ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:32 AM
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
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.
dhunt
Jul 29, 04:41 PM
I know for a fact that the design college I go to just placed an order for MANY MANY MBP 17". Apple knows that students and schools need computers before school starts, and getting rid of some "old" products before you release your new ones, is a pretty good idea if you ask me.
gorgeousninja
Apr 19, 04:27 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
Maybe your hanging out with too many kids/Android users. Why, otherwise would you need an iPhone and and iPod Touch?
Maybe your hanging out with too many kids/Android users. Why, otherwise would you need an iPhone and and iPod Touch?
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:54 AM
All that BeOS had was separate threads per window at the UI level. This does nothing for parallelizing compute tasks. These extra thread that BeOS had spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
savar
Sep 13, 07:17 AM
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
akatsuki
Apr 6, 10:36 AM
Thunderbolt and new CPUs would make me buy on day one.
UmaThurman
Sep 18, 11:09 PM
Y'all just wait a bit longer. it'll come soon.
Super Dave
Aug 6, 12:04 AM
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?
I would LOVE if that happened, but there's no evidence of it other than that I daydream about it.
David :cool:
I would LOVE if that happened, but there's no evidence of it other than that I daydream about it.
David :cool:
Magrathea
Apr 5, 11:44 PM
I've been using Premier Pro CS5 on a 2008 MBP for about a week now. I'm a former FCP user. The mercury engine thing does work but only for all but the simplest of editing on my machine - I use AVCH footage Panny HMC40 and DLSR (h.264) Canon 7D and yes you can drag it onto the timeline directly without Transcode BUT add an effect or simple color correction or title and the footage is not playable at all (on my poor machine) without doing a render. Never had to do this with FCP BUT of course I had to wait for the Transcoded to ProREs 422.
So in summary:
Halle+erry+catwoman
Halle+erry+catwoman+hot
Former Catwoman Halle Berry
Halle Berry Catwoman Hairstyle
halle berry cat woman
2004 middot; Catwoman middot; Halle Berry
Halle Berry as Patience Price
Halle Berry was nominated for
Adult Catwoman Costume
So in summary:
Rodimus Prime
Feb 27, 09:39 PM
assume what the guy says is true it looks like he has some pretty strong grounds for a wrongful termination law suit.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:54 AM
All that BeOS had was separate threads per window at the UI level. This does nothing for parallelizing compute tasks. These extra thread that BeOS had spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
Nuck81
Dec 9, 11:24 AM
My biggest complaint about the game is that it's atmosphere and presentation are just absolutely sterile.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
Heilage
Mar 1, 06:23 AM
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Fair point. Then again, if one makes the assumption that Heaven is full of people with ideas like yours, I'd rather stay here or in Hell. Which is basically the same thing anyway. :p
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Fair point. Then again, if one makes the assumption that Heaven is full of people with ideas like yours, I'd rather stay here or in Hell. Which is basically the same thing anyway. :p
ChickenSwartz
Aug 5, 08:40 PM
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
Mr_Ed
Jul 20, 08:39 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
I got it!
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
I got it!
The Macintosh Quadra!
No, wait . . . .
;)
jvmxtra
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
wait, theres other brands of tablets out there?
love it!!
love it!!
Gatesbasher
Mar 31, 03:34 PM
Oh, Lordy! The Fandroids were always delusional, but reading some of these comments�this seems to have pushed them over the line into some sort of clinical psychosis.
badpup
Apr 10, 06:17 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
Lets not forget that Avid ISIS and unity storage products have been FCP compliant for some time now. + the amount of times I go FCP > pro-tools, which is also an Avid piece of kit :p
I'm a long standing FCP user - I cut my own work on it, but the post place I work in uses Avid. Lately I've really been thinking FCP (FCS in general) needs to catch up in a few areas... it'll be interesting to see what they update.
What sounds bad to me about apple hogging the whole stage is the wording in the original article... "demanded all lectern time". Whatever way you dress it "demanding" stuff seems mean, but as others have mentioned I bet it was all properly discussed. The sad thing is I wouldn't put it past Apple to demand something like this.
Lets not forget that Avid ISIS and unity storage products have been FCP compliant for some time now. + the amount of times I go FCP > pro-tools, which is also an Avid piece of kit :p
I'm a long standing FCP user - I cut my own work on it, but the post place I work in uses Avid. Lately I've really been thinking FCP (FCS in general) needs to catch up in a few areas... it'll be interesting to see what they update.
What sounds bad to me about apple hogging the whole stage is the wording in the original article... "demanded all lectern time". Whatever way you dress it "demanding" stuff seems mean, but as others have mentioned I bet it was all properly discussed. The sad thing is I wouldn't put it past Apple to demand something like this.
spicyapple
Nov 28, 07:08 PM
All the more reasons to boycott the buying of Zunes. Consumers need to vote with your wallets and send a message to companies like Universal who treat customers as pirates. Ugh.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 02:09 PM
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
Anonymous Freak
Jul 15, 02:16 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
Early Blu-Ray burners can't read or write CDs, and are slow at DVDs. Maybe we'll see a Blu-Ray burner and a high-speed DVD�R(W)/CD-R(W).
Early Blu-Ray burners can't read or write CDs, and are slow at DVDs. Maybe we'll see a Blu-Ray burner and a high-speed DVD�R(W)/CD-R(W).
Sabenth
Nov 28, 07:09 PM
i can only but laugh at this as some one mentioned ealier ipods or zunes or cd players play music its up the indvidual who puts the music on them to use legal or iligal sounds and the player makes no diffrance so lables shouldnt get a cut from sales
Super Dave
Aug 6, 12:04 AM
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?
I would LOVE if that happened, but there's no evidence of it other than that I daydream about it.
David :cool:
I would LOVE if that happened, but there's no evidence of it other than that I daydream about it.
David :cool: