5120x2880 x 24 x 60? What does the 24 stand for - FPS?
60 is FPS or Hz in monitor terms, the 24 is for colors per pixel - 8 bits each for red, green and blue. Images are typically 32-bit but the last 8-bits are for alpha which don't need to be sent to a display. There are compression options to be able to send more data and lossless algorithms would be preferred but any processing will introduce some latency.
Run length encoding would be the quickest and easiest. If you had a row of white pixels, rather than send over white for each pixel, you'd send a code to indicate it was a run-length value and then the color and the number of pixels so 1000 white pixels would normally use up 1000 x 60 x 24 = 1.44Mbps whereas RLE would have a unique code not confused with color data, this could just be a table of pixel co-ordinates with the number so if the 1000 line was at 467, 881 and horizontal, they can use 2x16-bit co-ordinates plus a single 24-bit color plus a single 16-bit number of pixels, still x 60Hz = 4.32kbps. The normal pixels can be just encoded together because when the pixel coordinate is hit in the table, it fills the data out on the monitor end. For cases where there is not a lot of repeated pixels next to each other like a fullscreen movie or photo, if the bandwidth exceeds the capacity of the cable, they split the frame in two and send half on each refresh cycle so the rate drops from 60Hz to 59Hz for one second and then goes back up. They can also do a comparison to the last frame and mark pixel ranges as unchanged. Apple puts the software on both ends so they should be able to do this.
The 2013 iMac is up around 12000-14000 so it's 6-7x in 9 years. Doubling every 2 years would be 2^4.5 = 22x so the 2015 models should be another 4x faster than 2013 to catch up. I don't think they're doing too badly.
For GPUs, in 2006 they were the GMA 950 and X1600. The Iris Pro is about 32x faster than those. It's only 4-8x faster than the 2008 NVidia GPUs but Iris Pro is from 2013 and Skylake is supposed to boost the cores 80%.
Nobody else is doing as well as Intel just now. AMD could put out faster chips if they wanted but they don't have any.
This won't become a problem though, it's just that computer upgrades will become like appliances. When you buy a new microwave, you don't expect it to be vastly different from the one you had. Computers will get like that too because what you need it to do won't change dramatically.
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder how long Intel can continue reducing the size of chips. They must be getting close to the practical limit at 14 nanometers. Are we closing in on a time where, barring any out-of-the-box innovation, chips have reached their limit in terms of speed and transistor density?
Cannonlake is the next process shrink (@ 10nm) that they have. After that, things get...interesting.
60 is FPS or Hz in monitor terms, the 24 is for colors per pixel - 8 bits each for red, green and blue. Images are typically 32-bit but the last 8-bits are for alpha which don't need to be sent to a display. There are compression options to be able to send more data and lossless algorithms would be preferred but any processing will introduce some latency.
Run length encoding would be the quickest and easiest. If you had a row of white pixels, rather than send over white for each pixel, you'd send a code to indicate it was a run-length value and then the color and the number of pixels so 1000 white pixels would normally use up 1000 x 60 x 24 = 1.44Mbps whereas RLE would have a unique code not confused with color data, this could just be a table of pixel co-ordinates with the number so if the 1000 line was at 467, 881 and horizontal, they can use 2x16-bit co-ordinates plus a single 24-bit color plus a single 16-bit number of pixels, still x 60Hz = 4.32kbps. The normal pixels can be just encoded together because when the pixel coordinate is hit in the table, it fills the data out on the monitor end. For cases where there is not a lot of repeated pixels next to each other like a fullscreen movie or photo, if the bandwidth exceeds the capacity of the cable, they split the frame in two and send half on each refresh cycle so the rate drops from 60Hz to 59Hz for one second and then goes back up. They can also do a comparison to the last frame and mark pixel ranges as unchanged. Apple puts the software on both ends so they should be able to do this.
9 years would be 2006. The iMacs in 2006 were around 2000 here (click 64-bit multi-core):
The 2013 iMac is up around 12000-14000 so it's 6-7x in 9 years. Doubling every 2 years would be 2^4.5 = 22x so the 2015 models should be another 4x faster than 2013 to catch up. I don't think they're doing too badly.
For GPUs, in 2006 they were the GMA 950 and X1600. The Iris Pro is about 32x faster than those. It's only 4-8x faster than the 2008 NVidia GPUs but Iris Pro is from 2013 and Skylake is supposed to boost the cores 80%.
Nobody else is doing as well as Intel just now. AMD could put out faster chips if they wanted but they don't have any.
This won't become a problem though, it's just that computer upgrades will become like appliances. When you buy a new microwave, you don't expect it to be vastly different from the one you had. Computers will get like that too because what you need it to do won't change dramatically.
But this was an expected roadmap from 6 years ago, things have changed.
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder how long Intel can continue reducing the size of chips. They must be getting close to the practical limit at 14 nanometers. Are we closing in on a time where, barring any out-of-the-box innovation, chips have reached their limit in terms of speed and transistor density?
I think they are reaching the limits of what can be done with silicon, but there are other elements that can be used. A computer is just a machine that manipulates information, there must be a hundred ways to implement that.
A compelling post. Maybe Wizard may also agree with you on this. I know I do. I'd like to see AMD get back in the 'race' with 'Zen' and do for cpus what their gpus do. ie. Perform competitively.
The thing here is that Apple could slot an AMD APU in the Mini and get similar performance at the expense of higher wattages. It tells needs to lose a few design ins to achieve a change in attitude.
I thought we'd be seeing 6-8 cores on desktop at .14. And clock speeds somewhat higher. 9 years, huh? The i7 has been around for some time now. Feels like we have had 'tread water' updates in the last few years.
Well not exactly, Intel was forced to allocate a huge amount of die space to Graphics. Interestingly this is a direct result of AMD designing in much better GPUs into their APU chips.
But still, if Skylake only offers 20% efficiency on performance on 4gig. That will make a 4 gig processor perform better than a 4 gig Haswell?
Add in DDR4. Die shrinks to gpus next year..? Hyper memory? PCIe with read and write speeds like that found on the 15 inch macbook pro? There's some decent overall speed improvements to be worth waiting for. It will help push that 5k iMac display a bit more convincingly..?
But I take your point.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I do wonder why the recently released hardware was so lackluster even in comparison to the Mac Book. DDR4 should be huge if it ever gets here.
Really makes the most sense. Broadwell was a major boondoggle but they did get the 14nm process working finally.
I would expect new Macs in October again. The Mac Pro will likely get bumped to Haswell-EP when they can. The issue there is that to ship a 4-5K Thunderbolt Display Apple needs TB3, and I believe that's Skylake only.
Talking of Intel and Mac Pros, Yesterday I found an extremely simply way to install Windows 8.1 or 10 on an external Thunderbolt Drive that boots no problem and runs like a charm on my new Mac Pro, I used an SSD so it is lighting fast. No Bootcamp involved other than installing the divers. 100% compatible with anything attached to my Mac and using all Mac Pro IOs including dual TB monitors. I can run Windows extreme 3D graphics games at last! Yay! Not sure if this is something AI has covered or if it is even of interest to folks but if so anyone wanting to know how just IM me.
Talking of Intel and Mac Pros, Yesterday I found an extremely simply way to install Windows 8.1 or 10 on an external Thunderbolt Drive that boots no problem and runs like a charm on my new Mac Pro, I used an SSD so it is lighting fast. No Bootcamp involved other than installing the divers. 100% compatible with anything attached to my Mac and using all Mac Pro IOs including dual TB monitors. I can run Windows extreme 3D graphics games at last! Yay! Not sure if this is something AI has covered or if it is even of interest to folks but if so anyone wanting to know how just IM me.
That would be a useful guide for people who don't want to partition the internal. I don't think there's been a simple guide for installing Windows on an external, they are usually just about the internal drive:
or just bump an old Bootcamp thread. I think you said you prefer kb/mouse but most games come setup with support for the following so it's useful to have one:
There's a rumor that the Steam Summer Sale starts tomorrow too so that will let you stock up on cheap games. They often have up to 75% off and the SteamPlay titles will run on the Mac:
I would expect new Macs in October again. The Mac Pro will likely get bumped to Haswell-EP when they can. The issue there is that to ship a 4-5K Thunderbolt Display Apple needs TB3, and I believe that's Skylake only.
I'll go further than that. I believe we're going to see TWO Thunderbolt displays this fall. I think we'll see an 8K version of the iMac/Thunderbolt Display in the 28"-32" range, and a 4K iMac/Thunderbolt Display in the 21"-24" range.
I'm no longer interested in purchasing a machine with an Intel CPU. Intel inside is now a liability, and definitely not an asset. I will be purchasing an iPad with an A9X as soon as it is released.
I would have purchased the new MacBook had Apple put the A8X inside and able to reduce the price on the machine. The Core M is far too expensive for a CPU that offers no distinct advantage over Apple's own ARM CPU except for keeping Intel's profit margins high.
I'm no longer interested in purchasing a machine with an Intel CPU. Intel inside is now a liability, and definitely not an asset. I will be purchasing an iPad with an A9X as soon as it is released.
I would have purchased the new MacBook had Apple put the A8X inside and able to reduce the price on the machine.
And where are you planning on purchasing the software to run on this non-Intel Mac?
Talking of Intel and Mac Pros, Yesterday I found an extremely simply way to install Windows 8.1 or 10 on an external Thunderbolt Drive that boots no problem and runs like a charm on my new Mac Pro, I used an SSD so it is lighting fast. No Bootcamp involved other than installing the divers. 100% compatible with anything attached to my Mac and using all Mac Pro IOs including dual TB monitors. I can run Windows extreme 3D graphics games at last! Yay! Not sure if this is something AI has covered or if it is even of interest to folks but if so anyone wanting to know how just IM me.
I'd be very interested in seeing A write up. Does this indicate that Windows is now less dependent upon BIOS?
That would be a useful guide for people who don't want to partition the internal. I don't think there's been a simple guide for installing Windows on an external, they are usually just about the internal drive:
or just bump an old Bootcamp thread. I think you said you prefer kb/mouse but most games come setup with support for the following so it's useful to have one:
There's a rumor that the Steam Summer Sale starts tomorrow too so that will let you stock up on cheap games. They often have up to 75% off and the SteamPlay titles will run on the Mac:
See above for my How to ... No doubt many other ways but this was is soooo easy if you have the various parts already as I did. I don't know for sure but I suspect using a Thunderbolt drive and Parallels is circumventing Microsoft's attempt to force certified USB drives? I am not up on how to post info on other forums here. Never even looked at any other but this one. If you want to copy it elsewhere feel free
See above for my How to ... No doubt many other ways but this was is soooo easy if you have the various parts already as I did. I don't know for sure but I suspect using a Thunderbolt drive and Parallels is circumventing Microsoft's attempt to force certified USB drives? I am not up on how to post info on other forums here. Never even looked at any other but this one. If you want to copy it elsewhere feel free
To make a new thread like that, you hit the 'start new thread' button near the top of the page inside one of the subforums. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't make it as easy as OS X to boot externally. Maybe their software is too dependent on drive lettering and the registry or something.
Comments
60 is FPS or Hz in monitor terms, the 24 is for colors per pixel - 8 bits each for red, green and blue. Images are typically 32-bit but the last 8-bits are for alpha which don't need to be sent to a display. There are compression options to be able to send more data and lossless algorithms would be preferred but any processing will introduce some latency.
Run length encoding would be the quickest and easiest. If you had a row of white pixels, rather than send over white for each pixel, you'd send a code to indicate it was a run-length value and then the color and the number of pixels so 1000 white pixels would normally use up 1000 x 60 x 24 = 1.44Mbps whereas RLE would have a unique code not confused with color data, this could just be a table of pixel co-ordinates with the number so if the 1000 line was at 467, 881 and horizontal, they can use 2x16-bit co-ordinates plus a single 24-bit color plus a single 16-bit number of pixels, still x 60Hz = 4.32kbps. The normal pixels can be just encoded together because when the pixel coordinate is hit in the table, it fills the data out on the monitor end. For cases where there is not a lot of repeated pixels next to each other like a fullscreen movie or photo, if the bandwidth exceeds the capacity of the cable, they split the frame in two and send half on each refresh cycle so the rate drops from 60Hz to 59Hz for one second and then goes back up. They can also do a comparison to the last frame and mark pixel ranges as unchanged. Apple puts the software on both ends so they should be able to do this.
9 years would be 2006. The iMacs in 2006 were around 2000 here (click 64-bit multi-core):
https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
The 2013 iMac is up around 12000-14000 so it's 6-7x in 9 years. Doubling every 2 years would be 2^4.5 = 22x so the 2015 models should be another 4x faster than 2013 to catch up. I don't think they're doing too badly.
For GPUs, in 2006 they were the GMA 950 and X1600. The Iris Pro is about 32x faster than those. It's only 4-8x faster than the 2008 NVidia GPUs but Iris Pro is from 2013 and Skylake is supposed to boost the cores 80%.
Nobody else is doing as well as Intel just now. AMD could put out faster chips if they wanted but they don't have any.
Intel has a roadmap to 2022 at 4nm:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090822094141_Intel_Outlines_Process_Technology_Roadmap.html
This won't become a problem though, it's just that computer upgrades will become like appliances. When you buy a new microwave, you don't expect it to be vastly different from the one you had. Computers will get like that too because what you need it to do won't change dramatically.
August in Intel time probs means some time next year
Is it time for PowerPC yet?
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder how long Intel can continue reducing the size of chips. They must be getting close to the practical limit at 14 nanometers. Are we closing in on a time where, barring any out-of-the-box innovation, chips have reached their limit in terms of speed and transistor density?
Cannonlake is the next process shrink (@ 10nm) that they have. After that, things get...interesting.
60 is FPS or Hz in monitor terms, the 24 is for colors per pixel - 8 bits each for red, green and blue. Images are typically 32-bit but the last 8-bits are for alpha which don't need to be sent to a display. There are compression options to be able to send more data and lossless algorithms would be preferred but any processing will introduce some latency.
Run length encoding would be the quickest and easiest. If you had a row of white pixels, rather than send over white for each pixel, you'd send a code to indicate it was a run-length value and then the color and the number of pixels so 1000 white pixels would normally use up 1000 x 60 x 24 = 1.44Mbps whereas RLE would have a unique code not confused with color data, this could just be a table of pixel co-ordinates with the number so if the 1000 line was at 467, 881 and horizontal, they can use 2x16-bit co-ordinates plus a single 24-bit color plus a single 16-bit number of pixels, still x 60Hz = 4.32kbps. The normal pixels can be just encoded together because when the pixel coordinate is hit in the table, it fills the data out on the monitor end. For cases where there is not a lot of repeated pixels next to each other like a fullscreen movie or photo, if the bandwidth exceeds the capacity of the cable, they split the frame in two and send half on each refresh cycle so the rate drops from 60Hz to 59Hz for one second and then goes back up. They can also do a comparison to the last frame and mark pixel ranges as unchanged. Apple puts the software on both ends so they should be able to do this.
9 years would be 2006. The iMacs in 2006 were around 2000 here (click 64-bit multi-core):
https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
The 2013 iMac is up around 12000-14000 so it's 6-7x in 9 years. Doubling every 2 years would be 2^4.5 = 22x so the 2015 models should be another 4x faster than 2013 to catch up. I don't think they're doing too badly.
For GPUs, in 2006 they were the GMA 950 and X1600. The Iris Pro is about 32x faster than those. It's only 4-8x faster than the 2008 NVidia GPUs but Iris Pro is from 2013 and Skylake is supposed to boost the cores 80%.
Nobody else is doing as well as Intel just now. AMD could put out faster chips if they wanted but they don't have any.
Intel has a roadmap to 2022 at 4nm:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090822094141_Intel_Outlines_Process_Technology_Roadmap.html
This won't become a problem though, it's just that computer upgrades will become like appliances. When you buy a new microwave, you don't expect it to be vastly different from the one you had. Computers will get like that too because what you need it to do won't change dramatically.
But this was an expected roadmap from 6 years ago, things have changed.
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder how long Intel can continue reducing the size of chips. They must be getting close to the practical limit at 14 nanometers. Are we closing in on a time where, barring any out-of-the-box innovation, chips have reached their limit in terms of speed and transistor density?
I think they are reaching the limits of what can be done with silicon, but there are other elements that can be used. A computer is just a machine that manipulates information, there must be a hundred ways to implement that.
Nope. IBM doesn't even own semiconductor fabs anymore.
Nope. IBM doesn't even own semiconductor fabs anymore.
Neither does Apple, but it doesn't seem to stop them churning out chip designs.
Things require new materials to handle Quantum Entanglement and Uncertainty Principle. Moore's Law ends.
The thing here is that Apple could slot an AMD APU in the Mini and get similar performance at the expense of higher wattages. It tells needs to lose a few design ins to achieve a change in attitude. Well not exactly, Intel was forced to allocate a huge amount of die space to Graphics. Interestingly this is a direct result of AMD designing in much better GPUs into their APU chips.
I do wonder why the recently released hardware was so lackluster even in comparison to the Mac Book. DDR4 should be huge if it ever gets here.
Talking of Intel and Mac Pros, Yesterday I found an extremely simply way to install Windows 8.1 or 10 on an external Thunderbolt Drive that boots no problem and runs like a charm on my new Mac Pro, I used an SSD so it is lighting fast. No Bootcamp involved other than installing the divers. 100% compatible with anything attached to my Mac and using all Mac Pro IOs including dual TB monitors. I can run Windows extreme 3D graphics games at last! Yay! Not sure if this is something AI has covered or if it is even of interest to folks but if so anyone wanting to know how just IM me.
That would be a useful guide for people who don't want to partition the internal. I don't think there's been a simple guide for installing Windows on an external, they are usually just about the internal drive:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/05/exploring_windows_7_on_the_mac_installation_via_boot_camp
It can go in a new thread in either of the software forums:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/f/55/software
or just bump an old Bootcamp thread. I think you said you prefer kb/mouse but most games come setup with support for the following so it's useful to have one:
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-Controller-Windows/dp/B004QRKWLA
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbox-Wireless-Controller-Windows/dp/B004QRKWKQ
There's a rumor that the Steam Summer Sale starts tomorrow too so that will let you stock up on cheap games. They often have up to 75% off and the SteamPlay titles will run on the Mac:
http://store.steampowered.com
I would expect new Macs in October again. The Mac Pro will likely get bumped to Haswell-EP when they can. The issue there is that to ship a 4-5K Thunderbolt Display Apple needs TB3, and I believe that's Skylake only.
I'll go further than that. I believe we're going to see TWO Thunderbolt displays this fall. I think we'll see an 8K version of the iMac/Thunderbolt Display in the 28"-32" range, and a 4K iMac/Thunderbolt Display in the 21"-24" range.
I would have purchased the new MacBook had Apple put the A8X inside and able to reduce the price on the machine. The Core M is far too expensive for a CPU that offers no distinct advantage over Apple's own ARM CPU except for keeping Intel's profit margins high.
I'm no longer interested in purchasing a machine with an Intel CPU. Intel inside is now a liability, and definitely not an asset. I will be purchasing an iPad with an A9X as soon as it is released.
I would have purchased the new MacBook had Apple put the A8X inside and able to reduce the price on the machine.
And where are you planning on purchasing the software to run on this non-Intel Mac?
From the App Store! This is not as big a problem as people make it out to be.
I'd be very interested in seeing A write up. Does this indicate that Windows is now less dependent upon BIOS?
See above for my How to ... No doubt many other ways but this was is soooo easy if you have the various parts already as I did. I don't know for sure but I suspect using a Thunderbolt drive and Parallels is circumventing Microsoft's attempt to force certified USB drives? I am not up on how to post info on other forums here. Never even looked at any other but this one. If you want to copy it elsewhere feel free
I moved it over to a new thread here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/186425/how-to-boot-windows-on-a-thunderbolt-external-drive
To make a new thread like that, you hit the 'start new thread' button near the top of the page inside one of the subforums. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't make it as easy as OS X to boot externally. Maybe their software is too dependent on drive lettering and the registry or something.
I replied but It's been moved. See above. Hope you find it fun.