pyramid6
Mar 22, 01:16 PM
It's going to come down to the experience, and the experience is in the apps.
Developers aren't going to create applications for the Android, unless people buy them, people are not going to buy Android tablets unless there are applications. The same thing with RIM.
Developers aren't going to create applications for the Android, unless people buy them, people are not going to buy Android tablets unless there are applications. The same thing with RIM.
gerrycurl
Jul 14, 05:59 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
craig jones
Sep 13, 12:58 PM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
brayhite
Apr 25, 02:01 PM
I think this IS a privacy issue. That data could end up in the wrong hands. Does anyone store a text document on their iPhone with a list of their bank details and passwords? No, because it could end up in the wrong hands. So could this data that's being collected.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
And the next time somebody calls you, make sure you get their permission to store their phone number. Don't want to record their data without their consent.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
And the next time somebody calls you, make sure you get their permission to store their phone number. Don't want to record their data without their consent.
guzhogi
Jul 14, 07:16 PM
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
I'm no physicist, but even I know that warmer air rises so if the power supply was at the bottom, all that heat would go up the entire case (not counting whatever fans are in there) and make it harder to cool maybe. But as I said, I'm no physicist & I don't know how all this all works. It would be cool (pun not intended) if it were possible to create a vacuum inside, that woould help solve heating issues since (if I remember my high school physics) temperature is just how much energy matter has. If there's no matter in the case other than the components, then it should be pretty cold in there.
Xian Zhu Xuande
Mar 31, 03:02 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
gauriemma
Aug 25, 08:06 PM
and there was a lot of confusion as to what batteries were affected.
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
BaldiMac
Mar 22, 02:42 PM
Display playbook = 7"
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
The diagonal is not the only way to measure a screen. I provided you with the numbers for the area of the screen to prove my claim.
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
The diagonal is not the only way to measure a screen. I provided you with the numbers for the area of the screen to prove my claim.
portishead
Apr 12, 12:28 AM
Here is my wish list:
RGB 444 10-bit support. Final Cut can't properly render RGB 10-bit material.
Real 3:2 pulldown and not 2:2:2:4 like it currently is.
Quicktime sucks. It needs better audio track support (5.1), subtitles etc. I think we're going to see AV Foundation from now on. There needs to be a real Quicktime Pro, that's better than what it currently is.
Compressor is just bad it needs to be redone.
64-bit, Open CL, blah blah
Project based workflow, instead of capture scratch folders
Better interface.
I like Motion, just wish the timeline was a little better.
RGB 444 10-bit support. Final Cut can't properly render RGB 10-bit material.
Real 3:2 pulldown and not 2:2:2:4 like it currently is.
Quicktime sucks. It needs better audio track support (5.1), subtitles etc. I think we're going to see AV Foundation from now on. There needs to be a real Quicktime Pro, that's better than what it currently is.
Compressor is just bad it needs to be redone.
64-bit, Open CL, blah blah
Project based workflow, instead of capture scratch folders
Better interface.
I like Motion, just wish the timeline was a little better.
akm3
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
About time. FCP is aging poorly. The engine is still Carbon and based around the old QT, which means that a lot of functions only use two cores at the most. I think we'll finally see Apple seriously leveraging GCD, OpenCL, etc here, although don't expect video compression to use OpenCL if the lousy quality of CUDA encodes is any indicator. Maybe Apple will add support for QuickSync on Sandy Bridge.
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Is for example Handbrake better than compressor? i.e. higher quality h.264 files and/or smaller file sizes and/or faster encodes?
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Is for example Handbrake better than compressor? i.e. higher quality h.264 files and/or smaller file sizes and/or faster encodes?
k2k koos
Nov 28, 07:30 PM
This would be like Ford paying Exxon a fee because some car drivers syphon gas....pretty weird!
Not quite, the car you syphon it from will still need to go back and refill... it's not duplicating the fuel....
The music industry needs a wake up call, there is probably no more complicated industry than this, with various copyright issues and loads of 'official bodies' legislating all kinds of stuff, and all because you thought of a song, recorded it with your 100 dollar acoustic guitar and want to sell it to make a living.. Try it, you can't. Once you have to go through all the above, your inspiration and will is flushed straight out....
Not quite, the car you syphon it from will still need to go back and refill... it's not duplicating the fuel....
The music industry needs a wake up call, there is probably no more complicated industry than this, with various copyright issues and loads of 'official bodies' legislating all kinds of stuff, and all because you thought of a song, recorded it with your 100 dollar acoustic guitar and want to sell it to make a living.. Try it, you can't. Once you have to go through all the above, your inspiration and will is flushed straight out....
lieb39
Aug 7, 06:47 PM
The new time machine feature looks really cool - and I'm sure that a option for 'secure delete' will be there - so it's not stored in the Time Machine..
Not much chatter about the preview of Leopard Server - Sneak Preview here (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/) - Just supporting the new Leopard..
This is interesting; how do they figure that they can get the service to a mobile phone?
http://images.apple.com/au/server/macosx/leopard/images/podcastproducertop20060807.png
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/podcastproducer.html
Discuss!
Cheers.
Not much chatter about the preview of Leopard Server - Sneak Preview here (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/) - Just supporting the new Leopard..
This is interesting; how do they figure that they can get the service to a mobile phone?
http://images.apple.com/au/server/macosx/leopard/images/podcastproducertop20060807.png
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/podcastproducer.html
Discuss!
Cheers.
samcraig
Apr 5, 05:48 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
A very ignorant post. Especially if you value quality. I hardly call providing the best quality video "sucking money out of home consumers"
Or are you one of those that want to insist that streaming "hd" video is just as good as blu-ray. Because if you are - you shouldn't have even weighed in here.
No need to school you on the difference here though unless you come back and tell me you still think there's no difference.
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 10:21 AM
This should all go public.
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Won't you think of their children, and reconsider?
:rolleyes:
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Won't you think of their children, and reconsider?
:rolleyes:
Superdrive
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
Make quality music and I'll buy it.
Perhaps my iPod doesn't even play Universal's music. Why should they get a chunk? Greedy bastards. Apple should just go ahead and open up the iTMS to artists and eliminate the middle man.
Perhaps my iPod doesn't even play Universal's music. Why should they get a chunk? Greedy bastards. Apple should just go ahead and open up the iTMS to artists and eliminate the middle man.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:35 PM
Ok, here's ANOTHER can of worms. Since we're on EFI now and can boot in Windows. It means our video cards, etc. don't have Open Firmware BIOS. Does that mean ANY "Windows" video card will work as long as OS X has drivers for it? Does OS X even have generic VGA drivers?
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
handsome pete
Apr 5, 08:31 PM
download/streaming version that will be usable for buying up to 4K movies through iTunes.
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
parapup
Apr 11, 12:03 PM
< >
bigmc6000
Aug 12, 12:11 AM
Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
Well if it's only going to be GSM, not a flip or slide phone you might as well not even release it in the US. Just ask Cingular how amazing the Slvr has done.
Another thing you are assuming is that Apple considers Europe a major player of it's market. It's a chunk that's for sure but how many TV shows does Europe have on their iTunes?
If it's a candy-bar phone I won't buy it. If I have to sacrifice coverage in the US just so I can use it on the very very very rare occasion I head to Europe (along with changing my plan to allow for overseas calls) I won't buy it either. I really think it'd be a bad idea to do all of that. But than again they did make the newton...
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
Well if it's only going to be GSM, not a flip or slide phone you might as well not even release it in the US. Just ask Cingular how amazing the Slvr has done.
Another thing you are assuming is that Apple considers Europe a major player of it's market. It's a chunk that's for sure but how many TV shows does Europe have on their iTunes?
If it's a candy-bar phone I won't buy it. If I have to sacrifice coverage in the US just so I can use it on the very very very rare occasion I head to Europe (along with changing my plan to allow for overseas calls) I won't buy it either. I really think it'd be a bad idea to do all of that. But than again they did make the newton...
BWhaler
Aug 26, 06:49 PM
Only if you have no sense of humour! :p
It's not really that.
It's just that the joke is soooo done. Played out.
It's time to turn the page.
It's not really that.
It's just that the joke is soooo done. Played out.
It's time to turn the page.
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.
portishead
Apr 12, 01:05 PM
Good for you ;)
Used to be like that for me but on the projects I work on everybody's gone crazy over DSLRs so I'm stuck with converting.
I know. I'm lucky that I don't have to deal with that. That's what I mean by different people, different workflows. If I had to work with the DSLR workflow, it would drive me crazy. Dealing with source files, converting, proxies, offline, online.
One thing I have never had to deal with in FCP is having an offline/online workflow. It's saved me a lot of headaches I used to have to deal with in Avid. Not that Avid was bad, but capturing once is always easier than twice.
Used to be like that for me but on the projects I work on everybody's gone crazy over DSLRs so I'm stuck with converting.
I know. I'm lucky that I don't have to deal with that. That's what I mean by different people, different workflows. If I had to work with the DSLR workflow, it would drive me crazy. Dealing with source files, converting, proxies, offline, online.
One thing I have never had to deal with in FCP is having an offline/online workflow. It's saved me a lot of headaches I used to have to deal with in Avid. Not that Avid was bad, but capturing once is always easier than twice.