Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 4np, Dec 21, 2006.
wow... 2.13*4*2 (in the Mac Pro) = ~17GHz (theoretical speed, not practical)
looks like we will be putting quad core chips in all the Macs by the end of next year, if the chips are cool enough to allow it
17GHz??? *gets life savings ready*
Safari will be so snappy that you will get iWhiplash.
Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.
I think there is. Most Mac users (and Mac users forced to use Windows machines) multitask quite a bit. Even if the applications in question aren't multithreaded, and thus able to take advantage of multiple cores, the operating system will intelligently allocate each application to a different core, making all the applications more responsive. Even if you only have 3 applications running, the 4th core can be used for operating system stuff.
Have you ever run Mac OS X on a multi-core (and/or multi-processor) computer? Mac OS X benefits enormously from having multiple execution units available to it.
Nah, people need more than that. Current pros doing video work esp. encoding and rendering need every last MHz and would snap up quad-core chips in an 8-core configuration Mac Pro in an instant.
There are a lot of people out there right now who would welcome the advances quad-core processors will bring. They're probably drooling over 8 core processors and 80 core processors and 1000 core processors.
Anything to speed up their workflow and the pros would be all over it. Imagine it, for a multi-processor aware application, going from 4 cores to 8 in a Mac Pro could lead to processing times roughly halving - what professional video/graphics/photography person wouldn't jump all over that?
If you ever have to wait for your computer to finish something, then yes, we need that much power Ideally, you would be the one holding back your computer, not the other way around.
A MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz sounds nice enough....
yeah I'm on a dual g5 at work and I've got a 2.33ghz MacBook Pro at home. So I'm not arguing about the merits of multiple core/processors. I can just see post showing up on MR in a year "do I need an octo mac or will a quad core do? oh yeah I plan on using the mac for checking my e-mail and maybe using iLife occasionally"
Although as others have pointed out video professionals can never seem to get enough computing power. So I suppose there is a market for it, my tiny little graphic designer brain just can't wrap itself around the idea of 8 cores
I'm waiting for 16 cores myself. Then maybe Address Book won't be so damn sluggish.
For the first time in a long time, I'm not watching processor updates. Because I don't do anything extremely processor demanding, the C2D machine I have right now will last me a good, long time. For that matter, my dp G5 also slices stuff up like a hot knife through butta. Think I'm good for awhile.
We're going to need these for when they release iTunes 8, if the bloating of iTunes 7 is any indication.
Speed is the path to the dark side. Speed leads to bloating. Bloating leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering... speed matters not, judge me by my speed, do you?
ehhh... just babble, but you get the gist. the more speed we get the more stuff they cram into programs. then it's like we are back to fcp on a g2 thinking that it's awesome!, and nothing can top it. fear iTunes 8 i do. 7 has ventured in to the darkside. but ig you could run fcp yes the original, natively on a nice brand me pro model, you would have, perhaps a shuttle launch type of heat to melt just a stick of butter? then we would say wow. thats fast.
we are just sheep. they put it out and we drool.
Those are all Conroe and Kentsfield. Currently, there is no place for them in the Mac lineup. Of course, those will always be welcome in my computer, which they will be needed to run Vista.
Now, that is funny! I want those 16 cores to convert Colbert to iPod in, like, no time flat.
I feel that in many ways, we already are. It takes me more time to make a decision and then UNDO or tweak it a few times than it does for my computer to process it, although I don't do video work.
What are you talking aboot? Regular iTunes updates that are 30-40 MB each is perfectly acceptable.
I think iPhoto has required me to download around 500 MB of updates since I first got it a few years ago.
I was talking about the program itself, not the downloads. My dual G5 sometimes feels inadequate for iTunes, and all I want to do is play some mp3s. Every update seems to bolt more stuff on, cause iTunes to launch slower, and require more resources to run.
L7400 (1.5GHz dual core, low voltage, 4MB of cache) is a core 2 duo that Apple could make use of. That's due in January. Ultra portable anyone?