2000 iMac compared to the 2010 iPhone

Post by petercooper » Mon, Jun 21, 2010, 5:27 PM UTC

kinetik wrote: post #12

petercooper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one piece I pulled out of my ass to conclude with a bit of hyperbole :-) I doubt a 2010 PC could render Toy Story 3 in a year if things are similar now to how they were with Toy Story 1 in 1995. I'd also be curious to see how modern PCs would cope with Toy Story 1 though.. [Update: If it helps rescue me, I found a page about the difference between rendering TS1 and TS3 in their respective times: http://wat…

The Wired article claims that the average render time is seven hours per frame: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1 Assuming a single machine (which is obviously not true, but I can't find any details about the size of the render farm), that'd mean the entire film would take something like two hundred and thirty seven years to render. Also, note that the WSJ article you linked to is talking abou…

Post by borism » Mon, Jun 21, 2010, 6:42 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #22

borism wrote: post #20

Crazy to think my $200 phone is now more powerful than my $1200 desktop Mac was only ten years ago. same old fallacy again. iPhone total cost is much more than $1200.

Your statement is more fallacious: the iPod Touch has the same hardware, but a TCO exactly equivalent to its retail price. Similarly, you could buy an unlocked iPhone and then just turn off the 3G radio. It would still be strictly more powerful .