generik
Jul 15, 08:21 AM
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
There are advantages to having it on top too.
1) Hot air from components in the case rises to the top of the case..
2) Fan in PSU vents it out of system
2. Top heavy.
There are advantages to having it on top too.
1) Hot air from components in the case rises to the top of the case..
2) Fan in PSU vents it out of system
Carlson-online
Jul 20, 11:47 AM
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
HelloKitty
Jul 20, 08:52 PM
Well..I wonder if Apple indeed comes up with the Mac Pro update using even the top-of-the-line Xeon, who's gonna buy one knowing that a quad-core processor is coming up in the near future? I mean, I would hold off buying a Woodcrest machine if there's a quad-core is coming up next year..
I know people will always say that "if you need one, buy one. Don't wait for new machines." But hey, it's a 2 grand machine!
Perhaps we won't be seeing a Woodcrest Mac Pro at this year's WWDC at all. Perhaps we'll be seeing a quad-core Mac Pro proto-type that will be available in Novemeber or something like that:D !
I know people will always say that "if you need one, buy one. Don't wait for new machines." But hey, it's a 2 grand machine!
Perhaps we won't be seeing a Woodcrest Mac Pro at this year's WWDC at all. Perhaps we'll be seeing a quad-core Mac Pro proto-type that will be available in Novemeber or something like that:D !
McKellar
Sep 19, 02:04 AM
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
jeanlain
Apr 12, 03:55 AM
"Insufficient content"
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Is an error message that pops up at random. Very frustrating.
But Compressor don't. At least not if you send something from FC directly. You have to create a QuickTime file first, then open that in Compressor, then it will use all your cores.
BUT only if you have manage to set up Qmaster correctly first. It took me 5 days online to figure this out and make it work properly. I still come to post houses where they haven't figured this out.
It shouldn't have to be this complicated
The insufficient content shouldn't pop up at random, or there is a bug. It pops up when there is insufficient content for a transition. Some transitions like crossfade are centered at the end/starting point of a clip. So it expands past/before this point, hence the need of additional content in the file.
I didn't know about that multicore issue with Compressor when launched directly from the timeline. I suspect an issue with your setup. Compressor does make good use of my 4 cores on mpeg2 and I never set up Qmaster.
Leoff
Sep 19, 08:25 AM
You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 7, 03:26 PM
I dont think the "Top Secret" stuff is really top secret. I think Apple needs some more time to develope a few things before releasing them out into the public. No reason to release buggy apps.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
ATD
Sep 13, 03:20 PM
A lot of 3d programs will use as many cores as are available when rendering.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
dornoforpyros
Sep 13, 07:13 AM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
Shagrat
Jul 21, 12:28 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
5.
:(
5.
:(
wizz0bang
Jul 14, 05:29 PM
Here are my guesses/wishes:
Mac - New Mini tower case (2 HD, 2 CD bays)
Mac $1499
(Conroe) Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz 4MB cache
1GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
250GB HD
2x front USB, 1x front FW400
4x rear USB, 2x rear FW400, 1x rear FW800
Digital + analog audio I/O
Bluetooth and Airport extreme
Dual gb ethernet
Keyboard and mightymouse
Mac eXtreme $1999
Same as above, but with 2.93GHz Core 2 extreme (maybe overclocked to 3GHz+ so Steve can gloat)
Mac Pro: Similar case to previous G5 towers, all will be quad (dual dual).
Mac Pro $1999
2x Woodcrest 2.0Ghz
1GB DDR667
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
2x250GB raid
ATI Radeon
Mac Pro $2499
2x Woodcrest 2.66Ghz
Mac Pro $3299
2x Woodcrest 3.0Ghz
More storage and more Ram
Look for same hot video upgrade options.
Come on Steve, I know you can do it!
Mac - New Mini tower case (2 HD, 2 CD bays)
Mac $1499
(Conroe) Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz 4MB cache
1GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
250GB HD
2x front USB, 1x front FW400
4x rear USB, 2x rear FW400, 1x rear FW800
Digital + analog audio I/O
Bluetooth and Airport extreme
Dual gb ethernet
Keyboard and mightymouse
Mac eXtreme $1999
Same as above, but with 2.93GHz Core 2 extreme (maybe overclocked to 3GHz+ so Steve can gloat)
Mac Pro: Similar case to previous G5 towers, all will be quad (dual dual).
Mac Pro $1999
2x Woodcrest 2.0Ghz
1GB DDR667
ATI Radeon X1800 256MB
2x250GB raid
ATI Radeon
Mac Pro $2499
2x Woodcrest 2.66Ghz
Mac Pro $3299
2x Woodcrest 3.0Ghz
More storage and more Ram
Look for same hot video upgrade options.
Come on Steve, I know you can do it!
ChrisA
Aug 16, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
Stella
Nov 29, 09:31 AM
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
tny
Aug 7, 05:57 PM
I really hope you're joking, Time Machine is not equivalent to something like System Restore.
Actually, from what I saw, Time Machine looks like a combo of System Restore, ShadowCopies (but better), and Backup.
Actually, from what I saw, Time Machine looks like a combo of System Restore, ShadowCopies (but better), and Backup.
leekohler
Apr 27, 12:58 PM
As for the stimulus packages, Ford just reported a profit, and that company refused the stimulus money. If a company is going to fail let it do that. Let it take responsibility for its own blunders. Don't let a codependent government rescue it.
That's not "liberalism". Bush did the same thing for the banks. And when did Obama leave a baby in a room alone to die? Dude, what are you smoking today? ;)
That's not "liberalism". Bush did the same thing for the banks. And when did Obama leave a baby in a room alone to die? Dude, what are you smoking today? ;)
grue
Apr 12, 01:26 AM
Oh, and here's one I just ran into that reminds me:
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 06:50 PM
So what apps will saturate all four cores or at least get close to it, on either a quad G5 or quad xeon? Are there any?
Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?Toast 7.1 UB can use more than two cores. In my test at the Apple stopre last Saturday I saw Toast 7.1 UB use more than 3 - between 2.3 and 3.1 cores all the time on the Mac Pro. It also uses more than two on the Quad G5 - just barely. Handbrake is not yet optimized for Mac Pro and uses a little less than two on both. That use of two is negatively impacted as soon as you start doiong something else especially both Toast and Handbrake at once.
But in future it will use all four. The problem with that "test" you so highly value, is that the testers didn't have a Quad to compare to, so they didn't even search out applications that are already "Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?Toast 7.1 UB can use more than two cores. In my test at the Apple stopre last Saturday I saw Toast 7.1 UB use more than 3 - between 2.3 and 3.1 cores all the time on the Mac Pro. It also uses more than two on the Quad G5 - just barely. Handbrake is not yet optimized for Mac Pro and uses a little less than two on both. That use of two is negatively impacted as soon as you start doiong something else especially both Toast and Handbrake at once.
But in future it will use all four. The problem with that "test" you so highly value, is that the testers didn't have a Quad to compare to, so they didn't even search out applications that are already "Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
NY Guitarist
Apr 12, 10:20 AM
Here's what I am hearing:
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
http://applecritictv.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-final-cut-pro.html
This was a very good blog post.
Frobozz
Jul 30, 08:13 PM
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? ;-)
Intel 975XBX Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (should overclock to around 3.2 to 3.5 GHz with my Zalman CNPS9500 AT air cooler)
ATI Crossfire x1900 (crossfire master card)
Sapphire ATI x1900xt (in crossfire)
1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 Memory
2 x 320GB Seagate Perpendicular Recording SATA2 HD's in RAID 1
Antec Trupower II 550 watt power supply
Antec P180 case in black
... keep in mind I am a diehard Mac fan, but I've always wanted to build a gaming rig since I'm a hardcore gamer. After all, I'm writing this entry on my MacBook Pro. Mmmmm.
Intel 975XBX Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (should overclock to around 3.2 to 3.5 GHz with my Zalman CNPS9500 AT air cooler)
ATI Crossfire x1900 (crossfire master card)
Sapphire ATI x1900xt (in crossfire)
1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 Memory
2 x 320GB Seagate Perpendicular Recording SATA2 HD's in RAID 1
Antec Trupower II 550 watt power supply
Antec P180 case in black
... keep in mind I am a diehard Mac fan, but I've always wanted to build a gaming rig since I'm a hardcore gamer. After all, I'm writing this entry on my MacBook Pro. Mmmmm.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:30 PM
No software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things can you get done at once. :rolleyes:I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
milo
Jul 20, 10:12 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
No way. It would be stupid for a web surfing machine. But for people who need the power, they're going to absolutely notice when it does things TWICE as fast. I say bring it on (and I'm running a quad and see a *huge* difference).
No way. It would be stupid for a web surfing machine. But for people who need the power, they're going to absolutely notice when it does things TWICE as fast. I say bring it on (and I'm running a quad and see a *huge* difference).
daver969
Sep 13, 12:10 PM
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.
macMan228
Mar 26, 08:34 AM
To my knowledge, all these features everyone is complaining about, can be disabled or just worked around, so whats the big deal?
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
No comments:
Post a Comment