or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mjteix

That depends on the redesign (of the MBP). 2.30GHz with integrated graphics would be the top-end option on a 13" MBA, depending on where Apple wants to go with the MBP, the 2012 version could be quad-core + dedicated graphics + SSD blade standard AND 2.5" HDD/SSD bay, along with the same hirez display. So the gap would widen. With everybody and their sisters moving to smaller manufacturing processes for NAND, I'd say... with the next revision of the MBA! Whenever that...
The current MP only offers 4 slots in a size that's bigger than a 5U rack enclosure, just try to imagine the size of a MP with 8 full size PCI slots... The 4 HDDs in a MP don't take much more space than a single PCIe card. As more and more Thunderbolt devices (other than storage) will be available (from AJA, Blackmagic, AVID=Pro Tools, Apogee=Symphony, Universal Audio, Canon,...), it will reduce the need for physical PCIe slots. Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will...
I would believe that the 17W Sandy Bridge cpus will go in the 11" MBA, not the 13". Currently the 11" MBA uses a 10W C2D and a 10-12W 320M chipset, with a 17W SB cpu and a 3.5W Intel QS67 chipset, the total TDP would be similar. Core i5-2537M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.40 GHz 32nm) $250 Core i7-2617M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.50 GHz 32nm) $289 Core i7-2657M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.60 GHz 32nm) $317 Same thing for the 13" models: currently 17W C2D +...
And it's not/less for 13" MBP users? If Apple thinks that HD3000 graphics are good enough for a 13" MBP, they probably think the same for the MM (even if those are not in the same category). Historically, the MM has followed loosely the specs of the 13" MB/MBP. I don't think this will change for the next refresh. I believe that the regular MM will mimic the 13" MBP configurations (except RAM): $699 2.30 Core i5-2410M/HD3000, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, ODD, miniDP/TB port +...
OK. I didn't want to go there. But if you insist... 1- The Xeon W3xxx don't support multi-processor, they support ECC RAM, they have a triple-channel memory controller, and use a different chipset (X58) in order to offer more PCIe slots. Essentially the Xeon W3xxx (used in the single-cpu MP) are Core i7-900 cpus with ECC RAM support, the Xeon X34xx (not used by Apple) are Core i7-800 cpus with ECC RAM support. 2- While geekbench and cpu benchmarks can give you an idea of...
You know, you're right. The 2.93 Core i7-870 is faster than the 2.80 W3530 Xeon, and they cost the same. But 5 to 10% faster is far from being "outclassed" or "outgunned" or whatever. It's like saying: how can the $744 1.73GHz 4C Xeon E6510 be slower than the $744 2.66GHz 4C Xeon E5640? Different platforms, different ways to judge performance. The fact that the current low-end MP is marginally slower than the top of the line iMac is purely a coincidence. At the time Apple...
Again, you're assuming that I'm interested in your justification for the content of your previous post. I'm not. You just didn't need to quote my post to make your statement. That's what made it not clear at all.
Where is this coming from? There are much more uses for PCI(e) cards than just graphics. Period. Did I even say I was working on stuff that requires PCI expansion? Did I mention the Mac Pro? Did I mention $$$? Seriously, learn to read.
I find it laughable that people always bring up the graphics card as the only use of PCI expansion.
One step at a time.Imagination Technologies unveils Series 6 PowerVR GPUs (2014) FWIW, I expect a 15" iPad to have at least 2048*1536 in a couple of years, and probably 3840x2400 WQUXGA (300 ppi) in less than 5 years.
New Posts  All Forums: