DLary said:
to be honest mate, i think the faster memory on the new macs is only REALLY needed if youv got a server or are networking to other people within your vacinity,.. other than that, the lower priced ram is more than sufficient i think
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Dual Core PowerMac G5s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
to be honest mate, i think the faster memory on the new macs is only REALLY needed if youv got a server or are networking to other people within your vacinity,.. other than that, the lower priced ram is more than sufficient i think
So what's the deal behind the dual/two gigabit ethernet ports? If you plug in both ports is it faster? 😕
DLary said:
It's important to buy the memory that's made for the machine, I'm fairly certain that things won't work correctly if you buy memory that's too slow, and I don't believe there's any advantage to buying faster memory.
briansolomon said:
Dual Gigabit Ethernet is ideal for users in an Xsan environment that requires independent networks for metadata and general networking. In other words, with two Gigabit Ethernet ports, you can connect to both a private and a public network simultaneously.
Metadata is simply data about the data, or tagged/annotated information about the data. There are many examples and the definition is somewhat loose; here are a few specifics:~Shard~ said:
1. EXIF information added by your digital camera when snapping photos. The image bitmap itself represents the "data" and EXIF represents information about the data, hence metadata.
2. Song, artist, album, title and other information added to MP3 files.
3. Document properties such as your name, your company, your department, your boss, copyright information, etc. that can be added to Microsoft Office documents.
In many respects metadata is similar to keywords except that metadata can be sentences, not just single words.
blitzkrieg79 said:
True enough- what you said is very common. But you have to keep in mind the kind of buyer that person is if he/she decides to shop around, do a detailed price & hardware comparison. When a person does those things, they are concerned about what they are investing in and odds are if they have the opportunity to resale their system- they will rather than hand it down to someone else. Because that's exactly what I did- sold my G4, and I had that in mind when I bought, and the majority of everyone i know who owns a G4 did the same.
Whether Apple is going to eventually become just another PC company seems far fetched at this time. They're doing everything to preserve their unqueness. They've already answered questions about whether they'll allow their OS to run on Pc's etc-NO. Along with that decision, they've already made a number of executive decisions to secure what's unique to Apple. Apple has worked hard to establish and maintain it's company and product profile. I totally disagree they'll become just another PC company.
Also, the Intel/Mac colaboration is like anything else the company has done- a business move that best suits their needs AT THIS TIME. Who's to say IBM or Motorola, or even AMD won't make a suitable chip in the future and Apple may go back to them. If you can speculate the negative, you can- and should also speculate the positive.
Is it me or did Apple find a new way to screw thier loyal users. Let's see.
new power mac goes dual core , as compared to DP so processor price should be down atleast 60% , no more dual socket MB so cut that price in half as well. and throw in a cheapo 4 pipe 6600LE(ROTFL) and 512MB of latency crippled DDR2/ 4200 they still they m,anage to keep the prices up. PCIe should no be a cost factor as this has reached market saturation..like DVD+-RW Drives.
Worst of all the 7800GT is going to be delayed till got knows when, and might only be BTO so all u PowerPC nuts who want to upgrade are screwed.
DDR2 is a joke until u get to 667-800mhz then it starts to show promise. But even good OCZ DDR3200 can be OC'd to 550-600mhz at a much lower latency for faster performance.
If anyone wants to know what the 6600LE really is he is a simple equation.
Radeon 9600 vanilla + SM 3.0 + PureVideo + PCIe = 6600LE (except on mac u can't use SM 3.0 or PureVideo. so ..it's just a PCIe 9600..sorry folks.
I just hate it when Apple is super late for the party. I've had a PCIe DFI NF4 board since Feb , I've had my eVga 7800Gt since Aug. , my X2 3800+ since Aug.
Apple could atleast have added a X700 256MB since they $120 these days.
Overall very nice machines but I already have something much more powerful and it cost me much less. That DC 2.0ghz would have been great at $1799 and if They lowered the 20in Cinema Display to $499 I would have purchased one.
new power mac goes dual core , as compared to DP so processor price should be down atleast 60% , no more dual socket MB so cut that price in half as well. and throw in a cheapo 4 pipe 6600LE(ROTFL) and 512MB of latency crippled DDR2/ 4200 they still they m,anage to keep the prices up. PCIe should no be a cost factor as this has reached market saturation..like DVD+-RW Drives.
Worst of all the 7800GT is going to be delayed till got knows when, and might only be BTO so all u PowerPC nuts who want to upgrade are screwed.
DDR2 is a joke until u get to 667-800mhz then it starts to show promise. But even good OCZ DDR3200 can be OC'd to 550-600mhz at a much lower latency for faster performance.
If anyone wants to know what the 6600LE really is he is a simple equation.
Radeon 9600 vanilla + SM 3.0 + PureVideo + PCIe = 6600LE (except on mac u can't use SM 3.0 or PureVideo. so ..it's just a PCIe 9600..sorry folks.
I just hate it when Apple is super late for the party. I've had a PCIe DFI NF4 board since Feb , I've had my eVga 7800Gt since Aug. , my X2 3800+ since Aug.
Apple could atleast have added a X700 256MB since they $120 these days.
Overall very nice machines but I already have something much more powerful and it cost me much less. That DC 2.0ghz would have been great at $1799 and if They lowered the 20in Cinema Display to $499 I would have purchased one.
I agree with most of what you say. These are the reasons for Apple's switch from low-volume, high-cost processors and supporting chipsets to high-volume, low-cost processors and chipsets. But keep in mind that dual core AMD X2s are quite expensive with the exception of the X2 3800.
Examples:
X2 3800 = $350 2.0 GHz with 1 MB L2 Cache
X2 4400 = $500 2.2 GHz with 2 MB L2
X2 4800 = $800 2.4 GHz with 2 MB L2
Intel's Pentium Ds are much less expensive at the entry-level, but become very expensive quickly.
So although Apple (on the low and mid) has replaced dual-processor motherboards with their two independent FSBs with a single-processor motherboard and a dual-core CPU, it's possible that net component costs have not decreased appreciably.
Note that on the high-end, Apple uses 2 of the 970MPs running at 2.5, besting AMD's 4800 by 100 MHz.
Apple is still very late to the game and still does not support SATA-II. By switching to Intel processors and chipsets, I hope this will change permanently and Apple will be able to keep up with the Jones'.
Examples:
X2 3800 = $350 2.0 GHz with 1 MB L2 Cache
X2 4400 = $500 2.2 GHz with 2 MB L2
X2 4800 = $800 2.4 GHz with 2 MB L2
Intel's Pentium Ds are much less expensive at the entry-level, but become very expensive quickly.
So although Apple (on the low and mid) has replaced dual-processor motherboards with their two independent FSBs with a single-processor motherboard and a dual-core CPU, it's possible that net component costs have not decreased appreciably.
Note that on the high-end, Apple uses 2 of the 970MPs running at 2.5, besting AMD's 4800 by 100 MHz.
Apple is still very late to the game and still does not support SATA-II. By switching to Intel processors and chipsets, I hope this will change permanently and Apple will be able to keep up with the Jones'.
Here's the kicker: Apple could have beaten the others to the punch with dual-core by introducing the PPC 970 as a dual-core processor right from the get-go (as IBM wanted - IBM was ready to do this)...but no, Apple says doing that reduces their profit margins. Apple, WHY? You could have made a huge buzz...jiggie2g said:
Anandtech new PMs review
Anand Lal Shimpi's Weblog
October 20, 2005
Apple's Last PowerPC Temptation - Thursday, Oct 20, 2005 4:18 AM
Blank
Blank Yesterday, Apple introduced three new Power Mac G5s still based on the current PowerPC architecture. The new G5s are offered in one 2.0GHz configuration, one 2.3GHz and one 2.5GHz configuration, all of which are based on dual-core 90nm PowerPC 970MP CPUs. You can get Apple's pricing and more here but I just wanted to chime in with some of my thoughts on what's being offered:
Dual Core
All of Apple's new Power Mac G5s feature dual-core processors, but what it allows Apple to do is outfit the lower end Power Mac G5s with only a single processor and still offer the same number of concurrently executable threads as the older dual processor G5s. Granted you do lose some performance because the two cores now must share a single FSB, whereas the older dual processor machines had an independent FSB per processor. But any performance loss you'd see there is more than made up by the fact that each core now gets a full 1MB L2 cache.
The previous G5 cores were stuck with a relatively small (by today's standards) 512KB cache. It made the 90nm G5 die very small, but it also meant that performance wasn't as good as it could have been. One thing Johan found in his investigations with the G5 was that memory latency was pretty bad, and a small L2 cache does nothing to hide that.
For the two lower end G5s, the fact that the single CPUs are now dual core doesn't mean much, but the move to a 1MB L2 cache per core should result in a tangible performance increase in a lot of scenarios.
Apple does give up a bit of clock speed at the high end by moving to dual core, with the fastest G5 now topping out at 2.5GHz vs. 2.7GHz. The larger L2 cache will make up for some of that difference, but not all. Obviously the high end G5 now offers more than just a faster clock speed, it now features two dual-core CPUs. But, just like we've seen in the PC world, those applications that exhibit a high level of TLP will appreciate the dual dual-core CPU configuration, while others may actually run faster on the older dual 2.7GHz setup. For the most part, most OS X applications seem to be highly threaded in nature, and my money is on a dual dual-core configuration being the more desirable one.
DDR2-533
With the new G5s Apple has moved to DDR2-533, offering a total of 8.5GB/s of memory bandwidth. Unlike Intel's DDR2 platforms however, the G5s can actually use the added memory bandwidth. The G5 interfaces to the North Bridge via a bi-directional 64-bit FSB running at 1/2 the CPU clock speed. That means for a single 2.5GHz dual-core G5, there is about 10GB/s of bandwidth from the CPU to the North Bridge. For a dual dual-core 2.5GHz G5, that's 20GB/s of bandwidth as each CPU gets its own dedicated FSB. So in this case, there may actually be a tangible performance improvement from going to DDR2-533.
It is irritating that Apple didn't move to DDR2-667 yet, especially on their highest end configuration (and especially because it can use the bandwidth), but given Apple's relatively conservative nature whenever it comes to memory speeds it isn't a huge surprise.
PCI Express, at last
The move to dual-core is interesting, but given that the previous line of G5s were all dual processor to begin with, it's not a huge improvement. In my opinion, the biggest improvement to the new G5s is the move to PCI Express. And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it.
There isn't a single parallel PCI slot in the new G5s, instead you've got one x16 slot, two x4 slots and one x8 slot. The other interesting thing is that all of the PCI Express slots use a x16 connector, so although there is only one x16 slot (electrically), all four slots can fit a x16 card. Apple uses this support to their marketing advantage, by mentioning that the new G5s can support up to 8 displays through 4 dual-display PCIe graphics cards.
One thing that truly surprised me was the lack of two x16 (electrical) slots, meaning that these G5s aren't exactly configured for SLI. Given that NVIDIA is the GPU vendor of choice for Apple this time around, with the only PCIe GPU offerings coming from NVIDIA, you would think that Apple would put together a SLI-capable product with this line of G5s. There are a handful of reasons why this didn't happen and none of them really require too much thought. Apple seems to be very sensitive about preserving the usability of PCI (and now PCIe) slots, so occupying the area of virtually all four slots thanks to two large graphics cards probably wasn't at the top of their to-do list either.
Apple's new G5s get their choice of four different PCIe cards: a GeForce 6600 LE, 6600, 7800 GT and Quadro FX 4500. All of the cards support at least one dual-link DVI port, with the Quadro FX 4500 supporting two.
In the End
Apple has honestly done their best to make an attractive non-Intel Power Mac offering and obviously they had to. The dependency of OS X on high speed CPU/graphics communication means that the move to PCI Express graphics was a must, and I am pleased with the way in which Apple made that move. Offering four physical x16 slots, even if they aren't electrically x16, makes a lot of sense, and there shouldn't be any reason for PC motherboard makers to offer something similar. It may be a bit confusing, but the added flexibility is a definite benefit.
The move to dual core and DDR2 are both nice, but they will mean a lot more when we see the move to x86 next year. It is also interesting that none of Apple's performance comparisons are against x86 processors anymore 🙂
/end
wrldwzrd89 said:
Anand Lal Shimpi's Weblog
October 20, 2005
Apple's Last PowerPC Temptation - Thursday, Oct 20, 2005 4:18 AM
Blank
Blank Yesterday, Apple introduced three new Power Mac G5s still based on the current PowerPC architecture. The new G5s are offered in one 2.0GHz configuration, one 2.3GHz and one 2.5GHz configuration, all of which are based on dual-core 90nm PowerPC 970MP CPUs. You can get Apple's pricing and more here but I just wanted to chime in with some of my thoughts on what's being offered:
Dual Core
All of Apple's new Power Mac G5s feature dual-core processors, but what it allows Apple to do is outfit the lower end Power Mac G5s with only a single processor and still offer the same number of concurrently executable threads as the older dual processor G5s. Granted you do lose some performance because the two cores now must share a single FSB, whereas the older dual processor machines had an independent FSB per processor. But any performance loss you'd see there is more than made up by the fact that each core now gets a full 1MB L2 cache.
The previous G5 cores were stuck with a relatively small (by today's standards) 512KB cache. It made the 90nm G5 die very small, but it also meant that performance wasn't as good as it could have been. One thing Johan found in his investigations with the G5 was that memory latency was pretty bad, and a small L2 cache does nothing to hide that.
For the two lower end G5s, the fact that the single CPUs are now dual core doesn't mean much, but the move to a 1MB L2 cache per core should result in a tangible performance increase in a lot of scenarios.
Apple does give up a bit of clock speed at the high end by moving to dual core, with the fastest G5 now topping out at 2.5GHz vs. 2.7GHz. The larger L2 cache will make up for some of that difference, but not all. Obviously the high end G5 now offers more than just a faster clock speed, it now features two dual-core CPUs. But, just like we've seen in the PC world, those applications that exhibit a high level of TLP will appreciate the dual dual-core CPU configuration, while others may actually run faster on the older dual 2.7GHz setup. For the most part, most OS X applications seem to be highly threaded in nature, and my money is on a dual dual-core configuration being the more desirable one.
DDR2-533
With the new G5s Apple has moved to DDR2-533, offering a total of 8.5GB/s of memory bandwidth. Unlike Intel's DDR2 platforms however, the G5s can actually use the added memory bandwidth. The G5 interfaces to the North Bridge via a bi-directional 64-bit FSB running at 1/2 the CPU clock speed. That means for a single 2.5GHz dual-core G5, there is about 10GB/s of bandwidth from the CPU to the North Bridge. For a dual dual-core 2.5GHz G5, that's 20GB/s of bandwidth as each CPU gets its own dedicated FSB. So in this case, there may actually be a tangible performance improvement from going to DDR2-533.
It is irritating that Apple didn't move to DDR2-667 yet, especially on their highest end configuration (and especially because it can use the bandwidth), but given Apple's relatively conservative nature whenever it comes to memory speeds it isn't a huge surprise.
PCI Express, at last
The move to dual-core is interesting, but given that the previous line of G5s were all dual processor to begin with, it's not a huge improvement. In my opinion, the biggest improvement to the new G5s is the move to PCI Express. And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it.
There isn't a single parallel PCI slot in the new G5s, instead you've got one x16 slot, two x4 slots and one x8 slot. The other interesting thing is that all of the PCI Express slots use a x16 connector, so although there is only one x16 slot (electrically), all four slots can fit a x16 card. Apple uses this support to their marketing advantage, by mentioning that the new G5s can support up to 8 displays through 4 dual-display PCIe graphics cards.
One thing that truly surprised me was the lack of two x16 (electrical) slots, meaning that these G5s aren't exactly configured for SLI. Given that NVIDIA is the GPU vendor of choice for Apple this time around, with the only PCIe GPU offerings coming from NVIDIA, you would think that Apple would put together a SLI-capable product with this line of G5s. There are a handful of reasons why this didn't happen and none of them really require too much thought. Apple seems to be very sensitive about preserving the usability of PCI (and now PCIe) slots, so occupying the area of virtually all four slots thanks to two large graphics cards probably wasn't at the top of their to-do list either.
Apple's new G5s get their choice of four different PCIe cards: a GeForce 6600 LE, 6600, 7800 GT and Quadro FX 4500. All of the cards support at least one dual-link DVI port, with the Quadro FX 4500 supporting two.
In the End
Apple has honestly done their best to make an attractive non-Intel Power Mac offering and obviously they had to. The dependency of OS X on high speed CPU/graphics communication means that the move to PCI Express graphics was a must, and I am pleased with the way in which Apple made that move. Offering four physical x16 slots, even if they aren't electrically x16, makes a lot of sense, and there shouldn't be any reason for PC motherboard makers to offer something similar. It may be a bit confusing, but the added flexibility is a definite benefit.
The move to dual core and DDR2 are both nice, but they will mean a lot more when we see the move to x86 next year. It is also interesting that none of Apple's performance comparisons are against x86 processors anymore 🙂
/end
ok, here's my dilemma...........
i recently bought a dual 2.3 G5, and was a little ticked top hear about the new powermacs release. but, after stating my case to apple, they have agreed to let me return my "older" mac for credit towards a new one. although i've been using mac for awhile, i have nowhere near the expertise on the subject as many of you here, so any advise is greatly appreciated! I will be using the mac for audio and visual editing (protools, logic, final cut, photoshop,etc.) and would like to figure out the best machine for my use. i am considering the quad, but do i really need all of that? how will my performance differ if i get a dual core 2.0? would i actually be downgrading? The pci-e option sounds very enticing, because i will be throwing some dsp in it eventually, but is it really going to noticibly boost the speed? I am planning on using this machine until about 6 months after the intel switch, so i want to be happy with it for that amount of time. any advice is appreciated.
thanks
i recently bought a dual 2.3 G5, and was a little ticked top hear about the new powermacs release. but, after stating my case to apple, they have agreed to let me return my "older" mac for credit towards a new one. although i've been using mac for awhile, i have nowhere near the expertise on the subject as many of you here, so any advise is greatly appreciated! I will be using the mac for audio and visual editing (protools, logic, final cut, photoshop,etc.) and would like to figure out the best machine for my use. i am considering the quad, but do i really need all of that? how will my performance differ if i get a dual core 2.0? would i actually be downgrading? The pci-e option sounds very enticing, because i will be throwing some dsp in it eventually, but is it really going to noticibly boost the speed? I am planning on using this machine until about 6 months after the intel switch, so i want to be happy with it for that amount of time. any advice is appreciated.
thanks
d_saum said:
Yes, cuz if it's on Google we can take it as gospel... 🙄 😛 😉
Yes, they mean the same thing, however Dual Layer is more commonly called Double Layer in the consumer market. Double layer is the more correct/adopted (whatever term you want to use) term, that's all I was pointing out.
Anyway, tomay-to tomah-to I suppose... 😉 😎
"Double Layer" is correct for DVD+R, "Dual Layer" is wrong
"Dual Layer" was the term for DVD-R discs....
But, as Google shows, any attempt to try to be correct is pointless - the terms have become interchangeable....
"Double Layer" was the official term used by the DVD+RW Alliance (http://www.dvdrw.com/press/doublelayer.htm http://www.dvdrw.com/why/doublelayer.htm).~Shard~ said:
"Dual Layer" was the term for DVD-R discs....
Sony said:
But, as Google shows, any attempt to try to be correct is pointless - the terms have become interchangeable....
d_saum said:
Yes, I know, it's all in fun. Semantics, really. 🙂
AidenShaw said:
Thanks Aiden, that's what I was getting at with my posts - double layer is/was the official term, dual layer was not, but now they're apparently interchangeable. Whatever though, it's all good. 😎
Xacttech said:
And don't you feel more educated now? Don't worry, we won't tell anyone... 😛 😉 😎
When you buy some DL DVDs, look at the package.... 😉Xacttech said:
Also, check Apple's spec sheets - Apple uses the correct terminology:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
"16x SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW); writes DVD-R discs at up to 16x speed, writes DVD+R DL discs at up to 6x speed, reads DVDs at up to 16x speed, writes CD-R and CD-RW discs at up to 24x speed, reads CDs at up to 32x speed"
How bad is THIS?
Hi,
I went to the Apple retail store in London today (biggest retail store in Europe btw!!!). NONE of the new stuff was available!
NO dual-cores
NO new iMacs
NO aperture!
OK. I didn't quite expect Aperture, since it's introduced as a 'pre-order' on the web. But, to cycle to the store and not find ANY new hardware is just REALLY disappointing.
I was actually wonderin, who, in their right mind, would buy any of the computers there.... knowing that new hardware was introduced just a few days ago (if not weeks, for the new iMac) !?!?!?
I don't know a single company on this planet, which introduces new machines but doesn't ****ing sell them!
What a disappointment!
Hi,
I went to the Apple retail store in London today (biggest retail store in Europe btw!!!). NONE of the new stuff was available!
NO dual-cores
NO new iMacs
NO aperture!
OK. I didn't quite expect Aperture, since it's introduced as a 'pre-order' on the web. But, to cycle to the store and not find ANY new hardware is just REALLY disappointing.
I was actually wonderin, who, in their right mind, would buy any of the computers there.... knowing that new hardware was introduced just a few days ago (if not weeks, for the new iMac) !?!?!?
I don't know a single company on this planet, which introduces new machines but doesn't ****ing sell them!
What a disappointment!
themedium dilemma...
Just my two cents..ok..three 🙂
Overall... getting the new machine is an upgrade regardless of which model you choose. That said, you should get the new 2.3 or "quad"...forget the 2.0. The new 2.0 will be slower in cpu performance than your "old" dual 2.3, but graphics performance...much better. Order your box with a nVidia 7800gt, preferably the gtx, but unfortunately i don't think Apple is offering the gtx version. Getting the 7800gt may delay your order until mid-November. Worth the wait. The FX4500 is massive overkill for what you do. Complete waste of money for you. If you do 3d, (Maya, 3dsMax, etc), then the FX4500 is awesome.
2.3 vs quad?...depends on your needs. Is Logic or ProTools multithreaded? If so, get the quad. If you do a lot of Final Cut, Motion or After Effects...you will LOVE the quad. The quad is the "real update" of this new product lineup...hint, hint 🙂
Lastly, I would strongly encourage you not to buy a revA Apple/Intel. History shows that to be quite unwise. Get the quad/7800gt...use it until Summer of 2008...then get the revB PowerMac/Intel. By then, Apple will have released Intel iBooks, Intel Powerbooks, revA PowerMacs, etc, so hardware issues will have been solved or minimal...and software will have most of the kinks out too. Whatever you choose...enjoy.
peace
themedium said:
Just my two cents..ok..three 🙂
Overall... getting the new machine is an upgrade regardless of which model you choose. That said, you should get the new 2.3 or "quad"...forget the 2.0. The new 2.0 will be slower in cpu performance than your "old" dual 2.3, but graphics performance...much better. Order your box with a nVidia 7800gt, preferably the gtx, but unfortunately i don't think Apple is offering the gtx version. Getting the 7800gt may delay your order until mid-November. Worth the wait. The FX4500 is massive overkill for what you do. Complete waste of money for you. If you do 3d, (Maya, 3dsMax, etc), then the FX4500 is awesome.
2.3 vs quad?...depends on your needs. Is Logic or ProTools multithreaded? If so, get the quad. If you do a lot of Final Cut, Motion or After Effects...you will LOVE the quad. The quad is the "real update" of this new product lineup...hint, hint 🙂
Lastly, I would strongly encourage you not to buy a revA Apple/Intel. History shows that to be quite unwise. Get the quad/7800gt...use it until Summer of 2008...then get the revB PowerMac/Intel. By then, Apple will have released Intel iBooks, Intel Powerbooks, revA PowerMacs, etc, so hardware issues will have been solved or minimal...and software will have most of the kinks out too. Whatever you choose...enjoy.
peace
Xacttech said:
You must be new here, otherwise you'd know my reputation - don't try to out-bastard a bastard. 😎
Seriously, glad we can have some fun with the matter. 😉 🙂
AidenShaw said:
And thanks again for the back-up Aiden...
AidenShaw said:When you buy some DL DVDs, look at the package.... 😉
Also, check Apple's spec sheets - Apple uses the correct terminology:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
"16x SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW); writes DVD-R discs at up to 16x speed, writes DVD+R DL discs at up to 6x speed, reads DVDs at up to 16x speed, writes CD-R and CD-RW discs at up to 24x speed, reads CDs at up to 32x speed"
😕
Huh? Doesn't the image just prove my point?