“Creative Technology made lots of noise last November, when it unveiled two new MP3 players that it predicted would help it take 40 percent of the global market this year. But, analysts say, despite spending about $100 million to promote its MuVo and Zen models, the company’s market share is still around 10 percent (compared with Apple’s 70). Creative posted a $31.9 million loss in its most recent quarter, and though it recently won a patent battle with Apple (AAPL) over iPod’s track selection technology, many feel it may be too late to break Apple’s stranglehold. Tellingly, Creative has begun shifting its promotional efforts toward its new line of sound cards,” Elizabeth Esfahani and Georgia Flight write for Business 2.0.
[Note: Creative has just 2.4 per cent of the U.S. flash-based music player market, according to NPD, which is relevant because this is the direction market-dominating Apple appears to be taking the digital music player market, as evidenced by the release of the flash-based iPod nano and the discontinuation of the hard drive-based iPod mini. Creative was recently awarded a patent that may or may not be applicable to Apple’s iPod. See related articles below.]
Full article here.
[UPDATE: 6:22pm ET: Rewrote note to explain mention of Creative’s flash-based market share and clarify patent issue.]
Related articles:
Apple debuts iPod nano, iTunes 5: how are Microsoft, Napster, Real, Creative, Sony feeling today? – September 08, 2005
Creative explores new way to beat Apple iPod: patent litigation – August 30, 2005
Creative plans ‘very vigorous defense’ of iPod navigation patent – August 31, 2005
Beleaguered Creative Technology’s ‘war’ on Apple iPod not faring well – August 15, 2005
Apple’s iPod shine dims beleaguered Creative Technology’s outlook – August 08, 2005
Microsoft not buying stake in Creative Technology – August 02, 2005
Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo adds fronts to war against Apple iPod – August 01, 2005
Analyst: Microsoft could buy Creative Technlogy in bid to compete with Apple iPod – July 14, 2005
Beleaguered Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo ‘optimistic’ the company will survive ‘MP3 war’ – July 01, 2005
Beleaguered Creative may have to write off unsold stock as losses loom – June 28, 2005
Creative Tech’s reduced outlook drags on Apple, PortalPlayer, SigmaTel – June 27, 2005
Creative Tech cuts sales outlook, drags Apple down in early trading – June 27, 2005
Apple passed 20 million iPods sold milestone in early June – June 24, 2005
Apple’s understanding of what really counts makes iPod+iTunes impossible to beat – June 22, 2005
Creative Technology shares slide to lowest mark in almost two years – May 18, 2005
Apple squeezes and Creative’s profit plunges 72-percent – April 23, 2005
Apple iPod pressure forces Creative to drop prices on music players – March 01, 2005
Creative’s self-declared ‘MP3 player war’ against Apple isn’t going very well – January 20, 2005
Creative CEO: Apple iPod shuffle ‘a big let-down, worse than the cheapest Chinese player’ – January 12, 2005
Creative declares ‘war’ on Apple iPod, shoots for 40% market share of MP3 players – December 21, 2004
Creative Technology declares ‘MP3 War’ against market-dominating Apple iPod – November 17, 2004
Mossberg: Dell, Rio, Creative ‘iPod mini killers’ lag badly behind Apple iPod mini – October 27, 2004
Creative pushes to become ‘Pepsi’ to Apple’s ‘Coke’ in digital music player market – August 07, 2004
Did Creative win the patent battle?
Creative didn’t win anything with regard to the alleged “patent battle.” They simply obtained a patent on a method of track selection which may, or may not, be infringed by the iPod. This has not been claimed by Creative yet, nor defended by Apple. As there was no fight, there was no battle, and thus they’ve won nothing. They’ve simply “gained” a patent, and not necessarily at Apple’s expense.
I hate it when journos get their facts skewed like this.
Sandisk is #2 at 6.9% share.
Creative is dead.
Looks like I’m first post. Big deal.
The battle hasn’t actually started yet.
what about the war?
<< Creative didn’t win anything with regard to the alleged “patent battle.” They simply obtained a patent on a method of track selection which may, or may not, be infringed by the iPod. This has not been claimed by Creative yet, nor defended by Apple. As there was no fight, there was no battle, and thus they’ve won nothing. They’ve simply “gained” a patent, and not necessarily at Apple’s expense. >>
Right you are. The worst that will happen from Creative’s patent, is that Apple will buy it, and Creative will exit the player market as part of the deal.
who buys sound cards anymore? Integrated audio is here to stay.
*thoomp* *thoomp* *thoomp*
Another one bites the dust-uh!
To Greg:
Look again…
big deal.
Seriously, who the fsck DOES buy sound cards anymore?
While I jumped off the sinking Windows ship only about 7 months ago, I had previously been building a new PC, or upgrading my existing one for about 12 years… In that time, ibought every major supported brand of sound card made until about thee or four years ago, when integrated on-board audio finally caught up, and in most cases, easily outdid any add-in card.
For that matter, since about 2000, I had built about 500 or so computers (for clients) ranging from low-end, basic machnes, to top of the line game-machines and CAD workstations, and not a single one didn’t come with excellent built-in sound.
Creative is a redneck zombie… dead as a doornail, but too stupid to comprehend the concept.
MW – certain, as in I am certain of this!
“…despite spending about $100 million to promote its MuVo and Zen models…”
Has anyone here actually SEEN a Creative commercial? (Magazines don’t count.) No matter how much money Cratering has spent, not (MW) many of us have seen what they got for it.
If Creative sues Apple they also are including Cingular and Motorola and other like interface designs.
Tommo and Gregg have it right. Creative didn’t win any “battle” over the patent. They were simply granted a patent, which could just as easily be overturned in the future.
I guess this is a fine example of the “lazy reporting” that Steve Jobs was talking about in his interviews with the media at Apple Expo Paris.
I, for one, would like to see Creative bite and try to sue Apple over the patent. It should also sue Apple for using the name “iPod nano.” After losing more than $30 million last quarter, there would be nothing better than for creative to spend another $10-20 million and man-years of effort filing lawsuits that have little chance of winning. And if it happens, watch Apple lawyers flood Creative with hugely expensive discovery requests.
Yep, that would be fun to watch, as lawyers suck on Creative’s cash flow to buy themselves Ferraris. No need to actually develop great products, the lawyers will save the day!
Not.
Who buys sound cards? Gamers, audio professionals, people with motherboards that don’t have integrated audio.
You know – Geeks!
BTW, great use of beleagured in the headline! It had a nice ring to it.
Oh wait, that’s my iRokkor…
I have to buy an external soundcard since apple didn’t think spdif was something usefull to put in my 15″ pb 🙁
for stationary computers though, I agree that seperate soundcards are dead
Looks like I’m first post!
Seriously, the only thing Creative about spending $100M advertising an infrerior product against Apple is the market share projection – 40% Globally – for the MuVo and Zen players? Please… the best thing they have going for them is an FM radio – and with no good music store/software integration, its a no brainer why they are looking at what they DO know, high end audio cards. (Who didn’t have a Sound Blaster back in the day? – That’s Creative you know!)
MDN word: way
Plus, from Paris, Steve said that the reporting on that subject has been “lazy.” There’s apparently a lot more to the story than what’s being reported and a few tricks Apple legal still has up its sleeve.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
They are a mid level electronics company that supplied commodity level sound cards for mass consumption. Professional audio engineers have far better options available to them than some Creative card.
Again, Creative suffer due to lack of software. High end cards utilize or require high end apps, and Creative doesn’t provide either function!
CREATIVE COULD MAKE A KILLING MAKING SOME BRILLIANT IPOD ACCESORIES! – TAKE SOME OF THE STUFF THEY WERE DOING WITH THEIR OWN PLAYERS THAT WERE SECOND RATE AND DEVELOP THEM AS ALL PURPOSE ACCESORIES!!!!
IF YOU CANT BEAT THEM JOIN THEM!!
Finally… Creative starting to do something right.
That Creative Zen Micro thingamajig is a hideous looking beast. It’s funny to read anti-iPod zealots write about the Zen as if it is the best MP3 player ever. Let it go and get a nano. Color screen, no moving parts, “cool” factor, Apple quality, great price, cross-platform – what is there NOT to love about the iPod?
Sorry, Creative. Go declare war with yourself, or Sony or Dell – someone you can compete with.
Right you are bad news bear:
Creative could have been a fine Apple partner about 5 years ago. They had a golden opportunity when Apple briefly discontinued built-in sound, but blew it with that POS Soundblaster for Mac card. With no support from the company, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. Thank goodness others were willing to step into the niche and provide decent products.
Creative is reaping what they sowed.
actually, I have a killer sound card for my G4. It lets me run my mixer right into the Mac, and the stereo outs plug into my regular Onkyo receiver or my 4-track, if I so desire. It’s the move for recording guitars/vocals/basslines, etc. I generally disdain digital recording, but it has it’s uses…
Creatives Sound cards blow away any other cards on the market. Once X-Fi is RTM for portables (soon)..Creative will reign because apple will be forced to use the chip…Your right, If you cant beat them in the crappy player market..Screw em with better sound..Apples iPod wont last long once its out…Unless the license it from creative…
Most of you have no idea what Creative makes..Their products are top notch.
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20050818/index.html
When did Apple briefly discontinue sound? Was I asleep?
Its nice how Microsoft Daily News leaves out the fact that creative owns 90% of the sound card and enhanced video creation market…Good and unbiased…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> great job MDN, I think you deserve the Hall of Shame Award..
Bigots
Microsoft Daily News leaves out the fact that creative owns 90% of the sound card and enhanced video creation market
—
a) I didn’t know people still cared about that market.
b)If they own 90% of the market.. what kind of upside is there to winning the other 10% (besides, growing the market, of course)
oh yeah.. i almost forgot..
Creative can out-niche market Apple any day of the week.
Sound cards? *chuckle
Mike
Your right mike, no one cares about the sound or content creation markets…??Duh
Are you a retard?
Who said they were going for that other 10 %
Geez man..Your anal
Firt post! I’m first post! SOY EL PRIMERO, NUMERO UNO!!!! THE FIRST!
Get a life…
FIRST!!! POST!!!!
The term “sound card” is being thrown around rather loosely.
If all you want is stereo output to your receiver, all Macs since the Mac II have provided it. Such “sound cards” are a product with no market in Mac-Land.
If we are referring to hobbyist/professional-level gear (multi-track in/out, high sample-rate, +4 dbu level, etc), then Creative neither owns 90% of the market, nor are their “cards” the best out there.
I can’t speak to the PC-gamers-listening-to-their-games-through-their-stereos-market, cuz I don’t give a rat’s ass.
GaydisOne, you must be one of those anti-iPod zealots I was referring to. Don’t be mad that Creative is redirecting its efforts. It should – it has wasted a lot of money in the MP3 player space.
And by the way, my Soundblaster card still works very well, thank you.
This from Business 2.0…anyone at MDN care to reply to them?
Thank you for your note. We have our facts straight. I wish
MacDailyNews.com had taken the same pains we had in getting
its own facts straight.
According to IDC, Creative’s share of the MP3 player market —
both flash and hard drive — is 10 percent. MDN’s mention of
flash-only market share is irrelevant and off-topic. And Creative
was recently awarded a patent on technology on which Apple had
also applied for a patent. Creative won the patent; Apple lost.
That’s a “patent battle” in my book, and Creative won.
Yours,
Owen Thomas
_____________________________
Owen Thomas
Chief of Reporters, Business 2.0
owen_thomas@business2.com
415 293 4866
My hearing (like most people) is not good enough to get the latest super duper monster killer sound gizmo. Who are they making this crap for, people with dog hearing?
I love live music is smokey little jazz and country bars.
Clueless mac zealots continue to live up to their names. The only integrated audio solution widely recognized as great by the PC community was Nvidia’s Soundstorm, which was superior to every other integrated audio solution and rivaled the best of Creative’s soundblaster line. Unfortunately, Nvidia dropped their MCP chip with the introduction of the Nforce 4 chipset.
Yes, other integrated audio do the bare minimum these days (5.1, digital, etc…). But as shown above, clueless mac zealots confuse bare minimum with premium quality. Creative’s Audigy 2 series have superior sound processing and hardware than any current integrated audio and competing sound cards (that’s not aimed exclusively for the professional market), and the new X-fi series just opens the gap even further.
Review here:http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518
LOL Clueless, we are laughing at you.
No one is questioning the superiority of Creative’s sound card hardware. But we take exception to the ridiculous statements about “inferior” iPods that Creative has been spouting. That would seem to be news to you.
Also, with regard to the Business 2.0 note, what a laugh!
A battle is something where two or more sides challenge each other directly. Apple didn’t lose their patent to Creative and Creative never challenged Apple’s patent application either. That’s not a battle.
What a pompous idiot. I suppose Apple also “lost the patent battle” to the guy who claims he patented the idea of a digital music library.
Typical media, trying to create a “David vs. Goliath” set-up to heighten the drama. As Steve Jobs said, it’s lazy reporting.
Business 2.0 seems to be stuck on stupid.
Apple installs Texas Instruments sound cards into all of their computer products last I checked. Ti makes agreat integrated sound cards, Apple will never be forced to use Creative sound cards.
NewType,
Great sarcasm! So good, I almost took your reply to be real. It gave me a good chuckle.
User_01,
Gee, I wouldn’t mind Creative’s sound card technology in my PowerMac. Better than the default stuff we get in Macs these days!
Clueless LOL dude:
There is absolutely nothing “superior” about Creative’s X-Fi Platinum to Apple’s built-in sound. And by “nothing, I mean NOTHING.
Creative’s sound cards processes ordinary digital audio (from games, CDs, or DVDs) into phony surround ala Dolby Pro Logic or DTS Neo 6. This is a capability built-in to every surround receiver on the market. Fancy names like “crystalizer” and “xtreme fidelity audio processor” cannot mask the reality that these cards are merely applying surround processing and frequency curves to the sound. A 16-bit signal source will still contain 16-bits worth of information even after it is manipulated in a 24-bit process.
We audio purists don’t like when something messes with our audio signal. We don’t watch our DVDs with “spatial enhancement” processing turned on. And if we did want to spatially enhance our audio, we prefer that it be done in the RECEIVER, rather than in some sound card (we trust Yamaha, Sony, Denon, or Pioneer to do do a better job than Creative).
Furthermore, the built-in audio processing capability of a G4 or G5 Mac is 64-bit. Anything Creative’s cards are doing to the audio signal could be mimicked under OSX’s Core Audio; though again, it would be best to send pristine, unaltered audio to the receiver and have the processing occur just before the amplifier.
Please do not insult us with your silly sound card B.S. The ad hoc, strap-on reality of PC audio is in no way superior to Apple’s built-in capability. One need only run Logic or Digital Performer on an Apple (with no additional sound add-ons) to realize the built-in audio on a Mac is professional grade.
We don’t need your stinking sound cards…..
block6..
there is no such thing as the Sound market, dork..
Sound Cards.. ? Yeah.. Creative dominates.. like I said.. who gives a shit..
they can scrape the last 10% or try to force sound cards on us (grow the market) what an upside..
Do they dominate Sound Creation? no.
How freakin’ vague can you be?!
is a sound card like a sound person? would you trust it with your life?
allah is great (but jesus is more fun)
iHave no iLife–
“…despite spending about $100 million to promote its MuVo and Zen models…”
Has anyone here actually SEEN a Creative commercial? (Magazines don’t count.) No matter how much money Cratering has spent, not (MW) many of us have seen what they got for it.
Advertising isn’t about seeing. It’s about remembering. You’ve very likely seen the ads several times. It just wasn’t memorable.
“Informed”, you truly are delusional if you think Apple’s integrated audio is “professional grade.” Then again, as your other posts shows in other threads in addition to this, your stupidity glares quite apparently when it comes to any video/audio topic concerning the PC sector. Your ignorance and “cover my ears, i don’t give a rat’s ass” attitude towards PC gaming (and the technology that drives the industry) itself further proves your limited, short-sighted, zealous scope holds no relevance in these topics.
Your attempts to dismiss Creative with arguments concerning audio filters fall flat, as the issue is not manipulation of an audio source itself (as its an option based on personal tastes), but the underlying technology and limitations itself.
Anything Creative’s cards are doing to the audio signal could be mimicked under OSX’s Core
Please do not insult us with your silly sound card B.S. The ad hoc, strap-on reality of PC audio is in no way superior to Apple’s built-in capability.
Spoken from the mind of a true blind zealot. Apple’s integrated audio can never handle the same amount of internal audio channels compared to Creative’s line (especially considering the integrated audio of Apple relies on CPU utilization….Creative’s new 51 million transister chip can handle 30,000+ typical processor MIPS, compared to 1300 of the Audigy 2, which was still superior to anything Apple had at the time.)
Apple’s integrated audio cannot process in realtime accurate (and thats the key word here) multiple environmental effects based on object positioning, depth, refractions, reverberations, etc…based on a 3D environment.
Why is it that only Creative Audigy 2 and Soundstorm have been THX certified?
Any more idiotic statements “misinformed?”
I don’t know what planet your from, dude, but your “facts” are assumptions.
My dismissal of Creative’s filtering and processing is spot on. That’s what they are bragging about. That’s what their “high-end” cards do.
“Can’t handle the same amount of audio channels..” What the hell does that mean? Would you like to explain what you mean? Apple’s G4 and G5 CPU-based audio can EASILY handle the same amount of processing and have plenty of muscle left over,
“Real time accurate” is your “keyword.” What the hell does that mean? All digital audio processing has latency. Are you claiming that the Creative cards running on a PCIs slot have less latency?
What do you think you mean by the term “accurate?” Do you think a Mac’s audio is “inaccurate?”
“..multiple environmental effects based on object positioning, depth, refractions, reverberations, etc…based on a 3D environment.” You haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Have you heard of AltiVerb? Did you know that it is Mac-only?
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Altiverb/
You are operating on the PC assumption that audio issues require a coprocessor of some kind. In the Mac world they don’t. This was true even before the advent of OSX. Macs handle audio natively in a manner you apparently don’t understand.
Some research for ya:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreaudio/
or this:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
95% of all professional recording studios run Macs. Products like DigiDesign’s ProTools were Mac-only for many years before they were ported to PCs. While no serious hobbyist or professional would, it is possible to run applications like Digital Performer or Logic (with UNLIMITED audio tracks) entirely on stock Macs, using no “sound cards” of any kind. The only thing that isn’t professional-grade about the stock Apple sound abilities are the analog -10 dBu mini jacks. Creative’s RCA jacks are only a minor improvement.
Are you still claiming that your silly Creative cards best Apple’s out of the box performance? You better provide some proof other than the over-the-top product descriptions on Creative’s website. Their marketing department would have you believe that their cards will miraculously make commercial CDs and DVDs sound better than the professionals who created them are capable of. Talk about stupid marketing hype.
You are WAY out of your league here. Here are some photos of MY project studio:
http://homepage.mac.com/markjam/Studio/PhotoAlbum11.html
Please enlighten me as to how you acquired all your audio expertise, or go back to playing your dumbass PC games.
P.S. THX certification is utterly unimportant. My Yamaha A/V receiver is not THX certified, but I’ll put it up against anything that is.
Again. I don’t want my “sound card” doing what my receiver is designed to do. I don’t want to bring analog 5-channel information into my receiver because the sound is degraded in the process. My receiver wants the unaltered digital signal.
I am curious how you define “professional grade” since you idiotically accuse me of being “delusional.” Please enlighten me with your buzzwords and marketing hype.
“My dismissal of Creative’s filtering and processing is spot on. That’s what they are bragging about. That’s what their “high-end” cards do.“
Spot on? Spot on right up your backside with your obvious blind zealousness. I ask you again, what exactly does Apple’s integrated audio itself have that is superior to Creative? Your link to a software suite has NO relevance whatsoever.
Let’s take a look at one of your ignorant statements:
Creative’s sound cards processes ordinary digital audio (from games, CDs, or DVDs) into phony surround ala Dolby Pro Logic or DTS Neo 6. This is a capability built-in to every surround receiver on the market.
These filters are applied (at the user’s discretion if they wish) if there is no original surround encoded data in the first place. Considering most games released within the last year have at least 5.1 sound, this is not even an issue. Of course, being totally oblivious to another industry because you “don’t give a rat’s ass” shows your stupidity quite well.
It’s a capability built into “every receiver on the market”….what about Apple’s integrated audio? Creative’s sound cards (from Audigy 2 on up) are damn good enough to pass stringent audio certifications from major sound studios…the cards themselves are powerful enough to apply these “filters” and processing continously in the background WITHOUT barely any CPU cycles. You are basically required to run a seperate sound processing suite utilizing a good amount of CPU cycles to even achieve the “same” filters and processes.
What the hell does that mean? Would you like to explain what you mean? Apple’s G4 and G5 CPU-based audio can EASILY handle the same amount of processing and have plenty of muscle left over.
Heh, that’s a laugh. Care to tell me exactly how many 3D positional audio sources Apple’s integrated audio can handle without a huge CPU hit? Integrated audio solutions without onboard MCP chips generally hit >50% above 16 channels….Audigy 2 and Soundstorm can handle 32 3d positional channels at around 3% (up to 64 in case of Audigy)…Creative’s new X-fi can handle upwards of 1000+ (still doubt their 51 million transister chip?).
If you were doing pure audio work in a studio, the hit would be fine. However, multitasking, multithreaded environments is a different story (such as a 3D game with 64+ positional audio sources).
What the hell does that mean? All digital audio processing has latency. Are you claiming that the Creative cards running on a PCIs slot have less latency?
What do you think you mean by the term “accurate?” Do you think a Mac’s audio is “inaccurate?”
Frequency response, noise level, dynamic range, THD+ noise, stereo crosstalk and intermodulation distortion…these tests have clearly shown Creative’s strength in audio fidelity since the Audigy 2 line….
http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518&p=7
“You haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Have you heard of AltiVerb? Did you know that it is Mac-only?”
And that has absolutely nothing of what I was talking about. Accurate sound processing of multiple enviromental sources under EAX HD, all done in real time. Of course, the same can be done on a regular CPU, but I doubt programmers love the idea of sound hogging up anything over 50-60% of CPU resources.
I also like how you’re hypocritcal with your statement
“Please enlighten me with your buzzwords and marketing hype.”
yet, you’ve proudly pointed links to Apple’s own pages? Here, here’s one for you:
http://www.soundblaster.com/resources/read.asp?articleid=53831&cat=1
Great feedback from many hardware pundits concerning the technology. No other consumer level audio solution (including Apple’s own integrated audio) can come close with the same level of quality and performance.
I’ve shown it quite clearly above. If you think Apple’s integrated audio is remotely close to the overall quality and versatility of Creative’s new X-fi, then you truly are a blind (and deaf) idiot.
P.S. THX certification is utterly unimportant. My Yamaha A/V receiver is not THX certified, but I’ll put it up against anything that is.
Utterly unimportant? Utterly unimportant to brain dead “fanboi’s” like yourself, trying to downplay Creative (probably as a grudge from Creative Zen vs Ipod) when THX certification only verifies the quality of Creative’s line of soundcards since Audigy 2.
…To ensure the highest possible quality in home cinema, THX defines stringent picture and sound track criteria for film-to-DVD (and film-to-VHS) transfers. Such DVD titles are labeled as “THX Digitally Mastered for superior sound and picture quality” or simply “THX Certified”. THX also defines stringent performance standards for audio/video source and processing components. These include strict performance standards for DVD players, receivers, preamplifiers, power amplifiers, speakers, interconnect cables, speaker cables, and even the room’s acoustic characteristics (for dedicated home theater environments).
http://timefordvd.com/tutorial/THX.shtml
A: A mark of excellence in the entertainment industry, THX Certification promises consumers and media professionals that the certified venues they visit, and the certified products they purchase, have been evaluated and tested to meet the highest standards for picture and sound performance. THX is the only third-party company specializing in quality assurance programs and technologies for home theatre component manufacturing. The company’s Home Theatre Certification programs provide consumer electronics manufacturers with independent analysis of home theatre products, as well as additional expertise for their design and engineering efforts. It ensures manufacturers’ systems and components meet or exceed the industry’s highest levels for performance-long before they make it into the hands of consumers.
To achieve THX Certification, home theatre products must meet or exceed our performance requirements under “normal” playback functions. For receivers and controllers, we also add patented post-processing features such as ReEQ, Timbre Matching, Adaptive Decorrelation, Adaptive Speaker Array and Boundary Gain Compensation. When a product switches video, we test it to guarantee that it does not degrade the signal. If a manufacturer claims that their product can switch HD, we test that, otherwise we test it for SD signals. THX Ltd. does not test for product longevity and we do not test “custom” or “DSP” modes such as Cathedral, Sports and room compensation.
http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/THXp1.html
You are WAY out of your league here. Here are some photos of MY project studio:
Never out of my league to put overzealous fanboi’s like yourself, with baseless arguments just because you don’t particulary have interest a competing product (and other industries) in there place.
Look shitwit,
Your fundamental lack of all knowledge prevents me from responding in detail. You read, but do not comprehend. Every single statement I have made is true. I linked you to Apple’s website so that maybe you could finally comprehend that Apple’s “integrated audio” is the computer in its entirety, but you still fail to comprehend. Ever hear of GarageBand? It doesn’t need a stinking sound card.
Every one of your completely idiotic rebuttals have been utterly false or have completely missed the point. I give up on your sound card argument. You win. You and the sound card are perfect for each other. A silly toy for a dullard boy.
As to THX, someday you may learn that THX certifying a single component in a system is MEANINGLESS. The placement of your speakers, the overall acoustical behavior of your listening environment contribute far more to the quality of your audio than any single component in the system. If your listening environment creates standing waves and nodes it is completely irrelevant that your amplifier, when running at 85 watts, produces .0003% more total harmonic distortion measured at 1kHz, than it does at running at 35 watts.
When THX was certifying entire theater installations (speaker placement, amplifiers, and ROOM ACOUSTICS – the whole SYSTEM) then THX had relevance. Certifying an individual component is a STUPID marketing ploy. And it works for stupid people like you. So Creative paid to have a certification, so F’n what? Put that soundblaster into your typical 20′ x20′ room with 9′ ceilings and the speakers wedged in the corners and it still will sound like shit in 60% of the room.
I can’t be bothered with your blathering ignorance any further. You are the epitome of a “blind zealot.” Go buy your soundblaster with its xtreme everything and crystal super-dooper audio enhancement gizmotron. The chicks will dig ya as you shoot another zombie. Shitwit.
Ok, Shitwit. I’ll bite. Time to educate you.
A Mac’s “integrated audio” is the entire Mac — operating system and computer. This was true under Systems 7, 8, and 9 (utilizing the Sound Manager extension), and it is even more true under OSX (utilizing Core Audio). A G3, G4, or G5 CPU will process circles around Creative’s $400 sound card. Period. The audio demands of a computer game are trivial. Some triggered samples and some music loops. Whoopee.
Utterly false #1: “Apple’s integrated audio can never handle the same amount of internal audio channels compared to Creative’s line (especially considering the integrated audio of Apple relies on CPU utilization….” You would have to be the stupidest moron in the world to believe that Creative’s sound chip is more powerful than a PowerPC of any stripe.
<object positioning, blah, blah, blah…”</i> Not only can it do that, it does. See #1. The stupidity here is compounded by the fact that “realtime accurate” is a meaningless term, and IF it had any meaning at all, it would apply to RECORDING, not playback.
So much unintelligible crap its impossible to number: “Care to tell me exactly how many 3D positional audio sources Apple’s integrated audio can handle without a huge CPU hit? Integrated audio solutions without onboard MCP chips generally hit >50% above 16 channels….Audigy 2 and Soundstorm can handle 32 3d positional channels at around 3% (up to 64 in case of Audigy)…Creative’s new X-fi can handle upwards of 1000+ (still doubt their 51 million transistor chip?).”
Where to begin? First lets get our terminology correct, ignorant twit. The Creative fancy-pants sound card has SIX CHANNELS. Count ’em, six. It outputs 5.1 surround: six discreet channels. What you are idiotically calling “channels” would be more akin to “tracks” or “samples.” The Mac can process far more simultaneous tracks than ANY computer game could possibly throw at it.
As for “3D positional audio sources” (where do you get this crap?), learn this now: stereo and/or monophonic audio is panned (statically or dynamically) within the 5.1 sound field. The amount of processing power required to “position” audio within the available output channels is TRIVIAL.
I love this spew: “Integrated audio solutions without onboard MCP chips generally hit >50% above 16 channels…” You’re pulling this out of your ass! If I were to load my four-year-old Dual G4 with two additional output cards from Mark of the Unicorn (http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/expansion.html/en) I could OUTPUT up to 96 processed channels (the correct usage of the term “channel”) and INPUT up to 96 raw tracks/channels SIMULTANEOUSLY! That is 32 times more channels than the superdooper soundblaster. The strain would be on your hard drives, not the CPU. Note: MOTU cards do not offload any audio processing from the Mac’s CPU; they only route the digital signals to their external breakout boxes.
Please read this part carefully because it comes up again later: the Mac’s “integrated audio system” doesn’t care where the audio signal comes from or where it goes (input and output are “hardware abstracted,” look it up). Audio can be routed to the headphone jack, Firewire, USB, Toslink, ethernet, wirelessly over an Airport Express, or (gasp!) sent out a PCI card. Or any combination of the above.
Like a moron, you keep confusing the circuitry behind the -10 dBu minijack with the Apple “integrated audio system.” I conceded that the minijack was consumer grade.
I provided the link to AltiVerb to enlighten you. But you failed to comprehend its significance since you don’t comprehend any of the terms you throw around. AltiVerb was the first of its kind and it was introduced shortly after PowerMac G4 was introduced (AltiVerb requires AltiVec, hence its name). AltiVerb is a TRUE convolution reverb that runs as a plugin to a host software program.
The lowly kind of spatial enhancement processing you and Creative brag about (<object positioning, blah, blah, blah…”</i>) utterly pales in comparison to AltiVerb, both in terms of realism and in terms of processor requirements. The type of processing Creative brags about is available in every A/V receiver on the market, including the $129 Onkyo you can buy at Best Buy. Like a total idiot, you read Creative’s marketing hype and went off all serious about how processor-intensive this phony 3D reverb is. Not hardly. It is trivial. You asked why Apple’s “integrated audio system” doesn’t have it. The answer is: it doesn’t need it. (continued)
(continuation of your lesson, shitwit)
Utterly false # Lost count of them all: when asked to explain what your lofty-sounding “keyword” meant, you responded: “Frequency response, noise level, dynamic range, THD+ noise, stereo crosstalk and intermodulation distortion…” That would be a really great answer except for the fact that none of those terms have anything to do with realtime processing or “realtime accuracy.” They are hardware specs. Those terms apply to things like amplifiers. They all measure ANALOG properties. As stated above (go read it again slowly), Apple’s audio system is hardware abstracted, so if I were to route my “Apple integrated audio” processed signal DIGITALLY through the G5’s built-in optical Toslink connector, none of your fancy terms even apply.
Nice try though, Shitwit. I’m sure you fooled yourself.
And it keeps getting worse. Like how after stating that <object positioning, blah, blah, blah…”</i> –and after I have shown you that it can, and does with AltiVerb — You later write: “And that” (Altiverb) “has absolutely nothing of what I was talking about.” (actually, it was precisely what you were talking about) Accurate sound processing of multiple enviromental sources under EAX HD, all done in real time. Of course, the same can be done on a regular CPU, but I doubt programmers love the idea of sound hogging up anything over 50-60% of CPU resources.” How did you get from the categorical term “cannot” to the completely contradictory phrase “of course, the same can be done”? Here’s how: you can’t even follow your own line of crap. Then you try to blind me with “all under EAX HD.” “EAX HD” is another of Creative’s BS marketing terms. Like “Crytalizer” and “xtreme” everything. Spare me.
Shitwit, you really ought to beware when you start throwing the terms “idiot,” “idiotic,” and “uninformed” at other people.
I agree with “informed” above.
I’ll be honest right up front and say that most of this is over my head, but I did watch a documentary on Lucasfilm and THX and it is true that the certification of an entire system is what ensured great sound (this included the size and shape of the theater, seat and speaker placement and even the types of fabrics in the auditorium. Even the engineers (and George himself) explained that any single component would not make a system great. But a single component could ruin a system. I believe that the certification in this case is purely marketing.
Also, I used to work at a recording studio and I remember well that all tracks were panned on the mixing board when mixing from 2″ 24-track to 2-track for mastering. Informed is correct, the processing power for placement is trivial, far more important is speaker placement and something we called “imaging”.
And for digital mastering (usually from the DAT mix-master) all we ever used was Apple (as far as I know it is all anyone used). It was the only computer that could handle it.
~M
PS- Nice home studio, by the way.
And that shows exactly how ignorant and what an idiot you are. You want to compare an entire computer system, using $500 software…a notion that holds no relevance whatsoever when the focus in question is Apple’s integrated audio hardware itself? If hypothetically Apple used Creative’s MCP chip, users would have a far more versatile audio subsystem and you would still have your pristine unaltered original digital source to use with your high priced external systems and software. It is a reason why others here have posted why they wouldn’t mind a card (either addon or integrated) with Creative’s long proven technology.
Users demand versatility…a bare minimum audio solution is all you desire, because as you said, you want the source to be unaltered and unfiltered, all of which you want to be done on an external receiver. In that case, Texas Instruments’ bare minimum integrated audio, and all other bare minimum integrated audio and sound cards on the planet, is good enough for you.
That’s not enough for other people, who’s primary use of sound on a desktop is not processing audio with external receivers and with $500 software.
As for Apple’s G5 running “circles” around Creative’s $400 chip, and that a computer game’s audio needs are “trivial”, that’s a laugh….and proves just how clueless you really are. You’re brain sure has alot of trouble comprehending….
The main reason that games use time effects and not frequency is because it takes a lot of processing power to change or modify the sound frequencies at will. That kind of processing power requires a lot of processing power from the DSP and before X-Fi, cards simply didn’t have that kind of power. However, Creative’s X-Fi changes all of that (at least it attempts to). The DSP incorporates the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm, which is an extremely efficient method of computing the frequency spectrum (range) of the signal to be processed. This algorithm has been around for quite some time but had not been implemented only because of lack of hardware capabilities, but with 51 million transistors and 400MHz core, the X-Fi is not exactly short of that.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1751&Itemid=0&limit=1&limitstart=6
It’s dedicated hardware to drive sound, that’s all it is. The audio processing offloaded to the CPU from the integrated audio always induces a performance hit, there’s no other way around it…especially high quantities of 3d positional sources, each source processed with accurate and changing environmental effects as the source changes position and velocity. The Athlon FX-59, AMD’s top of the line single core chip, has far superior floating point performance than the PowerPC 970…..yet when running Battlefield 2 (one of the many games with 64+ 3d audio sources), framerates can drop up to 30 fps and more when utilizing non-accelerated audio hardware compared to accelerated audio (Audigy 2 and higher). That’s because the strain of 64+ 3D sources eat into CPU cycles intended for AI, physics, etc…
Of course, being the sole audiophile that you are, you don’t “give a rat’s ass”. Any bare minimum integrated audio would suffice for you (as long as the original source was intact, which most integrated audio do exceptionally well these days), as you rely not on the audio hardware itself, but your external amps and receivers and $500 software.
However, users DEMAND versatility. Strip the expensive equipment and software, and let your G5 run a similar program, where other complex calculations are consistently running…the weak audio subsystem will struggle, even with the “almighty” 970 trying to push it along. This is why many users here, as stated many times, wouldnt mind Creative’s presence one way or another.
Within your $500 piece of software….which would also be true for any Opteron based workstation with basic integrated audio. That’s not the point here.
Creative X-fi (and previous Audigy series) were primarily 3D audio engines, that is what comprises that vast majority of resources for the 51 million transistor X-Fi (compared to 58 million of the G5 chip itself). In your words, you have to be the stupidest moron in the world if you think the G5 can keep up with dedicated hardware running dedicated algorithms.
The ability to calculate correct sound based on room acoustics, material composition, and complex environmental factors, for each individual source, with over 100+ simultaneous sources, ALL THE WHILE running a 3D game environment, is beyond most desktop computers.
Quite fascinating actually, too bad you’re too close minded and too ignorant such interesting aspects.
If that’s all it was, than any bare minimum integrated audio with 5.1 would suffice. Creative’s new chip is much more than that (as I’ve stated above)….damn moron, why don’t just read any reviews of the chip?
Moron, that is not what I meant concerning channels. Integrated audio that offloads to the CPU will begin to incur a massive CPU hit above 16 simultaneous 3D positional audio channels. For years the standard has always been 8 and less, until the introduction of Audigy where it was powerful enough to handle them without serious CPU penalties.
Current sound card architectures are based on a linear flow of data. For straight up audio listening or recording, this is not a problem – there isn’t any need to deviate from the norm in these cases. And that’s why we haven’t seen a fundamental change in audio architecture until now. It is when we want to intensively multiplex these components and perform operations on large numbers of audio streams that we run into problems. The backbone of X-Fi is its ability to process any audio stream on any component in the audio chain in any order, and any number of times without having to leave and come back in. The ring supports up to 4096 internal audio channels that can all be taking different paths through the hardware.
http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518&p=2
EAX isn’t a marketing term, dumbass….it’s an operating system API available to any vendor (not just Creative, even to competing sound card makers, because its open) with wide programmer support. It’s the defacto standard for 3D audio for PC’s (as EAX can be supported under DirectSound 3D and 5.1 Surround). All the programmer does is supply the necessary enviromental information and EAX handles the rest.
You certainly proved how stupid you are.
“EAX isn’t a marketing term, ….All the programmer does is supply the necessary enviromental information and EAX handles the rest.”
All a game programmer does for the mac is make calls to Core Audio and Core Audio does the rest.
I guess that might prove how studid PCs are. Third parties have to invent their own audio systems.
Huh?: Wow. You actually read all that crap?
Mozfan: Thanks. The studio’s been growing over the past 20 years since its humble 4-track beginnings.
Shitwit: I was unaware that EAX HD was a set of APIs. Thank you. You just proved all my points. Way back at the top I said there is nothing that Creative’s cards are doing that can’t be mimicked in Core Audio. Bingo:
http://developer.apple.com/audio/openal.html
Now go back and reread the Core Audio summary and maybe this will all start to come together for you. Pay attention to the sidebars:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreaudio/
So what have we learned: if a Mac gamer wants all the features of Creative’s $400 card, they can spend $70 on an M-Audio 5.1 card, or $70 on a USB or Firewire box, or $15 on a Toslink cable and have it all!
What Shitwit still hasn’t learned is that realtime positioning of a digital audio sample stream within the available output channels (2 or 5.1) is NOT processor-intensive. Yes, a 3D reverb uses some processor cycles, but the 3D reverb is applied to the 5.1 mix, not to each individual sample stream. Therefore, it is a very moderate hit on the CPU.
My “$500 application” uses Core Audio, just like a Mac game would. I’m amazed you are still claiming that this realtime 3D game audio “is beyond most desktop computers” when all the evidence is against you. If desktop computers can’t keep up, you had better call DigiDesign, MOTU and Apple and tell them to stop selling ProTools, Digital Performer, and Final Cut Pro ‘cuz those programs can’t do all that intensive multitrack 3D audio mixing while playing back in sync to high-def QuickTime movies. Those folks out in Hollywood better buy Creative soundblasters! Quick! Call them now, they need to know this. Direct them to Creative’s website. They’ll become “Truly Informed.”
With all this reading & writing, I’m curious if you’ve been able to get to the next level of your zombie-shooting game… Keep trying! Chicks’ll dig it.
Shitwit:
P.S. The G4 and G5 will run circles around the Creative chip. Read up on the AltiVec :
http://www.apple.com/acg/pdf/oct3a.pdf
Fast Fourier Transform math is floating-point based. Remember the AltiVerb link you dismissed without comprehending? Your lack of reading/comprehension skills is biting you hard right now….
The G4 or G5 Mac is running at 1GHz (or significantly higher), getting fed with 32 or 64-bit words directly from the main bus (167 MHz or significantly higher). It is NOT getting the processor scraps like the crappy, bottle-necked PCI bus of a lame Wintel). Transister count hardly matters. AltiVec was made for this work and Core Audio makes complete use of it.
P.S.S. Shitwit:
Check out your Athlon’s performance on digital audio again:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
“Shitwit: I was unaware that EAX HD was a set of APIs. Thank you. You just proved all my
points. Way back at the top I said there is nothing that Creative’s cards are doing that
can’t be mimicked in Core Audio. Bingo:”
OpenAL does not even come close to featuring the same amount of programmability and
versatility as EAX without writing vendor specific extensions. That’s why you don’t see
many OpenAL games for PC’s at all, even though it is readily available. Those few games
that do use OpenAL, need specific extensions to be written to take advantage of similar
effects that would otherwise be readily available under EAX. Quite similar to OpenGL vs
Direct3D.
You better know what you’re talking about “shitwit”, as it seems you haven’t.
There is no other consumer card on the market that comes even close to X-fi in terms of
audio processing power. Go ahead and find me one dipshit.
Hey dumbass, it’s not the positioning itself of a digital audio stream within the
available output channel that I am refering as processor intensive. As I’ve said
before, if that’s all it was, than ANY bare minimum integrated audio with 5.1 surround
would handle such a task quite easily.
Are that stupid that you have problem comprehending? Look at your next statement….
“Yes, a 3D reverb uses some processor cycles, but the 3D reverb is applied to the 5.1
mix, not to each individual sample stream. Therefore, it is a very moderate hit on the
CPU.”
EAX/Audigy/X-fi DOES apply reverb and other spatial effects to
EACH……E-A-C-H[/B] audio source, INDEPENDANT[/B] of other streams. That is what
makes Creative’s Audigy2 and new X-fi quite powerful.
How many damn times did I mention that to you before? Let’s see….
“What the hell does that mean? Would you like to explain what you mean? Apple’s G4 and
G5 CPU-based audio can EASILY handle the same amount of processing and have plenty of
muscle left over.”
As for “3D positional audio sources” (where do you get this crap?), learn this now: stereo
and/or monophonic audio is panned (statically or dynamically) within the 5.1 sound field.
The amount of processing power required to “position” audio within the available output
channels is TRIVIAL.
And then you go ahead and completely ignore this passage…
The ability to calculate correct sound based on room acoustics, material composition, and
complex environmental factors, for each individual source, with over 100+ simultaneous
sources, ALL THE WHILE running a 3D game environment, is beyond most desktop computers.
Are you that hard headed? Do you even READ the links I provide for you?
Taken straight from Creative’s website:
Multi-Environments™
* Supports rendering of multiple simultaneous audio environments in real-time, enabling
the creation of exceptionally realistic acoustic environments in games containing multiple
locations/rooms where differences in size, texture and/or shape are present.
Environment Panning™
* Makes spatializing and localizing environments in 3D possible, providing new 3D
gaming effects never heard before.
Environment Reflections™
* Offers localization of early reflections and echoes, bringing more detail and realism
to 3D gaming.
Environment Filtering™
* Accurately simulates the propagation of sound in both open and closed environments.
Environment Morphing™
* Allows for seamless transition of audio from one environment to the next.
Extreme Effects
* New EAX effects rendered by an extended reverberation algorithm that surpasses the
complexity of many studio-based reverb processors.
Extended Hardware Effects
* The Sound Blaster® Audigy®, Audigy® 2 and Audigy® 2 ZS have extended effects,
normally only used in music creation (Flanger, Echo, Distortion and Ring Modulation). EAX
4.0 ADVANCED HD can now tap into these effects for real-time manipulation of audio streams
that provide developers with new ways to deliver unique audio in gaming environments.
Despite the marketing oriented wording, the capability of their sound processors is quite
evident and widely recognized by independant testers. Just because your prissy ass chooses
to dislike Creative for whatever reason, doesn’t mean the rest of the industry agrees.
Quite contrary dumbass, the “evidence” is so favorable that is not considered “evidence”
but common knowledge. Every competent sound card review always include some sort of CPU
utilization benchmark, and the results have always been clearly in favor of Creative’s
card since the Audigy series. If the CPU could handle all audio processing, there wouldnt
be a need for MCP chips….and obviously that’s not the case, is it retard?
Now dumbass, let’s talk evidence.
Right Mark 3DSound CPU Utilization
CPU utilization with 32 voices for the Audigy 4 was around 5%. The X-Fi obtained
essentially the same result. But that’s not the whole story. The Audigy 4 couldn’t run the
127 voice test, while the X-Fi completed the 127 voice test with a CPU utilization of 6%.
Needless to say, no integrated audio solution can come remotely close to that
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1850393,00.asp
Here’s an example where non HD effects were used and Creative cards still show good
improvement over CPU based integrated audio:
Creative X-fi vs Realtek (CPU based audio engine).
http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/lastinfo/gaming2.asp
P.S. The G4 and G5 will run circles around the Creative chip. Read up on the AltiVec
NOT QUITE
Do you even understand the technical PDF you provided? Explain to me exactly what was described in the PDF, and how it translates to “G4 and G5 will run circles around the Creative chip.
Oh, and here are some numbers for you:
More Powerful Than A PC
Called X-Fi, the new audio processor is completely different from everything known, not only in terms of processing power, but above all in terms of architecture. X-Fi uses what is called an Active Modal Architecture (AMA), allowing the user to choose among three application modes: games, leisure and creation. Its calculating power (X-Fi has a power of 10,340 MIPS, which is more powerful than a 3.6 GHz P4 processor, which has 10,224 MIPS) is then optimized for the chosen type of use.
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20050516/
A note about performance. The PowerPC 8540 has a MIPs rating of 2315 @ 1 GHz. The PowerPC 7455 (the current G4 chip) has a MIPs rating of 2310 @ 1 GHz.
http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-04/2002c1-0429-rf-g5server.phtml
Or, 4630 @ 2Ghz. A G5 has a MIPS rating of 5800 @ 2.0Ghz, or 2.9 mips per Mhz.
http://www.simdtech.org/altivec/documents/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf
So YES, creative’s new X-fi is in fact more powerful than a G4 or G5. It is even more powerful a dual configuration G4 @ 2.0Ghz, and it takes dual configuration G5’s starting at 2.0Ghz to surpass X-fi’s Mip rating. However, creative’s X-fi is dedicated hardware….meaning that all of its processing power is for audio, unlike the powerpc 970 chips which are general purpose. The X-fi is still capable of running dedicated algorithms faster than any G5, just as a 400Mhz Geforce 6800 graphics chip can draw an OpenGL image faster than a dual 2.7Ghz G5.
So why aren’t Creative cards dominated in studios? Because you still need a general purpose processor for your $500 software, and the X-fi flexes its muscles mainly at computational intensive 3D environments.
“Check out your Athlon’s performance on digital audio again:“
There you go again. Let’s look into that in more detail. Here’s what an independant site had to say about Apple’s in house benchmarks:
..I guess we’re all tired of the endless PC versus Mac debate, I for myself have decided to not enter such a discussion with anyone again. If you’re comfortable using a Mac I’m not going to try and make you switch. Apple however has added more fuel to the fire today by releasing performance data for a number of dual G5 processor PowerPCs. Naturally Apple wouldn’t be Apple if the Mac didn’t beat the Pentium 4 by nearly 100%, that’s to be expected with benchmark data coming from Apple. What’s surprising though is the fact that they also benchmarked an Athlon-64 and concluded it performed far, far worse than the Pentium 4.
Last time we checked the Pentium 4 had a hard time keeping pace with the Athlon-64, even with the Pentium 4 running at double the clockspeed, so we are left scratching our heads as to what exactly has Apple been doing, could they have mixed up the numbers by mistake? Well, that’s entirely possible, as just about everyone knowledgeable about computers will tell you that clock for clock the Athlon-64 is the better processor. But there’s more, as becomes evident from reading the small print published with the benchmarks. The small print actually details that although available Apple hasn’t used identical applications on all systems for benchmarking.
For example, instead of using Adobe Premiere on both the Apple and x86 platforms they used Final Cut Pro on the Apple platform and Adobe Premiere on the x86. Not surprising the results differ, in Apple’s favor. Apparently Apple conveniently ignores the very basic principle of benchmarking; you should be comparing apples to apples, or at least make an effort to do so. This not only invalidates their scores but it makes Apple look particularly amateurish; clearly they don’t know the first thing about fair benchmarking, or simply went out of their way to have the new PowerPC come out on top. Fortunately they’re upfront and honest about their intentions as their opening statement reads: Your unfair advantages start with the PowerPC G5. And that’s exactly right; PCs usually get benchmarked on a level playing field, PowerPCs seem to need quite a bit of doctoring to make them come out on top, so much for a fair comparison.
Sander Sassen.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1796/
The article was primarily aimed at the Final Cut Pro/Adobe Premiere fiasco, but it holds true for them music and audio benchmarks as well:
From Apple’s own footnotes:
All Power Mac systems were tested using Logic Pro 7.0. The Dell Dimension XPS Gen4, Dell Precision 670, Alienware Aurora 5500 and Boxx Tech Series 7300 were tested using Steinberg Cubase SX 3.01.
Oh, and take a look here….independant tests show a 2.4Ghz Opteron truly kicking the pants out of a G5 in floating point performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=5
You notice the descrepancy dumbass?