| Author
|
2GB Ram vs Windows XP
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 18, 2006 15:19
|
Oh it must be a lie if a PC is beating a Mac heh? Duh!
Quote:
|
And those are the duals - not quads.
|
|
So? I don't see any dual CPU dual core Opteron systems in there either. Nor do I see any quad processor dual cores or even 8 processor dual cores. G what? 
Hmmm ... that makes me wonder. Does Cubase actually support more than 2 cores/CPUs? Or are all serious users with such machines too busy making music to take part in performance tests? 
UnderTow |
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 18, 2006 15:53
|
Errr I just looked a bit better at the page and the instructions on how the test is performed.
First up there is at least one quad G5 in there. Not very impressive results. (Apparantly a single CPU dual core AMD 64 X2 4400+ smokes it for breakfast).
But!
People are supposed to look at the VST performance meter in Cubase and judge by that? What kind of reliability do you expect from this? Would you trust people to report things correctly? Will they report the lowest peak, the highest peak or an average if the meter fluctuates a bit? There are no instructions about this on the page.
When I check in task manager, it reports lower CPU utilisation than Cubase's performance meter. As I am more enclined to trust the task manager I would say that the performance meter isn't very precise or maybe it isn't actually calculating CPU usage but something else. And how do you know if the Windows version is measuring exactly the same thing as the OS X version?
This whole thing really doesn't say much about anything really. Maybe it tells us something about wishfull thinking from participants.
Well it will tell us that a pretty cheap PC will smoke a quad G5. Mouahahaha! Thanks for supporting my claims with your link.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 18, 2006 16:08
|
yea
hehe
|
|
|
|
