, why we don't already have render farms of Mac Pros+4xSingleSlotCards in SLI is beyond me.
Because SJ knows what's best for people, absolutely: "Cool" toys.
Apple long ago abandoned all pretence at its vague attempts to target seriously high-end desktop computer users. Now, only the most stupid use Mac's for rendering as Windows PC's overtook Mac OS years ago in the graphics department.
Apple long ago abandoned all pretence at its vague attempts to target seriously high-end desktop computer users. Now, only the most stupid use Mac's for rendering...
Except in video editing suites. And audio. And high-end scientific labs. And anywhere OS X's software is irreplaceable.
Graphics really don't have much to do with rendering at all.
CPU's newer, GPU's newer, HDD can easily be replaced with something faster, and as it's SATA III vs. SATA II in the iMac, the iMac can never reach the same speeds transferring to any HDD/SDD.
Arguably, the MacBook Pro is more expandable as you can actually get to the hard drive as a user-replaceable part.
That's absurd.
- The CPU in the iMac is much faster than the one in the MBP - even after considering the 'newer' CPU in the MBP
- The GPU in the iMac is WAAAAAYYYY faster than the one in the MPB - even after considering that the one in the MBP is newer.
- Hard drives can be replaced in both - although that's something that very few people ever do in a laptop. (Granted, it's not easy on the iMac, but there are services that do it for you). Besides, unlike the MBP, you can have both a hard drive and an SSD in the iMac.
So, your 'greater value' means that the MBP has a slower CPU, slower GPU, less RAM expandability 1/2 the screen area, and a smaller keyboard --- but the user can more easily instal a hard drive?
I'm glad that I don't let you make my 'better value' decisions for me.
- The CPU in the iMac is much faster than the one in the MBP - even after considering the 'newer' CPU in the MBP
Have a benchmark on hand? This is just curiosity; I'm not questioning you.
Quote:
- Hard drives can be replaced in both - although that's something that very few people ever do in a laptop. (Granted, it's not easy on the iMac, but there are services that do it for you).
Doesn't refute the difference between SATA II and SATA III
Quote:
Besides, unlike the MBP, you can have both a hard drive and an SSD in the iMac.
So, your 'greater value' means that the MBP has a slower CPU, slower GPU, less RAM expandability 1/2 the screen area, and a smaller keyboard --- but the user can more easily instal a hard drive?
It's a laptop, fool. They're for different demographics. Hard drive replaceability is next to meaningless on a desktop; you're not toting it anywhere, so you can have external drives.
I'm glad I'm not making your decisions simply because you wouldn't seem to know why the decisions exist.
Doesn't refute the difference between SATA II and SATA III
You'd have to use SSDs like the latest OCZ Vertex 3 or Intel 510 Series to take advantage of SATA III, most existing HDD/SSD will offer the same performance on SATA II or SATA III. Or even SATA I depending on the drive.
SATA I is OK for most HDDs (up to 150MB/s)
SATA II is OK for those and mainstream SSDs (up to 300MB/s)
SATA III is for the future (up to 600MB/s)
For the performance evaluation, you can use geekbench, if you want, but IMO there are too many weird results for it to be fully reliable:
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2820QM 2.3 GHz (4 cores)\t10383
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2720QM 2.2 GHz (4 cores)\t10045
It would have been nice if they included support for more of the GPU's they used in their machines produced around the time they originally built in OpenCL. When it was announced I thought it would only be a matter of months and I would get a speed boost from my GeForce 8600 equipped MBP.
Still waiting.
It shouldn't have been all that hard for them to do.
where do i obtain this mac to my mac functionality?
it's part of Mobile.Me - I use it all the time, and whilenit generally works perfectly, it sometimes has issues - Especially with weirdness that can occur on free wifi hotspots. If this udate improves that I'm all for it!
Graphics really don't have much to do with rendering at all.
Well, they really do - but for people with serious rendering to do the have one, or more often than not many external headless computers crunching away. In that case that the computer isn't a Mac doesn't really matter too much. Indeed the typically are running a really stripped version of Linux or BSD.
Now having said that, this is a very positive development since the choice of graphics cards is indeed pathetic
You'd have to use SSDs like the latest OCZ Vertex 3 or Intel 510 Series to take advantage of SATA III, most existing HDD/SSD will offer the same performance on SATA II or SATA III. Or even SATA I depending on the drive.
SATA I is OK for most HDDs (up to 150MB/s)
SATA II is OK for those and mainstream SSDs (up to 300MB/s)
SATA III is for the future (up to 600MB/s)
For the performance evaluation, you can use geekbench, if you want, but IMO there are too many weird results for it to be fully reliable:
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2820QM 2.3 GHz (4 cores)\t10383
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2720QM 2.2 GHz (4 cores)\t10045
Comments
, why we don't already have render farms of Mac Pros+4xSingleSlotCards in SLI is beyond me.
Because SJ knows what's best for people, absolutely: "Cool" toys.
Apple long ago abandoned all pretence at its vague attempts to target seriously high-end desktop computer users. Now, only the most stupid use Mac's for rendering as Windows PC's overtook Mac OS years ago in the graphics department.
SJ's universe... It's toys all the way...
Apple long ago abandoned all pretence at its vague attempts to target seriously high-end desktop computer users. Now, only the most stupid use Mac's for rendering...
Except in video editing suites. And audio. And high-end scientific labs. And anywhere OS X's software is irreplaceable.
Graphics really don't have much to do with rendering at all.
CPU's newer, GPU's newer, HDD can easily be replaced with something faster, and as it's SATA III vs. SATA II in the iMac, the iMac can never reach the same speeds transferring to any HDD/SDD.
Arguably, the MacBook Pro is more expandable as you can actually get to the hard drive as a user-replaceable part.
That's absurd.
- The CPU in the iMac is much faster than the one in the MBP - even after considering the 'newer' CPU in the MBP
- The GPU in the iMac is WAAAAAYYYY faster than the one in the MPB - even after considering that the one in the MBP is newer.
- Hard drives can be replaced in both - although that's something that very few people ever do in a laptop. (Granted, it's not easy on the iMac, but there are services that do it for you). Besides, unlike the MBP, you can have both a hard drive and an SSD in the iMac.
So, your 'greater value' means that the MBP has a slower CPU, slower GPU, less RAM expandability 1/2 the screen area, and a smaller keyboard --- but the user can more easily instal a hard drive?
I'm glad that I don't let you make my 'better value' decisions for me.
- The CPU in the iMac is much faster than the one in the MBP - even after considering the 'newer' CPU in the MBP
Have a benchmark on hand? This is just curiosity; I'm not questioning you.
- Hard drives can be replaced in both - although that's something that very few people ever do in a laptop. (Granted, it's not easy on the iMac, but there are services that do it for you).
Doesn't refute the difference between SATA II and SATA III
Besides, unlike the MBP, you can have both a hard drive and an SSD in the iMac.
Uh huh.
So, your 'greater value' means that the MBP has a slower CPU, slower GPU, less RAM expandability 1/2 the screen area, and a smaller keyboard --- but the user can more easily instal a hard drive?
It's a laptop, fool. They're for different demographics. Hard drive replaceability is next to meaningless on a desktop; you're not toting it anywhere, so you can have external drives.
I'm glad I'm not making your decisions simply because you wouldn't seem to know why the decisions exist.
Besides, unlike the MBP, you can have both a hard drive and an SSD in the iMac.
My MacBook Pro, with 100GB Vertex 2 boot drive and 1TB data drive is magic, I guess.
Though I went with this one instead of the MCE.
Doesn't refute the difference between SATA II and SATA III
You'd have to use SSDs like the latest OCZ Vertex 3 or Intel 510 Series to take advantage of SATA III, most existing HDD/SSD will offer the same performance on SATA II or SATA III. Or even SATA I depending on the drive.
SATA I is OK for most HDDs (up to 150MB/s)
SATA II is OK for those and mainstream SSDs (up to 300MB/s)
SATA III is for the future (up to 600MB/s)
For the performance evaluation, you can use geekbench, if you want, but IMO there are too many weird results for it to be fully reliable:
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2820QM 2.3 GHz (4 cores)\t10383
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2720QM 2.2 GHz (4 cores)\t10045
iMac (27-inch Mid 2010) Intel Core i7 870 2.93 GHz (4 cores)\t9122
MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores)\t8794
iMac (27-inch Late 2009) Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores)\t8328
Or you can rely on Mac World's speedmark, that IMO are more relevant:
In this case, the 2010 iMacs still "win". But the jump in performance for the MBPs over the previous generation is impressive.
In any case, the iMac will get its refresh too in a few weeks.
Still waiting.
It shouldn't have been all that hard for them to do.
where do i obtain this mac to my mac functionality?
it's part of Mobile.Me - I use it all the time, and whilenit generally works perfectly, it sometimes has issues - Especially with weirdness that can occur on free wifi hotspots. If this udate improves that I'm all for it!
AI simply don't proof read and it's pretty inexcusable.
Coming to AI for the articles is analogous to reading PlayBoy for the articles
Graphics really don't have much to do with rendering at all.
Well, they really do - but for people with serious rendering to do the have one, or more often than not many external headless computers crunching away. In that case that the computer isn't a Mac doesn't really matter too much. Indeed the typically are running a really stripped version of Linux or BSD.
Now having said that, this is a very positive development since the choice of graphics cards is indeed pathetic
You'd have to use SSDs like the latest OCZ Vertex 3 or Intel 510 Series to take advantage of SATA III, most existing HDD/SSD will offer the same performance on SATA II or SATA III. Or even SATA I depending on the drive.
SATA I is OK for most HDDs (up to 150MB/s)
SATA II is OK for those and mainstream SSDs (up to 300MB/s)
SATA III is for the future (up to 600MB/s)
For the performance evaluation, you can use geekbench, if you want, but IMO there are too many weird results for it to be fully reliable:
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2820QM 2.3 GHz (4 cores)\t10383
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2720QM 2.2 GHz (4 cores)\t10045
iMac (27-inch Mid 2010) Intel Core i7 870 2.93 GHz (4 cores)\t9122
MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011) Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores)\t8794
iMac (27-inch Late 2009) Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores)\t8328
Or you can rely on Mac World's speedmark, that IMO are more relevant:
In this case, the 2010 iMacs still "win". But the jump in performance for the MBPs over the previous generation is impressive.
In any case, the iMac will get its refresh too in a few weeks.
WOW
ai a
i am bakazingb fast
i am blazing fast
w/ my
brand new
15"MBP 2.3GHz intel core i7 8g 1333
AMD Radeon HD 6750M
Chipset Model
fir a lowly speed jerk like me i am so happy
nmany slow games just sppeeeeeddd along
pow
bam
cachow
pow pam bam
and i can walk arounds a bit
so i think that apple say now they can unclock these chips meansn
something
clint eastward walks in the room
Clint walk out
he turns back and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,