The Krait is based on the Cortex-A15 which is newer than the Intel and it's still 13x slower. And is barely faster than an 8 year old Athlon. The Krait is also well slower than even e lwest model current gen Air.
I believe Kriat is based on Cortex-A9 architecture with many advancements that come close to Cortex-A15 capabilities.
Wouldn't be touting magnesium over aluminum. Magnesium is softer, more brittle, and has a tendency to bend easier, making aluminum much stronger. A characteristic I'd want in a mobile platform. Magnesium requires a protective coating over it to avoid corrosion where aluminum does not, and the metal itself is less stable than aluminum. Magnesium is also more expensive to produce. So keep talking Stacy.
Read my post again, and note for example that I mentioned GPU performance.
J.
I read your post. And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that:
1. The GPU in ARM is as fast as the CPU in a MacBook Air - particularly the Ivy Bridge MBAs which will be out any day.
and
2. CPU performance (where ARM lags by more than an order of magnitude) doesn't matter.
If you can prove those two things, then your point would be valid. Until then, you're just another of the mindless trolls throwing out nonsense and hoping no one calls them on it.
So within 5 generations is now "not far behind"? Amazing.
It's interesting that Microsoft thinks a ARM core running Windows RT as desktop replacement will be just fine. "Most" consumers seem to just want to know is they can use it to check email, use office, Facebook, use a browser and play a few games. I think its been already proven that most consumers think an iPad does most of these things ok (minus office). An ARM laptop running Windows RT should fill the gap for many people on the Windows side, else Microsoft would not do it. I think an MBA with an ARM for the iOS/OSX side will be just fine as well. It does not matter that "some" people think the CPU will not be enough. The value proposition of what it will be able to do, speaks louder then what it can't do. People seem to forget that. Think about that your iPad can already do? Even the original iPad 1.
As a result, I could care less about the spec debate. Most consumers don't care about specs. All they want to know is will it do what they want. For most consumers, I think the answer will be yes with a Quad core ARM. For most geeks, who care about running benchmarks and running all their CPU intensive apps then answer will be no. The rest of the world *shrugs* their shoulders and pulls out their credit card.
Read my post again, and note for example that I mentioned GPU performance.
J.
Even then the Intel HD 3000 in the Air blows away even the A5x with nearly 20 times the GFLOPS, with fill rates of that are more than double for mpixels/s and or mtriangles/s you are looking at a minmum baseline of about 40x faster. So, sorry you're still far and away from even. Built-in Intel graphics let alone discrete AMD or NVIDIA GPUs.
Even then the Intel HD 3000 in the Air blows away even the A5x with nearly 20 times the GFLOPS, with fill rates of that are more than double for mpixels/s and or mtriangles/s you are looking at a minmum baseline of about 40x faster. So, sorry you're still far and away from even. Built-in Intel graphics let alone discrete AMD or NVIDIA GPUs.
And it is this reason that people do not buy the new iPad "aka iPad 3" vs a MBA?
“We think all notebooks will look like these one day.” - Steve Jobs, October 20, 2010, when presenting the new MBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Yes, and he was meaning the size and form factor. Not the apeing of the brushed-metal finish, the nearly identical keyboard and trackpad, etc.
Actually, I think Steve meant that all "MacBooks" will look this way. So far, he seems to be right.
The PC industry should be ashamed of themselves. I clearly remembering everyone mocking the MBA's design when it first came out, and now suddenly it's a "natural progression". Seeing Intel Ultrabook campaign saying it's "Inspired by Intel" is just a cheap-shot at Apple. They all might as well shut down their R&D departments and just let Apple do all the work for them!
Honestly, I really hope Apple sues the clone-makers into oblivion. There WILL be people (albeit not too bright people) that will buy an MBA-knockoff ultra book thinking it's just like an MBA and when they same, tired problems surface with low-quality, garbage machines they will conclude that the entire class of thin-and-light laptops (including MBA's) will be junk.
iHaters abound criticized Apple for they "shiny and pretty" products, but now that everyone else is doing it they are nowhere to be found. What happened iHaters? World doesn't conform to your beliefs?
It's interesting that Microsoft thinks a ARM core running Windows RT as desktop replacement will be just fine. "Most" consumers seem to just want to know is they can use it to check email, use office, Facebook, use a browser and play a few games. I think its been already proven that most consumers think an iPad does most of these things ok (minus office). An ARM laptop running Windows RT should fill the gap for many people on the Windows side, else Microsoft would not do it. I think an MBA with an ARM for the iOS/OSX side will be just fine as well. It does not matter that "some" people think the CPU will not be enough. The value proposition of what it will be able to do, speaks louder then what it can't do. People seem to forget that. Think about that your iPad can already do? Even the original iPad 1.
As a result, I could care less about the spec debate. Most consumers don't care about specs. All they want to know is will it do what they want. For most consumers, I think the answer will be yes with a Quad core ARM. For most geeks, who care about running benchmarks and running all their CPU intensive apps then answer will be no. The rest of the world *shrugs* their shoulders and pulls out their credit card.
That's great and all but the person was claiming ARM was 'close in performance' which is objectively wrong on all counts. Yes, if all you do is basic things you won't notice. Difference but that wasn't what we were disputing against.
That's great and all but the person was claiming ARM was 'close in performance' which is objectively wrong on all counts. Yes, if all you do is basic things you won't notice. Difference but that wasn't what we were disputing against.
close in performance can be read different ways. Any can turn this into splitting hairs competition. Do the specs themselves really matter? Close in performance to me, means "good enough" for what most people want to use it for.
And that has what relevance to what I was reponding to? Oh right, it had none.
lol.. you obviously did not get the sarcasm.. the point was your response didn't have any relevance either to the typical consumer. most people don't care about benchmarks.
Wouldn't be touting magnesium over aluminum. Magnesium is softer, more brittle, and has a tendency to bend easier, making aluminum much stronger. A characteristic I'd want in a mobile platform. Magnesium requires a protective coating over it to avoid corrosion where aluminum does not, and the metal itself is less stable than aluminum. Magnesium is also more expensive to produce. So keep talking Stacy.
I agree, and was a bit surprised that HP used magnesium. I predict a problem with the hinges.
I think Apple's strategy is to get all the "me too" companies firmly committed to the "silver" look, and then switch to carbon fiber, leaving everyone looking dated. Once everyone finally gets on the "Black is Beautiful" bandwagon, Apple will switch to Liquid Metal leaving their competitors once more in the lurch. That's the advantage of being a market leader.
Not that far behind? A dual-core Cortex-A9 at 1.0 ghz is only 5000 MIPS. Even the dual-core Krait is only 10,000 at 1.5ghz. For perspective a Core i7 2600k is rated at over 128,000 MIPS. That is a huge gap since the CPU is still very much important.
For a fair comparison you must take the number of cores and number of GHz per core into account. The Cortex-A15 for example would be a much better candidate.
Based on your MIPS score for the A9 (do you have a link for that?) this processor is 7000 x 4 x 2.5 = 70,000 MIPS (A15 is per core 40% faster, and has 8 cores instead of 2 and a frequency of 2.5 GHz). If the A15 is made with the same feature size as the Intel processor it can run on the same frequency (of 3.4 GHz) and its performance will even be closer 95.200 MIPS.
So that's not that far behind I would say.
But even if individual ARM CPUs are slower, OS performance (and user experience) gains the most by increasing the number of cores instead of the frequency of only a few. Additionally, GPU cores are as important as the CPU and are currently enormously powerfull in the ARM packages. The combined horsepower should be enough for most computer use, even now.
SONY X505 had the wedge design and keyboard long before Apple -
That's as asinine as the HP rep saying that their product looks like Apple's only because of the silver color. Besides, if you want to play that game, Apple ][ had a wedge. X505 looks like a nice design, but they don't look like any MacBook Air, I don't see any similar design features, everything is different in shape and look.
Frankly, nobody sober would even remotely confuse the two, there's nothing to suggest a theft of design. By the time Apple offered the Air, every company has offered a "wedge" keyboard notebook.
Comments
Wouldn't be touting magnesium over aluminum. Magnesium is softer, more brittle, and has a tendency to bend easier, making aluminum much stronger. A characteristic I'd want in a mobile platform. Magnesium requires a protective coating over it to avoid corrosion where aluminum does not, and the metal itself is less stable than aluminum. Magnesium is also more expensive to produce. So keep talking Stacy.
Quote:
"In no way did HP try to mimic Apple" - Stacy Wolff
That's probably the most stupid thing being said in this battle between Apple and their followers. Can't believe it.
I read your post. And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that:
1. The GPU in ARM is as fast as the CPU in a MacBook Air - particularly the Ivy Bridge MBAs which will be out any day.
and
2. CPU performance (where ARM lags by more than an order of magnitude) doesn't matter.
If you can prove those two things, then your point would be valid. Until then, you're just another of the mindless trolls throwing out nonsense and hoping no one calls them on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So within 5 generations is now "not far behind"? Amazing.
It's interesting that Microsoft thinks a ARM core running Windows RT as desktop replacement will be just fine. "Most" consumers seem to just want to know is they can use it to check email, use office, Facebook, use a browser and play a few games. I think its been already proven that most consumers think an iPad does most of these things ok (minus office). An ARM laptop running Windows RT should fill the gap for many people on the Windows side, else Microsoft would not do it. I think an MBA with an ARM for the iOS/OSX side will be just fine as well. It does not matter that "some" people think the CPU will not be enough. The value proposition of what it will be able to do, speaks louder then what it can't do. People seem to forget that. Think about that your iPad can already do? Even the original iPad 1.
As a result, I could care less about the spec debate. Most consumers don't care about specs. All they want to know is will it do what they want. For most consumers, I think the answer will be yes with a Quad core ARM. For most geeks, who care about running benchmarks and running all their CPU intensive apps then answer will be no. The rest of the world *shrugs* their shoulders and pulls out their credit card.
Consumer will pay attention to chats like this:
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/04/16/announcing-the-windows-8-editions.aspx
What the hell else was he going to say.
It's like PC manufacturers are completely incapable of original thought. Every laptop has to be a cheaper, podgier looking Apple knock off.
Even then the Intel HD 3000 in the Air blows away even the A5x with nearly 20 times the GFLOPS, with fill rates of that are more than double for mpixels/s and or mtriangles/s you are looking at a minmum baseline of about 40x faster. So, sorry you're still far and away from even. Built-in Intel graphics let alone discrete AMD or NVIDIA GPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Even then the Intel HD 3000 in the Air blows away even the A5x with nearly 20 times the GFLOPS, with fill rates of that are more than double for mpixels/s and or mtriangles/s you are looking at a minmum baseline of about 40x faster. So, sorry you're still far and away from even. Built-in Intel graphics let alone discrete AMD or NVIDIA GPUs.
And it is this reason that people do not buy the new iPad "aka iPad 3" vs a MBA?
Does anyone buy HP anymore? Just goes to show the lack of talent in HP exec pool...
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
“We think all notebooks will look like these one day.” - Steve Jobs, October 20, 2010, when presenting the new MBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Yes, and he was meaning the size and form factor. Not the apeing of the brushed-metal finish, the nearly identical keyboard and trackpad, etc.
Actually, I think Steve meant that all "MacBooks" will look this way. So far, he seems to be right.
The PC industry should be ashamed of themselves. I clearly remembering everyone mocking the MBA's design when it first came out, and now suddenly it's a "natural progression". Seeing Intel Ultrabook campaign saying it's "Inspired by Intel" is just a cheap-shot at Apple. They all might as well shut down their R&D departments and just let Apple do all the work for them!
Honestly, I really hope Apple sues the clone-makers into oblivion. There WILL be people (albeit not too bright people) that will buy an MBA-knockoff ultra book thinking it's just like an MBA and when they same, tired problems surface with low-quality, garbage machines they will conclude that the entire class of thin-and-light laptops (including MBA's) will be junk.
iHaters abound criticized Apple for they "shiny and pretty" products, but now that everyone else is doing it they are nowhere to be found. What happened iHaters? World doesn't conform to your beliefs?
That's great and all but the person was claiming ARM was 'close in performance' which is objectively wrong on all counts. Yes, if all you do is basic things you won't notice. Difference but that wasn't what we were disputing against.
And that has what relevance to what I was reponding to? Oh right, it had none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
That's great and all but the person was claiming ARM was 'close in performance' which is objectively wrong on all counts. Yes, if all you do is basic things you won't notice. Difference but that wasn't what we were disputing against.
close in performance can be read different ways. Any can turn this into splitting hairs competition. Do the specs themselves really matter? Close in performance to me, means "good enough" for what most people want to use it for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
And that has what relevance to what I was reponding to? Oh right, it had none.
lol.. you obviously did not get the sarcasm.. the point was your response didn't have any relevance either to the typical consumer. most people don't care about benchmarks.
The Envy Spectre XT; designed by Apple in California, assembled in China, and filled with Window crap.
Quote:
'Apple may like to think they own silver, but they don't'
That may sound like a "double dog dare" to Apple's law team. Someone gonna get their tongue stuck to a flag pole...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm
Wouldn't be touting magnesium over aluminum. Magnesium is softer, more brittle, and has a tendency to bend easier, making aluminum much stronger. A characteristic I'd want in a mobile platform. Magnesium requires a protective coating over it to avoid corrosion where aluminum does not, and the metal itself is less stable than aluminum. Magnesium is also more expensive to produce. So keep talking Stacy.
I agree, and was a bit surprised that HP used magnesium. I predict a problem with the hinges.
I think Apple's strategy is to get all the "me too" companies firmly committed to the "silver" look, and then switch to carbon fiber, leaving everyone looking dated. Once everyone finally gets on the "Black is Beautiful" bandwagon, Apple will switch to Liquid Metal leaving their competitors once more in the lurch. That's the advantage of being a market leader.
For a fair comparison you must take the number of cores and number of GHz per core into account. The Cortex-A15 for example would be a much better candidate.
Based on your MIPS score for the A9 (do you have a link for that?) this processor is 7000 x 4 x 2.5 = 70,000 MIPS (A15 is per core 40% faster, and has 8 cores instead of 2 and a frequency of 2.5 GHz). If the A15 is made with the same feature size as the Intel processor it can run on the same frequency (of 3.4 GHz) and its performance will even be closer 95.200 MIPS.
So that's not that far behind I would say.
But even if individual ARM CPUs are slower, OS performance (and user experience) gains the most by increasing the number of cores instead of the frequency of only a few. Additionally, GPU cores are as important as the CPU and are currently enormously powerfull in the ARM packages. The combined horsepower should be enough for most computer use, even now.
J.
That's as asinine as the HP rep saying that their product looks like Apple's only because of the silver color. Besides, if you want to play that game, Apple ][ had a wedge. X505 looks like a nice design, but they don't look like any MacBook Air, I don't see any similar design features, everything is different in shape and look.
Frankly, nobody sober would even remotely confuse the two, there's nothing to suggest a theft of design. By the time Apple offered the Air, every company has offered a "wedge" keyboard notebook.