Originally Posted by darkdefender
I thought IGP's were getting heterogeneous and independent so they wouldn't bother RAM or CPU's for Bandwidth...
Not at all. Heterogenous mean in effect executing two different instructions streams from memory and doing so in a way that both processors (in this case GPU & CPU) have equal access to that memory. A homogenous system is one that has multiple processors but which run a common instruction set.
In some cases a heterogeneous system can be more efficient at using memory because there is less need to copy data and instruction streams around. Instead of copying a bit of data to the correct area for a GPU to process, the CPU can simply pass a handle to the data for the GPU to handle directly. Note that you need an operating system that can support this.
It's better because GPU's use Parallel Processing and CPU's just follow instructions one by one per core. It's all in GCN Tech in AMD's latest APU's and Nvidia is coming up with some stuff that's similar on their systems...
Support for heterogeneous systems is growing in chip sets and GPUs. However instant hardware support does not imply that it can in any way be sued by current drivers and OS code. In the ideal situation the GPY would have the same access to memory as the CPU has, this is what AMD is striving for. However the OS has to be extended to understand how to deal with pages of memory that another processor may be accessing.
I don't understand why XEON's are better than Ivy Bridge or Haswell's. Could you please explain it to me?
In some case they are the same chips just marketed differently or slightly extended. for example XEON chips might support ECC RAM where desktop chip won't. At one time Intel removed or disabled the GPU but now they intend to leave the GPU enable on some chips as a server computational resource or to support minimal video.
In other cases the chips actually differ significantly from desktop chips If you want to know how get on Intels web site and down load some technical info. improvements can range anywhere from reliability enhancements to communications channels
Other than having 12 cores.
That is significant in and of itself.
And I don't think many people need more than 32GB of RAM.
Actually many Mac Pro users do need the extra RAM. in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they extend mac OS this year to address a lot more RAM. You can think all you want but that doesn't make your thought processes right. Think about it, many think our current president is a good one, even when the overwhelming evidence says otherwise. So just because you think something, consider why the other guy may see things in a vastly different way. Another way to look at this is that minimal memory systems will likely hit 8GB soon on Apple hardware, that is a bit shocking if you have been in this industry a long time. I know from experience that 2GB is no longer enough to run Mac OS smoothly and even that is a surprise when many of the machines I owned int he pass barely had 256MB or RAM. In the end a "PRO" computer needs a lot of RAM, ideally configurable by the user.
Note that I said "ideally configurable" above, that is something that is an issue today. Sometime in the future it will be a requirement to solder the RAM into the motherboard to achieve the transfer rates that are possible with coming technologies. At that point it is even more important that computers come with a suitable amount of RAM pre installed. Remember too this is the WWDC thread, as such people with bleeding edge interests will gravitate to it. These people by nature are forward looking, the computers they run today will likely be mainstream in two to four years
The minimum right now is 4GB but most people go with 8GB and they're dual channeled. I would like to see more Single Channel RAM in Macs, because they cycle information faster. Another thing is the latency of RAM, Apple does not the have best speeds in the field.
What do you mean by this: "cycle information faster"? You do realize why the industry went to dual, triple and then quad channel memory interfaces right?
Their monitors are way behind the 1 ms respond time threshold and the contrast ratio is not so great on them. They're bright and useful for normal tasks but for watching content and gaming I really noticed a lot of ghosting and artifacts not moving as they should.
I'm sure you did!
in any event, being able to choose a monitor I prefer is one of the reason I've advocated for the XMAc concept. While I don't dismiss Apple monitors the way you do they are far less than perfect for the many possible uses for a Mac out there.
Wouldn't it be better if Apple just released a mid tower Mac Pro or a G6 Cube like we've talked about before?
No! I;ve never seen the XMac as a mid tower design. AS for G6 cube what in the hell are you talking about? There has never been a G6 cube.
Considering nobody water-cools Macs and DDR4 Ram won't be here until the Fall. Plus Mac OS X is in not many computers in the world right now due to the fact that Apple Computers are expensive as hell... Plus Windows 7 is still going strong even after Windows 8 was released. Not many people say "Today I'm going to install an operating system on my computer." OS's should update themselves and then ask you if you want to keep the update or revert to the previous way. No reason to pay 80 dollars for Windows 8 and loose everything trying to upgrade either.
You are rambling here about something but I have no idea what. As far as Mac OS devices go Apple has some pretty good deals. The AIRs for example are very competitive.
No wonder their biggest markets are the iPhone and iPad.
They hit the market with a hardware / software suite that blew everything out of the water. That is how you win in business.
Truth Apple did buy a memory making company last year so who knows what they're doing with them.
Your whole post is filled with garbage. The only memory related company they bought last year was ANOBIT which by the way has never made memory. Anobit specialized in technologies for controlling flash. As to what they are doing with them I have some good guesses, one of them is that it has something to do with flash.
Terabyte SSD's for Mac Pro's or soldered memory are coming.
The problem of course is keeping such affordable.