yac_moda
Jul 20, 03:07 PM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
NOW THAT, would be one CRAZZZZZYYY little baby POOOOOP :eek: :eek: :eek:
Maybe, Mac raised to the power of INFINITY -- FOR ALL YOU INFINITY LOOP LOVERS -- mobius loop that is !?!?!?!?!!?? :p
Of course, Moby would have to a do a recording studio promo for that one or maybe http://www.mobiusmusic.com/.
NOW THAT, would be one CRAZZZZZYYY little baby POOOOOP :eek: :eek: :eek:
Maybe, Mac raised to the power of INFINITY -- FOR ALL YOU INFINITY LOOP LOVERS -- mobius loop that is !?!?!?!?!!?? :p
Of course, Moby would have to a do a recording studio promo for that one or maybe http://www.mobiusmusic.com/.
daneoni
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
Well unless they use Conroe in iMac thats how it will be. They'll just tell you the new machines are using intel's new Core 2 Duo (64 bit computing) chips. Apple WILL differentiate their pro laptops so the 2.16 & 2.33 GHz combo is a given. Maybe, just maybe, they might bump the mini to 1.83 and 1.66 on its low end. The imacs will use 1.83 & 2.00 there is just no other option apparent to me because the 17" & 20" will also be differentiated. The macbooks may become 2.00GHz only across the board but even that route is questionable.
chatin
Aug 20, 02:21 PM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros!
:rolleyes:
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros!
:rolleyes:
Nuck81
Dec 9, 11:24 AM
My biggest complaint about the game is that it's atmosphere and presentation are just absolutely sterile.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
With the exception of car models the graphics don't approach what we see in other console racers. NFSL Shift makes it look like a PS2 game when it comes to detail, but GT5 makes a huge comeback and almost breaks dead even since it runs at 60fps. I went back and played Shift the other day and it was so choppy I almost couldn't play it.
The sound is also disappointing. Except for the car engines (to the guy that said they all sound the same, stop putting the same muffler and tranny on every car, it covers up their distinct sound) everything else is canned a tinny. When I go off track I hardly get any indication on sound. Go off track on Shift and you can hear pebbles, gravel, and dirt grinding under your car and banging around on the sides. Shift snarls, roars, rumbles and get's you excited to be out there and racing with other cars. GT5 is like driving miss daisy. The AI follows a single line, there is no off road sound, hardly any rumble on the gamepad, and it doesn't do a lot to put you in the game.
But GT5 makes up for a lot just by how the cars feel when they drive. Every single car is different and you can tell instantly. It drives so well I had to go get a Driving Force GT just to enjoy the drive as much as I can. Also I'll use it for Shift 2, and other racing games I have.
If you want a racing game, there are better ones than GT5. I'd recommend Shift over GT5 to someone who just wants a racing game. But if you want to drive cars, and come as close as you can without actually driving one on a console, there is not a better ride on any system (other than PC) than GT5.
styles111
Jun 15, 02:07 PM
To follow up to my last post, just got a call from my local Radio Shack and got my PIN.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
KingYaba
Mar 1, 04:47 AM
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:42 PM
Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.
braddouglass
Apr 6, 01:07 PM
Awesome, can't wait.
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
daneoni
Aug 22, 10:18 PM
Yeah im not surprised. I went to my local store today and saw one in all its glory attached to a 30" ACD. It was VERY fast, system prefs launched in micro seconds, a meaty FCP project opened in less than 5 seconds same for Aperture & Logic, 1080p HD trailers were chewed and spit out using less than 10% of processing power. Totally amazing and best part...its very quiet. I played with a Quad G5 once and it sounded like a jet engine taking off.
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...
madmax_2069
Nov 12, 05:46 PM
I'll pass on the game altogether.
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
if you really look at it, NFS hot pursuit is the game your looking for.
i like sim and arcade racing games, but if you are a hardcore sim racing nut neither forza 3 or gt5 are real racing sims. so far only computers have real racing sims. not saying that gt5 or forza 3 aren't trying to be, its just they are not considered to be a real racing sim to hardcore sim nuts.
GT5 might be the game that makes me buy a PS3.
What it does, Gran Turismo does to perfection....I'm just really not into what it does.
I'm more of an arcade racing guy, so I'll stick with Burnout Paradise until it gets a worthy sequel!
if you really look at it, NFS hot pursuit is the game your looking for.
i like sim and arcade racing games, but if you are a hardcore sim racing nut neither forza 3 or gt5 are real racing sims. so far only computers have real racing sims. not saying that gt5 or forza 3 aren't trying to be, its just they are not considered to be a real racing sim to hardcore sim nuts.
GT5 might be the game that makes me buy a PS3.
topgunn
Jul 20, 08:20 AM
THIS is why IBM was given the boot.
bassfingers
Mar 26, 04:02 AM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
translation: "snow leopard was okay"
Just what I think anyway.
translation: "snow leopard was okay"
azentropy
Mar 31, 03:16 PM
Honeycomb is still not released as far as I know. When it's released and the code is not available, then we can talk.
The Motorola Xoom ships with Honeycomb. It has been released. You miss that???
The Motorola Xoom ships with Honeycomb. It has been released. You miss that???
supafly1703
Jul 27, 09:43 AM
C'mon Steve, wow us...
orkle
Nov 29, 06:53 AM
The iTunes Store wouldn't be where it is today if Universal Music hadn't been so forthcoming with getting their catalogue on there.
satty
Jul 20, 09:10 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
shawnce
Aug 16, 11:21 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
I think you will be happy with rather amazing performance boost you will see from WoW in the near future when running on a Mac Pro (it isn't all a result of just hardware either). Expect other games to improve as well.
I think you will be happy with rather amazing performance boost you will see from WoW in the near future when running on a Mac Pro (it isn't all a result of just hardware either). Expect other games to improve as well.
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Migrated to the new thread.
Grimes
Apr 11, 03:43 PM
If we're waiting until September for PRODUCTION, then I think we'll see something great in the late fall or early winter.
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
Very interesting notifications concept!
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
Very interesting notifications concept!
jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
Erasmus
Aug 27, 04:08 AM
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
BeefUK
Jul 27, 09:59 AM
Merom in a macbook is all I want, add in 2GB of RAM, and that'll do me. Although they'll be released in the MBP first............looks like more waiting for my first mac!!!:(
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
