO (older CPU), but the ATI graphics card. The price differences should about cancel each other out. The Mac also has slightly faster RAM, maybe $50-100 difference there too, at most, and performance differences tend to be negligible. Then again, the Mac has the plain matte screen, not the more vivid glossy and semi-gloss screens. So again, specs either match or cancel out.

The Mac you've displayed here does not exist for sale at The Apple Store. If you want a Core Duo (why?) then your only option is a 13" MacBook and a choice of 1.83 or 2.0GHz.

If you do want a 17" then your only option is a MacBook Pro which comes with:
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB memory
160GB hard drive

and the same graphics (ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 256MB SDRAM), Bluetooth and Airport card as the one you specced out above. That comes in at $2799. You can knock off $100 for a 100 gig HD (7200 rpm) but you can't downgrade the CPU or RAM to try to match the Toshiba. Try fitting out a genuinely comparable machine and let's see the real price difference.

Edit: I forgot, there's a choice of gloss or matte screen at no extra cost and since when were integrated graphics and a dedicated GPU comparable ?

[lordsmurf]

The $2800 is still 2x the price of a comparable Windows notebook, on the same hardware.

And you're not paying attention either. I said the price break between graphics and CPU pretty much cancelled out on the two systems. Core 2 Duo with integrated should price-point the Core Duo with "dedicated" (notebook GPU is not 100% dedicated like a desktop, but a 50-50 split).

Your numbers match mine. So I fail to see why you're disagreeing.

"Try fitting out a genuinely comparable machine and let's see the real price difference" is you trying to weasel. You'll be hard-pressed to find a system that 100% matches spec for spec, but you can still come really close (a component or two will vary slightly).

[ffooky]

The $2800 is still 2x the price of a comparable Windows notebook, on the same hardware.

And you're not paying attention either. I said the price break between graphics and CPU pretty much cancelled out on the two systems. Core 2 Duo with integrated should price-point the Core Duo with "dedicated" (notebook GPU is not 100% dedicated like a desktop, but a 50-50 split).

Your numbers match mine. So I fail to see why you're disagreeing.

Not to sound too yah-boo but I'm afraid it's you that's not not paying attention, the $2800 machine IS Core 2 Duo. I'd love to know where you get that pearl of wisdom regarding notebook GPU SDRAM

I also forgot the integrated webcam.

[ffooky]

"Try fitting out a genuinely comparable machine and let's see the real price difference" is you trying to weasel. You'll be hard-pressed to find a system that 100% matches spec for spec, but you can still come really close (a component or two will vary slightly).

I think we can at least try and match screen size, CPU and graphics as they are not usually alterable after purchase.

[thoughton]

Oh please.

Apple hardware costs more than twice as much as PC hardware. The software is comparable, but only when comparing to mid-range priced Windows software. Lower end Windows software is much cheaper or outright free. There's not a lot of useful free Mac software.

Please stop with the Apple fanboy line.

Nothing remotely fanboyesque in pointing out that Apple hardware is not twice as expensive as comparable PC kit. More expensive, certainly but by a margin of around 10-15%.

If you're going to make such claims, back them up with evidence.

Seems like everytime I come back after a long absense, I see LordSmurf $hit stirring in the Mac forum.

I've even still got the avatar I dug up especially for him.

Smurf, just admit it, your "twice the price" comment is a load of bull. All those $1000 machines you're referring to are gigantic compared to a Mac laptop. Where are the 1" thick PC laptops? Oh, I forgot, they all cost US$3000+.

[ffooky]

Seems like everytime I come back after a long absense, I see LordSmurf $hit stirring in the Mac forum.

I've even still got the avatar I dug up especially for him.

Sorry I took the bait.

[kelman4]

I'm looking into a new mac, with video editing in mind.
My current stats

1.42 GHz PowerPC G4
1.5 GB DDR SDRAM

I have two questions.

1. How good are MacBook Pro laptops for video processing? I see that they max out at 3GB of ram

2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
3GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 1x2GB, 1x1GB

How much can I get out of the 2GB vs. the 3GB? I do mostly video conversion with ffmpegX and MPEGStreamclip. I haven't even dared to touch Final Cut Studio with my PowerPC.

2. If I get a desktop, which is more important, the ram or the video card? I'd like to focus my spending on one of those. Do I get the best video card and save on ram or get as much ram as I can and save on the video card?

Thanks.

[jagabo]

I do mostly video conversion... which is more important, the ram or the video card?

Neither. Invest your money in the CPU.

[SCDVD]

Lord Smurf - As usual you are clear and to the point. Your comments are quite correct. But the problem is all about Koolaid. A small but rabid part of the Mac user base drinks too much Koolaid. Just as when Jim Jones told his followers to drink the Koolaid and they faithfully did, when the cult followers of Apple hear Steve Jobs instruct them to drink the Koolaid, they simply do so with no questions asked. It doesn't do any good to attempt to rationalize with these social mutants. This is a cult religion; facts don't having any bearing on the way they act.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Seems like everytime I come back after a long absense, I see LordSmurf $hit stirring in the Mac forum.

Being the Mac forum is irrelevant - the OP asked about Mac vs PC.

LordSmurf's assertion about a typical $1K difference is fair and doesn't just apply to laptops.

Here's a Mac Pro configuration as of 5 minutes ago at the Apple online store:

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0D8
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
2GB (4 x 512MB)
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Accessory kit
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Mac OS X - U.S. English
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)

$3,597.00

And the nearest Dell equivalent (as of 5 minutes at the Dell online store):

Dell Precision 690
PROCESSOR Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066
2ND PROCESSOR Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
GRAPHICS CARD 128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual VGA Capable
MEMORY 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
OPTICAL DRIVE 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™ and Roxio Creator™
RAID CONFIGURATION C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 or 2 drive total configuration
HARD DRIVE 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
HARD DRIVE INTERNAL CONTROLLER SATA/SAS Integrated Card - For Connecting Internal Hard Drives

$2,586.00 - and that's with twin 3.2GHz Xeons cf. Mac Pro's twin 3.0GHz. *If* the Dell were configured with twin 3.0GHz Xeons, it would be approx. $260 cheaper.

Oh - guess what? About $1,000 difference for basically identical hardware/performance.

Given that Mactel and Wintel hardware are know basically the same, the only difference is the operating system. So you pay about $1,000 premium to get the privilege of running OS X. If Apple's licensing permitted OS X on non-Apple hardware, there'd be no point in buying their hardware at all - except if you believe the 'look' is important.

[RLT69]

Lord Smurf - As usual you are clear and to the point. Your comments are quite correct. But the problem is all about Koolaid. A small but rabid part of the Mac user base drinks too much Koolaid.

Oh good god grow up.

Microsoft Fanatics are right up there with any Mac Fanatic or <insert name here> fanatics. Christ people it's a freakin' computer. Who the hell cares! Just answer the damn question. Forget about your personal grudges and provide information about hardware and software for video editing. Let the poster decided whether they want to go the Windows route or Mac route.

One advantage to getting a Mac would be you could run Windows XP using virtualization software such as Parallels or VMWare. This gives you the advantage of running two operating systems on one machine. You can get the best of both worlds.

In the end there are pros and cons with either system.

[SERBIAN]

hee hee hee...Here we go all over again...Why you, clever PC users, just not leave us, stupid Mac users, alone and go after the sunshine...You have 2.000.0000.0000000 web pages where you can post, compare, measure who has bigger one etc. of your fabulous PC's and around 200.000 magazines where you can read and write to about the same things, and you always find some small Mac spot to argue about something...If you are so sure that you work on cheaper, faster and better hardware and OS, why you need to scream about it all over?

Answer to original poster is quite simple...Get your money /or credit card/, go to nearest store, check both comps and buy what you feel like its good for you and what you can afford...

[JohnnyMalaria]

hee hee hee...Here we go all over again...Why you, clever PC users, just not leave us, stupid Mac users, alone and go after the sunshine...You have 2.000.0000.0000000 web pages where you can post, compare, measure who has bigger one etc. of your fabulous PC's and around 200.000 magazines where you can read and write to about the same things, and you always find some small Mac spot to argue about something...If you are so sure that you work on cheaper, faster and better hardware and OS, why you need to scream about it all over?

Answer to original poster is quite simple...Get your money /or credit card/, go to nearest store, check both comps and buy what you feel like its good for you and what you can afford...

The point is that the original poster asked about Mac vs PC. The replies started reasonably OK but this post introduced the false 'Macs never crash' line.

Go back and read this entire thread - the 'Mac bashing' isn't that at all - it's trying to point out the reality with objective data - which is what the OP needs.

[RLT69]

Oh - guess what? About $1,000 difference for basically identical hardware/performance.

Who the Frell are you kidding! Thousand dollars may ass! Try $200.

Base system starts at $1923, then you configure and end up with $3,296:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=D690F2&s=dhs

You forgot to mention you subtracted $700 off the price by going with the lesser graphics card.

You down graded the graphics card to:

128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual VGA Capable

From:

256MB PCIe x16 ATI FireGL V7200, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA

The ATI card was included in the price.

Nice slight of hand.

[lordsmurf]

All those $1000 machines you're referring to are gigantic compared to a Mac laptop. Where are the 1" thick PC laptops? Oh, I forgot, they all cost US$3000+.

Bullshit. The size difference is negligible.

If anything, I found the Macbook screens to be attached quite flimsy. Although size is a factor, since I paid $1000 for it, I'd like to have the machine in working condition for many years, something super-slim Apple notebooks are NOT known for.

You Mac fanboys. Good lord.

I use both systems, but at least I do it without my head up my ass. I know what costs what, and which one performs best at which task. I'm no more for Microsoft than I am for Apple. These are just tools to me, no different than a hammer or a screwdriver.

What's truly funny is Mac users offline never seem to be a rabid as the ones online. Why do the crazy Mac users all flock together online and verbally fellate each other? And then spew the Apple PR line to everybody else? I just don't get it.

- Both systems can do various tasks (neither is good at everything).
- Both systems are reasonably fast, when used for their optimal tasks.
- Both systems crash.
- Both systems cost money. However, Apple typically charges 2x the price of Windows systems, usually to the tune of $1,000.00+ USD more.

You silly Mac fanboys. Did you miss the part where I said I USE BOTH SYSTEMS? For some reason Mac fanboys hate dual-platform users more than pure Windows users. I don't get that either. Maybe it's because I'm using the same stuff you are, so you cannot bullshit me.

Answer to original poster is quite simple...Get your money /or credit card/, go to nearest store, check both comps and buy what you feel like its good for you and what you can afford...

This is awful advice.

I'm still waiting for the original poster to clarify his needs, if he or she ever comes back, before I give an actual suggestion on precisely what to get. In the meantime, I've wasted all my posts beating Mac fanboys off with a stick. Rapid idiots. I'd do the same with Windows fanboys if they stuck their stupid heads in hear. Neither help the original poster, they just confuse the matter.

[RLT69]

What's truly funny is Mac users offline never seem to be a rabid as the ones online. Why do the crazy Mac users all flock together online and verbally fellate each other? And then spew the Apple PR line to everybody else? I just don't get it.

Smurf you lose credibility with statement such as that. Microsoft users are just as rabid. You should read some of their posts on Slashdot. Neither group of users has anything on the other. Each side spews the company PR.

[lordsmurf]

Yeah, Windows fanboys are obnoxious too. I was only referring to Mac.

But I was just saying these people only seem to exist online. I've rarely met one in a store or in the workplace.

Linux fanboys, on the other hand, tend to be obnoxious everywhere.

[JohnnyMalaria]

You forgot to mention you subtracted $700 off the price by going with the lesser graphics card.

You down graded the graphics card to:

128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual VGA Capable

From:

256MB PCIe x16 ATI FireGL V7200, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA

The ATI card was included in the price.

Nice slight of hand.

It wasn't intentional.

[TugBoat]

And the nearest Dell equivalent (as of 5 minutes at the Dell online store):

Dell Precision 690
PROCESSOR Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066
2ND PROCESSOR Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
GRAPHICS CARD 128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual VGA Capable
MEMORY 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
OPTICAL DRIVE 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™ and Roxio Creator™
RAID CONFIGURATION C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 or 2 drive total configuration
HARD DRIVE 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
HARD DRIVE INTERNAL CONTROLLER SATA/SAS Integrated Card - For Connecting Internal Hard Drives

$2,586.00 - and that's with twin 3.2GHz Xeons cf. Mac Pro's twin 3.0GHz. *If* the Dell were configured with twin 3.0GHz Xeons, it would be approx. $260 cheaper.

Oh - guess what? About $1,000 difference for basically identical hardware/performance.

I leave home for a couple of days and look what happens...

It's the same ole Mac verses PC thang. Complete with the ole Cheap, Outdated CPU swap. The Mac Pro uses the latest and greatest Xeon Intels, not that outdated crap. Try comparing the DELL to the Mac using the SAME CPUs. You'll get the REAL story;

Dell Precision Workstation 690 (1KW - 32bit)

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333, Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
Catalog Number: 5 MLB1727

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333
2nd Processor : Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333
Memory : 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC, In Riser (2 DIMMS)
Keyboard : Dell USB Enhanced Multimedia Keyboard with built-in 2-port USB Hub
Monitors : No Monitor Option
Graphic Cards : 128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual DVI or Dual VGA Capable
Boot Hard Drive : 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
Hard Drive Configuration : C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 or 2 drive total configuration
Mouse : Dell USB 2-Button Optical Mouse with Scroll
Additional PCI-E Network Adapter card : Broadcom NetXtreme 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet controller-PCI Express card
CD-ROM, DVD, and Read-Write Devices : 16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™ and Roxio Creator™ Dell Ed
Installation Services : No Onsite System Setup

TOTAL:$5,042.00

Nice try though.

All this Windows/Mac crap is just as obsolete as those old Xeons. Get a Mac Pro, for way less than the DULL, and load OSX AND XP. You CAN have it both ways now people.

[lordsmurf]

I don't know why you're comparing the overkill systems. Neither of those are economically feasible or even required for most folks. I'm looking at your average Intel Core Duo / Core 2 Duo systems in the $750-1000 range. And my point was the same specs from Apple is in the $1500-2500 range.

I think the topic is being skewed out of reality.

Nothing has been said about needing such a massive system. In fact, the original guy who posted for help hasn't said anything at all! Where did he go?

[RLT69]

Linux fanboys, on the other hand, tend to be obnoxious everywhere.

I think you're right

[RLT69]

Nothing has been said about needing such a massive system. In fact, the original guy who posted for help hasn't said anything at all! Where did he go?

Maybe he is hiding until all the crap stops flying.

[edDV]

In an attempt to get this topic refocused, it seems we are now talking about* >$5,000 high end video editing workstations rather than consumer or prosumer DVD authoring. They are really separate worlds.

This article from www.digitalvideoediting.com benchmarks the various processors in current Dell and HP workstations. Other articles compare these to current workstation Mac.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=78310&afterinter=true

Home users should note that these machines usually are used with expensive high end uncompressed SDI video servers. They can be configured as one man bands but few are.


* Not counting software costs which are in the four figures.

[TugBoat]

In an attempt to get this topic refocused, it seems we are now focusing on >$5,000 high end video editing workstations rather than consumer or prosumer DVD authoring. They are really separate worlds.

I hope you're not referring to my correction of an obviously 'skewed out of reality' comparison.

It's only $5,000 if you buy the DELL. The Mac Pro with basically the exact same stats sells for $3,597.00. But you're right, most prosumers that are interested in Video editing would most likely opt for the Quad 2.66 Xeon 5160 Mac Pro at $2,499. Try configuring a Dell 690 Quad 2.66, 5160 Xeon and see what you come up with. You can get a Mac Pro Quad 2.0 for even less. But, I'd stick with the 2.66 as it's the best bang for the buck.

Gross inaccuracies need to be corrected....

[edDV]

In an attempt to get this topic refocused, it seems we are now focusing on >$5,000 high end video editing workstations rather than consumer or prosumer DVD authoring. They are really separate worlds.

I hope you're not referring to my correction of an obviously 'skewed out of reality' comparison.

It's only $5,000 if you buy the DELL. The Mac Pro with basically the exact same stats sells for $3,597.00. But you're right, most prosumers that are interested in Video editing would most likely opt for the Quad 2.66 Xeon 5160 Mac Pro at $2,499. Try configuring a Dell 690 Quad 2.66, 5160 Xeon and see what you come up with. You can get a Mac Pro Quad 2.0 for even less. But, I'd stick with the 2.66 as it's the best bang for the buck.

Gross inaccuracies need to be corrected....

I think most here would be "blown away" with what can be done with a Core2Duo + motherboard + memory upgrade for well under $800. The Mac side is not as user upgrade friendly.

[TugBoat]

The only part of the Mac Pro that's not as user upgrade friendly is the Motherboard. Everything else is just the same as it is with a generic x86 PC.
...Most people don't make a habit of changing their motherboards...

But, I guess you have to grasp at something

[RLT69]

I think most here would be "blown away" with what can be done with a Core2Duo + motherboard + memory upgrade for well under $800. The Mac side is not as user upgrade friendly.

Here we go again

Please define "well under" and "blown away."

I just spec'd out a a system at newegg based on the Core2Duo and it came out to $617.50. NOT including the O.S., case, power supply, dvd drive, keyboard, mouse, or floppy. That's not what I would call well under $800. I have no doubt that the system could blow away the user, though i'm not sure what blown away means

Here's the deal on cost:

CPU is going to run approximately $200 - $183.50 for 1.8 GHz and 2M shared L2 cache
Motherboard minimum $100
HD minimum $100 for 320GB SATA 2
Video Card about $100 - yes you can get one for $50 but, blown away is at least $100.
RAM about $130 - $150 for 1GB DDR2 667 Mhz - no generics please.

So when is all and said and done, you are talking about $1 grand. Let's be real people a good PC is not cheap.

[edDV]

The only part of the Mac Pro that's not as user upgrade friendly is the Motherboard. Everything else is just the same as it is with a generic x86 PC.
...Most people don't make a habit of changing their motherboards...

But, I guess you have to grasp at something

The motherboard is what separates a $500-750 upgrade from a $1500-5000 new system. Jobs has always understood this. Microsoft now wants to tie Vista to a motherboard in the same way. IOW to take advantage of hardware technology leaps, you need to buy the OS again at full cost.

Know your audience. These aren't all the Best Buy sale of the week lemmings. Many can and have built their home machines.

[RLT69]

The only part of the Mac Pro that's not as user upgrade friendly is the Motherboard. Everything else is just the same as it is with a generic x86 PC.
...Most people don't make a habit of changing their motherboards...

Query: can you upgrade the processor?

That has always been a real pisser with the Mac line, non upgradeable processors. Apple pretty much forced you to buy a new system if you wanted a faster processor. I figure that would be one advantage to moving to intel - upgradeable processors.