j_maddison
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
Apple is beyond critique! Omg! :rolleyes:
I think there are times where you make some very good points, it's just you are very agressive about it.
You dont need the agression, many of your points stand on their own merit. Others I don't agree with, but thats life.
Jason
I think there are times where you make some very good points, it's just you are very agressive about it.
You dont need the agression, many of your points stand on their own merit. Others I don't agree with, but thats life.
Jason
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
macDrewd
Mar 26, 07:01 AM
Please release OS X Lion on a cool Apple flash drive :cool:
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
Dammit Cubs
Apr 7, 01:09 AM
Wow. I have a mac book air 11 inch (WHICH I ABSOLUTELY LOVE) and this is so tempting. I recently bought a macbook air AND mac mini.
Sometimes I'd wish I waited for these sandy bridges. I love Core IANYTHING.
Sometimes I'd wish I waited for these sandy bridges. I love Core IANYTHING.
Trekkie
Sep 13, 01:08 PM
does anyone know how much the clovertown chips are going to be?
if it follows typical intel transitions price point replace. So the same price as woodcrests. They might introduce faster ones though that cost more. We'll see before the end of the year.
Would it be smart to wait for these 8 core mac pros or are they still a long ways away?
Quad core is supposed to be out before EOY 2006.
Will Apple release it before then is the question...
if it follows typical intel transitions price point replace. So the same price as woodcrests. They might introduce faster ones though that cost more. We'll see before the end of the year.
Would it be smart to wait for these 8 core mac pros or are they still a long ways away?
Quad core is supposed to be out before EOY 2006.
Will Apple release it before then is the question...
shamino
Jul 21, 10:07 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
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.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
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.
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.
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
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.
Dan==
Jul 27, 04:06 PM
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
antster94
Mar 22, 12:44 PM
Competition is good.
Riemann Zeta
Apr 27, 09:42 AM
Whether or not the behavior of this cache was in fact "a bug", I think the update that flushes the cache files when Location Services is disabled will settle the issue.
Malligator
Mar 31, 04:27 PM
what is this bash apple competitors day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
FF_productions
Aug 5, 03:26 PM
Finally MR has put together a final rumor roundup...
john123
Sep 19, 09:57 AM
The pre-release tests I saw reckoned Merom was about 25% faster with 7% longer battery life. Though they are pretty meaningless figures and we won't know until Merom is actually in a Macbook and a comparable test can be made.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:27 PM
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
The amount of people who never bought a Microsoft product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Microsoft is really quite amusing. ;)
Unfortunately, it goes both ways.
The amount of people who never bought a Microsoft product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Microsoft is really quite amusing. ;)
Unfortunately, it goes both ways.
charlituna
Apr 11, 03:56 PM
Hopefully the additional wait time will result in a more revolutionary than evolutionary device.
The revolution was the iPhone. Now you should always be expecting merely evolution as that is more Apple's style.
As for the supply claims, who says they are correct. For all we know all the parts are currently being used in other devices so while a supplier might think Apple is ordering this or that for say the iPad 2, it is actually going into the iPhone 5
I think this is misdirection on Apple's part to increase iPhone 4 sales.
Unlikely. Everyone 'knows' there will be an update and they will wait for it. Even if it meand 4 more months.
The iPhone 4 has a lot of flaws that people are waiting to see improved. Look at this thread...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1021233
the rants of the folks on this board hardly represent the feelings of the general public, who may be orgasmic with the iPhone just the way it is now.
WWDC is the biggest event and the only adequate platform
No it isn't. They should return WWDC to its focus and do a town hall or whatever for the iPhone.
Yeah.... but it sure is fun to go to the Mall and see all the stores with just a few shoppers each until you hit the Apple store which is almost always packed with people. :)
I like to see the staff in the other stores trying to look cheery when you can tell they want to cry, swear. Or set fire to Apple's holiday window display
The revolution was the iPhone. Now you should always be expecting merely evolution as that is more Apple's style.
As for the supply claims, who says they are correct. For all we know all the parts are currently being used in other devices so while a supplier might think Apple is ordering this or that for say the iPad 2, it is actually going into the iPhone 5
I think this is misdirection on Apple's part to increase iPhone 4 sales.
Unlikely. Everyone 'knows' there will be an update and they will wait for it. Even if it meand 4 more months.
The iPhone 4 has a lot of flaws that people are waiting to see improved. Look at this thread...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1021233
the rants of the folks on this board hardly represent the feelings of the general public, who may be orgasmic with the iPhone just the way it is now.
WWDC is the biggest event and the only adequate platform
No it isn't. They should return WWDC to its focus and do a town hall or whatever for the iPhone.
Yeah.... but it sure is fun to go to the Mall and see all the stores with just a few shoppers each until you hit the Apple store which is almost always packed with people. :)
I like to see the staff in the other stores trying to look cheery when you can tell they want to cry, swear. Or set fire to Apple's holiday window display
Danksi
Aug 15, 01:20 PM
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
ckent
Aug 7, 06:11 PM
Haha! Did you see the video for Time Machine on the Apple website?
They're doing a "search for old friends", with the name "Rose" !!
That can't be a coincidence :-)
CK.
They're doing a "search for old friends", with the name "Rose" !!
That can't be a coincidence :-)
CK.
AaronEdwards
Apr 27, 08:25 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
megan fox hair blonde.
megan fox hair blonde. emma
![]()
ShnikeJSB
Jul 14, 04:30 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
gnasher729
Jul 31, 05:39 AM
I've built a gaming PC around the Core 2 Duo E6700. I'd like to be able to install OS X on it, because the only reason why I'd ever use Windows is for the latest games. Here are the spec's, think this would run OS X nicely? ;-)
For $599 you can buy a MacMini with a Core Solo processor. That is currently the cheapest way to get a legal copy of MacOS X for Intel. It is clearly illegal to install that copy of MacOS X on your home-built computer while it is still on the Macintosh, it is unclear whether it is legal or illegal to install it if you removed it from the Macintosh (seems legal in many european countries). If it is legal, then obviously you can also salvage parts for the MacMini, like DVD drive, harddisk, a bit of memory and save a bit of money that way. Unfortunately an unmodified MacOS X will refuse to run on anything that is not a Macintosh.
You may be able to get MacOS X slightly cheaper by buying a refurbished MacMini, or by buying one on eBay. And sometimes people sell broken computers on eBay.
For $599 you can buy a MacMini with a Core Solo processor. That is currently the cheapest way to get a legal copy of MacOS X for Intel. It is clearly illegal to install that copy of MacOS X on your home-built computer while it is still on the Macintosh, it is unclear whether it is legal or illegal to install it if you removed it from the Macintosh (seems legal in many european countries). If it is legal, then obviously you can also salvage parts for the MacMini, like DVD drive, harddisk, a bit of memory and save a bit of money that way. Unfortunately an unmodified MacOS X will refuse to run on anything that is not a Macintosh.
You may be able to get MacOS X slightly cheaper by buying a refurbished MacMini, or by buying one on eBay. And sometimes people sell broken computers on eBay.
lorductape
Nov 28, 06:39 PM
I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
Silentwave
Aug 17, 11:05 AM
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.
Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.
4God
Jul 14, 03:56 PM
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
tortoise
Aug 22, 05:19 PM
The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on.
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.
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.
DTphonehome
Nov 28, 06:49 PM
Hahahahahahahahahaha(breathe)hahahahahahahahaha!
As if Apple would ever agree to this! Back when the iTMS was in its infancy, I could see Universal making a demand like this. But now, what leverage do they have? "If you don't pay, we're going to pull all Universal songs off the iTMS!" Um, ok, great, lose one of the only profitable revenue streams the music industry has these days? Right.
As if Apple would ever agree to this! Back when the iTMS was in its infancy, I could see Universal making a demand like this. But now, what leverage do they have? "If you don't pay, we're going to pull all Universal songs off the iTMS!" Um, ok, great, lose one of the only profitable revenue streams the music industry has these days? Right.
