Comments

BruceUSA wrote on 4/7/2015, 4:17 PM
What is the point of producing a 8k resolution screen, when there is no graphic card can support it. Maybe 3-5 years from now and just maybe we'll see video card that can support 8 k.

Intel i9 Core Ultra 285K Overclocked all P Cores @5.6, all E-Cores @5ghz               

MSI MEG Z890 ACE Gaming Wifi 7 10G Super Lan, thunderbolt 4                                

48GB DDR5 -8200mhz Overclocked @8800mhz                  

Crucial T705 nvme .M2 2TB Gen 5  OS. 4TB  gen 4 storage                    

RTX 5080 16GB  Overclocked 3.1ghz, Memory Bandwidth increased from 960 GB/s to 1152 GB/s                                                            

Custom built hard tube watercooling.                            

MSI PSU 1250W, Windows 11 Pro

 

wwjd wrote on 4/7/2015, 4:35 PM
I am absolutely all for changes, improvements, advancement, upgrades, 4K, 8K, whatever is after that, but I DO think we will hit a visual peak where no one bothers to need anything further.

To understand why I say that, look at "digital Audio": we've basically peaked at 48k. Oh, there's much higher rates, like 192k etc, and maybe even infinite, but to cover the spectrum of human hearing, it simply isn't needed. No one is bragging about their newer higher end audio system with tweeters that goes out to 100k hz because past 20k is moot.

I think flat visuals will hit a stoppage point where nobody cares because the best looks fantastic. And like the audio market, where the higher percentage is on crappy MP3, visuals can and are being dubmed down to pads and cellphones - as well as large high end TVs and theaters.

So, I am sure 8K will drop, be amazing and I will adopt it, I can see 4k or 8k being the final need and then they focus on 3D, holovision, color depth, HFR, dynamic range etc.

When HD came out, I was amazed, but I could STILL SEE that it could be improved. 4K makes HD look like SD now, and it will be hard to beat 4k even though 8K WILL be noticably better... when I look at my 4K monitor and it looks like the real thing (minus 3D), I can't imagine us needing much more than that. (Something I was unable to say about HD).

....just like audio at 48k
HyperMedia wrote on 4/7/2015, 7:01 PM
Agreed with WWJD. I’m topping off at 4K. I have already started to upgrade my systems. With HD… I didn’t go all in like I did with SD. (30k)
But with 4K ,we probably make a 35k investment into that format.

Cameras
4K TV’s
iMac
TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/7/2015, 8:23 PM
My AMD CPU/GPU & Win 8.1 just works. Cost a fraction less then any Apple product. I'm with you: if it works use it. :)
deusx wrote on 4/7/2015, 11:45 PM
It just works? sure......

http://www.staingate.org/

Even the one notebookcheck reviewers got suffers from the same thing.

Grow up and stop buying overpriced crap. When you buy a Mac you are buying a PC and paying about a $1000 extra for the logo and OSX.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 4/8/2015, 8:30 PM
> "When you buy a Mac you are buying a PC and paying about a $1000 extra for the logo and OSX."

Except when you are paying $2000 less than an equivalent Windows PC

Mac Pro is $2,000 cheaper than the equivalent Windows PC

According to

Of course if we're talking about the iMac 5K as in this thread, the Dell Ultra HD 5K monitor is $2400 alone without a PC. You can get an entire 5K iMac for $2400. So no... a Mac is not more expensive that an comparably equipped PC.

~jr
astar wrote on 4/8/2015, 9:02 PM
That article was written in 2013. The only reason the Mac Pro would be cheaper is using the stock configuration from Apple. With no ability to install additional storage or graphics, you would need a bunch of external hardware at Thunderbolt premiums. All of a sudden the price difference is gone. Try putting an Intel 750 SSD into that Mac Pro.

The problem with PC expense at Xeon levels, is that manufacturers assume big businesses are buying the hardware. So there is significant markup on anything workstation or server class hardware. When you add up the markups from individual manufactures it kills price competition. Apple marks up big once on an already squeezed China manufacturer.
chap wrote on 4/8/2015, 10:55 PM
I build my own PCs. here are the specs on my latest one (build date Jan 2014):

Case Fractal Design XL R2
Fans Scythe Kazemaru 2 140mm
PSU Corsair AX850
MoBo Asus Z9PE-D8 WS
CPU 2x - Xeon e5-2630 6x2.3ghz
RAM 64GB 8x8GB KVR16R11D4/8
Optical LG WH14NS40 Bluray burner
System Samsung 840 Pro 256GB + Backup 840 Pro for Imaging (safety)
Data 6 x TOSHIBA PH3300U-1I72 3TB in RAID 0 = 18 TB of storage
GFX GIGABYTE GV-N770OC-2GD GTX770
OS Win 7 Pro x64

My total cost including a 4K monitor from ASUS was $4707 and a day to build it.

It renders faster than anything I have seen to date, and have loaded the same After Effects and Premiere projects on one of the new elegant Mac Towers. Both were fast, my machine beat the Mac Pro render time by about a minute, rendering a 27 second 3-D clip out of 3DS MAX.

The only major differences? My tower takes up much more space. It is less elegant, though they are both quiet and I've never felt the need to show off production machines on top of a desk.

Oh yeah, and my machine cost $5,000 less than an equivalent Mac.

I guess I'll take the savings and take a vacation to Bali for 2 weeks.

But, enjoy your mac plus the additional cost of Windows. Seems like a real value!


wwjd wrote on 4/9/2015, 10:35 AM
yeah MAC! It just works.... for the 7 programs it can run. For 30 years I have run all kinds of bleeding edge things that NEVER existed on a MAC. And my life is better for that, not more restricted.
Macs are fine and work great, but I can break and fail them just as fast as any PC, and usually do. In the last 5 years I've worked with 5 different macs and ALL of them had speed issues, where I got tired of wasting MY time on them.

Macs work fine, but NEVER try and tell me they are better.