bad03xtreme
Apr 19, 01:42 PM
I love to being my night with a good beer.
MrXiro
Mar 26, 10:00 AM
I really want Lion, for the number one reason being TRIM support. I eagerly want to finally start using an SSD (specifically one from Crucial, since they make the fastest ones on the market), but have avoided doing so since the latest version Snow Leopard does not support TRIM.
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
I have the crucial drive on Snow Leopard... you are plain missing out by waiting... honestly... and you DO know you can just do a secure wipe of the drive and it'll restore any bad blocks right (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182)?
I was worried at first too... but damn I don't regret that 400 dollar purchase any longer. Holy crap my MBP is fast as hell.
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
I have the crucial drive on Snow Leopard... you are plain missing out by waiting... honestly... and you DO know you can just do a secure wipe of the drive and it'll restore any bad blocks right (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182)?
I was worried at first too... but damn I don't regret that 400 dollar purchase any longer. Holy crap my MBP is fast as hell.
Tommyg117
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
AttilaTheHun
Jun 13, 05:27 PM
congrats..but why would anyone pay 425$ for a 3GS/32 when most can get the iPhone discount for a 4G for 74$ more?..I have 3GS/32 black and Im going to keep mine for a back-up phone/iPod/maybe sell it later/ and I'm getting the $499 discount since I'm not eligible for an upgrade til 3/11...glta
You got great price, me too sold my 3GS 32G less then one year old in mint condition got only $400
You got great price, me too sold my 3GS 32G less then one year old in mint condition got only $400
thedarkhorse
Apr 11, 04:34 AM
Yes, its crap. The first version followed the basic principles of NLE but the new version is pathetic.
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
Bill McEnaney
Apr 29, 09:40 AM
Yes, the same people who noticed that there was something "fishy" about Obama's short form birth certificate.
For me, the birth certificate issue is a dead issue.
For me, the birth certificate issue is a dead issue.
SPUY767
Jul 27, 03:38 PM
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:25 PM
A cancelled Digital RISC CPU.
Although, some of the ideas for the cancelled CPU ended up in the Alpha chips.
NT was originally designed for the i860, which was codenamed the N-10 (hence NT).
Anything for Digital would have been while Cutler was at Digital, I imagine, rather than after he joined Microsoft.
Although, some of the ideas for the cancelled CPU ended up in the Alpha chips.
NT was originally designed for the i860, which was codenamed the N-10 (hence NT).
Anything for Digital would have been while Cutler was at Digital, I imagine, rather than after he joined Microsoft.
dscuber9000
Mar 31, 05:12 PM
Android is the next windows. So many drivers, so much requirements, so many configurations, so little memory. Fortunately Apple's provided a better sandbox.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
kdarling
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
lsvtecjohn3
Apr 19, 03:50 PM
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple’s app store. On Android, the company doesn’t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Apple Has Paid $2 Billion To App Developers (And Other Key Stats)
[http://www.techspot.com/news/42006-apple-has-paid-over-2-billion-to-app-developers.html
How much has Google paid?
And how many other developers feel that way as Rovio ... a few. If marker share was the end all then why is all the new top apps coming out for iOS first then Android later? Android going to have a large market share iOS will probability have around 20- 25% market share and if people continue to keep paying for apps I don't see anything changing this.
Why I prefer iOS Development over Android, from a Java guy
http://www.jeviathon.com/2011/01/why-i-prefer-ios-development-over.html
Android is a mess, say developers
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/04/android-is-a-mess-say-developers/
IOS Easier For Developers Compared To Android
http://www.mobile88.com/news/read.asp?file=/2011/4/5/20110405035733&phone=iOS-easier-to-develop-Android-Symbian
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple’s app store. On Android, the company doesn’t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Apple Has Paid $2 Billion To App Developers (And Other Key Stats)
[http://www.techspot.com/news/42006-apple-has-paid-over-2-billion-to-app-developers.html
How much has Google paid?
And how many other developers feel that way as Rovio ... a few. If marker share was the end all then why is all the new top apps coming out for iOS first then Android later? Android going to have a large market share iOS will probability have around 20- 25% market share and if people continue to keep paying for apps I don't see anything changing this.
Why I prefer iOS Development over Android, from a Java guy
http://www.jeviathon.com/2011/01/why-i-prefer-ios-development-over.html
Android is a mess, say developers
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/04/android-is-a-mess-say-developers/
IOS Easier For Developers Compared To Android
http://www.mobile88.com/news/read.asp?file=/2011/4/5/20110405035733&phone=iOS-easier-to-develop-Android-Symbian
CaoCao
Mar 4, 04:30 PM
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
you and you partner will beget how exactly, oral and anal sex don't produce a child nor does mutual masturbation, so how exactly will you and your partner produce a child?
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
you and you partner will beget how exactly, oral and anal sex don't produce a child nor does mutual masturbation, so how exactly will you and your partner produce a child?
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
jholzner
Jul 27, 03:54 PM
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
Actually, it'd be like Ford selling a car named Model. Instead, they used to use Model-T etc. What model is it? It's a T model. What Mac is it? it's a mini...and i(Mac) etc.
Actually, it'd be like Ford selling a car named Model. Instead, they used to use Model-T etc. What model is it? It's a T model. What Mac is it? it's a mini...and i(Mac) etc.
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:55 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Actually 320m performs better then Intel 3000, so the dude is right that graphics chip in SB is slower.
Actually 320m performs better then Intel 3000, so the dude is right that graphics chip in SB is slower.
DiamondGCoupe
Apr 11, 11:58 AM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
bedifferent
Apr 11, 11:31 AM
Why wait (and risk them not living up to your expectation)? Just pretend Apple dumbed it down now and start your move now - like that's the only thing "keeping" you on the Mac platform :rolleyes:
Maybe there is, or maybe this is the final straw given Apple's trend in dropping professional grade products. Either way, his decision, no need for the :rolleyes:. Thought we were all adults here. :)
Maybe there is, or maybe this is the final straw given Apple's trend in dropping professional grade products. Either way, his decision, no need for the :rolleyes:. Thought we were all adults here. :)
Stridder44
Apr 8, 01:12 AM
To be fair - Apple themselves were doing the same thing - in the UK at least.
I experienced, on a number of occasions, Apple Stores actually had stock in store available for reservation, but were forcing an entirely unnecessary, half an hour 'unboxing and setup' appointment.
That just defies all reason. I mean it's not like they need to create more demand for these things.
I experienced, on a number of occasions, Apple Stores actually had stock in store available for reservation, but were forcing an entirely unnecessary, half an hour 'unboxing and setup' appointment.
That just defies all reason. I mean it's not like they need to create more demand for these things.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 11:29 AM
Apple provides the option of encrypting your backups. I suggest that anyone concerned about the safety of their personal information use this feature.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
In computer security class they will teach you to secure personal information by default. And if necessary to provide an option to unsecure it. I am sure Apple knows this. For some reason they chose not to follow this advice.
They are now fixing the problem. There is no need to defend them.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
In computer security class they will teach you to secure personal information by default. And if necessary to provide an option to unsecure it. I am sure Apple knows this. For some reason they chose not to follow this advice.
They are now fixing the problem. There is no need to defend them.
deniseeliza
Aug 29, 02:44 PM
I don't believe Apple would (or should) license out Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. This is because Apple is a hardware company that uses Mac OS X to sell hardware. I wouldn't want it to be licensed out anyway, because then we would have to deal with registration key nightmares. Right now, there's nothing but your conscience and a license agreement you probably threw away keeping you from installing one copy of Mac OS X on every Mac you can get your hands on. Not that I do that, but I sure like just popping in my disk and reinstalling whenever it strikes my fancy.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:26 PM
Congrats, you will be able to play with the handful of apps designed for it.
;)
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
;)
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
Ladybug
Aug 7, 06:28 PM
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company, has a similar feature for restoring single files. This isn't quite the same thing, but the whole concept isn't entirely new. GoBack was introduced well before Microsoft came out with System Restore... That said, I think its a great feature to include and I'm sure I'll find many uses for it.
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:43 PM
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment