epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
orthorim
Apr 7, 10:21 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
A 15" MBA (no optical) with dedicated graphics is my ideal Mac. It'll happen someday...
Same here except I don't need the dedicated gfx. For what? Games? Whenever I attempt to play a gfx intensive game on my mbp it gets super hot and the fans start to sound like a jet engine. That's not an appealing proposition. I'd rather play on the iPad , or games that don't require more than the built in gfx.
I am sitting out this generation of mbp. Get rid of the optical or I won't buy it. At least provide an option to officially replace it with a HD tray. I know it's not hard to hack, I have done it, but I don't see why I'd have to hack a brand new machine (and possibly void the warranty)
A 15" MBA (no optical) with dedicated graphics is my ideal Mac. It'll happen someday...
Same here except I don't need the dedicated gfx. For what? Games? Whenever I attempt to play a gfx intensive game on my mbp it gets super hot and the fans start to sound like a jet engine. That's not an appealing proposition. I'd rather play on the iPad , or games that don't require more than the built in gfx.
I am sitting out this generation of mbp. Get rid of the optical or I won't buy it. At least provide an option to officially replace it with a HD tray. I know it's not hard to hack, I have done it, but I don't see why I'd have to hack a brand new machine (and possibly void the warranty)
fabian9
Apr 11, 01:08 PM
"the 3GS also adds support for 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA allowing faster downlink speeds"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
gnasher729
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
I dont see much change really, the 1.66GHz merom chip will find its way into the mini (they'll scrap the solo model).
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 01:24 PM
Hahahha coverage maps don't mean jack.Everyone in the wireless business knows they are gross approximations of the reality.
Maroon Reddish Emo Cute Face Girl Hairstyle. Saturday, January 16th, 2010. Cute Sassy Short Hair Styles for Summer 2010
.jpg "very cute prom hairstyles")
very cute prom hairstyles
short hairstylesquot;, quot;prom
Homecoming Hairstyles.
Short celebrity hair styles
cute updo hairstyles for prom.
Long bang hairstyles
cute hairstyles for prom for
Short hair styles for short to
Cute Hairstyles For Short Hair
cute short bob hair -dark
short hairstyles for heavy
Prom Short Hair
Get a cute new short hairstyle
braddouglass
Apr 6, 12:56 PM
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
So I suppose that standby temp would be low. and that operation temp would be about the same as any other lap top. Sounds good to me haha.
All I want is a faster processor and a backlit keyboard and I'll be happy with it.
Already with Flash HD and 4GB ram it should be wicked fast, but I'd like an i5 at least...
So I suppose that standby temp would be low. and that operation temp would be about the same as any other lap top. Sounds good to me haha.
All I want is a faster processor and a backlit keyboard and I'll be happy with it.
Already with Flash HD and 4GB ram it should be wicked fast, but I'd like an i5 at least...
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:17 PM
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
~Shard~
Aug 11, 10:25 AM
I really hope Apple comes out with a phone that's an awesome phone, music player, and smart phone... Is that asking too much?
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 12:00 PM
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
brownpaw
Jun 14, 11:56 AM
BTW...
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
Basically, yes.
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
Basically, yes.
Luph67
Apr 6, 12:21 PM
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
I guess I just assumed that anyone who has used a computer for more than two weeks would be capable of typing without staring at the keyboard.
I guess I just assumed that anyone who has used a computer for more than two weeks would be capable of typing without staring at the keyboard.
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 04:31 PM
If There's No BTO Option For A Single-processor 2.66 Configuration, That Will Be Frustrating™.
milo
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
Zwhaler
Sep 18, 11:17 PM
Can this mean the wait is almost over? Gosh that would be nice.
ugahairydawgs
Apr 8, 07:55 AM
Sources? Evidence? Easy to make cheap accusations, much harder to prove them.
When Apple's supply shortages at iPhone and iPad launches are as terrible as they have been, Apple is either 1.) inept at judging the demand for their product, #2.) inept at acquiring the components necessary to produce the quantity of product they need to meet demand or 3.) holding back supply to drum up demand.
I have a pretty hard time believing that #1 or #2 are true for company the size of Apple.
When Apple's supply shortages at iPhone and iPad launches are as terrible as they have been, Apple is either 1.) inept at judging the demand for their product, #2.) inept at acquiring the components necessary to produce the quantity of product they need to meet demand or 3.) holding back supply to drum up demand.
I have a pretty hard time believing that #1 or #2 are true for company the size of Apple.
maelstromr
Apr 19, 04:58 PM
Obsession can be positive or negative. Loving or hating a company is irrational.
You're missing the point. It's more fun to come to an Apple rumors site and irrationally bait the residents into irrationally baiting you into irrationally...well, you get the point. :rolleyes:
You're missing the point. It's more fun to come to an Apple rumors site and irrationally bait the residents into irrationally baiting you into irrationally...well, you get the point. :rolleyes:
bokdol
Aug 18, 09:48 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/woodcrest_servers_are_covertown_servers/
i guess it will be
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/woodcrest_servers_are_covertown_servers/
i guess it will be
Sol
Mar 23, 12:44 AM
Is MacRumors branching out to coverage of all tablets and media players now? I can't speak for everyone who visits the site but I come here to read about Apple products, not the competition's knock-offs.
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 02:35 PM
Are you calling me a liar? I literally went to WhiteHouse.gov, opened the file in Illustrator, and moved the text around myself. :rolleyes:
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
Anyway, like I said, I'm sure there's an explanation... are there any graphic designers here who can help?
I already explained it to you.
When you scan things in, depending on the software, you are often given an option to "auto-inscribe" or something, I cant recall the term. The software then attempts to read the document and embed real type into the PDF, rarely succeeding. I'm assuming that the pieces that came through just happened to be the clearest to read.
EDIT: They probably DO want the controversy to continue! If I was in his shoes I would be eating it up. Every story on a right-wing birther makes the centerists even more alienated from the right.
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
Anyway, like I said, I'm sure there's an explanation... are there any graphic designers here who can help?
I already explained it to you.
When you scan things in, depending on the software, you are often given an option to "auto-inscribe" or something, I cant recall the term. The software then attempts to read the document and embed real type into the PDF, rarely succeeding. I'm assuming that the pieces that came through just happened to be the clearest to read.
EDIT: They probably DO want the controversy to continue! If I was in his shoes I would be eating it up. Every story on a right-wing birther makes the centerists even more alienated from the right.
jclardy
Mar 26, 11:14 AM
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
MrSEC
Mar 31, 07:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
You're an angry little boy. Why all the anger over a Fu***** computer?
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
You're an angry little boy. Why all the anger over a Fu***** computer?
batitombo
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I'm so over this ****
lorductape
Nov 28, 06:39 PM
I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment