realitymonkey
Apr 6, 09:52 AM
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
mashinhead
Aug 18, 09:34 AM
if clovertown is pin compatable it will work.
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
Then please let those in here, myself included, make our own mistakes by buying the lastest iteration of the macbook pro. 'kay, thanks.
This isn't a "why are you waiting for rev-X." This is a thread about notebook refreshes and when they're going to happen.
That being said, I'm now waiting for Photokina. :)
Then please let those in here, myself included, make our own mistakes by buying the lastest iteration of the macbook pro. 'kay, thanks.
This isn't a "why are you waiting for rev-X." This is a thread about notebook refreshes and when they're going to happen.
That being said, I'm now waiting for Photokina. :)
2IS
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
For most people the ipad is more useful than the air anyway imo. Yes i owned an air, the ipad 1, and now the ipad 2 and the air was just a watered down macbook pro more than the ipad is a scaled up ipod touch
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:12 PM
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
Chip NoVaMac
Apr 8, 12:43 AM
Can't you also get them from AT&T? Also, the Apple Store in Santa Monica never has a line for new iPhones or iPads for some reason. I guess they work fast?
I meant last year when the iPhone 4 was released....
I meant last year when the iPhone 4 was released....
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 11:38 AM
Yeah it's strange. I called them back. They
don't have anything in their system one way
or another but told me to stop in tomorrow and
they will check the system.
Store is on my way to work so I don't mind.
don't have anything in their system one way
or another but told me to stop in tomorrow and
they will check the system.
Store is on my way to work so I don't mind.
indisguise
Apr 8, 03:09 AM
Many Best Buys with Apple Shoppes have Apple representatives who work right at the store, I doubt they would let this happen at their store. I wonder how many Best Buys have done this
netdog
Aug 5, 04:55 PM
...in the mean time, it's best to be conservative and hope we might be surprised.
Sure, I have no problem with someone else taking that stance.
Sure, I have no problem with someone else taking that stance.
Lucky736
Apr 7, 10:30 PM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:03 AM
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
iCrizzo
Mar 26, 10:55 AM
Bring on full screen!! :apple:
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 10:09 PM
In a world full of computers, I want to be helped by a human with common sense.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
eb6
Sep 19, 09:50 AM
Can't we stop all this Mac on Mac hate and just get along?:)
Tones2
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
You failed to read the blog. Wanna try again?
What, that ONE GUY thinks Apple has a solid case? Yeah, I got that part. :rolleyes:
The point being that almost EVERY smart phone even before the iPhone has a black, rectangular shape with square application icons on the Home Screen and a button or three at the bottom. Some closer than others to the iPhone and to EACH OTHER. Jeez...
What, that ONE GUY thinks Apple has a solid case? Yeah, I got that part. :rolleyes:
The point being that almost EVERY smart phone even before the iPhone has a black, rectangular shape with square application icons on the Home Screen and a button or three at the bottom. Some closer than others to the iPhone and to EACH OTHER. Jeez...
AngryCorgi
Apr 6, 04:16 PM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
cult hero
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
I am disappointed about this too. But I am not surprised. Apple's next filesystem was going to be ZFS. But Sun being purchased by Oracle has probably killed any chance of that happening.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
The newer Linux FS'es are just not stable enough at the point (or don't do things Apple has somehow managed to bake into HFS+, like the snapshots, and things like directory Hard Links, etc). I don't see Apple moving to any version of ReiserFS or ext#, so I think we are stuck with HFS+ and extensions/improvements of it, until the ZFS situation gets clearer.
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
Erasmus
Jul 23, 05:09 AM
(Lots of Stuff...)
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:02 AM
normally.....do they update new product at 9?
Erasmus
Jul 23, 05:09 AM
(Lots of Stuff...)
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
gorgeousninja
Mar 23, 09:32 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu