Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 01:11 PM
Fair enough. Now let's move along. ;)
You guys move on without me, please. I regret that I posted to this thread, because I said I wanted to post about technical topics only. It's best for me to post where I can do plenty of good. So I'll go back to the Mac Programming forum where I won't react emotionally.
You guys move on without me, please. I regret that I posted to this thread, because I said I wanted to post about technical topics only. It's best for me to post where I can do plenty of good. So I'll go back to the Mac Programming forum where I won't react emotionally.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
SoGood
Apr 27, 08:34 AM
Iraqis are dying, Afghani are dying, Syrians are dying, American soldiers are dying, British soldiers are dying, Australian soldiers are dying, elderly around the world are losing medical services... And civvies and senators are busy complaining about a location log in an iPhone? There are some screwed up heads in this world!
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:54 AM
All that BeOS had was separate threads per window at the UI level. This does nothing for parallelizing compute tasks. These extra thread that BeOS had spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
Whilst true in that regard, BeOS also had threads for event queues too if you used BLooper, which could also be overused.
I think the threaded-ness just gave everyone the impression it was fast and not waiting on anything to a large extent rather than it actually being fast. Most of the speed just came from it being very lightweight and the apps written for it being written by good programers that knew how the thread.
ggbrown
Mar 31, 04:09 PM
I'm a sysadmin and we use Ubuntu for our office fileserver. However, if you want other enterprise level software (e.g. Backup software) on Open Source systems, you have to choose a different system (Open SUSE in our case).
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
sunfast
Aug 17, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Macaroony
Mar 5, 02:53 AM
I never said heterosexual people should stop having sex and produce children, I don't know where you got that from. Next time, please be more clear about who and what you're quoting and what your exact response is. Thank you.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:21 PM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
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.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
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.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
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.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
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.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
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.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
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.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
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.
janmc
Aug 5, 08:13 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Are you listening Apple? Maybe you should patent that one quick ;)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Are you listening Apple? Maybe you should patent that one quick ;)
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:46 PM
Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Those bands became what they are in different times my friend.
And sorry about the recording studios thing, I am not a native english speaker.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Those bands became what they are in different times my friend.
And sorry about the recording studios thing, I am not a native english speaker.
Vulpinemac
Apr 6, 03:22 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
Multimedia
Sep 14, 05:56 PM
:eek: :eek: What's planned after 8 core processors? 16 cores on a chip? Seriously?? :confused: :confused:Not sure about beyond 8 which can be paired into a 16 core Mac. Perhaps. Too far out to tell although it is casually mentioned in the roadmap.
vincenz
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
Looks like we'll be waiting in line in the cold instead of the heat. Can't really complain...
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 04:08 PM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...Funny.
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:36 PM
This wont end androids openness. It will make is so that there is more of a consistent experience amung all android devices.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
Peace
Aug 7, 11:32 PM
Woah! This is heavy stuff. Lot of eye candy in Core Animation :cool:
Did you go to WWDC or D/L Leopard?
Did you go to WWDC or D/L Leopard?
fithian
Apr 8, 07:55 AM
Just for entertainment, go to a Worst Buy and sidle up to a sales guy giving his pitch to an unsuspecting victim. I only ever go there to see a model in person before ordering online or elsewhere. I do purchase items at local stores who respect the customer and don't tell blatant lies about the products.
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:44 PM
Doesn't this make sense? I think I'm close, I'm sure I forgot something / not perfectly accurate, but this seems like what Apple is shooting for. Makes sense to me...
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Vulpinemac
Apr 19, 09:07 PM
Yes. People here are failing to understand the difference between traditional patents that we usually hear about here, and design patents. I believe what Apple is suing over is infringed design patents. That the Galaxy S has a icon grid method for selecting applications is irrelevant in that case. They tried to copy the general design and likeness of the iPhone, which is against the design patents.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:15 PM
Why do you care?
Why shouldnt I?
Why shouldnt I?
DeathChill
Apr 19, 09:18 PM
I agree, Samsung has copied Apple.
In fact I'm truly impressed with Samsung's expertise. Their Galaxy S is every bit as nice as my iPhone 4.
In fact after doing the research, I decided to add a line to my family plan so I could try the Android powered phone.
Now I have two great phones. However I must say I'm shocked that I like the Galaxy better than the more diminutive iPhone.
Really? Based on all your previous posts which I glanced through I'd only be surprised if the opposite was true.
There's a lot to be said for a spacious and gorgeous 4.0" Super AMOLED display. I had no idea of the advantages it offers.
Then there's a huge advantage with SWYPE. Instead of hammering on a hard glass keyboard when messaging, Swype allows you to glide one finger across the keys to form words. It's the single greatest advancement in touchscreen input technology to date.
Swype submitted their app to Apple nearly a year ago, but it was rejected.
One can only guess, its excellent, trouble free and easy operation triggered Steve's jealousy.
Yet it's important that we give credit to Apple for insisting on a old school slow yet familiar keyboard. I must admit it took me ten minutes of watching the tutorial, and fifteen minutes more to adapt.
That said it quickly has become my favorite.
I really wish Apple would overcome their fear of including it on the iPhone. My Galaxy S gives me the choice of two other keyboards on case I didn't like Swype. Apple could do the same.
I really like Apple, I have many of their products.
Just think of how much greater they could be, if not for their closed minded ways towards anything outside of their comfort zone.
Why is the iPhone's implementation slow?
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/24/fastest-texting-in-the-world-actually-on-an-iphone/
EDIT: Not that I think that Apple shouldn't open up more and allow things like Swype; they should.
In fact I'm truly impressed with Samsung's expertise. Their Galaxy S is every bit as nice as my iPhone 4.
In fact after doing the research, I decided to add a line to my family plan so I could try the Android powered phone.
Now I have two great phones. However I must say I'm shocked that I like the Galaxy better than the more diminutive iPhone.
Really? Based on all your previous posts which I glanced through I'd only be surprised if the opposite was true.
There's a lot to be said for a spacious and gorgeous 4.0" Super AMOLED display. I had no idea of the advantages it offers.
Then there's a huge advantage with SWYPE. Instead of hammering on a hard glass keyboard when messaging, Swype allows you to glide one finger across the keys to form words. It's the single greatest advancement in touchscreen input technology to date.
Swype submitted their app to Apple nearly a year ago, but it was rejected.
One can only guess, its excellent, trouble free and easy operation triggered Steve's jealousy.
Yet it's important that we give credit to Apple for insisting on a old school slow yet familiar keyboard. I must admit it took me ten minutes of watching the tutorial, and fifteen minutes more to adapt.
That said it quickly has become my favorite.
I really wish Apple would overcome their fear of including it on the iPhone. My Galaxy S gives me the choice of two other keyboards on case I didn't like Swype. Apple could do the same.
I really like Apple, I have many of their products.
Just think of how much greater they could be, if not for their closed minded ways towards anything outside of their comfort zone.
Why is the iPhone's implementation slow?
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/24/fastest-texting-in-the-world-actually-on-an-iphone/
EDIT: Not that I think that Apple shouldn't open up more and allow things like Swype; they should.
Dan==
Jul 27, 02:43 PM
A second slot is overkill for a midline model. And Apple has obviously made the decision that FW800 is a pro feature only, if it's not in the 15 inch MBP. Not to mention that it's not included in the standard intel chipsets, so adding it is extra work for Apple.
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
logandzwon
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
I miss the old Apple where they didn't care if idiots complained. Between changing the bars after the antenna issue, ( all they really did is change the bars to not show a big drop when there was a big drop in reception, as AT&T suggested,) and now nerfing location services DB they just seem to be giving in to idiocracy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment