PickUrPoison

VRing said:

PickUrPoison said:

Apple isn’t even using a W-2145, let alone downclocking one. 

The W-2140B is essentially a downclocked version of the W-2145. The same way the W-2150B is a downclocked W-2155.

These are straight up weaker versions of their regular counterparts.

That said, I’m confused about the comments re: thermal throttling. From the article:

In the multi-core benchmark, the 8 cores ran at 3.9 gigahertz, which seems to be the top CPU frequency when maxing out all CPU cores. 

and, during 10 consecutive multi core tests:

After the second test, each additional run would cause the iMac Pro to thermal throttle when the CPU reached roughly 94 degrees celsius, which caused the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz. 

The base frequency of this processor is only 3.2GHz.  So multicore performance seems well beyond spec. 

That doesn’t explain the single core at 3.9 but if it can do 3.6 to 3.9 with all cores, 4.2 with single core would seem to be attainable wrt thermals. There may be some further optimizations possible, trading off fan speed (which was described as inaudible and seemingly near idle) with maximum clockspeed under various load conditions. 

Looks very promising so far. 

Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.

Even the overall performance is disappointing. A 1950X scores 3100 in Cinebench R15, meanwhile, the W-2140B scored 1680.

1) A W-2145 is a 3.7/4.5 part, the W-2140B is a 3.2/4.2 part. Are you saying Apple should also offer the faster, more expensive chip? Fine, but that would be a $5,200 or $5,300 machine, not $5,000. You don’t get something for nothing. Apple is unlikely to offer 2 different speeds of 8-core though, so don’t hold your breath. 

With your logic, you might just as well say Apple should only offer the 18-core at $7,400. 

2) The part is spec’ed at 3.2GHz base frequency. In 2 different multicore tests, it benched at either 3.6-3.9GHz or a solid 3.9GHz. 

A 3.2GHz part running at 3.9GHz with all cores at 100% is promising. The fan seemed not to be running. As I said, with an optimization of fan speed, 4.2GHz on one core would seem to be within the thermal capacity, since it’s easily beating its 3.2GHz base speed—upon which TDP is defined. 

3) Mac workstations are typically purchased by those who want to use MacOS, so your comparison of this 8-core machine to a 16-core machine, which can’t run MacOS, isn’t particularly relevant. TCO isn’t maximized by simply buying the cheapest hardware available.

crd said:

The problem I see is that pc tech has already improved since this computer was announced.  Cascade x with $1000 18 core CPU’s w/ 256gb ram max will be out soon.  Improvements on the amd side side too.

Newer isn’t necessarily better. The Cascade-X CPUs aren’t usable for the Mac Pro, due to their low max memory and lack of ECC support, and an insufficient number of PCIe lanes (the 18-core max is also an issue). Those CPUs aren’t even suitable for iMac Pro, due to the memory restrictions. (But the new iMac Pro will use the Xeon W-2200 series, which are much the same as the Cascade-X HEDT CPUs you reference. The Xeons cost a little more, but they support up to 1TB of ECC RAM.) 

anome said:

Renders really don't cut it. Most of these renders are just hopeful speculation by people who are hoping to get some attention by putting out their ideas.

I can't remember the last render (as opposed to actual photo) that was even close to the final product. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. (And possibly if I'm right, for that matter.)

As for this one, what no notch? All the stuff we've seen has suggested a notch, including internal graphics in iOS 12. Seems unlikely they would get all the other details right, but miss that.

Aside from one of those speculative renders you mention—which had small, iPhone X-like bezels and a notch—no rumors ever suggested a notch on the iPad afaik. Instead Apple is camouflaging it by using a notch-sized bezel width (9mm) all the way around.  The asset found in iOS 12 did not have a notch, rather it shows a pretty good sized bezel. 

theirongiant said:

Aaaaaaaaand they're gone.

This must be a planned exercise to gauge demand for the small phone.

Apple had the SE for sale for two and a half years, I’m pretty sure they’re pretty hip to how well it sells; that’s very likely exactly why they cancelled it. 

If this were anything other than attempt to clear out old stock of a phone soon to be going into its fourth model year, Apple wouldn’t be selling a $450 product at the fire sale price of $300—an almost unheard of 33% discount. 

I know it sucks for fans of small phones, but there just isn’t a very large market for them. It’s not just Apple; even at the sub-$250 ASP of Android phones, there’s very little demand (and hence no manufacturer interested in supplying one). 

cmdawsonnc said:

Are those ports USBC?

No, Lightning. 

spice-boy said:

Apple please design a phone that is easier to hold, and has a battery which last 24 hour, I don't care about making a sci-fi movie with mine. 

Get a battery case for your 5-10% edge case requirements; most users end the day with plenty of battery remaining.

Apple won’t—and shouldn’t—be making a thicker, heavier, more expensive iPhone just because a few people play on their phone all day. 

kpom said:

Good news for anyone looking for an iPhone X. We’ll find out next month from Apple’s forecast how much of this is increased supply vs decreased demand. As a shareholder I’m hoping the former. 

Apple hasn’t modified their previous guidance, and with only three weeks left in the quarter I would expect revenue will be at least their $84 billion low end estimate.

If there were a demand problem, they would have backed down off their guidance for a record breaking quarter. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if they beat. 

tenthousandthings said:

OkiRun said:

fastasleep said:

CraigAnderton said:

(A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)

Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac. 

Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?

For the record, maximum RAM:

21.5” iMac = 32 GB
27” iMac = 64 GB
27” iMac Pro = 256 GB
Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)

A couple of corrections, re: the 2019 models, the 21.5” iMac has a max RAM capacity of 64 GB, but 32 GB is the max config currently available from Apple. Similarly, the 27” (non-Pro) iMac has a max of 128 GB, but 64 GB is the highest config that can be ordered from Apple. 

anantksundaram said:

jungmark said:

Not enough info. What are your salaries? 

You may have a tough time believing this, but generally speaking, your salary is not even considered as a primary attribute in determining your credit score.

It’s way down in the scheme of things... you should look it up.

Salary has zero input in FICO credit score, but it often has a huge effect on the credit limit a lender is willing to grant. 

gerry g said:

What gets me is that the MacPro was always touted as modular at its inception yet all I see is a case with a set of proprietary modules, all of which are out of date, the chip I believe is EOL, still susceptible to the spector virus and has not had its number of executions per cycle upped in some six or seven years, Intel is developing a whole new architecture for it's next generation chips which this definitely isn't. The graphics card is not the absolute latest and will be superseded within six months of it's release tops, and I bet you anything it will not be upgradable. The USB forum have just finalised USB 4 spec and this only has USB 3, this is hardly a long term investment and to top it off I can't run Catalina as it breaks everything in sight, I think the best thing is to wait a year and see how things pan out

As always, if you don’t need a machine now, wait for another year or two (or five or ten).