amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
rerelease
Apr 11, 03:58 PM
A 4" screen at the current 3:2 ratio would look absolutely hideous with the general iPhone design (which I doubt they change) and not very sensible in the age where tablets are squeezing themselves between laptops and smartphones (a philosophy which Apple is a strong supporter of).
I'd rather have a more sleek, compact smartphone that fits in my pocket and where the screen doesn't suck the battery dry within a few hours and I expect (and/or hope) to see Apple deliver just that.
I'd rather have a more sleek, compact smartphone that fits in my pocket and where the screen doesn't suck the battery dry within a few hours and I expect (and/or hope) to see Apple deliver just that.
leekohler
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
Glen Quagmire
Aug 23, 03:32 PM
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
grum
Sep 19, 10:48 AM
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
Well actually if you were doing processor-intensive music production (which is what I do) the 2.0ghz macbook would be pretty much identical to the 2.0ghz MBP I would imagine.
Well actually if you were doing processor-intensive music production (which is what I do) the 2.0ghz macbook would be pretty much identical to the 2.0ghz MBP I would imagine.
Dagless
Aug 19, 08:21 AM
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
al2o3cr
Mar 22, 01:10 PM
I'm a little confused by introducing *both* 8.9" and 10.1" Tabs - exactly what's the point of splitting the market like that for a $30 price difference? Are they seriously expecting retailers to stock two nigh-identical devices?
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:25 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
Ahheck01
Apr 12, 05:00 PM
BTW, apparently this site is doing live blogging:
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
And for you english-only forum members, here's the translated version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl&ei=rsmkTfiKLsL-rAHd44WGCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divns
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
And for you english-only forum members, here's the translated version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl&ei=rsmkTfiKLsL-rAHd44WGCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divns
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
michaelrjohnson
Aug 7, 04:46 PM
So the cat won't be out of the bag until Spring 2007?
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January ...
January is not Spring. Do not expect a release in January; Expect a full-featured preview, with an announcement of a final shipping-date.
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January ...
January is not Spring. Do not expect a release in January; Expect a full-featured preview, with an announcement of a final shipping-date.
BLUELION
Apr 7, 11:29 PM
The price is set by market conditions to some degree and on the other the producer of the product can set the price despite those conditions.
If you think it is overpriced, then don't buy it. Its that simple. If you owned the Apple, you would price things how you saw fit and influenced by the market conditions. Keep in mind the point of the game is to make money.
Apple products are price-locked. No second hand retailer marks up on them, like Bose. Retailers are told what to sell at and they comply or they lose rights to sell the product. If these are overpriced, it is Apples doing.
If you think it is overpriced, then don't buy it. Its that simple. If you owned the Apple, you would price things how you saw fit and influenced by the market conditions. Keep in mind the point of the game is to make money.
Apple products are price-locked. No second hand retailer marks up on them, like Bose. Retailers are told what to sell at and they comply or they lose rights to sell the product. If these are overpriced, it is Apples doing.
skunk
Mar 22, 06:24 PM
As others have pointed out, killing a peaceful protester (or non-involved innocent civilian for that matter) is never justified....nor is raiding hospitals, demolishing mosques, cutting off water, electricity and gas to a besieged city.
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
mlrproducts
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
I think it is a Great idea!!!
Apple will give Universal $1 from every iPod sold, since the iPod is used to store stolen Universal tracks.
In turn, Universal will give Apple $5 from every overpriced CD sold because they're only buying that CD so they can rip it into iTunes/iPod ecosystem.
Apple will give Universal $1 from every iPod sold, since the iPod is used to store stolen Universal tracks.
In turn, Universal will give Apple $5 from every overpriced CD sold because they're only buying that CD so they can rip it into iTunes/iPod ecosystem.
TangoCharlie
Jul 28, 05:16 AM
Can I swop the Merom with the Yonah in my MB?
No. Not unless you're extremely handy with a soldering iron!
No. Not unless you're extremely handy with a soldering iron!
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 05:29 AM
Why do you even visit this site? You are doing nothing but criticising Apple and their products. Please leave.
Ps. If I was Admin I would ban you :p
You guys crack me UP! Peace and love, they're only machines (ah, but what machines...) :)
Ps. If I was Admin I would ban you :p
You guys crack me UP! Peace and love, they're only machines (ah, but what machines...) :)
dougny
Nov 28, 06:44 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
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.
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.
bigandy
Aug 25, 03:10 PM
the vocal minority are always the ones who have problems :rolleyes:
ergle2
Sep 19, 10:17 PM
Why shouldnt I?
Why should it bother you that new processors come out?
Why should it bother you that new processors come out?
DoFoT9
Aug 28, 07:18 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
OhEsTen
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
I figured Apple didn't change the cases for the powerbooks (MBP) MacBook's and mini's and iMac's for a reason...
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
rickjs
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
EXACTLY! But it doesn't make the Xoom or the iPad 2 any less of a great product. I advice everyone who gets a chance to use it. Actually use the Xoom and see it's not so bad. I really think many of you guys are just hating on it because it's not an apple product so it obviously can't compare. -_-
EXACTLY! But it doesn't make the Xoom or the iPad 2 any less of a great product. I advice everyone who gets a chance to use it. Actually use the Xoom and see it's not so bad. I really think many of you guys are just hating on it because it's not an apple product so it obviously can't compare. -_-
DrGruv1
Jul 15, 01:43 AM
Maybe along the line of the g4 quicksilver (without the handles)
a nice short compact apple tower with more expansion than the mini and with a conroe for....
$1099
Now you'd be talkin' :)
let people switch out their monitors, etc and give them a nice tower - not the stupid mini :) - i say (stupid mini) only because i wish it was a smallish tower with expansion capabilities :)
a nice short compact apple tower with more expansion than the mini and with a conroe for....
$1099
Now you'd be talkin' :)
let people switch out their monitors, etc and give them a nice tower - not the stupid mini :) - i say (stupid mini) only because i wish it was a smallish tower with expansion capabilities :)
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:18 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
The Datacenter editions of Windows Server 2003 can handle up to 64 cores.
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
The Datacenter editions of Windows Server 2003 can handle up to 64 cores.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий