I was under the impression it was more than just integer ops, but also register entries that got advantage from 64 "bitness." And re CoreImage, I was under the impression that it was a shared load, and tht not all edits translated to the GPU. (I'm actually strongly hoping that's the case, having a vague idea of the slop in GPU math).
Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
I was under the impression it was more than just integer ops, but also register entries that got advantage from 64 "bitness." And re CoreImage, I was under the impression that it was a shared load, and tht not all edits translated to the GPU. (I'm actually strongly hoping that's the case, having a vague idea of the slop in GPU math).
Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
Yes, with x86, the move to 64 bit integer also doubled the number of processor registers.
And yes, CoreImage works out the best combination of CPU and GPU for a particular image operation. But I believe that with the kind of systems that Aperture runs on, most of the leg work is in the GPU.
I was under the impression it was more than just integer ops, but also register entries that got advantage from 64 "bitness." [..] Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
Neither of that has to do with Core Image.
Quote:
And re CoreImage, I was under the impression that it was a shared load, and tht not all edits translated to the GPU. (I'm actually strongly hoping that's the case, having a vague idea of the slop in GPU math).
Core Image uses the GPU wherever possible. If it's not capable enough, vector processing extensions of the CPU will be used (I believe this is only implemented for AltiVec), and otherwise, the normal CPU components will be used.
Maybe Apple is planning on bringing a digital camera to the market?
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
Agree with Onlooker, as well why should Apple develope a camera? Current ones work fine with Macs. It would divert time and resources which would be better spent elsewhere.
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
I very much so agree. Espessially in the Digital SLR market. It's not that I don't think Apple couldn't create a superior SLR, it's just that I think that the market is already too full and Canon and Nikon have a major hold on the market by far. In addition, for it to be sucessful, it would have to be compatible with most lenses, certainly Nikon and/or Canon.
On a consumer/compact level, Apple would be much more sucessful, but still, even here, I don't think Apple would be able to offer a diverse enough eco system or cameras to be better or more competative than any other camera on the market today. As far as consumer cameras, canon, nikon, sony, and kodak are the major players, each with a piece of the pie.
Also, Apple makes computers, software for those computers, iPods, monitors, a few other random crap, and thats about it. They don't have a very diverse electronics selection. Apple would much rather partner with Canon than compete with them.
Comments
Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
I was under the impression it was more than just integer ops, but also register entries that got advantage from 64 "bitness." And re CoreImage, I was under the impression that it was a shared load, and tht not all edits translated to the GPU. (I'm actually strongly hoping that's the case, having a vague idea of the slop in GPU math).
Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
Yes, with x86, the move to 64 bit integer also doubled the number of processor registers.
And yes, CoreImage works out the best combination of CPU and GPU for a particular image operation. But I believe that with the kind of systems that Aperture runs on, most of the leg work is in the GPU.
I was under the impression it was more than just integer ops, but also register entries that got advantage from 64 "bitness." [..] Also, I know AMD got a fair boost transitioning to their 64bit extensions, removing a lot of legacy bottleneck, and hold a vague assumption that Intel may see similar gains.
Neither of that has to do with Core Image.
And re CoreImage, I was under the impression that it was a shared load, and tht not all edits translated to the GPU. (I'm actually strongly hoping that's the case, having a vague idea of the slop in GPU math).
Core Image uses the GPU wherever possible. If it's not capable enough, vector processing extensions of the CPU will be used (I believe this is only implemented for AltiVec), and otherwise, the normal CPU components will be used.
Maybe Apple is planning on bringing a digital camera to the market?
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
Agree with Onlooker, as well why should Apple develope a camera? Current ones work fine with Macs. It would divert time and resources which would be better spent elsewhere.
Appleinsider says iMac and Mac Mini (mac mini has Core Duo not Core 2 Duo) is it suppose to be iMac and MacBook Pro C2D???
Tuesday! Tuesday!!
I totally doubt that, and if they did I'd never get one. I don't think any other photographers, amateur, or pro, would either. There are so many companies that have been making, and perfecting camera equipment for well over 100 years that come out with updated equipment 30 times more frequently than Apple could. Not to mention lens attachments, and all the other goodies. Apple could never gain an inch on nikon, Olympus, canon, or kodak, and that is just a few of the more obvious brands.
I very much so agree. Espessially in the Digital SLR market. It's not that I don't think Apple couldn't create a superior SLR, it's just that I think that the market is already too full and Canon and Nikon have a major hold on the market by far. In addition, for it to be sucessful, it would have to be compatible with most lenses, certainly Nikon and/or Canon.
On a consumer/compact level, Apple would be much more sucessful, but still, even here, I don't think Apple would be able to offer a diverse enough eco system or cameras to be better or more competative than any other camera on the market today. As far as consumer cameras, canon, nikon, sony, and kodak are the major players, each with a piece of the pie.
Also, Apple makes computers, software for those computers, iPods, monitors, a few other random crap, and thats about it. They don't have a very diverse electronics selection. Apple would much rather partner with Canon than compete with them.