why are macs better at rendering?

[hulkMAD]

why are they known to be better than pc's at rendering images and video?

[originel]

There isn't one specific reason, but really it's a combination of things. They don't use the x86 architecture, and so are free to design whatever type of hardware they want. Their processors are designed around vector based math and have a very powerful vector unit, which is used a lot in rendering. Also the displays they make are very good quality. There are also things in the operating system, such as hardware acceleration and full-time anti-aliasing which help.

[PresterJohn]

>why are they known to be better than pc's at rendering images and video?

are you talking perception or REALITY?

perception-wise, some people think Macs are superior...the reality is that with the incredibly quick strides in processor designs made by Intel & AMD in the last 3 years, the performance difference in graphics & video work between x86 and the Mac are nearly insignificant. even the feature sets in software between the two platforms, which used to be glaringly wide, has now dwindled to relative insignificance.

a dual AMD opteron puts out comparable numbers to the top of the line G5. some shops that work in hollywood which do graphics for the industry have already moved to non-Apple platforms because it is cheaper and faster since Apple has been slow to getting new processors to market.

[hulkMAD]

oh...i see. well, not yet. it sounds like u guys are all talking in code, but im sure a few google searches will help me understand...

[Bizkitkid2001]

Macs also have better software.

[PresterJohn]

here is one such link:

http://www.angstrom.com/about/press20040421.htm

if a *major* player such as Industrial Light & Magic (their credits include Terminator3, the Hulk, MIB, Harry Potter) is going to non-Mac systems to do their graphics work, this should tell you something.

Macs are overrated, overpriced, and over-hyped.

[originel]

Quote:

Macs are overrated, overpriced, and over-hyped.

I disagree. They were overpriced, overrated, and over-hyped until OSX came out (and matured). Now you can get an emac with a flat crt display for around $700. Considering the amount of quality in their products compared with your average PC i'd say that's a bargain. Or you can get an imac for around $1200 with a flatpanel, an apple flatpanel at that, and a 64-bit processor. Besides that, there are only 2 virii for OSX, and you have to be a moron to be infected. So moronic that apple basically said screw you guys and didn't patch it (one involved trying to pirate ms office through gnutella).

As for their top of the line i won't disagree with you, although last january the number 3 ranked top supercomputer was an apple cluster. Something to think about.

[OuTpaTienT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkMAD

why are they known to be better than pc's at rendering images and video?

They are not better than pcs at rendering images or video. Both platforms are capable of doing an equally good job.

[Lazywolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTpaTienT

They are not better than pcs at rendering images or video. Both platforms are capable of doing an equally good job.

Yep. When the G5s came out, people thought that Macs would continue to be the best at graphics design and video editing. But then, PCs were able to do just as good if not better than the macs. Macs are no longer the top of the pack.

[filipino]

MAC use SCSI drive