Originally Posted by
tonyk
In this situation I think the Mac is not a viable choice as 3D Studio is not available on the mac and although you can run windows using an emulator that would be a waste as you would have MAC OS, Emulator, Windows, 3D Studio all using Ram and CPU Cycles. The other problem is the MAC Pro comes with an ATI 2600 GPU which would not be up to 3D rendering. There is an option to add a 1.5GB Nvidia Quadro card but thats £1500 on top of the Mac and software cost.
Mac's are great for photoshop and final cut stuff but I think it would struggle in this case.
Really? A 3.2Ghz 8-core running upto 32gb of RAM?
Mac Mini's (2ghz, 2GB) run Photoshop and Final Cut Pro in their sleep - the Mac Pro was built for apps like this
(PS, show me a PC with those specs that costs less than a Mac Pro
)
Originally Posted by
pa_sjo
Because there is no real reason to use a Mac other than as a fashion statement. The guy is interested in cpu cycles used for raytracing, not how good his desktop looks.
Now why not just write something like that the first time instead of giving it the "fuck macs"
And there's nothing "fashion statement" about a Mac Pro. Imac yes, but the Mac Pro is a tool designed to do a job...
Originally Posted by
pa_sjo
I'd go for more RAM. The i7 CPU's are at a premium price as they're new.
Depends what OS he's running. 32bit XP won't see more than 3.5gb of RAM anyway - must admit no idea about the 64bit version...