I know. That's why I said the DP floating point performance of Kepler is crippled compared to Fermi. See the page I linked for details.
"Because it’s based around double precision math the GTX 680 does rather poorly here, but the surprising bit is that it did so to a larger degree than we’d expect. The GTX 680’s FP64 performance is 1/24th its FP32 performance, compared to 1/8th on GTX 580 and 1/12th on GTX 560 Ti."
No argument (and if you hadn't edited while I was replying I might have commented then ) ... but how many of those are mobile GPUs?
Even the 680 mentioned is the desktop version, not a mobile one. The 680M is closer in performance to a 670.
All the same though ... that is a lot of computing power in a portable package.
I had the opportunity to talk to a nVidia engineer when there were rumors of an nVidia chip returning to the MBP. He couldn't tell me if it was happening (he didn't know, or plays poker real good), but we also discussed using an external PCI bus connected via the Thunderport with high end GPUs. He seen it done for video production, but hadn't occurred to him to use it for numeric processing. We suspect that the copper would be a bottleneck until we start seeing the fibre connected Thunderports coming out. Be interesting to try ... Kepler or Fermi based ... and would still be a solution far more portable than a desktop.
Yeah, I really don't understand why they went backward in design in making the new MagSafe plug perpendicular with the laptop chassis. The previous, flush design was clever and less obtrusive.
It irks me that the immediate assumption that the only people the "Pro" moniker applies to is graphics "professionals".
What about science professionals or data analyst professionals? Focus on the retina display by all means, but why does every single freeakin' review ignore the fact that this thing can be upgraded to a 2.7Ghz Quad Core i7 CPU, and the nVidia GPU runs at a CUDA 3.0 compute capability (hello? MatLab users?? Software engineers?)
While its hard to ignore the retina display, the computing power in the new MBP is pretty damn impressive in and of itself, but that gets scarce attention.
I guess the assumption is that "Pro" user really is just interested in the shiny things.
Go, play with your red eye reduction and reflections for your blog posting ... I have real work to do.
I understand that this assumption/stereotype "irks" you, but you don't have to be an a**hole about it and belittle other people's professions. If you don't like the "graphics 'professionals'" focus don't blame the reviews, blame Steve Jobs and Apple, they have always focused more on beauty, form and function, rather than raw power. Btw, your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say, perhaps you should try one.
Upgrading is becoming less and less important as time goes on. The demands of software is not increasing as fast as processing/storage speeds, especially when it comes to desktops/laptops. For fucks sake, the basic configuration STARTS with 8GB of RAM. Apple won't lose a single developer over this. They'll gain many.
I take it that you're not a developer? Xcode, especially when running Instruments, already needs 8GB for anything but the simplest apps.
If I was buying a retina MacBook Pro today I'd definitely go for the 16GB upgrade and then hope for the best. Pro apps eat up RAM.
I understand that this assumption/stereotype "irks" you, but you don't have to be an a**hole about it and belittle other people's professions. If you don't like the "graphics 'professionals'" focus don't blame the reviews, blame Steve Jobs and Apple, they have always focused more on beauty, form and function, rather than raw power. Btw, your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say, perhaps you should try one.
No, I blame the reviewers pretty squarely. They like shiny things. They are easily distracted.
Your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say too.
Why? Because you dont understand that a Mac *is* a PC. A Mac is a damn capable Unix workstation, that happens to have a pretty UI, and runs Windows really well (when needed). That is power ... and it is under appreciated ... especially by "graphics professionals" (even more so the ones that "work" all day at Starbucks).
As usual, AI performs a half-assed review and leaves out loads of potentially useful information.
1) Can the thing run Windows properly? Those of us that use these as a combination work/personal machine, need to use Windows. Obviously Windows has built-in native support for any resolution, so I don't doubt that it supports the retina display. But does apple have a suitable driver available for the 650 video card?
2) More importantly, how do extremely demanding visual applications tax the video card at native "retina" resolution? I guess this question will not be answerable until some of the photo- and video-editing software is updated to run natively on Retina. However, AI could have dual-booted Windows, and ran Adobe CS5 to get an idea of how this thing runs at retina resolutions. Why didn't they?
I have a custom-built computer running three 1920x1200 monitors with a MONSTER of a video card (it's a PC, of course). Even that sometimes gets laggy when using all those pixels in an intense gaming session or during instense video editing, etc.
Nobody seems to be bringing up the fact (and I suspect it is because we are dealing with Apple users here who are more UI- and software-oriented than they are hardware-oriented) that when you quadruple the number of pixels on the screen, it nearly quadruples the amount of work placed on the video card. This is the same video card that is used in gaming or in demanding graphic-intensive editing, etc. Something has to give, somewhere. And I would suspect that once Photoshop is updated to run the native retina desplay, the old-version Macbook Pro with its 1440x900 screen will run much faster and smoother than the retina display model -- it has the same video card pushing 1/4 of the pixels!
3) Why does AI not even mention the fact that this thing is virtually impossible to upgrade yourself? I don't know any "pros" who pay the exhorbitant Apple rates to upgrade their machines. Hell, I upgraded my old 13" MBP to 8GB of ram for under $100. Apple would have charged a fortune. Can I afford this thing? Sure. Can I afford to pay Apple to upgrade it in a couple of years? Yeah, but it makes me really hesitant to buy one.
I am already furious that I cannot upgrade the ram on my 11" Macbook Air (I bought it when it first came out without researching it enough). The ONLY reason that APple did not create some sort of proprietary removable connection on the new ram is to force users to rely on Apple to upgrade (or perhaps to save a few pennies by just soldering the memory directly to the motherboard).
4) Why can't AI at least admit that in a "Pro" model, it MAY be a huge drawback for some professionals not to have an integrated optical drive. Personally, I say good riddance. But I can guarantee there are a lot of professionals out there who travel and who need optical drives. Corporate America has not exactly abandoned the CD/DVD. I realize you can buy an external, but that is a huge PITA.
Overall, I REALLY like this thing. Do not get me wrong. I am just frustrated by the many reviews that essentially call the new screen "pretty," complain a bit about the lack of third-party retina support, and then conclude that the new MBP is great. It leaves so many important questions unanswered.
No, I blame the reviewers pretty squarely. They like shiny things. They are easily distracted.
Your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say too.
Why? Because you dont understand that a Mac *is* a PC. A Mac is a damn capable Unix workstation, that happens to have a pretty UI, and runs Windows really well (when needed). That is power ... and it is under appreciated ... especially by "graphics professionals" (even more so the ones that "work" all day at Starbucks).
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
Glossy screens are like tinnitus. Yes you can ignore it but it will consciously or subconsciously put a strain on your brain. Please Apple give us a screen without this awfull mirror reflection.
You really need to go and see one of the new screens, compare it with the plain glossy MBP screen while you're at it.
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
<sigh>
What YOU dont understand is that that is what I am saying. Not everyone is a "graphics professional".
A lot of "professionals" are not as concerned about the kerning of a font in photoshop as they are about having a fast, usable, portable machine.
THE MAC IS A FREAKING PC. It's a *personal computer*. It is a tool. It is something that allows a professional to do their job, whatever job that might be. The media focus on a slim segment of the audience is not doing anyone a favour. Especially when it perpetuates the narrow minded attitude to computer usage that you are displaying.
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
THIS IS WHAT MICROSOFT USERS ACTUALLY THINK WE DO.
No it's not the same, but the old MBP were ridiculously reflective. I have looked at the MBA (which most reviews states are equal to the retina screen), and the are way to reflective still, and it's a pain to look at. Also a couple of reviews states that you just have to get used to the reflections. I don't pay 2k for a laptop that I have to "get used to". And yes I absolutely don't have to. My problem is that I prefer Mac OS over Windows/Linux and that the only alternative is strange in between resolution on a MBP that are more expensive and heavier than the Retina when configured the same way. If we could just buy the new form factor with a normal matte display at least.
No it's not the same, but the old MBP were ridiculously reflective. I have looked at the MBA (which most reviews states are equal to the retina screen), and the are way to reflective still, and it's a pain to look at. Also a couple of reviews states that you just have to get used to the reflections. I don't pay 2k for a laptop that I have to "get used to". And yes I absolutely don't have to. My problem is that I prefer Mac OS over Windows/Linux and that the only alternative is strange in between resolution on a MBP that are more expensive and heavier than the Retina when configured the same way. If we could just buy the new form factor with a normal matte display at least.
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
READ MY GODDAMN SIGNATURE!
you are acting very foolish.
Do you not understand what PC stands for?
If you mean "Windows user" please clarify.
Than, clarify what version of windows, because windows XP and Windows 7 are two completely different beasts.
PS: i use Windows 7 ultimate, OSX (one with application dock), and a lightweight version of linux.
Guess what........ I use windows for most productivity work, Linux for when i just want to browse web, and OSX for server/file storage/itunes.
As another note, i grew up using a Mac and OSX. I switched to PC for two reasons:
1. cheaper with better screen, and CPU than MB, and MBP was to expensive.
2. i wanted to be able to get rid of the dvd drive computer came with and install an extra battery pack
3. i can swap the battery and dvd drive whenever i want to :P
4. i got a lenovo thinkpad, so i knew it wouldn't break like dell/hp. Sadly i found out this was true...
Than, clarify what version of windows, because windows XP and Windows 7 are two completely different beasts.
PS: i use Windows 7 ultimate, OSX (one with application dock), and a lightweight version of linux.
Guess what........ I use windows for most productivity work, Linux for when i just want to browse web, and OSX for server/file storage/itunes.
As another note, i grew up using a Mac and OSX. I switched to PC for two reasons:
1. cheaper with better screen, and CPU than MB, and MBP was to expensive.
2. i wanted to be able to get rid of the dvd drive computer came with and install an extra battery pack
3. i can swap the battery and dvd drive whenever i want to :P
4. i got a lenovo thinkpad, so i knew it wouldn't break like dell/hp. Sadly i found out this was true...
Dude, what is your damage? a kitty dies every time someone uses the term in a non-dictionary manner? chillax please. I understand your point of view, and you are right, but if you look at the context of the conversation between tokenuser and me you'll see that I was using the terms PC and Mac the same way the "Get a Mac" ad campaign from Apple did, the same way most people think a PC is. If you need the email address of Apple so you can correct them also I'll be more than happy to provide it for you.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
I know. That's why I said the DP floating point performance of Kepler is crippled compared to Fermi. See the page I linked for details.
"Because it’s based around double precision math the GTX 680 does rather poorly here, but the surprising bit is that it did so to a larger degree than we’d expect. The GTX 680’s FP64 performance is 1/24th its FP32 performance, compared to 1/8th on GTX 580 and 1/12th on GTX 560 Ti."
No argument (and if you hadn't edited while I was replying I might have commented then
Even the 680 mentioned is the desktop version, not a mobile one. The 680M is closer in performance to a 670.
All the same though ... that is a lot of computing power in a portable package.
I had the opportunity to talk to a nVidia engineer when there were rumors of an nVidia chip returning to the MBP. He couldn't tell me if it was happening (he didn't know, or plays poker real good), but we also discussed using an external PCI bus connected via the Thunderport with high end GPUs. He seen it done for video production, but hadn't occurred to him to use it for numeric processing. We suspect that the copper would be a bottleneck until we start seeing the fibre connected Thunderports coming out. Be interesting to try ... Kepler or Fermi based ... and would still be a solution far more portable than a desktop.
Yeah, I really don't understand why they went backward in design in making the new MagSafe plug perpendicular with the laptop chassis. The previous, flush design was clever and less obtrusive.
We must have been looking at two different screens. No matter how I angle the glossy screens (also MBA) I can always see reflections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
It irks me that the immediate assumption that the only people the "Pro" moniker applies to is graphics "professionals".
What about science professionals or data analyst professionals? Focus on the retina display by all means, but why does every single freeakin' review ignore the fact that this thing can be upgraded to a 2.7Ghz Quad Core i7 CPU, and the nVidia GPU runs at a CUDA 3.0 compute capability (hello? MatLab users?? Software engineers?)
While its hard to ignore the retina display, the computing power in the new MBP is pretty damn impressive in and of itself, but that gets scarce attention.
I guess the assumption is that "Pro" user really is just interested in the shiny things.
Go, play with your red eye reduction and reflections for your blog posting ... I have real work to do.
I understand that this assumption/stereotype "irks" you, but you don't have to be an a**hole about it and belittle other people's professions. If you don't like the "graphics 'professionals'" focus don't blame the reviews, blame Steve Jobs and Apple, they have always focused more on beauty, form and function, rather than raw power. Btw, your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say, perhaps you should try one.
I take it that you're not a developer? Xcode, especially when running Instruments, already needs 8GB for anything but the simplest apps.
If I was buying a retina MacBook Pro today I'd definitely go for the 16GB upgrade and then hope for the best. Pro apps eat up RAM.
I like mine.
Fast, quiet, best display ever on a laptop.
I am glad I bought it
Am I a pro? I guess, I have a job, use it for work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realengo
I understand that this assumption/stereotype "irks" you, but you don't have to be an a**hole about it and belittle other people's professions. If you don't like the "graphics 'professionals'" focus don't blame the reviews, blame Steve Jobs and Apple, they have always focused more on beauty, form and function, rather than raw power. Btw, your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say, perhaps you should try one.
No, I blame the reviewers pretty squarely. They like shiny things. They are easily distracted.
Your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say too.
Why? Because you dont understand that a Mac *is* a PC. A Mac is a damn capable Unix workstation, that happens to have a pretty UI, and runs Windows really well (when needed). That is power ... and it is under appreciated ... especially by "graphics professionals" (even more so the ones that "work" all day at Starbucks).
As usual, AI performs a half-assed review and leaves out loads of potentially useful information.
1) Can the thing run Windows properly? Those of us that use these as a combination work/personal machine, need to use Windows. Obviously Windows has built-in native support for any resolution, so I don't doubt that it supports the retina display. But does apple have a suitable driver available for the 650 video card?
2) More importantly, how do extremely demanding visual applications tax the video card at native "retina" resolution? I guess this question will not be answerable until some of the photo- and video-editing software is updated to run natively on Retina. However, AI could have dual-booted Windows, and ran Adobe CS5 to get an idea of how this thing runs at retina resolutions. Why didn't they?
I have a custom-built computer running three 1920x1200 monitors with a MONSTER of a video card (it's a PC, of course). Even that sometimes gets laggy when using all those pixels in an intense gaming session or during instense video editing, etc.
Nobody seems to be bringing up the fact (and I suspect it is because we are dealing with Apple users here who are more UI- and software-oriented than they are hardware-oriented) that when you quadruple the number of pixels on the screen, it nearly quadruples the amount of work placed on the video card. This is the same video card that is used in gaming or in demanding graphic-intensive editing, etc. Something has to give, somewhere. And I would suspect that once Photoshop is updated to run the native retina desplay, the old-version Macbook Pro with its 1440x900 screen will run much faster and smoother than the retina display model -- it has the same video card pushing 1/4 of the pixels!
3) Why does AI not even mention the fact that this thing is virtually impossible to upgrade yourself? I don't know any "pros" who pay the exhorbitant Apple rates to upgrade their machines. Hell, I upgraded my old 13" MBP to 8GB of ram for under $100. Apple would have charged a fortune. Can I afford this thing? Sure. Can I afford to pay Apple to upgrade it in a couple of years? Yeah, but it makes me really hesitant to buy one.
I am already furious that I cannot upgrade the ram on my 11" Macbook Air (I bought it when it first came out without researching it enough). The ONLY reason that APple did not create some sort of proprietary removable connection on the new ram is to force users to rely on Apple to upgrade (or perhaps to save a few pennies by just soldering the memory directly to the motherboard).
4) Why can't AI at least admit that in a "Pro" model, it MAY be a huge drawback for some professionals not to have an integrated optical drive. Personally, I say good riddance. But I can guarantee there are a lot of professionals out there who travel and who need optical drives. Corporate America has not exactly abandoned the CD/DVD. I realize you can buy an external, but that is a huge PITA.
Overall, I REALLY like this thing. Do not get me wrong. I am just frustrated by the many reviews that essentially call the new screen "pretty," complain a bit about the lack of third-party retina support, and then conclude that the new MBP is great. It leaves so many important questions unanswered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
No, I blame the reviewers pretty squarely. They like shiny things. They are easily distracted.
Your last sentence sounds like something a PC user would say too.
Why? Because you dont understand that a Mac *is* a PC. A Mac is a damn capable Unix workstation, that happens to have a pretty UI, and runs Windows really well (when needed). That is power ... and it is under appreciated ... especially by "graphics professionals" (even more so the ones that "work" all day at Starbucks).
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66
Glossy screens are like tinnitus. Yes you can ignore it but it will consciously or subconsciously put a strain on your brain. Please Apple give us a screen without this awfull mirror reflection.
You really need to go and see one of the new screens, compare it with the plain glossy MBP screen while you're at it.
It's not the same at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realengo
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
<sigh>
What YOU dont understand is that that is what I am saying. Not everyone is a "graphics professional".
A lot of "professionals" are not as concerned about the kerning of a font in photoshop as they are about having a fast, usable, portable machine.
THE MAC IS A FREAKING PC. It's a *personal computer*. It is a tool. It is something that allows a professional to do their job, whatever job that might be. The media focus on a slim segment of the audience is not doing anyone a favour. Especially when it perpetuates the narrow minded attitude to computer usage that you are displaying.
I think you drank too much of the koolaid.
THIS IS WHAT MICROSOFT USERS ACTUALLY THINK WE DO.
No it's not the same, but the old MBP were ridiculously reflective. I have looked at the MBA (which most reviews states are equal to the retina screen), and the are way to reflective still, and it's a pain to look at. Also a couple of reviews states that you just have to get used to the reflections. I don't pay 2k for a laptop that I have to "get used to". And yes I absolutely don't have to. My problem is that I prefer Mac OS over Windows/Linux and that the only alternative is strange in between resolution on a MBP that are more expensive and heavier than the Retina when configured the same way. If we could just buy the new form factor with a normal matte display at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66
No it's not the same, but the old MBP were ridiculously reflective. I have looked at the MBA (which most reviews states are equal to the retina screen), and the are way to reflective still, and it's a pain to look at. Also a couple of reviews states that you just have to get used to the reflections. I don't pay 2k for a laptop that I have to "get used to". And yes I absolutely don't have to. My problem is that I prefer Mac OS over Windows/Linux and that the only alternative is strange in between resolution on a MBP that are more expensive and heavier than the Retina when configured the same way. If we could just buy the new form factor with a normal matte display at least.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834990528&nm_mc=OTC-FroogleNEW&cm_mmc=OTC-FroogleNEW-_-Mac+-+Accessories-_-iLuv-_-34990528
Quote:
Originally Posted by realengo
What YOU don't seem to understand is that as long as people can afford a Mac they are entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, that includes (but not limited to) writing a book, sitting all day at a Starbucks acting as cool as they want to because they have a Mac or doing whatever you (and your PC personality) thinks is real work.
READ MY GODDAMN SIGNATURE!
you are acting very foolish.
Do you not understand what PC stands for?
If you mean "Windows user" please clarify.
Than, clarify what version of windows, because windows XP and Windows 7 are two completely different beasts.
PS: i use Windows 7 ultimate, OSX (one with application dock), and a lightweight version of linux.
Guess what........ I use windows for most productivity work, Linux for when i just want to browse web, and OSX for server/file storage/itunes.
As another note, i grew up using a Mac and OSX. I switched to PC for two reasons:
1. cheaper with better screen, and CPU than MB, and MBP was to expensive.
2. i wanted to be able to get rid of the dvd drive computer came with and install an extra battery pack
3. i can swap the battery and dvd drive whenever i want to :P
4. i got a lenovo thinkpad, so i knew it wouldn't break like dell/hp. Sadly i found out this was true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
A good point, and a good explanation - MagSafe does in fact have that potential.
But, I still prefer its form factor, tucking against the machine.
Spend $9.99 and get a magsafe adapter. Done.
Ummm...which sticks out just like the MagSafe2 plughead, so, not a solution, not "done".
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Ummm...which sticks out just like the MagSafe2 plughead, so, not a solution, not "done".
Yes, but:
1. The cable still angles away parallel to the case.
2. Gives enough distance that the plug will "break away" instead of pulling the laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
THIS IS WHAT MICROSOFT USERS ACTUALLY THINK WE DO.
I know, I had to write in a manner that tokenuser could understand, unfortunately that meant using cliches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
READ MY GODDAMN SIGNATURE!
you are acting very foolish.
Do you not understand what PC stands for?
If you mean "Windows user" please clarify.
Than, clarify what version of windows, because windows XP and Windows 7 are two completely different beasts.
PS: i use Windows 7 ultimate, OSX (one with application dock), and a lightweight version of linux.
Guess what........ I use windows for most productivity work, Linux for when i just want to browse web, and OSX for server/file storage/itunes.
As another note, i grew up using a Mac and OSX. I switched to PC for two reasons:
1. cheaper with better screen, and CPU than MB, and MBP was to expensive.
2. i wanted to be able to get rid of the dvd drive computer came with and install an extra battery pack
3. i can swap the battery and dvd drive whenever i want to :P
4. i got a lenovo thinkpad, so i knew it wouldn't break like dell/hp. Sadly i found out this was true...
Dude, what is your damage? a kitty dies every time someone uses the term in a non-dictionary manner? chillax please. I understand your point of view, and you are right, but if you look at the context of the conversation between tokenuser and me you'll see that I was using the terms PC and Mac the same way the "Get a Mac" ad campaign from Apple did, the same way most people think a PC is. If you need the email address of Apple so you can correct them also I'll be more than happy to provide it for you.
Is the the case for real-life users, or is it restricted to the floor models?
Thanks.