Quote:
4 dual core PCs is equal to 8 Cores =)
Your logic doesn't really add up for a number of reasons:
1) The power consumption of those 4 PC's versus 1 Mac Pro would make that four-PC setup *far* more expensive to operate (unless mom and/or dad pays the electric bill);
1a) That higher power consumption requires more uninterruptible power supplies to handle the added current (you *do* of course have any mission-critical PC on a UPS, right?);
2) The bus speed of the Mac Pro is higher than a typical dual-core Windows PC.
3) Most software doesn't support any kind of "network rendering" or "distributed processing". For example doing that with Pro Tools (my main processor-intensive use of the Mac Pro) would be impossible.
4) Even for software that does support that kind of parallel processing over a network, the operation entails a significant amount of latency and extra overhead (beyond what you'd have running the whole thing on one eight-core computer). It's far from ideal for any kind of real-time purposes.
5) Depending on the software you're using, you may have to purchase four separate licenses. Assuming you're running "legit", that would certainly be the case for the Windows OS itself. The kind of high-end applications likely to support network-processing as you describe tend to use strict copy-protection measures that would make it impossible to "cheat", adding significantly to the expense of the hypothetical 4-PC solution.
6) Space, noise and production of unwanted heat. Four PC's would make a quite a lot of sound, compared to the virtual silence of a Mac Pro in typical operation. They'll also throw out a lot of heat, and take up a lot of room.
There's more but I don't have all night here and what I've presented here is quite enough to debunk this anyway.
