The difference is that they said quad-core processors, not quad-core systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaddie
What type of RAM should Apple be using? Is there a reason Apple isn't using faster RAM?
It doesn't exist in FB-DIMM form factor, or is very expensive. FB-DIMM used to be about $50/GB more expensive than registered & ECC memory, but now it's close except for Apple's store pricing. The indications are that the FB-DIMM bus is plenty fast to accept faster RAM without replacing the system, it is just the special on-DIMM buffer chips that need to be changed for faster RAM chips.
All the Intel workstation/server chipsets use FB-DIMMs for their memory.
Yes, this isn't a rumor, it's been fact for about 8 months. Macs are available with dual or quad cores...
And stop asking for quad core laptops! Won't happen until they can figure out a way to half the heat output, which is more than a year away! MBPros are already close to melting, so doubling the heat isn't an option - and the next Intel update might cut heat by 5 or 10%, but will more likely offer better performance at the same heat....
I won't be buying one but some brushes on Painter are really dragging to an extent I didn't expect, maxing out the CPU while using only half my RAM. If I knew that when I bought - and I had to buy back then due to the old machine breaking on me - I'd have gone higher on the processor.
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps. Wasn't there an article from an Adobe rep that didn't even take advantage of 64-bit architecture? I'm pretty sure I read it on AI site, he made a lot of true points, but it still pissed me off.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
This page refers to the current system as Quad-Core:
The system is quad-core.
The text that got this whole thread got started refers to processors, not the system.
Apple currently does not offer a system with quad-core processors. One might say that a dual- dual-core Mac Pro is a quad-core system, but one cannot say that it has quad-core processors.
The text that got this whole thread started constitutes a leak if a leak is a company's reference to an unannounced product. Sure, we all knew the quad-core chips are on their way, but this is still a reference to an unannounced system configuration.
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. ... Too much hype on CPU
My main need for performance is Photoshop. I want Photoshop to run very well even while a bunch of other apps are running and also while iTunes is playing music.
I'm waiting for faster Mac Pros, but I realize that I'd never be able to tell the difference between the slowest Mac Pro currently available and the fastest one that (I believe) will be available later this spring (probably April 15-May 15).
And I'll probably pony up for the ultra-expensive option for the fastest-available processors. I'll do this even though I realize that for me there will be no perceptible performance gain from the standard or an even slower model.
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps. Wasn't there an article from an Adobe rep that didn't even take advantage of 64-bit architecture? I'm pretty sure I read it on AI site, he made a lot of true points, but it still pissed me off.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
I agree with everything you mentioned... According to an Adobe tech, PSCS3 isint even a true 64bit app yet, however it does recognize more than 2 gigs of ram, I tested the beta out when it was first available to DL and it came up with seeing like 3+gigs of ram to use on my system which has 4 gigs installed, so who knows... Im peeved Adobe hasnt used any of the Core tech Apple has developed to tap the power of your video card. Back to your topic though, I agree that there arent many apps that can take advantage of 2 or more cores out there yet, PS however takes adv of 2 from what I can remember.. the 8 core mac may be overhyped...
My main need for performance is Photoshop. I want Photoshop to run very well even while a bunch of other apps are running and also while iTunes is playing music.
I'm waiting for faster Mac Pros, but I realize that I'd never be able to tell the difference between the slowest Mac Pro currently available and the fastest one that (I believe) will be available later this spring (probably April 15-May 15).
And I'll probably pony up for the ultra-expensive option for the fastest-available processors. I'll do this even though I realize that for me there will be no perceptible performance gain from the standard or an even slower model.
I'm vain. Shoot me.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
i'm guilty of the same thing. I'll end up buying high performance ego, rather than ultimate efficiency. Numbers would lead me to believe there is a noticable difference, but honestly, once you get behind a Dual G5 vs. an 8-core machine, running photoshop, there isn't going to be a trail of burns, left behind by speed. However, a difference could be said for After Effects/Premiere/Final Cut.
I felt like in previous years, the less I knew, the more performance changes I could see. Not that I'm at the top of my game, but I don't think companies are really paradigm thinking/strategizing beyond what an OS should be... they're too busy soaking up the profits of milking the technology.
Damn them, and yet i'll still get suckered into the transition, instead of the "big picture" lol
Sorry, the iMac is "From $999" and they list the "ultimate setup" which will cost signifcantly more than that.
All of this is quite unimpressive and dull. There's no 'news' here except that it might be coming "soon". Then again, if you asked anyone on this board, I'm sure they would've told you the basic same things.
Now, if there was a display of a mac-semi-pro, a mini-tower mac with some expansion and at a $1000-$1300 price point, then you would have my interest.
Apple's unofficial slogan for the last five years or so has been:
"Apple, the only company who'd ask you to pay $2000 for a 15" laptop or a computer with a PCI slot".
I won't be buying one but some brushes on Painter are really dragging to an extent I didn't expect, maxing out the CPU while using only half my RAM. If I knew that when I bought - and I had to buy back then due to the old machine breaking on me - I'd have gone higher on the processor.
-Could you use XSlimmer to strip out the superfluous code & speed up the app? -I did on my machine & the diff. is noticeable.
...however [Photoshop] does recognize more than 2 gigs of ram...
I believe Photoshop recognizes up to 3GB of RAM before it uses the hard disk(s) for virtual memory. To use the full 3GB of RAM Photoshop can address, you'd have to have more than 3GB of RAM installed. If you had 16GB of RAM, Photoshop is still going to use just 3GB and then use the hard disk(s).
This is true for Photoshop CS2, and I believe it also applies to CS3, though I could be mistaken.
The text that got this whole thread got started refers to processors, not the system.
Apple currently does not offer a system with quad-core processors. One might say that a dual- dual-core Mac Pro is a quad-core system, but one cannot say that it has quad-core processors.
The text that got this whole thread started constitutes a leak if a leak is a company's reference to an unannounced product. Sure, we all knew the quad-core chips are on their way, but this is still a reference to an unannounced system configuration.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Yeah and what the sane people are arguing is that your reading too much into that just because there is an update to the Mac Pro due. If you had read this 6 months ago, you wouldn't assume it's an update, but that they are talking about the current line of Macs.
Apple marketting is counting cores not processors. An Apple Engineer sees a MacPro with 2 processors with 2 cores each with a total of 4 cores, an Apple marketer sees a quad core processor (referring to the overall computer box as we sometimes refer to the computer case and contents as a processor)
The fact that Apple's success is so closely intertwined with the ability of Adobe to deliver is troubling, and the fact that they've delayed new hardware introductions for this same reason is doubly-troubly.
Yeah and what the sane people are arguing is that your reading too much into that just because there is an update to the Mac Pro due. If you had read this 6 months ago, you wouldn't assume it's an update, but that they are talking about the current line of Macs.
1. I'm not sane;
2. If I had read this six months ago, I would indeed assume Apple was referring to the current line of Macs; and
3. If the statement that got this thread started is to be taken literally, then it's a reference to an unannounced product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard
Apple marketting is counting cores not processors. They see a MacPro with 2 processors with 2 cores each with a total of 4 cores as a quad processor after all we sometimes term the whole computer box as the processor.
We may term it any way we like. We're not going to be held legally liable for what we say, at least most of the time. Apple must be more careful. I assure you that what Apple's marketeers publish on behalf of Apple, Inc., must be approved by Apple's legal weasels.
Again, Apple referred to quad-core processors, not to quad-core systems/machines/configurations/solutions/boxes/towers/mini-towers/computers/. Apple does not currently offer anything featuring quad-core processors. The statement that got this thread started was a reference to an unannounced product if these statements are to be taken literally.
Comments
Everyone knows the quad core are coming, the question is: will they still have gutless video cards and slow overpriced RAM like the last model?
What type of RAM should Apple be using? Is there a reason Apple isn't using faster RAM?
Sincerely,
Jaddie
c'mon people.
Dual-Core is the iMac and the MacBook family
Quad-Core is the Mac Pro
There isn't a leak. It's not news. Move along.
The difference is that they said quad-core processors, not quad-core systems.
What type of RAM should Apple be using? Is there a reason Apple isn't using faster RAM?
It doesn't exist in FB-DIMM form factor, or is very expensive. FB-DIMM used to be about $50/GB more expensive than registered & ECC memory, but now it's close except for Apple's store pricing. The indications are that the FB-DIMM bus is plenty fast to accept faster RAM without replacing the system, it is just the special on-DIMM buffer chips that need to be changed for faster RAM chips.
All the Intel workstation/server chipsets use FB-DIMMs for their memory.
Every Mac Pro in the lineup features two of the newest Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors. Two dual-cores. One powerful quad workstation.
As seen on apple.com/macpro
As seen on apple.com/macpro
Yes, this isn't a rumor, it's been fact for about 8 months. Macs are available with dual or quad cores...
And stop asking for quad core laptops! Won't happen until they can figure out a way to half the heat output, which is more than a year away! MBPros are already close to melting, so doubling the heat isn't an option - and the next Intel update might cut heat by 5 or 10%, but will more likely offer better performance at the same heat....
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...A0&nclm=MacPro
Marketing.
I won't be buying one but some brushes on Painter are really dragging to an extent I didn't expect, maxing out the CPU while using only half my RAM. If I knew that when I bought - and I had to buy back then due to the old machine breaking on me - I'd have gone higher on the processor.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
This page refers to the current system as Quad-Core:
The system is quad-core.
The text that got this whole thread got started refers to processors, not the system.
Apple currently does not offer a system with quad-core processors. One might say that a dual- dual-core Mac Pro is a quad-core system, but one cannot say that it has quad-core processors.
The text that got this whole thread started constitutes a leak if a leak is a company's reference to an unannounced product. Sure, we all knew the quad-core chips are on their way, but this is still a reference to an unannounced system configuration.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. ... Too much hype on CPU
My main need for performance is Photoshop. I want Photoshop to run very well even while a bunch of other apps are running and also while iTunes is playing music.
I'm waiting for faster Mac Pros, but I realize that I'd never be able to tell the difference between the slowest Mac Pro currently available and the fastest one that (I believe) will be available later this spring (probably April 15-May 15).
And I'll probably pony up for the ultra-expensive option for the fastest-available processors. I'll do this even though I realize that for me there will be no perceptible performance gain from the standard or an even slower model.
I'm vain. Shoot me.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
this is sort of off topic, but most CS3 applications wont even benefit the use of quad. Perhaps the only CS3 applications that will benefit from this, are the video apps. Wasn't there an article from an Adobe rep that didn't even take advantage of 64-bit architecture? I'm pretty sure I read it on AI site, he made a lot of true points, but it still pissed me off.
To me, it seems like CPU technology kicks ass, and is where it should be. I think where the real overhaul is needed, is software + OS, and hard drive technology. Once software takes a huge leap (and I'm talking years beyond Leopard and Vista), and advances, I think that's where we're really going to see dramatic changes.
What am I getting at with all of this is? There's no real need for 8-cores for a vast majority of Power Mac Users... at least not yet. Too much hype on CPU
I agree with everything you mentioned... According to an Adobe tech, PSCS3 isint even a true 64bit app yet, however it does recognize more than 2 gigs of ram, I tested the beta out when it was first available to DL and it came up with seeing like 3+gigs of ram to use on my system which has 4 gigs installed, so who knows... Im peeved Adobe hasnt used any of the Core tech Apple has developed to tap the power of your video card. Back to your topic though, I agree that there arent many apps that can take advantage of 2 or more cores out there yet, PS however takes adv of 2 from what I can remember.. the 8 core mac may be overhyped...
Dear domerdel & Friends
My main need for performance is Photoshop. I want Photoshop to run very well even while a bunch of other apps are running and also while iTunes is playing music.
I'm waiting for faster Mac Pros, but I realize that I'd never be able to tell the difference between the slowest Mac Pro currently available and the fastest one that (I believe) will be available later this spring (probably April 15-May 15).
And I'll probably pony up for the ultra-expensive option for the fastest-available processors. I'll do this even though I realize that for me there will be no perceptible performance gain from the standard or an even slower model.
I'm vain. Shoot me.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
i'm guilty of the same thing. I'll end up buying high performance ego, rather than ultimate efficiency. Numbers would lead me to believe there is a noticable difference, but honestly, once you get behind a Dual G5 vs. an 8-core machine, running photoshop, there isn't going to be a trail of burns, left behind by speed. However, a difference could be said for After Effects/Premiere/Final Cut.
I felt like in previous years, the less I knew, the more performance changes I could see. Not that I'm at the top of my game, but I don't think companies are really paradigm thinking/strategizing beyond what an OS should be... they're too busy soaking up the profits of milking the technology.
Damn them, and yet i'll still get suckered into the transition, instead of the "big picture" lol
Diden't any one notice the 24 iMac for $999 ?
Sorry, the iMac is "From $999" and they list the "ultimate setup" which will cost signifcantly more than that.
All of this is quite unimpressive and dull. There's no 'news' here except that it might be coming "soon". Then again, if you asked anyone on this board, I'm sure they would've told you the basic same things.
Now, if there was a display of a mac-semi-pro, a mini-tower mac with some expansion and at a $1000-$1300 price point, then you would have my interest.
Apple's unofficial slogan for the last five years or so has been:
"Apple, the only company who'd ask you to pay $2000 for a 15" laptop or a computer with a PCI slot".
This page refers to the current system as Quad-Core:
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...A0&nclm=MacPro
Marketing.
I won't be buying one but some brushes on Painter are really dragging to an extent I didn't expect, maxing out the CPU while using only half my RAM. If I knew that when I bought - and I had to buy back then due to the old machine breaking on me - I'd have gone higher on the processor.
-Could you use XSlimmer to strip out the superfluous code & speed up the app? -I did on my machine & the diff. is noticeable.
...however [Photoshop] does recognize more than 2 gigs of ram...
I believe Photoshop recognizes up to 3GB of RAM before it uses the hard disk(s) for virtual memory. To use the full 3GB of RAM Photoshop can address, you'd have to have more than 3GB of RAM installed. If you had 16GB of RAM, Photoshop is still going to use just 3GB and then use the hard disk(s).
This is true for Photoshop CS2, and I believe it also applies to CS3, though I could be mistaken.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Dear Banalltv & Friends
The system is quad-core.
The text that got this whole thread got started refers to processors, not the system.
Apple currently does not offer a system with quad-core processors. One might say that a dual- dual-core Mac Pro is a quad-core system, but one cannot say that it has quad-core processors.
The text that got this whole thread started constitutes a leak if a leak is a company's reference to an unannounced product. Sure, we all knew the quad-core chips are on their way, but this is still a reference to an unannounced system configuration.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Yeah and what the sane people are arguing is that your reading too much into that just because there is an update to the Mac Pro due. If you had read this 6 months ago, you wouldn't assume it's an update, but that they are talking about the current line of Macs.
Apple marketting is counting cores not processors. An Apple Engineer sees a MacPro with 2 processors with 2 cores each with a total of 4 cores, an Apple marketer sees a quad core processor (referring to the overall computer box as we sometimes refer to the computer case and contents as a processor)
When apple means quad-core as in they taking about 4 cores in TOTAL, this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Idiots stop trying to over analysis every single thing Apple does.
Yeah and what the sane people are arguing is that your reading too much into that just because there is an update to the Mac Pro due. If you had read this 6 months ago, you wouldn't assume it's an update, but that they are talking about the current line of Macs.
1. I'm not sane;
2. If I had read this six months ago, I would indeed assume Apple was referring to the current line of Macs; and
3. If the statement that got this thread started is to be taken literally, then it's a reference to an unannounced product.
Apple marketting is counting cores not processors. They see a MacPro with 2 processors with 2 cores each with a total of 4 cores as a quad processor after all we sometimes term the whole computer box as the processor.
We may term it any way we like. We're not going to be held legally liable for what we say, at least most of the time. Apple must be more careful. I assure you that what Apple's marketeers publish on behalf of Apple, Inc., must be approved by Apple's legal weasels.
Again, Apple referred to quad-core processors, not to quad-core systems/machines/configurations/solutions/boxes/towers/mini-towers/computers/. Apple does not currently offer anything featuring quad-core processors. The statement that got this thread started was a reference to an unannounced product if these statements are to be taken literally.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
YOU GUYS ARE ALL RETARDS AND APPLEINSIDER IS TOO!!!!
When apple means quad-core as in they taking about 4 cores in TOTAL, this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Idiots stop trying to over analysis every single thing Apple does.
That's what forums are for. This insult came all the way from England. That's what I call bad English
YOU GUYS ARE ALL RETARDS AND APPLEINSIDER IS TOO!!!!
When apple means quad-core as in they taking about 4 cores in TOTAL, this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Idiots stop trying to over analysis every single thing Apple does.
You're right. Some idiots just read the text literally.
Allow me to quote you again:
... this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Apple's statement is:
Every new Mac features powerful dual-core or quad-core Intel processors.
Only an idiot would understand from that statement that Apple was referring to quad-core processors.
I'm an idiot.
Sincerely,
Jaddie