shawnce
Aug 4, 05:07 PM
The only thing 64-bit gives you is more addressable memory. Oh, and some operations (like adding two doubles or longs) would only take one cycle on the integer unit, instead of more. Yeah... that's about it.
..and in the case of x86-64 (Intel and AMD) the 64 bit mode of operation allows the CPU to expose more registers for use at compile time (and few other improvements). This can improve optimizations that the compiler can make which can improve the performance of the application it builds.
Also the ability to do integer math using 64 bit wide registers with 64 bit wide functional unit can be a decent performance win for several types of tasks.
..and in the case of x86-64 (Intel and AMD) the 64 bit mode of operation allows the CPU to expose more registers for use at compile time (and few other improvements). This can improve optimizations that the compiler can make which can improve the performance of the application it builds.
Also the ability to do integer math using 64 bit wide registers with 64 bit wide functional unit can be a decent performance win for several types of tasks.
archipellago
Apr 26, 04:38 PM
I remember the days when fanbois claimed this day will never happen.
Anyway, it will be a tough battle, I'm still not convinced Android is any better than iOS. I think Apple will fall to around 20% for both smartphone and PC market, but will maintain 50% at tablet. This is still a HUGE number for both segments.
Worldwide, Apple are currently around the 4% mark in the 'PeeCee' market.
Anyway, it will be a tough battle, I'm still not convinced Android is any better than iOS. I think Apple will fall to around 20% for both smartphone and PC market, but will maintain 50% at tablet. This is still a HUGE number for both segments.
Worldwide, Apple are currently around the 4% mark in the 'PeeCee' market.
Scottgfx
May 6, 01:14 AM
And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need...
Trying to graft an ARM processor into an Intel based system seems like a lot of added complexity. Apple doesn't like making things more complicated. Think of how simple and small the logic board is in the iPad.
A ton of design decisions... How do the ARM chip and Intel chip share memory? Do we instead give each separate memory pools? Communication between the two chips... at what cost to performance? Who gets control of the display at what times? I very seriously doubt that a hybrid system will transpire unless Apple has developed some "secret sauce" for dealing with this problem.
Do these two architectures even use memory in the same way?
Trying to graft an ARM processor into an Intel based system seems like a lot of added complexity. Apple doesn't like making things more complicated. Think of how simple and small the logic board is in the iPad.
A ton of design decisions... How do the ARM chip and Intel chip share memory? Do we instead give each separate memory pools? Communication between the two chips... at what cost to performance? Who gets control of the display at what times? I very seriously doubt that a hybrid system will transpire unless Apple has developed some "secret sauce" for dealing with this problem.
Do these two architectures even use memory in the same way?
Coolerking
Sep 11, 01:05 PM
...or back to school rush
We'll find out tomorrow
BTW...what is the high end Merom processor? Is there a lower end processor? If there is the higher, faster one would go into the MBP while the lower end C2D is in the MB so you still have a discrepancy that warrants a higher price point.
:cool:
We'll find out tomorrow
BTW...what is the high end Merom processor? Is there a lower end processor? If there is the higher, faster one would go into the MBP while the lower end C2D is in the MB so you still have a discrepancy that warrants a higher price point.
:cool:
heisetax
Aug 4, 08:30 AM
are people not expecting merom to go immediately into the macbook as well? i don't see a reason for apple to purposely gimp their best-selling notebook when a merom chip is supposed to cost the same as its yonah counterpart.
That same was when the Yonah was introduced, not now. That means that there would be a cost difference for APPLE.
Bill the TaxMan'
That same was when the Yonah was introduced, not now. That means that there would be a cost difference for APPLE.
Bill the TaxMan'
iGary
Aug 7, 05:59 PM
I find it funny that the online apple store has the Quadcore G5 still listed at $3299. $800 dollars more than the default MacPro which has 1GB ram as opposed to the meger 512MB in the G5, Quad 2.66 vs Quad 2.5, a GeForce 7300 vs the Geforce 6600, not to mention the many other bad ass features like 4 HD bays etc
And it still doesn't run Adobe/Macromedia products. ;)
And it still doesn't run Adobe/Macromedia products. ;)
onigami
May 6, 02:10 AM
Kind of like Apple. And you would welcome a switch to AMD? That would be three steps backwards.
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad. If the point is to utilize a low cost processor, a switch to the Fusion APU platform would be pretty smart: Reduces costs significantly be removing the need for a discrete GPU, all the while maintaining quality performance in graphics. That's kind of AMD's aim at the moment with Fusion.
What's stopping Apple from putting 6, 8 of these little bastards on the motherboard? This way they can make up for any speed advantage Intel has right now.
...Which would mean eliminating any power or cost advantage that ARM had over x86.
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad. If the point is to utilize a low cost processor, a switch to the Fusion APU platform would be pretty smart: Reduces costs significantly be removing the need for a discrete GPU, all the while maintaining quality performance in graphics. That's kind of AMD's aim at the moment with Fusion.
What's stopping Apple from putting 6, 8 of these little bastards on the motherboard? This way they can make up for any speed advantage Intel has right now.
...Which would mean eliminating any power or cost advantage that ARM had over x86.
Don't panic
Apr 11, 07:45 AM
Yes, because the uninitiated that claim this is ambiguous keep popping up. Oh wait...
If you read it as anything other than a division, you need to go back to school.
Only for those with a lack of understanding of basic math. Again, the problem is not the equation per say, it's the people that don't understand mathematics.
Free Happy Easter Coloring
free happy easter images.
Happy Easter Clipart #94111 by
free happy easter images.
If you read it as anything other than a division, you need to go back to school.
Only for those with a lack of understanding of basic math. Again, the problem is not the equation per say, it's the people that don't understand mathematics.
CalBoy
May 3, 09:14 PM
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that � it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
This reminds me of the Dvorack keyboard layout vs the familiar QWERTY.
The Dvorack is objectively superior because it allows for higher wpm speeds than QWERTY. At the time of keyboard construction, however, Dvorack was prone to a lot more jamming by typists who were too fast for the physical limitations of the machine. Obviously that isn't a problem in the digital era, so logically we should switch to Dvorack if were had the option of starting from the beginning.
But, we're not starting from the beginning, are we? At this point switching to a new keyboard layout would be a huge undertaking for perhaps minimal gain.
The same applies to the metric system. At best it can offer minimal gains for the average person (something which, as I have pointed out above, may not be true in all cases) while costing a great deal. Even in the best of times, I think it would foolish to squander billions over such a petty thing when companies are free to shift production to be maximally efficient for themselves. If a company will make more money (or save it) using metric, then it will. There's no need to mandate it across every facet of life.
I mean, it's not as if we prevent companies from selling goods in metric quantities; if that was the case, then you'd have a good point.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that � it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
This reminds me of the Dvorack keyboard layout vs the familiar QWERTY.
The Dvorack is objectively superior because it allows for higher wpm speeds than QWERTY. At the time of keyboard construction, however, Dvorack was prone to a lot more jamming by typists who were too fast for the physical limitations of the machine. Obviously that isn't a problem in the digital era, so logically we should switch to Dvorack if were had the option of starting from the beginning.
But, we're not starting from the beginning, are we? At this point switching to a new keyboard layout would be a huge undertaking for perhaps minimal gain.
The same applies to the metric system. At best it can offer minimal gains for the average person (something which, as I have pointed out above, may not be true in all cases) while costing a great deal. Even in the best of times, I think it would foolish to squander billions over such a petty thing when companies are free to shift production to be maximally efficient for themselves. If a company will make more money (or save it) using metric, then it will. There's no need to mandate it across every facet of life.
I mean, it's not as if we prevent companies from selling goods in metric quantities; if that was the case, then you'd have a good point.
shurcooL
Apr 24, 12:01 AM
If the coming soon refreshed 13" MBA gets a 13" 2880x1800 HiDPI/Retina display, Sandy Bridge and Lion preinstalled... It will be so win. And PC guys will be stuck with their legacy 1280x800 haha.
BC2009
Mar 28, 11:13 AM
The iPhone 4 is already dated relative to other phones on the market. To have a phone on the market for 18 months without an update is insane.
You're missing something here.... The iPhone actually gets updates over its lifespan rather than promises of updates followed up by the requirement to buy a new phone in order to install the latest version of an open Android operating system on a closed manufacturer's phone. All-to-frequent updates make buyers feel like they have been tricked, especially when they cannot upgrade their phone to do the same things the new phones are doing because the manufacturer prevents it.
Not to mention that most folks have 2 year contracts and don't like to pay the penalty to upgrade early. The notion that 15 months between upgrades (not 18 months -- if you are counting June 2010 to September 2011) is not bad at all -- especially to the masses who are not early adopters. The iPhone 4 is still holding its own against the competition and its better than it was when it released because of software upgrades. It still does many things better than phones that have released since (like take better photos). Heck, I am still using my iPhone 3GS and I still love it because it gets new features every few months and has even improved on performance.
Do I think a dual-core 1Gz iPhone with 1GB of RAM would stack up better statistically against the competition? Yes. Do I think that phone will do more things and be faster? Yes. Do I think 3 months will matter all that much in the long run? No. If it means some vast improvements are coming (including LTE) -- then I am willing to wait 3 months.
You're missing something here.... The iPhone actually gets updates over its lifespan rather than promises of updates followed up by the requirement to buy a new phone in order to install the latest version of an open Android operating system on a closed manufacturer's phone. All-to-frequent updates make buyers feel like they have been tricked, especially when they cannot upgrade their phone to do the same things the new phones are doing because the manufacturer prevents it.
Not to mention that most folks have 2 year contracts and don't like to pay the penalty to upgrade early. The notion that 15 months between upgrades (not 18 months -- if you are counting June 2010 to September 2011) is not bad at all -- especially to the masses who are not early adopters. The iPhone 4 is still holding its own against the competition and its better than it was when it released because of software upgrades. It still does many things better than phones that have released since (like take better photos). Heck, I am still using my iPhone 3GS and I still love it because it gets new features every few months and has even improved on performance.
Do I think a dual-core 1Gz iPhone with 1GB of RAM would stack up better statistically against the competition? Yes. Do I think that phone will do more things and be faster? Yes. Do I think 3 months will matter all that much in the long run? No. If it means some vast improvements are coming (including LTE) -- then I am willing to wait 3 months.
deconstruct60
Apr 21, 10:01 PM
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers.
quot;Happy Easterquot; banner
Free Happy Easter Coloring
quot;Happy Easterquot; banner
Happy Easter Greeting Over A
Happy Easter Greeting From
Royalty Free Happy Easter
Free Happy Easter Clip Art
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 09:36 PM
well, i know there was some marginal increase in processing speed but i'm talking about actually running 64bit programs. i thought you need alot more horsepower to run 64bit programs than whats currently offered... maybe i was just tired and totally misread an article a couple of weeks ago.
Actually, no. Remember, 64-bit is only new to the consumer stuff. I've been running 64-bit UNIX applications for over 8 years. 64-bit UNIX has been around even longer than that. It's not a matter of "horsepower" (by today's standards, a 167MHz UltraSPARC I is kinda slow...), but of the usefulness of a 64-bit address space, not only for real memory, but for virtual. As well as higher precision, etc. (Assuming the CPU is true 64-bit and not limited by a smaller external address bus.)
Hmmm... There's actually a good entry on it in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
That might help you some more.
Actually, no. Remember, 64-bit is only new to the consumer stuff. I've been running 64-bit UNIX applications for over 8 years. 64-bit UNIX has been around even longer than that. It's not a matter of "horsepower" (by today's standards, a 167MHz UltraSPARC I is kinda slow...), but of the usefulness of a 64-bit address space, not only for real memory, but for virtual. As well as higher precision, etc. (Assuming the CPU is true 64-bit and not limited by a smaller external address bus.)
Hmmm... There's actually a good entry on it in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
That might help you some more.
azilnik
Aug 2, 09:56 PM
Hm. Hey guys... I'm a longtime reader of MR. I always read your comments and never recall posting (Creepy, eh?)
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
canyonblue737
Apr 20, 08:03 AM
will only upgrade if the coolest features of iOS 5 can't be run on 3GS...otherwise, i'll wait another year for iPhone 6.
You'll be buying the iPhone 5 then.
You'll be buying the iPhone 5 then.
MorphingDragon
May 6, 04:27 AM
I wonder if removing the optical drive would provide the room needed for proper ventilation of a dual-CPU laptop... Dual-CPU MBP anyone?
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
blow45
Mar 29, 03:19 PM
The plant with mass rates of suicide is in China.
by mass rates you mean lower than the national average? :rolleyes:
by mass rates you mean lower than the national average? :rolleyes:
treblah
Aug 3, 01:18 AM
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/02/first_core-2_duo_benchmarks/
Here you go buddy.
More noteworthy than the performance result is the way the T7600 achieved the performance gain. Despite the fact that the processor is rated at a higher thermal design power than its predecessor (34 watts and 31 watts, respectively), Merom consumed slightly less power during the benchmark run. The exact system ran nine minutes or 7% longer with the Merom chip than with the Core Duo. This result is especially impressive if we consider the fact that Merom packs twice the amount of (power consuming) L2 Cache on its die: The Core 2 Duo T 7600 comes with 4 MB, while the Core Duo T2600 uses 2 MB.
GOOD GOD, 7%!!! Oh wait, that sounds pretty consistent to me. :rolleyes:
Here you go buddy.
More noteworthy than the performance result is the way the T7600 achieved the performance gain. Despite the fact that the processor is rated at a higher thermal design power than its predecessor (34 watts and 31 watts, respectively), Merom consumed slightly less power during the benchmark run. The exact system ran nine minutes or 7% longer with the Merom chip than with the Core Duo. This result is especially impressive if we consider the fact that Merom packs twice the amount of (power consuming) L2 Cache on its die: The Core 2 Duo T 7600 comes with 4 MB, while the Core Duo T2600 uses 2 MB.
GOOD GOD, 7%!!! Oh wait, that sounds pretty consistent to me. :rolleyes:
lucabrasi
Mar 30, 07:08 PM
I can confirm that Preview 2 works w/ the 2011 MBPs.
OneMike
Mar 28, 12:08 PM
new iPhone will be hear when it's here. I don't feel the current is lacking so I can wait if needed.
LobsterDK
Apr 24, 02:04 AM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Desktop rendering performance at a retina display resolution would not be an issue with any modern Mac that shipped with a retina display. As for games, you do not have to render the game at the native screen resolution. The OS X implementation will almost certainly be the same as the iOS implementation. That is, a doubling of the vertical and horizontal resolution.
A game running on a 3840x2160 retina display can render at 1920x1080. No filtering need be applied by the monitor as it is an exact multiple in each direction. A 1920x1080 output resolution from a game would look exactly the same on a 3840x2160 display as it would on a 1920x1080 display. Every 1 pixel in the rendered image would take up 4 pixels on the higher res display. You can test this out on your Mac now with any game that allows you to select a resolution that is half the vertical/horizontal resolution of your current monitor. That is assuming the display is not stupid enough to filter resolutions that are an even division of it's native resolution. Most won't apply any filtering in those cases.
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Desktop rendering performance at a retina display resolution would not be an issue with any modern Mac that shipped with a retina display. As for games, you do not have to render the game at the native screen resolution. The OS X implementation will almost certainly be the same as the iOS implementation. That is, a doubling of the vertical and horizontal resolution.
A game running on a 3840x2160 retina display can render at 1920x1080. No filtering need be applied by the monitor as it is an exact multiple in each direction. A 1920x1080 output resolution from a game would look exactly the same on a 3840x2160 display as it would on a 1920x1080 display. Every 1 pixel in the rendered image would take up 4 pixels on the higher res display. You can test this out on your Mac now with any game that allows you to select a resolution that is half the vertical/horizontal resolution of your current monitor. That is assuming the display is not stupid enough to filter resolutions that are an even division of it's native resolution. Most won't apply any filtering in those cases.
killr_b
Aug 7, 03:00 PM
Just ordered my Mac Pro!! :D
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
spiralstairs
Mar 30, 09:14 PM
iCal has been visually overhauled to look like the iPad version
Just clarifying, iCal for iPad looks like paper sitting on top of a cardboard/cork texture. This is a leather book... so maybe we'll see an iPad UI update as well?
Just clarifying, iCal for iPad looks like paper sitting on top of a cardboard/cork texture. This is a leather book... so maybe we'll see an iPad UI update as well?
ravenvii
May 4, 05:13 PM
OP updated with re-written rules by Don't panic (with minor modifications).